beltjones

Another red herring. Not every change in operations has to come at the request of the membership. In this case we pay an executive director who should be actively looking for ways to make the operation of the "business" more efficient. That's part of the job. Automating the classification update system is simply a change in operations - not rules - that doesn't need to go through the BOD. The reason for this manual issue is that clubs are still allowed to send classifiers scores in on paper, and payments by check and that has to be entered in manually and the payments entered in manually. There are also clubs that upload their results and then mail in payment and that has to be matched up manually and updated. But at some point in order to move forward with the technology that is out there a decision needs to be made that "everything needs to be uploaded, payment and scores" ( I would say a red line drawn, but I do not want this to get any politics in this) and that is how clubs will have to do it. It would not be too much to ask for this, and it doesn't mean that clubs have to go and get a credit card, you could do a payment by check online. But until the membership makes a big enough deal about this practice and start getting the Exec Dir and BoD to discuss it nothing will change Sorry, but that's a poor reason to not want to change. You effectively hamstring the entire organization just because a handful of clubs still do things the old way. Again, it's the tail wagging the dog.

Another red herring. Not every change in operations has to come at the request of the membership. In this case we pay an executive director who should be actively looking for ways to make the operation of the "business" more efficient. That's part of the job. Automating the classification update system is simply a change in operations - not rules - that doesn't need to go through the BOD.

Why wouldn't I want to use the classifications from the database run on the 12th? Since scores had to be into HQ on the 10th, aren't the new classifications really representative of the shooter's abilities? They're based on classifiers shot and received by HQ before the match started, and are clearly the most current, so they should be used....... I can make an argument for any of the scenarios..... Someone has to decide -- making the decision on the basis of workload is as valid an argument as any I've seen..... You can make an argument, but that doesn't mean it's a good one. If everyone is so concerned about updates happening mid match (which is a red herring in this case because Nationals falls toward the end of the month) then let's just do one update per year on January 1st. Simply put, the classifier system updates are for every paying member of USPSA, only a fraction of which go to Nationals. Holding off on making an update due to Nationals is having the tail wag the dog. Like Jake Martens said, this should be an automated process by now. We pay people at HQ to run these updates and do it manually, and it's grossly inefficient. The lack of automated updates - which would free up office staff to focus even more on things like Nationals, btw - is just institutional inertia. Again, it's sad that we just accept it and set the bar for them so low.

It's pretty sad that we've set the bar so low for USPSA leadership and management that we still accept that a monthly classifier update requires manual data entry and so many man-hours that it can't be done simultaneously with organizing a Nationals match.

He took some heat at the match, after the match he emailed everyone? Asking for honest feedback. He cannot control the heat or weather, but steel, some RO issues, and a 3 hour award ceremony!!! - as a side note, still dont have my shirt. I don't know how it's possible you don't have your shirt. During the awards ceremony he called - by name - each person who ordered a shirt and asked if they got one. He even had some funny anecdotes about a lot of them. I was moving back east the next week, just happened to work out that I could go. Called and got into a slot, paid at the match. He took my info and said that my shirt would be in the second batch, approx two weeks away. One year, and several phone calls/emails later, I am over it. -How are you surprised? He was handing out shirts from the previous year at the shooters meeting/award ceremony, It was pretty funny, "hey man, xxxxxx, here is the shirt you ordered for last years match. Glad we finally got to give it to you." That is why I have given up on that shirt. I spoke with him six months after the match, he said "I have one shirt left, I was trying to figure out who's it was." lol, yep, he still has it! I was mostly kidding, trying to be funny about the fact that he literally called all of the people who ordered a t-shirt by name.

He took some heat at the match, after the match he emailed everyone? Asking for honest feedback. He cannot control the heat or weather, but steel, some RO issues, and a 3 hour award ceremony!!! - as a side note, still dont have my shirt. I don't know how it's possible you don't have your shirt. During the awards ceremony he called - by name - each person who ordered a shirt and asked if they got one. He even had some funny anecdotes about a lot of them.

It's not a high priority.

Any particular reason why? And what was the cost?

It wouldn't be much of a test if we didn't have several people running each gun on some common stages (el prez, bill drills, etc) and giving their feedback, complete with slo-mo analysis of recoil, would it?

For glocks I think the ready tactical doh is best.

It's a small frame stock 3.

Paul, if there is a game changer for the sport you're going to be the one to discover it. Godspeed.

Exactly. Sometimes shots land on top of each other. As an RO is your job to use overlays and look for evidence of two bullets passing through the same hole. However, there are people here calling for others to be DQed for arguing for doubles and against FTEs who have done the same things themselves.

I wonder if the people calling for others to be DQed for challenging an RO on things like doubles and FTEs would be so keen on getting DQed themselves for the same things? Or is it one rule for them and another for everyone else? Because after sleeping on it I've really lost some respect for some people here.

Trace is correct. You can make GM and do very well with a ton of practice, analysis, dryfire, and coaching. However, to be an elite member of the Super Squad you either need to start young or be a prodigy - I don't know of any elite SS types who didn't either start really young, or start with at least an A classification.

I think there is evidence in this thread that suggests that the people calling for doubles and arguing against FTEs aren't aware that others notice them doing so.

I don't get this problem at all. Why not send the barrel back to Brandon?

I would bet you could sell a Glock easier and for more money than you could that Fusion... Just saying.

" I really need to figure out a way to execute a structured dry fire program like I have for my live fire. " http://astore.amazon.com/bensto02-20/detail/1480271632

Didn't that fall under refinishing of the frame for a competitive advantage? I would expect that they have to as the rulings pertain to that particular rulebook. Besides, all the rulings that I quickly looked at were incorporated into the new rule book. Ah. There it is. It wasn't red or highlighted or anything.

Also, procedurally, do all the old rulings on the website and interpretations in Front Sight expire once a new rule book comes out?

Someone help me out here. I didn't see a mention of the Paint-in-the-magwell thing for production. Have they dropped this, or will it still be prohibited?

This thread needs more Steve Anderson.

You can see from the time stamps of my posts above that it took me a couple of minutes to notice there was no cross pin hole as well. lol. Thanks for confirming I received a bad part.

Ok, there also isn't a hole for the mainspring housing pin drilled - the one at the bottom that also retains the magwell. I think I just got a bad part.