Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Garfield

Classifieds
  • Posts

    748
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Garfield

  • Birthday 10/01/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.svjohncooper.nl

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Netherlands, Europe
  • Interests
    Making holes in things :-)
  • Real Name
    Arvid Elstrodt

Recent Profile Visitors

471 profile views

Garfield's Achievements

Looks for Range

Looks for Range (1/11)

  1. I have an AA set on my G17 and I'm perfectly happy with it. Cheap practice without having to change gear. It works flawlessly, even with standard CCI ammunition, it doesn't need hi-velocity ammo.
  2. I'm having a serious case of deja-vu !
  3. I'm with what others have said already, surely you'll manage to shoot a video like that in one day ! Reloading, correct shouldering, various ammo/choke settings effects are things that come to mind instantly as subjects to include. Look forward to seeing it. Oh and one thing more: don't forget pumps, or even better: the Benelli Nova pump-action !
  4. Hi Kurt, As I promised Pat last week in the UK I'm sort of back again here ... Congrats on winning the match, it was indeed great fun ! I just returned home last thursday night, after having spent a few days of vacation following the match, with my wife. Have not done anything to the fit of my Winchester (yet), but in the meantime I have already ordered a few books on shotgunning, a few special issues of the German magazine "Visier" about shotgunning and, I couldn't resist, a brand new Benelli Nova (yeah baby yeah !) I'll definitely be back at Shield Shooting Centre next year, and maybe, just maybe, I'll have a chance to go to Greece as well, but that's too early to tell yet. Pics of this match will be up on my website soon. (Just need Pat to fork his pics over too as promised )
  5. Hi, Welcome to EnosVerse ! Don't know about the actual values, but I have noticed on my own Glock and those of my friends, that the trigger pull indeed reduces over time upon use.
  6. ABSOLUTELY ! In fact, here in NL sometimes the WSB intentionally doesn't specify more than that. But most of the times our WSB contain the phrase "gun flat on table on the marked spot barrel pointing straight to the bullet stop" or something to that effect. Often we RO's demonstrate things if there is reason to believe that mistakes could be made based upon just the WSB.
  7. Yeah I know what you mean. As L2S and Neil said, the arms should be fully extended, hanging naturally. This is a sort of silly game between RO's and competitors. I notice that a lot of RO's find it difficult to say something when the shooter isn't fully relaxed. And it's difficult to really tell what exactly is relaxed and what is not. I feel it's a little bit of a grey area. When someone curves their fingers a little bit, I let them do it, but when I notice that the arms are raised by more than an inch or so, I tell the shooter to relax before I continue with the start procedure. (Assuming that the start position per the briefing is "standing relaxed" of course)
  8. Hi, For IPSC there is no such rule. However, I notice that MD's / RM's strive to have at least the same CRO on all stages during the match. It is also good practice at the L3 matches I have attended that the same person (de facto the CRO) does the stage briefing for all squads.
  9. Sorry Vince, I hate to say this, .... but I agree with you
  10. Almost a year ago I was RO-ing a Level III match in Germany. This match is always characterised by the large number of inexperienced shooters. At some point a shooter, obviously nervous, performed LAMR upon my command. I noticed that he hadn't put the safety on when he holstered his SA-pistol. I had him correct this, explained the "normal" consequences for this, relaxed him and started him for the COF without giving him a DQ. My action was met with very positive response by the shooters, as well as my CRO (a German IROA CRO). I thought I did the right thing. Afterwards, on the way back in the car with Yoda (our RD and IROA RM), Yoda and I discussed this case and my call. Yoda told me about a time where a shooter had shot himself in the leg because of not applying the safety. A shot in the leg bleeds like h*ll. Yoda made me understand that there is a reason we have these rules, and that there is no bargaining when it comes to safety. There simply is no place for that in IPSC. We deal with potentially dangerous stuff that is made "safe" because of stringent education and consequent enforcing of ALL the rules, ALL the time, EVERYWHERE. I still sometimes wonder how I would have felt if that shooter had shot himself in the leg ...... I will always remember that lesson and will never again "tweak" my calls, how much I would like to "help" a nervous / new shooter. The thing is, when you really think about it, you're helping nobody with a call like that.
  11. Hi, I am very sorry to say this but you disappointment me big time . Am I to understand that if the rules are clear to you, everything is ok ? From the posts in this thread I gather that there are other people as well who find the rules not clear on this point.
  12. Because 9.9.3 says so . I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me . Just like I will hand-out misses should that target have been shot at through hardcover. The hits are there, but when it comes to scoring, they don't count either ! Or should we not take 9.1.6.x in account ? THAT would really simplify scoring AND make a strong case for shooting major . To me, not giving FTSA and misses for not-activated targets as per 9.9.3 is the same as not giving misses for cases as described in 9.1.6.x. Just trying to make my point that sometimes reality (hits are there) gets overturned by the rules (hits don't count) ... But I'm willing to rule as you explained while I'm RO-ing, but would you consider "improving" the rules then please ? And maybe add this to the IROA FAQ / Rules Interpretations ? Because I really do feel that they will lead to misunderstandings in cases as described earlier in this thread. Fair deal or not ?
  13. Vince, I can follow what goal you wish to achieve with these rules, but imo the rules as they are now do not lead to the outcome that you want. I simply cannot read that from the rules as they are now. I think this is a case where the rules need to be updated, and in the meantime an addition to the IROA-interpretations should be made. If I were rich, I would love to spend $ 100,- and file a 3rd party arbitration on this to see where it leads, because I honestly believe that your explanation of the rules is not correct. I am not doing this to annoy you or anyone else, but to me 9.9.3 is crystal clear: penalties / misses must be given if the shooter fails to activate the mechanism, no matter what mechanism, no matter how many hits are on the targets involved. Care to try again to convince me ? PS: Princess Leia ? Did Kees put on some make-up and were you that drunk ?
  14. In my maybe-not-so-humble-opinion the rule is absolutely not open for interpretation . Furthermore, I was always taught that rules should be taken litterally and that a lot of effort was put into avoiding interpretability as much as possible. Vince, get your @$$ out of those Bali-bars and shed some light on this please .
  15. I don't get it ?? How can you match that with: Please explain this because I really can't follow you on this one ?
×
×
  • Create New...