justaute

Here. http://nslwelding.com/content/?page=Polish%20Plate%20rack It's the 4th item on the bottom.

I don't post much anymore because there's too much twaddle here. USPSA management reminds me of a few of the investment bankers I worked with in the past -- they couldn't manage their way out of a paper-sack. Just because USPSA HQ's mis-steps don't affect the operations of local clubs, that does not mean everything is copacetic. Not sure whether there's duplicity or just mere incompetence within the organization. Nonetheless, from an outsider's vantage point, there is something amiss with this soap-opera -- any competent manager can see it.

Alma, If you continue to experience problems, PM me. I'm pretty sure I know what's causing it and have first-hand experience with the situation.

garp...you'll often hear or read the term "fail to engage" within the USPSA community; however, such a phrase does not exist. The appropriate phrase is "...fails to shoot...". See Rule 9.5.7.

Fuelie777 & PB -- Agree with both of you. I believe my question has been answered and position has been confirmed. Thanks for all the help.

Thanks for weighing in. My question is not centered around the extra shots/hits, it's regarding whether is an additional procedural penalty for not following the procedure, which I do not believe there is. The additional "procedural" penalty would thus double-penalize the shooter -- not something we want.

aztecdriver -- thanks for the input. Rule 9.4.5 addresses the penalties associated with both extra shots/hits. I think that's pretty straight-forward. In short, I didn't think there would be any additional procedural penalty for taking extra shots, which would already be penalized under 9.4.5.1. High Lord -- Good reference. Thanks.

Context: Rule 9.4.5 stipulates the penalties associated with extra shots and extra hits. Over the weekend, I heard someone mention that in addition to the penalties associated with 9.4.5, a procedural penalty is also assessed. Question: Does 10.1.1 apply to Virginia-count stages when a competitor fires extra shots/hits? 10.1.1 Procedural penalties are imposed when a competitor fails to comply with procedures specified in a written stage briefing. The Range Officer imposing the procedural penalties must clearly record the number of penalties, and the reason why they were imposed, on the competitor’s score sheet. Supposition: 10.1.1 is the only rule I can find that could possibly be applied to the above-mentioned situation. For Virginia-count stages, I thought 9.4.5 is a self-contained rule that governs all penalties in connection with extra shots/hits; thus, no other procedural penalties may be assessed. Thanks.

Wow...talk about personal attack. Inference sure is a bitch.

Agreed. Though, easier said than done. Just look at the current president and members of the BOD.

That's not a bad thing. It will make the ushering of a new organization easier.

USPSA -- incompetence at its best.

Interesting...neither sticks out pass the mag well. Both are actually flush with, or even recessed behind, the front strap of the gun. Here are a few pics for comparison. The other option would be the MecGar 17-rd plastic base pad. Check-out this linked write-up for comparison. http://www.wiilshoot.com/2014/01/cz-bootypads.html Another comparison thread with Springer Precision: http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=61174.0

Both Springer Precision and Ben Stoeger Pro Shop have them.

For those of you who are thinking about using drones......now this may be for you. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28178230