ktm300

Perfect

I loaded and shot about 4k of the 180g .40 JHP. They were not as good as the MG's or Zero's I normally shoot but they were less expensive. To quantify "not as good". A little more variation in weight, a little less accurate, a little harder to load because you have to pay more attention to the crimp. For USPSA type shooting in local matches where we don't see much more than 20 to 25 yards they were not an issue. I think they would be well worth a test and write up just so I can see if my observations were correct.

I live in Weaverville, and go to matches just about every weekend. PM me if you want to try out one of the local outdoor matches. Spartanburg SC is this saturday. shootspsa.org.

I have seen video that lied a lot. A friend broke 90 bad on a stage. He was pissed at me for calling it and said he had video to show he did not break 90. The first time I saw the video it did look like I made a bad call. I call 90 breaks pretty loose and was 100% that the break was there. Going back and looking at the video again and using the fault lines on the stage to establish where he was and where the gun was pointing I was able to confirm that he indeed did break 90, by quite a bit. It was the day after the event and it took me at least 30 minutes to figure it out. Once I did, I went over what I found with him. After another 30 minutes he agreed that he did break 90 and that the way it looked on the video was because the angle the video was taken. I would love to be able to use video to count shots for a division issue. There are times when I count, and am pretty sure someone was over but did not call it because I was not 100%. If I had video to back it up that would be nice. We would have more open shooters. I can't see it being much more that a large PITA to call anything that has to do with angles. Video is 2D, life is 3D.

Like I said, The ED is responsible, the board needs to make the change.

The level of incompetence is created by members that don't bother to vote, don't bother to run for office, etc. The membership is directly responsible for what USPSA does, we vote the people into office, they hire the staff. This is not IDPA where you have a dictatorship. I like the game enough to try and make it better. Then again I never was someone that just gives up. Sure. Let us know when you find out who's responsible for this so we know who to vote out of office. The ED works for the board. To me the ED is responsible. To get a change in ED you need to change the board.

The level of incompetence is created by members that don't bother to vote, don't bother to run for office, etc. The membership is directly responsible for what USPSA does, we vote the people into office, they hire the staff. This is not IDPA where you have a dictatorship. I like the game enough to try and make it better. Then again I never was someone that just gives up.

Writing code that allows SQL injection is a capital offence where I work. You just pack your stuff up and go home.

I sent a PM, I could tell he was correct with the password he sent back. It is one I use for sites like USPSA. This sucks!

And I call it good business to stretch out a limited supply to keep people coming into the store. My LGS does it. He gets in a case or 2 of .22, he puts a limited amount on the shelf every day, and limits what people can buy, until he is out. If he put it all out, he would get his money back all at once but it's better to get people in the store over a longer period of time. Hopefully it results in more sales than just the .22 the he is not jacking the price up on. Dick's, not one of my favorite retailers, is doing the same thing. They have about 30 days every year to do probably 30% of their yearly business. Guess when they want to get people in the store? Both of these examples are marketing in a free market not hording. Now the guy that has 20k rounds of .22 sitting at the house, and still buys everything he sees, and never shoots any of it, is hording. For the last 5 years I have tried to keep 2 years supply of powder and primers to feed my shooting habit. As I use it up I buy more and keep the shelf full so I can weather the times of no powder or no primers. Just because I was willing to stock up when supplies were plentiful doesn't mean I am hording. Just watch, squirrels do it every year.

Mooresville Lots of good shooting around there. Spartanburg USPSA shootspsa.org this weekend, about a bit of a drive but a great match. The Statesville area has a couple as well.

Wow, they just came back in a few days ago. Mine was on BO for about a week.

In one word, WOW! Now more words. I have been using a Blade-Tech holster for my 1911 single stack rig for a while. The Blade-Tech is OK but I am on the overweight side and it does sit pretty close. I do have trouble getting the same grip every time. I ordered one of the BOSS holster hangers and put it on my belt last night. OK here is the single word review again, WOW! It is well within the 2" from the inner belt and sits high enough in the top attachment point to be legal in SS. It is just amazing how much simpler it is to get a good draw from this holster just by spending the $50 to order the hanger. Three reasons, first, it's farther away from my body and I can get a good grip faster and more constantly. Second being able to tweak the angle exactly where I want it. Third, it is stiffer so when I grab it the gun doesn't move. To adjust it I got the gun out in my normal shooting stance and tweaked the holster so it went in the smoothest without having to look at it. I have been drawing from the same holster for a few months now and was kind of scared that moving it would hurt my draw. It did not hurt any, it helped a lot. All I have done is dry fire it so far so no real idea of how much better, but it feels faster and more consistent. I will know Friday when I get to do some live fire practice.

Welcome, Where in NC?

On your first statement, no not really. This whole thread started because of a "slam fire" (or in this case hammer follow) in a pistol. After the beep, the competitor inserted a mag in his unloaded gun and when he racked the slide and the slide returned to battery the gun went off. Here's the rundown: a: he wasn't moving or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.6. b: he didn't send the round over the berm or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.1. c: The round didn't strike the ground within 10 feet of him or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.2. d: His finger wasn't on the trigger or he'd have DQ'd under 10.5.9. This was confirmed by the RM after the fact, as the RM was able to reproduce the condition. e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ per 10.4.3 So apparently the ruling is that the discharge was not a punishable action per any rule in Chapter 10 of the rulebook. The question to DNROI is this: Should a slam-fire that occurs upon the slide's return to battery be considered a shot that occurs during loading/reloading or not. As strictly defined by the current rule-book, it's not. But it is clearly not an intentionally fired shot. The shooter has one hand on the gun and is not in the process of engaging a target. It's an uncommon circumstance, but it happens and it should (In my humble opinion) be clarified. "e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ per 10.4.3" Your point "e" conclusion is not correct, nor is that an application of "the strict definition". Please recognize that you didn't quote the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading" (you omitted an important part), and that the definition also includes the clause "and ready to fire". See my posts (#47, #64, #66) and recognize that per the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading", the definition wasn't satisfied, and therefor was not completed. Per the USPSA rulebook rules and definitions 10.4.3 is the correct outcome. Respectfully, ac "ready to fire" is a direct reference, per the rulebook, to the firearm itself, NOT the shooter. The firearm was ready to fire..we know this because it did. If a firearm either via a trigger pull or other means, discharges a round through the barrel, it was in a "ready to fire" condition. I'm not sure how that's not clear or how I didn't apply the strict definition. ETA: I reviewed your posts (numbered above) and I completely disagree with your highly philosophical (and frankly irrelevant) assumption that in order for a firearm to be "ready to fire", it must also be "ready to not fire". It doesn't really matter what I think of course, but I don't think your line of thinking is going to get much traction in this argument one way or the other. Just sayin'. << As a CRO, I have no emotional investment one way or the other.>> Perfect <<ETA: I reviewed your posts (numbered above) and I completely disagree with your highly philosophical (and frankly irrelevant) assumption that in order for a firearm to be "ready to fire", it must also be "ready to not fire". >> +1

And you spend a lot of time chamber checking, or you don't box your ammo. I use a 100 round gauge that is a bit tighter than my chamber and spend a lot less time checking and boxing. I know that anything that fits in the gauge will run 100%, the ammo that doesn't fit, about 1/2 of 1%, gets shot in practice.

It was after the start signal. From the original post "At a match this weekend on a stage with an unloaded table start, a competitor (shooting an open gun) got the start signal, picked up his gun, inserted a mag, and when he racked the slide the gun went off, sending a round into the dirt about 20 feet in front of the table. "

I have seen one in 4 years. As an RO in major matches I have run well over a thousand shooters. Over 1200 just last month at the World Shoot. He was making ready and when he dropped the slide, the hammer followed and the gun went off. Finger clearly out of the the trigger guard. The gun was pointed in a safe direction, in fact the bullet hit a target. I know him and he is very good about keeping his guns in good working order. In this case a new part failed.

The vast majority of these offences came with the finger on the trigger which is a DQ. A lot of the ones where the gun malfunctions have the gun pointed in such a way that the shot goes over the berm, again a DQ. I think the only one that changes is where the shooter is pointing the gun in a safe direction during the malfunction.

Or you could say it was ready to fire because it did.

On paper yes, but we DQ people all the time for shots fired as they slam the magazine home, so in practice we often interpret "ready to fire" to mean "ready to safely engage the target". If I can paraphrase Justice Stewart "I know an AD when I see it". I remain implacably opposed to interpreting the rules in such a way as to turn a blind eye to sloppy and dangerous gun handling practices. This creeping cancer of range-lawyering leaves me more and more wary every time I walk onto a range. Will it take a gunshot wound or worse for us to find the outer limits of this worrying trend? On paper is what we have to work with. If his finger was on the trigger, or he put it over the berm, or he hit the ground <10' in front of him, he is a DQ. Not being a range lawyer, just reading the simple English in the book and following the rules. What you feel like the rules should be is not what we have to rule on.

Undisputed. The dispute arises when (as JAFO points out) 10.4.3 becomes neutered by the DNROI opinion expressed earlier in this thread. Under that DNROI opinion, any hammer-follow discharge, or slam-fire discharge isn't covered by 10.4.3. This seems odd. 10.4.3 suddenly seems to be limited (by DNROI opinion) to 8.3.1, 8.3.7, or a loaded chamber reload that experiences a mechanical failure discharge (before the rulebook defined "reloading" is completed). It's interesting that a mechanical failure discharge (that occurs 0.01 second prior to "reloading" being complete) is addressed differently than a mechanical failure discharge (that occurs 0.01 second after "reloading" being completed) - all else being equal. Hmmm. 10.5.8, 10.5.9, 10.5.10 seem to exist to prevent unintended discharges at particularly problematic moments, and violations call for a serious response - DQ. It's counter intuitive (and irresponsible) that unintended discharges resulting from reload hammer-follow, or reload slam-fire wouldn't be covered similarly by a rule (and several/many thought it was: 10.4.3). Respectfully, ac I get your point but the rule book needs no ruling as the rule book already has a clear definition of loading. Just like it has a clear definition of movement, facing up range etc. If you don't like something in the rule book take it up with DNROI with a clear suggestion for a change. Until then we have to call it the way the rule book says it gets called.

This is a good place to get some experience in how to handle the million in one things that come up in a match. The more time you take to think through things and then read the rule book the better off we all are. Nice explanation. Thanks for taking the time to talk to Troy and write it up.

OK I don't think 10.4.3 works. The gun was pretty clearly in battery when it went off so loading was finished. Here is the definition of Loading: "The insertion of ammunition into a firearm. Loading is completed when ammunition is inserted and firearm is in battery, (slide forward or cylinder closed), and ready to fire." 10.4.2 doesn't work as the round was more than 10' out. 10.4.1 doesn't work as the round stayed in the range The RO stopped him for a DQ not a broken gun. I could make a pretty good argument that he gets to re-shoot after he either proves his gun safe or switches to a backup gun. No reshoot for a broken gun..... The RO stopped him for a DQ not using 5.7.7. The gun was unsafe so, if after he figures out it was not a DQ I guess he could use 5.7.7. and score the stage as shot if they did not reset, and they saved the time. Not much resetting to do as it was his first shot so as long as they saved the time they could score it as shot. If he was lucky and they did not save the time he gets a re-shoot.