Vlad

Here is how I would have written 3.3.1 In jurisdictions where competitors are restricted by law from purchasing or acquiring magazines over a certain capacity, the maximum capacity allowed in the contest, per division, will be the lesser of said law limitations or division limitations. Individuals exempt from the law restrictions must still comply with this section. Any such limitations must be made known to all competitors by the Match Director/Range Master before the start of the match. That takes care of the grandfathering and fairness bits. If a new shooter entering the division can not buy the magazines the rest of the shooters own, it shouldn't matter if the rest of the shooters legally own those magazines. It sucks, but that is the only fair way to cover that one without telling new shooters to play in traffic or break the law. The second part that needs fixing is 6.2.5.1 However, if a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of a declared Division during a course of fire, the competitor will be placed in Open Division, if available, otherwise the competitor will shoot the match for no score. If a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of Open division (regardless of initially declared division) the competitor will shoot the match for no score. This solves the problem of not meeting the requirement of open, if this is how you chose to deal with it. Personally, I would think this is a bit harsh, but so be it, my suggestion would be procedurals or zero stage score when capacity is thing you broke the rules on. Of course that would require a more substantial change so I'm not even going there now. It would break the precedents under which all the limited capacity division have been operating for years. But think about it, having more bullets in the mag then you should have is logically for more akin to failing a mandatory reload of taking shots from outside the free fire zone, it grants and temporary advantage for the shots made in excess of the official limit, unlike say a red dot on production gun which would give you an advantage for every shot fired in the match. If you never fire those extra shots in the mag, they provide no advantage in the entire match.

Honestly, busy. I actually wish someone told me there were rules on the table ( *cough*WTH Nik/Harry*cough*) because I would have yelled bloody murder about this earlier. I've been completely unplugged from the USPSA and Benosverse worlds, outside running my little match and pointing people to come here for help. Actually, I did browse FrontSight, but I don't recall seeing any notice about this, but I could have totally missed it. Was there one? Edited to add: Flex .... you are now at 37,536 posts which .. dude .. I don't think I've done anything that many times, possibly walking/breathing aside. I don't think I've peed that many times in 39 years.

We tested that, used it for Area 1 and Nationals uploading of activity and scores. It should be in next update. How did the CD burning go?

Again, I don't have a problem with the intent of the rule, I have a problem with its wording, lack of specificity when it comes to grandfather states and to the penalties associated with this rule. We shouldn't have to guess or wait on NROI, if you are going to make a new rule, no matter how well intentioned, write it in a way that doesn't require immediate NROI help.

Right. But, there is now a rule that won't allow LEO/MIL to load up mags that have a greater capacity than Joe Citizen is allowed to use. In other words, if you and I are restricted to 7 round mags, and Larry Lawman can shoot with his 20 round (approved for duty) mags...then we, effective, have a buggered equipment division. Thats fine, I'm ok with the spirit of the rule, I have issues with its implementation. Note the rule still doesn't ban Lawman from using the mag, just how many he shoves into it.

This rule does not allow the match director, it requires the match director to etc etc. At least that is how I read the rule. Secondly, the requirements have been about the equipment, not the use thereof. Are you saying that a magazine that matches the division rules, does not get physically changed during the match, suddenly does not match the division requirements when used improperly? To my mind, this is the first time where we've done this, the use of the unaltered equipment that was legal one minute makes it illegal in any division the next. Open used to be the ultimate catchall as the penalty for messing up the use in a lower division. If you showed up with 175mm you were broken from the start, not half way through.

So when did USPSA get into the state law enforcement business? Each state is different, and as far as I know in mine there is no law prohibiting law enforcement from using their issue gear for matches.

Forget the crime, USPSA is not in the business and it may not be a crime at all if the magazine is legally owned by an LEO. Let me explain it better with two scenarios: 1) Shooter A registers in production. He has 15rd magazines. The magazines meet the division requirements, as long as he only loads 10rd. At one stage he loads 11 in a mag for whatever reason. His penalty is "Welcome to open" 2) Shooter B registers in limited or open. He has 16 rd magazines. The magazines meet the division requirements, as long as he only loads 15. At one stage he loads 16 in a mag for whatever reason. His penalty is shoot for no score. The scenarios as in every way identical except for the final result. This is inconsistent rule making. Under the old rule book the shooter shot for no score when his equipment physically did not meet the requirements, under the new rules he shoots for no score in some divisions but not others, even when the equipment physically meets the requirements. This doesn't compute.

That seems very harsh and odd. The 175mm mag is something they brought to the range, they could have measured at home, used a gage, whatever. That 16th rd is a brain fart, a worn spring, etc. I'm not seeing how the two are the same. What other match day shooter screw up do we penalize with no-score? It isn't as the magazine didn't fit the division requirements to start with, just like a 15rd mag in production is just fine.

Yes and if they mistakenly load one too many what division to you move them to? Cause open ain't it anymore. What is the penalty for mistakenly breaking this rule?

I have another hypothetical question .. In NJ the limit is 15. Now we shoot L-15 and O-15 as per the new rule. Johnny Lawdog, experienced USPSA shooter, law abiding citizen, has 16rd mags for his <insert gun here> and he shoots it in limited. One day he mistakenly loads 16 in the mag and the RO notices. Under the current rules the RO says "Sorry Lawdog, you have just been bumped to open". Under the new rules he says "Ummm .. hum.. err .. wtf?" Forget the state law for a minute and think USPSA law. What do I do with Limited or Open shooter that break that new rule? Do I give him a procedural? Do I give him a zero stage? Do I DQ him? Do I blink at him with a confused look on my face? What is the penalty for accidentally breaking that rule?

Was this a problem? Also I fear the board may be out of touch with the reality on the ground.

I would love a direct export of classifiers for uspsa so I can burn my ezwinwcore CDs after shooting them a bit

Two questions The way I read it, but I want it clarified, 3.3.1 is a must not a may, correct? What happens who states that have grandfathering? Does the new 9.11.1 mean that if practiscore can generate classifier submission files we no longer need to use ezwinwcore in the loop at all?

Shoot the gun. See if it works. Manually cycling is not the same as shooting it.

The fn devices were not palms, cause no one makes them anymore, and they had issues with battery life and screens in the light. The basic nook is probably the best device right now. If money is no object the iPad minis.

How does it work in live fire? My 11-87 will occasionally not feed when hand cycling the action, works fine with real ammo. To get it to "work" reliably with dummies I have to really smack the bolt handle back and let it got forward by itself, replicating what it does when fired for real.

Err ... any bullet that can't a auto-popper, even a skinny one, at 100 yards is not really a bullet worth spending money on?

You may be flexing the frame. I used to have the opposite problem with my CZ years ago. I had to get really rigid grip panels or I would flex them in and keep the mag from dropping.

props, low ports, cooper tunnels, etc are all part of the game. Bring it.

Well, its your choice and ultimetly your leg, so whatever makes you happy. The argument I hear most is that people who use it correctly never have a problem. I won't argue, it is probably true. I just know that someone who's been at this game for longer then me, about 15 years, f'ed up pretty badly and he is not new at drawing a handgun. I also know he is not the only one. If you feel comfortable with it, then carry on. I just don't.

I dont want to get into a real argument about it, but I think its natively unsafe. Basically you are pressing your trigger finger down on a button as you draw the gun the pressure of your finger can land it on the trigger with some inertia. We had someone do that. Lucky for everyone when he did land on the trigger, and put pressure on it, and fired it, his gun didn't quite clear the holster yet the bullet traveled through the holster and hit the ground next to his foot. Turns out he is not the only person to have done that.

Are you paying? I can PM you my address if you are sending me tickets

I alluded to this earlier, what you and Kurt are indirectly saying is that you should let a method of reset dictate the stage design and limit what you can do on a given range with given resources. I don't understand that logic, it seems constricting. Again, I'm not sure where the notion of "you just can't accept it can be done better" is coming from, seeing I'm in full agreement that there is space for improvement. I find it odd that the two of you are taking the stance that there is only one true way of fixing a problem. It narrows the actual space of solutions. As far as I can determine the position is that there is ONLY ONE SINGLE TRUE WAY of fixing the issue of target calling, it is the same single way used for 100 years, and there is no room for a better newer solution. I truly respect the experience you guys have, but this position seems more like religion then a solution. It seems to me to be just as narrowly locked into a single way of thinking as I'm being accused of.

Do you have a link to these targets?