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

Jollymon32

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jollymon32

  • Rank
    Sees Sights

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Weston-Broward County-Florida
  • Real Name
    Andrew Medina

Recent Profile Visitors

1,105 profile views
  1. Has this ever happened? First off, weak RM and MD who did not see the shoot through Secondly, it is usually very easy to see which hit went through hard cover on a cardboard target as Bullets travel in a straight line. Perhaps the reason the rule does not exist is because of how unrealistic the scenario being discussed is.
  2. Scarcity and price increases are the result of too much money chasing too few goods. Get used to it. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1
  3. Scrupulous? More like just following the rules.... 2.1.1, and 2.1.4
  4. Meh, just another rabble rouser. Good riddance.
  5. I am pretty sure no one is losing any sleep about what you care about or not.
  6. IVC, the fact that we are having the discussion points to the lack of specificity that leads to interpretations (whether right or wrong) and the need for determination from the top of the organization to attempt to avoid match time arbitrations from range lawyers. I maintain that if ‘solid’ meant ‘solid’ that many of these interpretations would be moot, albeit bringing up the mag or foot across the wall dilemma. On to the next ‘anomaly’...lol..
  7. I think NROI was clear - if not "really solid" then it is not solid. So you can go under a wall to get to the other side, throw stuff under it, put your fingers through them, in short anything but bullets can cross "not really solid" solid planes. (Makes you wonder if you can stick a gun fully through a "not really solid" solid plane, and once the gun is on the other side, fire rounds at targets.) Here is what I get from this NROI gem: if you don't want people going under walls, throwing stuff under them, etc. make the walls go all the way to the ground.
  8. The last sentence reads: "If the wall was really solid the magazine wouldn’t have gone through so of course the shooter can retrieve it. This won’t tear the fabric of the time/space continuum or anything." That makes sense. Accordingly then, the term "Solid" in 2.2.3.4 "All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane..." means that it is only "solid" if the barrier is indeed "really solid". Got it..... I think..... Makes you wonder if the word "solid" should be omitted from the rule.
  9. For the record, you sent a copy via text of something DNROI answered you or answered in the RM forum. Nowhere in the text did it state to disseminate that information as his final decision; indeed, the text seemed like he was mulling it over - unless DNROI uses "seems to be" as a definitive. We also have allegations that someone has asked this question beforehand and gotten an opposite answer from DNROI. DNROI has not and may not answer the query I sent him directly. I am not going to surmise his answer from something that may be off the record. It ma
  10. Unless of course the RO/CRO can go tit for tat with the range lawyer.
  11. CRAP - another "anomaly"!!! 2.2.3.4 "Shots cannot be fired though the barrier except at designated shooting ports or other designated openings. Any hits that result from full diameter shots fired through a barrier except through a designated port or opening will not count for score...." Appendix A3 Shot: A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm. If you stick your gun completely through the "solid plane" and fire, then the the "shot" was not fired through the barrier, it was on the other side of the barrier. AAA
  12. You guys are 100% right - I may have been using the wrong term, maybe "inconsistency" is not the right term. What ever the term, I am referring to the "anomaly" in which: A solid plane (2.2.3.4) is solid for some things and not for others - for example, solid so that you can't stick a gun through it to shoot at targets from under a physical wall, but not solid enough to stop a foot, magazines, or in the case of this post, fingers. And these "anomalies" can be addressed by: 1) Rules Update: For example, maybe removing the word "solid" from 2.2.3.4. 2) DN
  13. That is exactly how I understand it as well. These inconsistencies have to either be resolved by a rules update, NROI decree, or match day arbitration. I do believe that NROI will state that grabbing through walls is fine, and until such time that they do we can argue the point till we are blue in the face as I believe that there are excellent arguments for either position. These discussions, I believe, is what provides the catalyst for the continuous positive evolution of the rule book. As these inconsistencies come to light, are discussed ad naseum, nuts cracked (LOL), etc. it
×
×
  • Create New...