Jollymon32
-
Posts
267 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jollymon32
-
-
I got tired of waiting and went with SRO's on my CZ platform. About 5K rounds down the pipe and all is good.
-
Submariners are so boorish… Ignored him quite a while ago….
-
About 6 months ago, or maybe more, I had a buddy sent his S2 to Cajun Gun Works. They milled the slide specifically for the SRO.
When I decided to send in my SP01 to get milled, I reached out to CZC and the wait time was way too long. I ended up sending the slide to my backup SP01 to Cajun.
Although cajun said that it would be about 10 week turnaround, I received it back in about five or six weeks. However, it was not directly attached to the slide. They milled the slide and used a plate system for the mounting. They seem to have changed their preference on how the optics are mounted to the slides since my buddy sent his in a while back.
it was very well done and I was satisfied enough to send my primary gun”s slide to them to have that one milled and the SRO installed. The turnaround on this one has been about four weeks. I just received notification on Friday that it was on the armors’ bench and they would be contacting me for payment and shipping instructions.
-
If the WSB states ‘Outside the shooting area’ then if the shooter is ‘Inside the shooting area’ they should not be started.
If ‘one foot out and one foot in’ is considered ‘outside the shooting area’, the conversely ‘one foot in and one foot out’ is considered ‘inside the shooting area’. (Note, we are not discussing faulting the line, just the definition of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’.)
So, logically speaking, by the standards of NROI, a shooter straddling the fault line is both inside and outside the shooting area.
This is very similar to another ruling of a wall being impenetrable to bullets, but not to fingers.
-
My formula for saving money is simple, I don’t spend it.
-
As to the higher growth, 17% of a low number means a lot less that 3% of a huge number. So there’s that.
It should split off on its own. It is completely different sport and there is very little overlap in terms of shooters that practice both.
-
Just now, Cuz said:
This is what I was thinking as I read through this thread. If the extractor didn’t grab and extract the case on the first try, it’s an obstructed barrel.
BINGO!!!
This is what the original post states, "The case head is separated just enough so that the extractor cannot eject the case, however, the case head is still attached to the rest of the case."
This is an obstructed barrel - easily removed with a pocket knife - as we have been doing since time immemorial..... But according to the definition it is a "Squib" and a DQ if you try to clear it.
-
7 hours ago, Nolan said:
Then in that case (excuse the pun), if a shooter's gun failed to eject, i.e. left an empty case in the chamber and the shooter pried out the empty case with his pocket knife without first determining whether it was a partial case head separation, the shooter would be subject to DQ.
So how many on this forum should have been DQ'd for that offense? I can think of one PCC only match where 98% of the match would have been disqualified! LOL!
Nolan
Exactly my point. We have been clearing these jams forever. Heck, there is even a thread on Enos on how to do it on the clock…
I opine that the definition of ‘squib’ needs to be revisited.
-
25 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
words mean things. everyone knows what a squib is, and it's NOT a case/head separation or partial separation. not only is the obstruction not in the barrel, but it's not a solid obstruction. it's just part of a spent case. clearly not a squib, clearly something you are allowed to clear and continue.
Except that for most firearms the barrel is inclusive of the chamber and the bore.
But you are right in that it is not a "squib" as we all know a squib to be.
It appears that in the process of making the clearing of a squib a DQ'able offense in the recent rules updates, the definition of a 'Squib' was not reviewed.
Maybe it should say "solid obstructions in the BORE of the barrel"
-
Sorry to have been so obtuse in the original post, the question was not “what not to do in the event of a squib” but rather “what constitutes a squib”. For most, including the shooter, a case head separation is not a squib - the bullet has long left the barrel. However, the definition of a squib includes a stuck bullet and or anything “solid” stuck in the barrel.
That is what I wanted other’s thoughts on.
Thanks!
-
Level 1 match - user experiences a partial case head separation during the COF. The case head is separated just enough so that the extractor cannot eject the case, however, the case head is still attached to the rest of the case.
Shooter proceeds to get an L shaped rod out of their pocket, and inserting it from the front of the muzzle, proceeds to clear the case.
Shooter DOES NOT sweep themselves while clearing the spent case due to the shape of the rod.
Shooter continues to complete the COF.
Discussion then ensues as to a DQ based on 10.5.2
Shooter argues successfully that a spent case suffering from case head failure is not a squib.
However, weeks later (as I take the NROI exam) I visit the definition of a Squib: "A bullet or solid obstruction lodged inside the barrel of a firearm."
Being that the spent case with the partial head separation impedes access through the barrel, it meets the definition of a solid obstruction. As such a case head separation during a COF and ANY attempt to clear, be it with the L shaped squib rod or with a pocket knife would be a DQ'able offense under 10.5.2.
Thoughts?
-
27 minutes ago, JKD said:
I’m not sure how you got personal inference from the stated language of “All other gun handling”. Seems pretty clear to me."Because "handling" comes from the latin term "Hand" which means.....blah blah blah blah blah......"
Don't feed the troll dude...
-
52 minutes ago, RJH said:
On the desktop site click on your profile in the top right corner, then click on "ignored users," then start typing the name of who you want to ignore, etc
AWESOME!
I won't have to deal with the absurd pomposity of a self absorbed individual. The individual's perceived importance, however delusional, was good for a laugh. Until the pity kicked in....
-
Is there a way to block the posts or responses of a particular user?
anyway, good stuff here. I am sure NROI will make an article out of this.
-
Look at the ABSTAIN votes. Look at the unanimity of YAY votes. Very Intresting.
-
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.
-
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
-
8 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:
Late to the party but do everyone a favor and be silent.
Oh the irony....
-
14 hours ago, perttime said:
An example: at the matches in my area, designers are scrupulous in preventing you from seeing targets from locations where you'd break the 180. They will place targets near 180, and use doors and hatches where some care is needed to avoid sweeping yourself.
Scrupulous? More like just following the rules.... 2.1.1, and 2.1.4
-
On 11/22/2020 at 4:00 PM, Umbrarian said:
I have sold 128 in last year and 5 failed I know of. Maybe more I do not know of if customer dealt directly with Trijicon. Compared to RMR which I have sold several hundred over several years with not a single known failure.
How many have you sold to determine "Trijicon is king when it comes to reliability"? Please share with us your statistics.
Guess you told him!
-
Meh, just another rabble rouser. Good riddance.
-
12 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:
I don't care what you or anyone else thinks happened from some video screen shot with its distortion/fisheye effect.
I am pretty sure no one is losing any sleep about what you care about or not.
-
16 hours ago, IVC said:
2.2.3.4 says: "Shots cannot be fired though the barrier except at designated shooting ports or other designated openings," so you cannot stick your gun through the wall and shoot because you'd be firing outside the designated openings.
Even if we (try to) play the "glossary definition game" which defines "shot" as: "A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm," it won't work. Bullet passing through the barrel defines that a shot has occurred, but if your gun is pushed through the wall, you have shot through the barrier outside the designated area and that is not allowed per 2.2.3.4.
You can try to argue that the next sentence, the one about "hits that result from full diameter shots [through hard cover]," implies that a hit resulting from sticking your arms through the wall should count because the bullet didn't pass through hard cover. Well, that sentence doesn't say that. It only specifies one type of shots that doesn't count, the full diameter hits. Other types of shots are not excluded by that sentence alone. Given that we have an explicit prohibition on shooting through non-designated openings, between the implied and stretched interpretation that the shot should count and the explicit prohibition on that type of shot, any arbitration would simply say "no way."
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..
-
43 minutes ago, broadside72 said:
So to abuse the crap out of this, does it mean I can now "drop" a mag to the other side of the wall and cross under to pick it up and then continue on without crossing back to the side I was originally on? I actually commented earlier that picking up a mag from the other side was okay as long as you went back to the side you started on.
I get the intent of the rule, hence the commentary about adding opaque areas to the walls to limit aiming through/around. I am going to interpret the rule as intended, bullets "can't" go through and the shooter "can't" go through unless to retrieve an object that is not a bullet that has crossed over to the other side but must return to the original side before continuing. Thus putting your fingers through at the start to begin in an advantageous location is not allowed.
It's all things that seem obvious but we play this game according the rules (or lack of thereof)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.
If you don't want people sticking fingers through the walls, make them "really solid".
Question on a reshoot
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
If that happened to me, and someone entered the incorrect time, I would ask for a reshoot. And as precedent, I would state what I witnessed firsthand as an RO in an area match; DNROI Issued the shooter a reshoot when the CRO entered .01 for the time instead of entering DNF. Shooter successfully argued that the wrong time had been entered.