driver8M3

even though seth is busy moving to SC he still had time to put this together...area 8 shooters.pdf

you should have seen this guy i shot with a couple of months ago. he looked like al borland with an i-phone.

Thanks to RUSSELL??? That's just wrong! stop your bellyachin'...

stages... 2011 EGW area 8 stages.pdf

you are correct that we spent some time on those targets...but in the end they were visible from past the 180, and we left it to the competitors to avoid shooting those targets from that position. i doubt that if someone had a 180 violation on those targets you would have declared a FA and offered a reshoot.

It's not just the competitor's mistake though, is it? He had help from the designer, builders, RO, CRO, and RM -- all of whom should have caught the hole in the stage design. To turn this around -- why should this competitor get screwed, and all of the other shooters in the division get an assist, due to the inability of the match staff to recognize that the low target was visible -- and therefore might be engaged "in good faith" by any competitor in the heat of the moment? would you say the same thing about a target that is intended to be shot from one location but can also be seen and potentially shot while breaking the 180? isnt the shooter responsible for knowing the rules, safety and otherwise? would you suggest that stage builders also need to hide targets that are behind screen walls, so that a shooter doesn't "get screwed" by shooting such a target through the screen wall? one of our clubs routinely uses low targets that can be shot from under a wall instead of through a port as required. i never thought of this as a stage design problem....it's even specifically allowed. it fact, i believe they set it up intentionally so that the targets are close the the port (and thus can often be seen from under the wall), as they want the rounds going closer to straight down to avoid the possibility of having rounds skip out of the bay)

sometimes targets are set up such that they can be seen, and shot, while breaking the 180. doesn't that create a similar conflict with 1.1.5?

what penalty would you assign for skipping the reload altogether?

if you're near maryland... http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=130373

that sounds simple...but enforcing it would be very difficult. which match official is responsible for taking apart a hundred production guns to check the internals? how many people know enough about all the guns on the production list to be able to take them apart, spot an aftermarket part, and put them back together again without messing something up?

nice job!

i'm in the same boat you're in...new to open (after many years of production for me). like you, i found it pretty easy to find the dot..until match day when i tried to lean around corners, both right and left. that didn't work out very well. enjoy the gun...

before i read this thread i would have called both hits as deltas. for a partial edge hit like that i wouldn't have thought to insist on the bullet making a hole. so educating the masses probably is an issue that should be addressed.

10 stages...30 rounds each. very cool. i'll try to talk some others into a road trip. FYI for match staff: the uspsa website says the match fee is $125.

I would ask that we maintain that clean look. Patrick +1 One of the reasons I like to read here so much. i dont care one way or the other...but isn't a "high-five" or a "like" sort of like...."+1"?

the problem with this is that it's a bit unfair to the next guy in the order. does he get 2-3 minutes to look over the stage (if so, are you really speeding things up)? and it rewards the guy that was not prepared in the first place.

do yourself a favor and avoid radio shack for these. i paid $26 for 2 of them since i needed them right away. went home and started looking on the internet and found them cheaper...everywhere. and then i heard about something even better. get 2 AG13 (1.55 volt) batteries and sandwich them together...and they work just fine. i got 120 of them on ebay for $14...including shipping.

finger- "must" safety- "should"

if you want to try uspsa, we've got a couple of matches coming up this weekend. saturday: southern chester county practical shooters (PA, near kennett square) http://www.sccsfa.org/page11/page11.html sunday: maryland practical shooters (thurmont, md) http://www.mpsa.net/pg2.html (not updated for this year yet...) if you need more info, let me know.

welcome to the club!

wait...are fiber optic sights even legal? i can't find a specific rule or ruling that says "notch and post" can include fiber optic... Yikes! Looks like a problem in the rule book. In the original 2008 Blue book, Appendix D4.21 said this: In the 2008 Blue book "With Board Of Directors Approved Amendments through July 2010", the highlighted text above is now missing. As I recall, the "colored" was what allowed people to apply sight black or nail polish on their sights. Here's the followup for Amidon when I asked about the omission above: that response is great news...though i'm wondering what a match director will follow...the above response from john, or this statement, which is actually in the rule book:

looks nice. looking forward to seeing and hearing it in person...

wait...are fiber optic sights even legal? i can't find a specific rule or ruling that says "notch and post" can include fiber optic...

i didnt say the ruling was wrong...i said amidon could have (and i think should have), said that painting the inside of the magwell is specifically allowed. tell me, what would have prevented him from issuing such a ruling? would such a ruling somehow ruin the perfect record of consistency for what is legal and what is not legal in production? by the way...is sight black legal now in production??? i guess not...

let's face it...a lot of the production rules and rulings are inconsistent. so it would have been just as easy for amidon to issue a ruling here that said a bit of paint inside the magwell, while probably done in the name of a competitive advantage, is specifically allowed.