Ssanders224

No argument there, ha. ALTHOUGH.... No PCC start position requires you to sweep yourself, or point the gun at yourself (as do the majority of holsters used in USPSA). That fact dictates the strict mechanical safety rule for holstered pistols. A more linear comparison to PCC.... would be that Steel Challenge doesn't require the safety be engaged at all.

You have to remove the "holstered" parameter from the comparison though. I'm not saying that I LIKE the fact that there is no similar condition for a PCC, but currently their isn't. You could apply a false start to a PCC shooter disengaging the safety before the buzzer... but that's about it.

OP states that the safety was engaged. We can only assume the shooter flipped the safety off before/as he fired the shot.

"At a target" isn't really a requirement per the rule book though. There's nothing that says "In the event of a false start, you are DQ'd if your first shot isn't close enough to a target". This is why rules like 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 exist instead of a rule that says "A shot which occurs while drawing", or "A shot which isn't in the direction of a target".

I'm still curious as to whether "stand by" had been issued, and what the start position was. As to comparing it to an AD while moving (10.4.6), that's not apples to apples. The difference being that there is a specific rule addressing that type of AD, or rather, a rule classifying a discharge during movement AS and AD. In that situation the only judgment the RO can make is whether or not a target was being engaged. The same doesn't currently hold true for the situation described in the OP. There is no parameter (such as movement) defined by the rule book for the RO to judge. There is also no "10.4" rule that addresses or categories the discharge in question (as described by the OP) as an "AD". "He didn't intend to shoot" under 10.5 really is pretty much a shoehorn as George described. (Again, I'd want to DQ the guy if he obviously cooked one off.... but it would be tough to apply a specific rule to the situation if he protested.)

You can't really interject your opinion on the position of the rifle if the round went downrange and impacted the berm. It's perfectly legal to fire a shot before the rifle gets to your shoulder/face, or before you move the rifle at all for that matter. And actually, that makes me curious as to what the start position was. OP? (To be clear, I'm really just playing devils advocate here for the sake of discussion. More than likely the guy accidentally cooked one off unintentionally, or his rifle malfunctioned. Both of which should probably warrant a DQ.)

Was "stand by" issued? I know the OP states that "are you ready?" was, not sure about "stand by". And if it was.... How is it different than a competitor drawing and firing a shot after "stand by", but before the beep. That's a pretty routine scenario, and results in a reset and restart.

OK.

You do realize this the "Open pistols" sub forum..... "Within SAAMI pressures" went out the window a long time ago.

1500 fps is a normal for 115gr. projectiles in Open gun. (172.5 PF)

Precision Delta has as much as you want. https://www.precisiondelta.com/products/black-friday-sale/40-s-w-range-brass-by-the-box/

MBX.

My .40 Honcho is so non-picky with mags it's ridiculous. Old STI mags, new STI mags, MBXs, it doesn't seem to care what mags I put in it. Heck, it will run on 9mm/38SC mags. That being said, I'd just buy 3 more MBXs and be done.

Unless you're Vogel.

That's not exactly correct. The fit and finish on the Honchos is better than any custom gun I've had built. The engineering that went into the platform, PT's machining ability, and some design for manufacture principles result in being able to produce very high end, super well fit pistols, without the NEED for as much time consuming manual "fitting".

The short answer is, RNFP is the standard in .40, and any gun chambered in .40 should feed them 100%.

https://www.precisiondelta.com/products/ammunition/performance-standard/9mm-147gr-fmj-remanufactured-match-pack/

Yep.

No. The use of the word "pull" was probably too literal. Leave the pen stationary. Move your focus to the pen with your eyes.

10-4. For the sake of this discussion, it's just necessary to distinguish revenue/profit. Local matches are a different conversation entirely. A club should be able to profit from local matches without much effort (barring certain circumstances such as very small clubs and/or ranges that charge the club a ton).

I don't necessarily disagree.... However not all match/club situations are the same, so I try to have a more open minded view. If a club/match has willing volunteers, has no "range" expense, and chooses to put available funds back into cash payouts, prizes, food for the shooters, etc... then I'm all for that. That can/does happen. I'm not just dreaming it up.

Revenue? Or net profit? If you mean't to say a "source of profit".... Eh, as it relates to level II matches (per this thread), there are clubs that host level II's and don't clear a profit.

Agreed that this topic is funny. However, I know the underlying costs, and I know you don't have to charge $275 to put on an 11 stage match for 260 shooters. Even with amenities, tons of food, porta john rentals, tons of prizes, expensive awards, etc... That is, of course, unless someone is putting on the match to make a profit, which is perfectly fine. Free enterprise is great. Again, I'm not saying a range/match SHOULDN'T charge as much as they can, they should charge whatever they want. Just don't pee on me and tell me it's raining.

You will only see two targets if your eyes are "converging" on something other than the target (they shouldn't be). You have to teach your brain to split your focus distance (sights), and your convergence distance (target). This comes naturally to some, and takes some practice for others. Again, FOCUSING on the sights, and CONVERGING on the sights isn't a good recipe. Practice by holding the tip of a pen up at arms distance, with another object 10-15' behind it. This might feel very frustrating or impossible at first, but stick with it. Look "through" the pen at the object 15' away. The pen will be blurry, and there will be two of them. Now, pull the pen into focus, but do not LOOK at the pen. There will still be two pens, but they will be clear. There will only be one of the distant objects, but it will be blurry. Try bringing the pen in and out of focus, and in and out of convergence.

It sounds like your dominant eye isn't very dominant. However... you shouldn't be seeing two targets. Our eyes are pretty neat. Focal distance and convergence distance can be different at any given time, or they can be the same. Most successful "both eyes open" shooters focus on the sights, but their eyes converge at the target. Meaning, there is only one fuzzy target in the field of view, but may be two sets of relatively clear and in focus sights. Using the correct "set" of sights isn't an issue if you have a strong dominant eye, as your brain never even registers the "other" set of sights. It's there, and you can see it if you want to, but generally speaking, as far as your brain is concerned, the "other" set doesn't exist. In cases of cross dominance, or a weak dominant eye, training your brain to automatically use the correct set of sights can be difficult, but it can be done. For now, I'd work on teaching your brain to converge your vision at the targets, but focus at the sights. Focusing on the sights AND converging at the sights will leave you with an all but unusable view of the targets (as you are experiencing).