lef-t

Ok, thanks

Hmm. So do you believe that 21.3 would disallow swapping the slides if the 5in model isn't manufactured with the paddle release? I think where I get caught up is the word "model" of gun. If "model" is referring to "PPQ" then the 5in slide and barrel would be an OEM offering for that "model" and I could swap the slides. If "model" is more specific to what length slide came with the specific variant of the PPQ originally then it would seem you could not. Is the "model" based on the frame? in this instance the frames are the same aside from the mag release which is why I went to 21.6. I guess I saw the "model" difference in the slide length, but perhaps this is a misinterpretation.

Today, Walther opened up their own shop in the USA and changed their mag releases on the PPQ from the paddle to a button. While I know many US shooters will love the conventional mag release, I prefer the paddle (sounds kinda dirty ) The other big change that I'm excited about is a 5in model. Assuming the new models are approved for production, would it be legal to put the 5in slide on the 4in paddle release frame? Looking at Appendix D 21.6 I think it would be: Sights, firing pins, firing pin retainers, extractors and ejectors MAY be replaced with OEM or aftermarket parts. Any other components which are externally visible may ONLY be replaced with OEM parts which are offered on the specific model of gun or another approved gun from the same manufacturer except as specifically clarified below. Examples of external components which may only be replaced with OEM parts include (but are not limited to): magazine releases, slide stops, thumb safeties and triggers. Special Notes/Clarifications: • Barrels are considered “external parts” and are subject to specific restrictions in 21.4 and associated rulings. • A factory/OEM magazine release which extends only the length of the magazine release may be used. A magazine release which provides larger surface area (paddles, buttons) may only be used if it is an OEM part available on an approved model of gun. • Externally-visible parts from “custom shop” guns will only be considered “OEM parts” if the custom shop gun is on the NROI list of approved Production guns. Since the paddle-style model is approved, it seems that once the 5in model is approved it would be legal to merge the two, correct? The new 5in PPQ M2: The original 4in with paddle-style mag release:

It never occurred to me to do a 32 round stage with 32 different targets and just require 1-per. Would be fun for a really long field course, but may be a pain to reset. I can see people getting mixed up and forgetting which targets they engaged and going nuts making sure they hit them all. Looks like I have my first stage of the next season to design

I'd like to see a pirate stage where the shooter has to hold the knife in his teeth throughout the CoF. Perhaps forcing strong hand only by turning the weak hand into a hook? Should make for interesting reloads

I put a mag pouch on my strong side behind my holster (i'm a lefty so picture about 8-o'clock) to hold my 11rnd-er. I got sick of having to dig in a pocket around equipment or uncomfortably sitting on a mag. My ritual is to use my strong hand to grab the mag and check the # of rounds, then move mag to weak hand and wait for the Make Ready. Always the same and no shuffling/confusion about which mag has 11. The only time I have to think about it is an unloaded table start and the the xtra round goes in my pocket.

I don't have kids yet, but I hope that my future son/daughter can be this awesome. I believe he's 6 in this vid

Thanks. This was every 5 seconds and I cut out the spots where we were off grabbing more props.

Many of us have contour or gopro cameras and one of their less-used features is continuous photo mode. I've been wanting to try this out all season, but always forgot to set up the camera. Finally, as the season comes to a close, I remembered to set it up and it came our better than expected.

I love having it on my phone. It's settled many heated debates that just get ramped up when someone goes for the rulebook in their bag. It's inconspicuous to be "playing" on your phone while others argue and then you magically have a rule to cite. It's fun to see how quiet some people get when you read a rule verbatim to solve a dispute.

I have to say that this has been a very entertaining thread. I think PKT1106 wins the award for longest multiquote. B.S. aside, I think this unfortunately falls in the gray area of RO discretion. "Fairly and equitable" has some wiggle room. I personally don't think it's fair for some shooters to have to shoot bagged targets on a wet day and others not, but it's an acceptable practice and considered "fair and equitable." This specific case of the target still being fully available, but slightly slanted is much less inhibiting than those bags, so in my mind it's still a fair and equitable challenge. I think where some people are getting hung up on this point is they keep saying the presentation of the target has to be fair and equitable, but by the rule it's the "challenge" that must abide. Again, for this specific instance I think the challenge of hitting the affected target is equitable. "Displacement" is also not clearly defined and open to RO discretion. I think we've all found through our experience with the sport that sometimes things go wrong on a stage. We miss a reload, or a step, experience a malfunction, etc. and keep shooting the stage til the finish. I don't think as shooters any of us would stop shooting when a target flopped the way we would if a popper was down. It's kind of like if a target isn't pasted, you put your two in it and leave it up to the RO to decide. The mandatory REF reshoot is for when something goes wrong that is out of the control of the shooter that causes them to be "unable to complete the CoF" or not receive a "fair and equitable" challenge. For this specific instance the shooter shot the target as presented, and completed the CoF as it was. The challenge seemed fair and equitable. The call we made was to score it as shot and after reading through the different opinions, I'm happy with our decision in this instance. For a different target and different circumstances perhaps I'd require a reshoot if the challenge was inequitable or the shooter could not complete the CoF. 4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers. 4.6.2 A competitor who is unable to complete a course of fire due to range equipment failure, or if a metal or moving target was not reset prior to his attempt at a course of fire, must be required to reshoot the course of fire after corrective actions have been taken. Here's a video of the run in question. Due to the course design, from my point of view I can't tell which shot broke the stick. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4664144564188

Haha, I was just re-reading the section and added that to my post the same time you posted. Although the target was "displaced" during the CoF, the competitor was still able to complete it. 4.6.2 makes it seem (contrary to popular belief) that not all REF requires a reshoot, it's only if the competitor cannot complete the CoF due to REF. The more I think about it, I think it should be scored as shot.

So a shooter during a CoF shoots a target stick and snaps it in two. The target, now held up by one stick, is still available but slightly slanted. The shooter engages the target and completes the CoF. The rules: 4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers. 4.6.2 A competitor who is unable to complete a course of fire due to range equipment failure, or if a metal or moving target was not reset prior to his attempt at a course of fire, must be required to reshoot the course of fire after corrective actions have been taken. Should range equipment failure be called and a mandatory reshoot be given? Because the target was still available and the competitor shot it (completing the CoF), should it be scored as shot and just replace the stick for the next shooter, or perhaps give the shooter the option of a reshoot? Pic of actual instance (sorry, low quality).

Not at all. I was hoping some people would go outside the fault lines to get to other positions

So I've had this stage in mind that I finally put to paper. I'm pretty happy with it since its one of the first designs I've come up with where there seems to be lots of ways to shoot it. I really wanted to design a stage that a "gamer" would enjoy. I'd like to get some feedback from the crowd before I propose it to the MD. One concern I had was it's kind of an RO trap when the shooter moves from side to side, but I plan to have enough space between walls so the RO won't get caught. My other concern is 180s shooting around the back fault lines, but the targets are definitively downrange and it would be an egregious error on the shooters part if they break the 180 when they transitions around the wall. So I ask: How would you shoot this stage? Are there any other design issues you see? (other than shoot-throughs which would be addressed during actual set-up)

I had an "evil" short course at the beginning of the month. Best 6 on a drop turner that, at the end, showed a no-shoot. It was hose-able, but you had to reel it in at the end or pay the price. We painted the backs of the targets black hard cover to avoid any confusion. It was quick and people had fun with it. I got 8 shots off and hit it with 7. Best 6 were 5 alpha 1 charlie.

Shooting USA on Outdoor Channel regularly features USPSA matches and other action shooting sports. They did a great feature on USPSA including the different divisions, scoring, and basic stage breakdown.

This is exactly the thought I had reading this thread. Exposing new people to the sport is easy and some will take to it and others will not. I feel like the real way to grow the sport is to have more involvement and support on the admin/set-up side. I see the same 50 shooters come to a match on Sunday to be RO'd by the same 4 guys that set-up on Saturday. To me, shooting a match is only part of the fun. Designing/constructing stages is another fun part of the sport which I've also found improved my execution when it came time to shoot. I view it similar to other major sports where what happens on the field is only a small part of everything that is involved leading up to that point. How many people do you know who watch the NFL draft or talk about trades. I think exposing current shooters to the macro view of the sport would help solidify member retention while maintaining the steady influx of fresh faces could lead to healthy long-term growth. My new question then becomes how can we, as an organization, work to get our existing members interested and more involved in the non-shooting aspects of USPSA to benefit the organization as a whole and keep people involved longer?

This may help. It seems like you're describing two instances of the left scenario. If the only penalties you received in the COF were the 2 no-shoots it should have only been 20 pts pen. Perhaps there were other misses or procedurals?

Since when does anything about our "game" have to do with training for a gunfight? I thought that was the other 4-letter org that is the "real shooting sport". I that was what 'practical' meant? I thought's that what jeff cooper had in mind originally..... My advice if you have any complaints about starting positions or COF's in your local matches is to volunteer to invent (or select from the internet) and set up stages that you like better. Agreed. Not to detract from the point of the thread, but the people who complain about start positions or other stage elements are rarely the ones helping to put on the matches. Personally, I like using "odd" but realistic start positions such as arms crossed, one knee on ground fingers touching shoelaces, strong-hand index finger in nostril, etc. One of our designers loves the Fonzie start with thumbs pointed upward. As long as anyone could reasonably do it, it's all part of the fun. The biggest problem I've found with various start positions is that RO's rarely have the same interpretation of a described position and some squads may end up with a slight advantage. If I use a weird position, I try to find a picture to go along with it to eliminate any questions or misinterpretation.

Ooh that's evil. I like it! I have a feeling people will bitch real hard if they can't start from the top. I love hearing shooters whine when they get thrown a curveball.

It's definitely a scaleable stage design. You could eliminate one of the partitions making 3 areas and not go the full "180" degrees, but maybe 90 or 100. Its mostly about target placement. You'll want to set up your barriers and then move around them to see where the angles land. I tried to put one target on either side as you move past a barrier and at least one in the center. The popper & appearing target concept still forces the desired movement with only 3 areas if you can only see the poppers from the far sides. Post up pics/vid if you give it a try.

I think when I try out this stage I will place a barrel in the hub to prevent little guys from squeezing through the openings. You could make it where the shooting area is inside between the walls. I chose to make it around the walls. I found it makes it more challenging since you not only have to thread the needle between the walls, but you really have to work the angles and keep moving. Thanks to the input in here, I decided to go with 2 appearing targets so that no matter which direction you shot it, you'd have to backtrack for at least one of them. The way I shot it was to run up and get one popper to activate the appearing target and then run it straight through from side to side. The plan was good, but the execution was poor. This stage messed my brain up pretty good while running through it. Took a lot of focus. Also, nobody out of 80 shooters shot the wall. I was very surprised at that. I was expecting swiss cheese. Here's a vid of myself and some squadmates running the course. Here's the final stage design.

Dude, no offense, you are so all over the place on this... An equipment violation either occurred or it didn't. If it did, welcome to open. As we've already clarified it doesn't have to be used to be in violation - it just needs to be violated. 10.2.2 is procedurals on WSB violations and has no bearing on equipment - it's not the same violation, they are two different ones - one is shooting the other is equipment. If you, incorrectly I might add, contend they both apply to this situation, then they both apply and both should happen. It's the ROs responsibility to reset the course of fire CORRECTLY and maintain it that way through to the start signal. Most times, this isn't an issue, but if someone leaves a mag on a table in a situation that does not permit it - the RO should not start the COF until the range is properly restored. Period. Just because the RO doesn't catch it does not mean the run through the course is legitimate, and certainly is not a bump to open. Actually, as of now, you have sent me farther away from your line of thinking, and I'm firmly entrenched in the "this is a reshoot" camp. I have to disagree with the reshoot camp. This situation is the flip-side of an "all ammunition to be used on table" stage. If you're running one of those stages and in the heat of the moment a competitor pulls a mag out of his back pocket, are you gonna make him reshoot it or issue procedural(s) for not complying with the written stage briefing? I'll admit I'm a new RO and not an expert, but I agree that if the stage description doesn't say you can take a mag from the table and you choose to do so, then you aren't complying with the WSB, 5.2.4 is the default and 10.2.2 comes into play. One thought that came to mind while looking through the rulebook is that it seems the RO could issue a procedural for not complying with the WSB under 10.1.1. Section 10.2 are "Specific Examples" which I take to mean that it is not an all inclusive list. Anything a competitor does that is not in compliance with the rules/WSB and not specifically addressed somewhere in the rulebook seems to fall under this category. Thoughts? At worst, the infraction is a violation of 5.2.4 and is a bump to open or shoot the match for no score under 6.2.5.1 at the discretion of the RM. I can't find anything that would warrant a reshoot.

So I know that you could paint a popper any single color you want, but do all the poppers on a stage have to be the same color? For example could there be a set of 3 poppers, one red, one white, and one blue? I'm thinking of getting festive for the 4th. Here's the rule. It seems open to a little interpretation. As long as each target is a single color I can't see anything wrong with it. 4.1.2.2 The entire front of scoring metal targets must be painted a single color, preferably white.