FTDMFR

Whoops, I totally misinterpreted this. Disregard!

Yeah, I think you're right.

Agreed that I misinterpreted the thing about fault lines not being extended. Regarding fault line placement, they removed the rule about aligning the fault line with the first target and replaced it with a rule saying that they must be placed by the MD to promote the IDPA principle of shooting behind cover, and they define cover as having SOME part of the shooter's body behind an object.

Oh crap, I think you're right.

They added this to the stage design section: 6.E. Fault lines used to mark a PoC extend from the end of the physical objects used up range to the stage boundary to accommodate long-cover.

Minimum of 36", but it now has to go all the way back to the stage boundary so that it can still be used if people decide to use long cover.

Fault lines no longer have to be aligned to the first target, and they must be extended all the way back to the stage boundary. Those changes pretty much address all the issues I had with fault lines in the last version.

Wow, they fixed the fault line rules today! No more aligning the fault line to the center of the outermost target (so no more super narrow arrays), and now fault lines have to be physically extended all the way back to the stage boundary.

Let me get this straight. There are standard stage designs and target arrays that were perfectly fine under the old rulebooks that will now be physically impossible to shoot under the new rulebook, regardless of age/physical ability/height/etc. You think this is a good thing? "Fault lines just limit the stage boundary" - This just isn't true. There's a huge difference between fault lines in USPSA and fault lines in IDPA. Fault lines in USPSA don't limit where targets can be placed with respect to a shooting position. Fault lines in IDPA will force targets shot at a position to be placed within a very narrow cone. So before, when a stage could place targets at one position to make you pie a corner by 90, 120, or more degrees, we're now going to have targets spread out at 50 degrees at the very most. So all those stages where you pie a few targets in front of you and then one more in the corner close to the 180? Gone. I don't understand how this is a good thing. As for forcing long distance shots or shots on the move or whatever, we don't need fault lines to do that. We could do all of that under the old rulebooks! As far as I can tell, there are no new target presentations that fault lines (as implemented in the rulebook) will suddenly create. They will only restrict target presentations from what they are today. I don't need to look for problems, buddy. They're standing in front of me clear as day.

I wholeheartedly agree that subjective cover calls are terrible and should be addressed somehow. However, the method they chose removes the subjectivity at the expense of watering down the game, which I don't think is a good trade off. I do think limiting the width of target arrays is pretty bad. It reduces the amount of movement in a sport that is already not that dynamic to begin with (although I guess the new rules about reloading and reengaging on the move could counteract that somewhat). To completely remove subjectivity, I think "can" needs to be changed to "shall". I'm guessing they'll extend the fault lines well enough at nationals and other big matches, but I'm not so sure about club matches. That's exactly why I don't like it. Being able to decide between shooting from near cover vs. far cover based on your skill level is one of the things I like about IDPA. Forcing near cover removes choice from a game that already doesn't provide many opportunities to make a choice. I'm all for fault lines in theory. I think not having subjective cover calls will be great. The problems I have stem from defining a single fault line from the centerline of the outermost target. I don't think it will work well in practice. In some cases, targets will start being placed so close together that it will water down the stage design. In other cases, stage designers will push the boundaries of how wide a target array can be with a single fault line, and it will put shorter and less flexible/mobile shooters at a disadvantage. Maybe it would work better if they somehow split the difference in a target array and drew the fault line from there instead. Or maybe allow multiple fault lines at one position - not a bazillion fault lines spread out like a fan, but maybe just two. One fault line for the first half of an array and another fault line for the second half. Or leave it up to the stage designer's discretion how to break it up based on how far the targets are spread out. It will be interesting to see how the fault lines are received. For casual shooters at local clubs that play fast and loose with calling cover who have never had to deal with subjective cover calls to begin with, I think it's going to be a pretty rude awakening.

It's not just that though. Since the fault line is aligned with the outermost target, it's going to force target arrays to be narrower. Or to put it another way, the cover requirement gets tighter and tighter as you shoot outside in. Before, to shoot a wide inner target, you could shift your feet and still be 50% behind cover, but now, that same target could force you to be 75% or more behind cover! Just eyeballing that example picture in the rulebook, I don't think I could physically shoot the innermost target without going over the fault line, unless I crowded the shit out of cover, stuck my arms past the wall, and scrunched my feet together. So not only does the fault line (as implemented) not do what it's supposed to do, it creates additional, significant problems. I agree that there are several new rules that are great, but cover is such an integral part of this sport, and I think the new rulebook worsens how cover is used.

And, the fault line includes an invisible line that extends back from the physical fault line to the stage boundary. Which completely defeats the purpose of using fault lines to begin with!

30 minutes of tumbling with just Dawn and Lemishine is still cleaner than factory. YMMV.

I had the same issue when I started wet tumbling. It got so bad that the hassle of getting the galled brass off of my powder die wasn't worth the extra clean cases. I stopped using the pins when wet tumbling (just Dawn and Lemishine) and the problem went away, and the cases are still clean enough for my liking.

http://www.wilsoncombat.com/2015-protector-compact/ Just so happens to come in at 5.1".

Here's how: http://www.wilsoncombat.com/ar9-carbine/

Pretty much this. It's a combination of tracking the sights better, knowing what kind of sight picture you can get away with for a given target presentation, and having good enough trigger control so that you can break the shot as soon and as fast as possible without disturbing the sight picture. When I stop thinking about speed and just watch the sights, even though it feels slower at the time, I end up shooting faster AND more accurately than when I just shoot for splits and hope the hits are there. For example, on stage 13 at the Western, before the beep, I just stared at the first plate and visualized my sight picture over it, and then watched my sights as I shot without rushing. It felt SUPER slow, and I was expecting the time to be more in the 13-14 range.

I lock my weak hand elbow, shrug my shoulder into my cheek, and cant the gun 45deg to get the sights in front of my dominant eye. What really helped me to manage recoil and shoot faster was to reduce how much finger I was putting on the trigger. Before, I would use way too much finger, which would rotate the gun outwards with respect to my forearm. Using less trigger finger and aligning the gun to my forearm helped manage recoil and track the sights much better. To start, I'd work on trigger control a ton in dry fire (set a timer on random start, and on the beep, press the trigger as fast as you can without disturbing the sight picture), then practice (from low ready) singles, pairs, Bill Drills, and Blake Drills from 3-7 yards in live fire.

My M&P started ejecting brass straight up and back when my recoil spring was shot. It definitely would have smacked my red dot if there had been one.

Same here. I don't even use soap anymore.

Agreed. I should have said "not great hits" instead of "misses". I still want to see what's happening when working on speed. I just let points take a back seat to time.

I started making big gains in speed when I accepted the fact that becoming faster is an ugly, messy process that involves shooting way more misses than I had been previously comfortable with.

+1 on the stretches I started getting some bad tennis elbow on my support side last year. The stretches got rid of it in a month or so.

The anodization might be too thick on either the basepads or your mags. You might need to sand a little bit of material off the bottom of your mag lips.

For walls, painter's tape. For standing them upright on a desk or table or something, I bought some cheap metal bookends from Amazon and tape the targets to those.