teros135

Yes, "failure to shoot at" is the wording in 9.5.7 and 10.2.7. We also see "Failure to Engage" in the Index (under Procedural Penalties), which points at 10.2.7. They seem to be functionally equivalent, and everybody seems to know what they mean. FTS = FTE, basically. (No intention to get into unending arguments about inconsistencies in the rule book; perhaps this is one that will be adjusted eventually.)

Here's a parallel example that will hopefully clarify what should happen. See what y'all think. (1) Same classifier, six targets, one shot each - reload - one shot each, Virginia count, same WSB. Shooter fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), reloads, fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), then fires an extra round at T6. There are two holes in T1-T5 and 3 holes in T6. Under the rules, how would you score/penalize this? I'd score T6 as shot and call an extra shot at T6 (on the last pass) and an extra hit on T6 - two penalties, if I understand 9.4.5.1 and 9.4.5.2 correctly, per the Virginia count rules. Do we agree on this? (2) Now take the example to the current debated stage. Shooter fires 5 rounds at T1-T5 and doesn't shoot at T6, reloads, and fires 6 rounds at T1-T6 (one round each), then fires an extra round at T6. There are 2 holes in each of the six targets. How do you score/penalize this? Rationale: It seems the same as the hypothetical example under (1) above, dynamically. T6 should only have one hit, because by the WSB you can't do a "make-up" shot after the reload (which is what our competitor did). The WSB only allows one shot in each pass, one before and one after the reload. You can't determine which of the two hits is the second (extra/illegal) hit, so you score both and assess the same penalties as in (1) above. You can't score a M from the first pass (where he didn't engage it) because he hit it both times on the second pass (and if he didn't, you can't tell if the missing hole was from shot #6 (legit) or #7 (illegal) on the 2nd string. Does that work?

There have been a lot of discussions about "intent", most of which end up saying it doesn't matter what the "intent" of the shooter or stage designer was (because we can't know that) - what matters is what they did. The shooter did engage T1-T5, didn't engage T6, then performed a reload and engaged T1-T6, then added a second shot at T6. His overall attempt seems to satisfy the WSB; however, he did neglect to engage T6 on the first pass (shooting it was required by the WSB) and he did fire two shots at T6 on the second pass (extra shot). So, looking at what he did do, I'd still recommend a procedural for not following the WSB by not shooting at T6 on the first pass, a procedural for the extra shot at T6 on the second pass, and a procedural for a second hit on T6 (if there was one). Both hits on T6 (if present) would be scored; the "hit' procedural makes it irrelevant which round was the extra hit. Isn't this fun?!

But he did fire an extra shot at T6. The WSB says "Upon start signal, turn, then draw and from Box A engage T1-T6 with only one round per target, then make a mandatory reload and from Box A engage T1-T6 with only one round per target." In this classifier, which is Virginia Count, you only get that one round before the reload and one round after it - hit or miss - and you don't get "make-ups" from when you forgot to engage during the first string, before the mandatory reload. That's the whole point of Virginia Count (as in CM 06-03, Can You Count). He also didn't engage T6 the first time around (he forgot - geez, I do that regularly when I have a malfunction), and that would seem to be a FTE. He didn't shoot at it when he was supposed to. I know, I know, the FTE or "failure to shoot at" text says "in a course of fire", but he clearly neglected the WSB instruction to "engage T1-T6 with only only one round per target". So I guess that would be a procedural for not following the WSB instead of a FTE. Either way, what was done violates the instructions for the classifier. (No dig at the shooter - we've all had those brain farts! I recently went past a popper that was right next to a paper target - duh!. It wasn't a regulation shape popper (it was Level 1) but the darn thing was right there...)

That works, and it has the advantage of making the gun more vertical and not pointed into your knee. That always made me nervous.

Hmmmm. Let's try this: One FTE for not firing at the target during the first "string" before the reload (9.5.7, scored "at the firing line"). Then he reloaded and engaged T1-T6 again, as per WSB. But he also added an extra shot at T6, which is scored as 1 procedural (extra shots, 9.4.5.1, scored at the firing line). T6 "should" have only 1 hit but may have 2. Score the hits as they are, and also add 1 procedural for the extra hit (extra hits, 9.4.5.2, scored "at the target"). It doesn't matter which is the extra hit; the penalty takes care of that. In COFs like this, folks here generally do a reload to finish the first "string" (so just one shot out of that mag at T6, to finish the first part of the WSB requirement), then perform the normal "mandatory reload" and engage T1-T6 again. Of course, it costs time and blows the classifier, but you have to do what you have to do to finish the stage.

Well, they told us this was going to be fun. Nobody said it was going to be simple, though!

I KNOW that's what he meant! Gotcha. This English language has so many twists and turns (...like Desi said to Lucy when he was studying English, "how come you say "e-nuff" [enough] but you don't say "buff" [bough]?"

Not necessarily -- though that's likely...... There could have been a disappearing target..... Someone could have engaged two targets with a single round..... Well, actually not. All targets (and range props except target sticks) are "impenetrable". If you hit one target the bullet effectively "disappears", and any holes in other targets (or hits on steel) don't count. (If it's steel it's a Range Equipment Failure...)

Agreed. We're not doing the newbies a "favor" by helping them learn the wrong rules, not just for scoring but for safety. We'll end up with them being more unhappy later when we suddenly decide that they're here to stay and start enforcing the real rules. Or they go to another club or a Major and get hit with a whole bunch of surprises. We should teach them, coach them, mentor them - and have them read the rule book!

Watch out for the Blade Tech DOH holsters, though. The heel of the butt of the gun may be above the belt, but the inner side of the grip has to be within 2" of the inner side of the belt (all Divisions) and the Blade Tech is said to hold the gun out way farther than that. I bought a Boss holster hanger to correct that, and a friend just got one for the same reason.

I shoot Production, Limited, and Lim10. Aging eyes (and everything else ) and spectacles adapted to the distance of the sights. Not complaining, it is what it is. Looks like the argument of whether it's Just For Fun vs. To Be Competitive keeps going back and forth. If it's about fun, what's the diff? If it's about competition,I still think PO would end up having the same hierarchy of skill we see in every Division, and when a couple of GMs classify in PO everybody will end up being pretty much where they are in classification. In Open, the "PO" folks will own their own level and can have bragging rights vs the other PO folks. And they can use all the gun mods they want, with much less restriction than Prod (including the hicaps that came with the gun, plus magwells, lightened slides, etc.).

Who carries (i.e., trusts their life) something that needs to be turned on and adjusted before it can be shot? Come on, now! The "they just want to shoot what they carry" argument is just that, an argument. For Production, leave it alone. For optics, that's for Open. All the argument about bringing the "young people who are used to video games" into USPSA is a frightening thought - video gamers are used to shooting at representations of real people and seeing blood fly. That's not us! And the whole thing about "you're going to lose everyone some day because they can't have their Prod Optics gun" is just another argument. We can't possibly be naive enough to believe that we're going to become Big Winners because we have a gun with a red dot, can we? Because in any Division the good shooters are still going to trounce the weaker ones (i.e., classes are still classes), and people are going to keep joining USPSA because it's a whole lot of fun. Almost any gun you bring, there's a Division for it. Come one, come all!

Well, it doesn't sound like he does. For myself, I'd say it doesn't. I don't think anybody here wants USPSA destroyed. Have a good day!

<snip> maybe we need clarification on when the stage of fire starts, at the "load and make ready" command or after the "buzzer" in these types of situations. In my opinion at the load a make ready command you are under the SO/RO control and must perform all acts safely and after the buzzer you can have your mags/equipment where ever you want as long as you don't use a mag from an illegal (for lack of a better term) position. The rules clearly tell us that the Course of Fire begins with the "Make Ready" command and ends with "Range is Clear". Also, it's clear that equipment (including mags) must be where the rules say it is to be, for that Division. In Prod and SS, all equipment behind the hip bones (mag holder is equipment, yes?) and mags in designated holders or pockets that are behind the hip bones. The rules are pretty easy, once they're understood. (Okay, unless we don't agree with them or want to argue "intention" or the meanings of words!)

Yes, "finger control" is the ultimate safety. The equipment, however, contributes to the potential for AD. John Browning's 1911 design has a tradition sear. The hammer is fully cocked, and all it takes is a pretty short press of the trigger to release it. They're often adjusted to have only a very short pretravel, and the pull weight is often around 2 to 2-1/2 pounds. The sear can be released by dropping the gun. 1911's are usually holstered "cocked and locked" (safety on) for all these reasons. Gaston Glock's design, on the other hand, has a striker instead of a hammer. When you run the slide, it pulls the the striker backward against the striker spring, but only part way, not enough to set off a round. What you're doing when pulling the trigger is pulling the striker the rest of the way back, increasing the spring tension, until it releases and moves forward against the primer. That cocking of the striker is where a lot of the trigger movement is coming from, and it's both more trigger movement and more trigger pull than the 1911 (at least in stock guns - the pull weight can be lessened, but it'll never be as sharp or light as a 1911 can be). There's also the trigger safety, which has to be pressed before the trigger can move backward, and two internal safeties that won't let the striker fall if the gun is dropped without the trigger being activated. Hence the term "safe-action" from Glock. Okay, more than y'all wanted to know, but it's fun learning about our toys...

I'm will Bill. We're not perfect, but we're a pretty darn good group of people who, together, are running a really fun, collegial, and safe sport that makes so many of our lives much better. We should all volunteer to help where we can, speak up when something needs to be changed, ask questions, and support each other in our efforts to constantly evolve the sport. There will be some tough times, but we'll work together to move through them. Lots of matches this weekend - let's go support the sport!

A quick additional thought. When you holster at LAMR, don't you put the gun safety ON (engage it) and turn the holster retention lever OFF (disengage it) - so you can draw the gun at the sound of the Start buzzer? Why would he have "engaged" the holster's retention lock? Yeah, it's what we think it is...

Comments above, in blue. Thanks, Mildot, for offering this example. We're all wanting to do the right thing, and sometimes we go overboard on giving the shooter a break. I agree that this was a grand game of "BS", and he settled it early on by admitting that he had just engaged the safety - AND that he'd been allowed to do it at 5 previous matches. He didn't come back and argue semantics until he talked to his friends. By that time, it's over, and we've all moved on. Sounds like he has a bad habit, and you were quick enough to catch it. A good lesson for all of us. Thanks.

That would seem to be the Open division. A.3.1: "All legal firearms are allowed. Optics, Compensators, and any safe holster/position are specifically allowed." <snip> KC has a Glock frame, not a Glock Slide, not a Glock Trigger, has a magwell... None of that would be legal in the proposed Production Optics Division. That's not the point of the quoted post. Skydiver said there is a division in Steel Challenge in which optics is popular. That's Open. Each of us would shoot what we bring. If it has optics, that's Open. We're competitive at the level of our skill, and most of us aren't going to be competing at GM level. Equipment isn't going to take us there. If we're "C Open", we compete against people in C, until we improve. Perhaps when we get to M or GM then equipment may be more of an issue, but it seems counterproductive to tell everyone they can't be "competitive" in Open without a super-expensive race gun.

We all have the choice of what equipment to use. Locally, we have several LE folks who use their duty rigs, and one in particular is blazing fast getting the gun out of a level-3 retention holster. Want to go faster, we can bring a different holster. The bottom line either way is safety, of course.

That would seem to be the Open division. A.3.1: "All legal firearms are allowed. Optics, Compensators, and any safe holster/position are specifically allowed." There's also Limited, Production, IPSC Production, Single Stack, Revolver, and Rimfire Open (comps and optics) and Rimfire Iron Sights, per the 2013 (current) SCSA rule book. There doesn't seem to be an "optics" division. So I guess everyone with optics shoots Open. Heck, K.C. Eusebio won the 2013 European Steel Challenge with a Glock Open gun recently, didn't he? (They say it's more the guy than the gear...)

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG THING TO DO.A safety violation is a DQ whether you are new or have been shooting 30 years...doing what you describe not only does the shooter an injustice, it violates USPSA rules, and sets a precedent for any other safety violation being ignored. Agreed, and agreed again. I can't figure out why it would somehow be different for someone to be shot by a newbie instead of an old timer. Or by a C/D shooter vs a GM. Or a brand new Production gun vs an Open race gun. Or by a senior vs a teenager. It doesn't matter who's holding the gun. It still hurts. It's about safety, and it doesn't matter who made the mistake. We're trying to keep up a really good safety record, and we can't do that by making people happy by allowing them to make the most basic safety mistakes. Shot is shot, and I don't want any of us to be the one who has to explain it - or live with it. The worst thing about letting newbies have breaks on the rules - just to keep 'em coming back - is that they learn the bad habit and don't really have to correct it. Yes, they'll say they "get" it, but watch them do it again, because there wasn't a solid lesson there. We all learn, and most people will come back.

Regarding vision, here's a thought for the (other) old-timers out there. Use a fiber optic front sight (small, like a Warren-Sevigney, not huge) and wear a pair of inexpensivo WalMart readers (+1.0 or +1.25 power), which will improve the visibility of the sights and still allow you to see the target. The small, bright optic is really easy to pick up, especially if it's red. If you need better distance vision to check a farther target, tilt your head and look over the glasses. If you wear eyeglasses, you're probably looking through the "distance" part (the top half) anyway, and adding the +1.0s would have the same effect. The amount of correction in the readers will depend on what your distance prescription is.

As others have noted, this thread seems to have diverged into several different trains of thought. I'd like to add my thoughts to the one about what to do about state law and mag capacity. If it's a violation of a particular state's law to possess a mag with more than x (10, 7, whatever) capacity, then we shouldn't have them with us. A person could make a mistake and bring hicaps to an out of state match, but we're not supposed to be cops. However, them having one could get them arrested, or someone with a badge could notice, or whatever, which could get publicity and feed the "antis"...and thus bring disrepute to the sport. So yes, we're not cops (except those who actually are), but why not have a quiet discussion with the competitor and give them a heads-up about the law. If they're LE and have a legal right to the hicap, they'll probably say so. If they're a straightforward USPSA'er, they'll probably put them away and find or borrow a legal substitute. But if they say "screw the law, I'm using what I brought", they're also saying "screw USPSA", and that's a problem. That last response may be few and far between, but I'd personally be uncomfortable with someone around with the illegal mags, and it could end up with uncomfortable legal problems for the club and the match. That last person should probably go home that day and think about it some more. Would that solve the problem? The rest of it (starting with 11 in a 10-max division, etc.) is dealt with in the rules, as noted by many folks above. It's the rule, and we don't have to try and figure out intent. You made a mistake, will learn from it, and can have fun learning from your new friends in Open, at least for the day.