IHAVEGAS

That one is kind of interesting. I don't see anything in the 8.1 section rules or the definitions that specifies whether half cocked is treated as cocked or as hammer down so I suppose somebody could see this as a dq under 10.5.11.2 . For production guns appendix D4 "special conditions 1" sez "Manually decocking to the half-cocked position is not allowed and will result in the competitor being moved to open division" so I reckon that is that. For limited there is not any special condition under D2/D3 so I guess the assumption you would make is to treat them the same as production guns - no dq, welcome to open.

The 2's look nicer and I think are a fine gun, but the original shadows (sp01) point naturally for me, from the draw with the 2 I was duck hunting.

Sometimes choosing the easy way for a few instead of the best way for the many is the hardest way for all. How long does it take to write an addendum? Agree with avoiding the new book expense.

I'd see that as coaching and if the competitor was unhappy with his move to open I would point him to the 8.1 example of starting with an empty chamber due to a mental error "the competitor is always responsible for the handling of the firearm". If it was a local match and nobody really cared about scores then I can't see where it would make much difference either way. When people do care about scores and placements then you can't give one person a break without hurting the people they are competing with, and you can get into a righteous mess negotiating between the break you gave one person and the different break you didn't give another. Just opinion.

Thank you for that correction, sold my Shadow 2 and did not remember that difference.

It is not the way USPSA works sometimes. As a lifelong engineer who has dealt with much more complicated situations than a shooting match and much thicker "rule books" my observation is that much of the rules grief is self induced due to an unclear book that no one is attempting to continuously improve. Your legal example is valid, when things are left unclear debate is created.

Serious question, why should anybody care about somebody else's philosophy? If it ain't writ it don't mean s#!t (should have been a poet).

That is an easy dq call for me, flat out dangerous. That is how my r.o. instructor told the class to do it, and the only path I can see to consistency. Would like to see many of the NROI survey write ups end with "and this is what we changed to eliminate the confusion" .

My experience exactly. For majors I would add a 5th to the belt just for the once in a blue moon need, for locals their is enough junk weighting my pants down already without adding a mag & ammo I do not need.

Leatham was/is an unusually gifted natural athlete who was looking at a basketball scholarship prior to injuring his knee. It would be nice if everyone had a high i.q. and excellent vision-reflexes-general health etc but it is just a fact that most of us do not have the God given abilities to compete with Einstein or Micheal Jordan or TGO. If God built you to be a jockey but you think you can be a great NBA center or rocket scientist you will just make yourself miserable. Not implying that many can not compete well if they work hard at it.

I'm not sure there are any limits anymore as long as you have the political connections.

When the point is something outside of just having fun with good friends: 1. Those with good vision/health/reflexes/drive make it to gm, and spend a lot of time and money doing it. The "I'm getting better and this is fun" stage. 2. 90+% (guess based on observation) get burned out with all of the time/money involved to maintain their level of performance & either quit or adjust their goals more towards that of a casual shooter. For what it is worth. The biggest shooting challenge seems to be keeping shooting fun and worth the money and effort in the long term.

I would probably fix that first.

Unless the calibration shooter gets an edge hit . . . . .

I agree with you 100%, the rules don't tell you if a popper should always fall with a hit in the scoring zone and legal ammo. 'Taking a position' if you prefer.

Maybe it is more correct to say that you are defending your opinion of how the rules are supposed to be interpreted. Again, if it says anywhere official that a hit in the calibration zone with match legal ammo should not drop poppers 100% of the time then that is great. Else, if we are going by opinions there will never be consistency.

Not trolling. I just think that IMHO does not matter - regardless of whose opinion it is. "Rules, without them we live as animals"

If the rules clearly state that a hit in the calibration zone with match legal ammunition should not drop a popper 100% of the time, I just flat can't find it.

I guess I am not part of 'everyone'. In my opinion if you hit the target anywhere in the calibration zone with legal ammo then you have done your job and should always get your 5 points. I have no problem at all with your opinion of how things should be, if they ever make it clear in the rules that your opinion (or mine) is the right one I think the dispute would die.

Failed to activate, or pushed too hard and bound the mag? It can be hard to tell exactly what happened after the fact. With match adrenaline I had issues with the latter, bending the spring so you can only push the release so far was the fix for me.

Side issue, just a curiosity. The person who wrote the referenced article was the instructor when I took the r.o. class. When I came into the class I brought a couple questions with me that did not have a clear answer from my reading of the rules (dremeling maxwells on production guns prior to the production rules being revised was one of the questions, forgot the other one). The instructor/author read the book the way I did and gave the answers I would have come to on my own. Later on Troy got involved and the instructors answers were said to be wrong. So, what I am wondering, are these "insights" articles to be taken as the gospel when they are not written by the head cheese? Perhaps they are approved by him prior to publishing?

Unfair is when wind gusts are blowing the other way . . . . .

Not sure that question is being addressed. When I have the timer my opinion/philosophy/etc does not mean dee diddly squat - any call needs to be justifiable by opening the rule book. Even in the shooting sports we use common sense when we have to

My first XD is a 40 cal 4", it might be the last pistol I would sell. That gun came with a test target in the box just like CZ's do. I was so happy with the 4" that I ended up getting a later manufacture 5" in 40 and 9 and eventually an Xdm 9 when the 5" XDs disappointed. Only the first XD came with the test target and only the first XD was anything special or what I would consider accurate enough to make me happy for IDPA and USPSA (40 loaded to 145 pf is just fun), so I've wondered if manufacturing tolerances or other aspects of quality control have cheapened over time. My Xdm 9 still shows up at matches in another shooters hands (he is either production M or GM now) and he beats me like a red headed step child. Great gun, if I was smarter I would have never moved on from it. IDPA changed their rules making the 4" XD illegal for CCP division (0.25" too tall - Glock was where the money was), so I quit paying IDPA dues.

That it doesn't take a $1500 TSO or the like for a shooter to make it to GM or belong on the super squad (ref. Bob Vogel for example) . Some of the everyday shooter priced plastic fantastics are flat out great guns.