rubberneck
-
Posts
476 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by rubberneck
-
-
What was wrong with the stage?
Must've been a really good one if the attorneys made him change it!
I don't remember the specifics. I do recall him being really upset about it during his walk through. Since I only shot the stage as it was I have no idea what it would have been like if it was left as is.
-
They must not have a COF yet.
I hope the S&W attorneys don't demand changes on several stages like they did last year. One stage designer, who shall remain nameless, was beside himself last year because the legal beagles neutered a stage he was quite proud of.
-
Other than the trigger the biggest drawback to using the Hi-Power in L-1o is the magwell. The squared magwell leaves no room for error and there isn't enough material to really bevel the opening. If you are off by just a hair your reload is going to be all screwed up.
-
Having electronic voting does not guarantee any wider participation in the process since the bottom line appears to be that those who are active in the sport vote and those who are not active do not.
Don't you mean that those who are active in the sport, and received their second ballot, voted. I would have loved to have voted.....
-
My understanding is the voting procedure is specified by the by-laws. So, in order to vote via computer, etc would require a change to the by-laws. I do think that the number of "Did not receive a ballot" responses needs to be tallied and the CPA asked why they failed to properly execute the contract to that %.
I think the 20th century approach to the 21st century is something that should be addressed even if it requires a change in the by-laws. I got the first ballot but tossed it when the problems came up and waited for the second ballot. It never came. I don't feel particularly disenfranchised but this whole process was handled very poorly by the CPA firm and I am guessing there are a lot of people who are bothered by it.
-
In this day and age why do we have to rely on paper and snail mail to vote? What is the objection to allowing members to vote online? Those without o-line access could request a paper ballot sort of like an absentee ballot.
-
Well, I blew it! I was shooting my first IDPA classifier yesterday(shooting CDP) and was well on my way to a mid to high sharpshooter classification and blew stage 3.
I was at 75 seconds after stage 2. All I had to do was get my hits. I think I shot defensively not to lose instead of shooting to win. Bottom Line.......
Stage 3 I had a couple of misses, lots of -3 & -1's and shot 77.31second 3rd stage to classify as Marksman.
In practice I have shot stage three in the upper 40's. Talk about a meltdown
I'm trying to learn some lessons from this.
Anyone else have a similar experience.
Don't let anyone kid you. The first two stages are nothing more than a warm up for the real classifier. In all my years of shooting IDPA I have never seen a shooter burn down the third stage while screwing up one of the first two.
-
Is dumping a round intentionally really any different than purposely down loading your first mag by a round to ensure a slide lock at a specific point in the COF? As far as I am concerned they are the same thing. I suppose the shooter could always claim that it was a simple mental error and they were unaware of the fact that their gun only had 9+1 instead of 10+1 but it nets the same result. Downloading your mag is obvious but if knowing the shooters intent is the standard for applying the FTDR than it will never be applied.
-
The guy shot on our squad (18) I think his name was James Jones, very nice, shot well, pleasant wife, from VA also CA. I gather he trains dogs at a high level, he said he had some type of national champ dog recently die of cancer. Mathew you talked to him more, any thing else?
You are right Len. Nice guy, nice wife, cool motor home. IIRC he was a factory sponsored USPSA shooter for EAA back in the 80's but gave up shooting for the past 18 years and just recently got back into the sport. He came in second by 8 seconds but had some issues with his gun feeding properly on several stages. If his gun runs 100% he probably wins.
-
Here is a picture of the target where round dumping occurred. The target is 12 feet from the shooter.... kr
Is that the stage at the nationals that got the girl her FTDR?
Yes.
A stage that required the shooter to either make a RWR or Tac-Load and have an empty magazine with one round left in the chamber?The stage required no such thing. The shooter could have moved to P4 engaged T7 with one round, performed a slide lock reload and re-engaged T7 with the second of two required rounds before moving to P5 and engaging T8. Throwing a third shot at T6 meant an early slidelock and eliminated the need to perform a reload and re-engagement of a target.
A stage that headquarters urges the course designer to avoid setting up on pg. 50 of the rule book?No, that is incorrect, as the stage did not call for a tac reload or a reload with retention. The shooter could have elected to do so but he/she was under no obligation to perform one before leaving P3.
So was the shooter wrong.......or the course designer?The shooter.
In my opinion.......there are several aspects of the current rulebook that need revision.I think anyone who has ever participated in a sanctioned sport has had issues with some of the rules of that sport. On that front you aren't alone. Instead of insisting that the sport yield to your point of view, you can do what I do, and that is to accept the flaws in the rule book and still enjoy the sport.
-
One of the clubs here got a Newbold Popper for indoor shooting. It is not very consistent, either it sags back and won't stand, or it is "hard set" and a slick smallbore roundnose won't always knock it down. OK for restricted conditions, but I would not count on it for a major match.
I wouldn't count on the big Newbolds at a major match as they do tend to sag when they have been shot a lot. The Newbolds shot at Nationals were the 8 inch round ones, and they changed them in between morning and afternoon squads before the got shoot up that much. I was shooting 115 grain factory ammo and every Newbold I engaged went down quickly with a single hit. I don't recall anyone in my squad having a problem or complaint with them during the match. If they did, I wasn't in ear shot when they brought it up. It is interesting to hear that people had problems with them. For us they were a non factor provided that you hit them.
-
I thought that was one of the coolest stages at the match. I just wish I could get Ken Reed to make those targets for our club. It doesn't matter to me what shape the steel is just as long as it presents a test of the shooters skill. In this case it clearly did. The good shooters knocked them down quickly. The less skilled shooters paid for their inaccuracy.
-
The differences is that when you get dinged in USPSA, you do so because you did something wrong - same as if somebody else would do the same thing, not because you also play IDPA. In IDPA, there are SOs who go out of their way to try and ding people who were USPSA shooters. FTDR is just the perfect excuse for them to do use because of it being very subjective. Just because I did something different, yet within the rules, but faster, the SO feels that I am a gamer and can assess the FTDR penalty. It happens...alot.
Really, so the 8 procedurals I took at a match last year for supposedly having my toes touching the ground outside the shooters box wasn't a subjective call. After all the ball of my foot was on the wood part of the box and only an inch of my foot was extended outside of the box. The only way he could have been 100% sure was if he was laying on the ground looking to see if it touched, which is impossible to do when his major responsbility was to watch my gun. Nope that was totally black and white. No chance that the SO got that one wrong.
I suppose no shooter has ever been disqualified at a major USPSA match because the SO claimed the shooter broke the 180. I suppose the guys DQ'd because the SO claimed that they put a shot over the berm weren't subject to a judgment call that may or may not have been correct. After all, only the shooter knows what his sight picture looked like when he broke the shot. I am sure the guys who have been dq'd because the SO thought they had an AD in between two targets weren't subject to a judgment call.
I see where you are coming from. USPSA SO's never exercise their judgment when assigning penalties far stiffer than a FTDR at a major match. Nope no judgment has ever been required when DQ'ing someone at a USPSA match and in every one of those cases the SO was obviously 100% correct. They never make errors.
I am curious, how many IDPA matches you shoot annually? You seem to be very outspoken about your feelings towards IDPA. Isn't only fair that we know what your background is regarding your participation in the sport you seem to have strong feelings for?
-
I don't care what rules they have other than ones that pertain to safety. If it's muddy and/or slippery it's foolish to prohibit something that would make a COF safer for all involved. I'm not looking down at IDPA either... I figure if someone picks up a gun, I'm all with that whether it be a pistol shotgun or a long gun. My primary concern is that rules do not prohibit something that would increase the safety factor. IMHO this rule could do that in certain situations.
20 years ago you would have had a point but you don't today. There are enough manufacturers of trail type shoes with really aggressive tread patterns that are the equal of cleats and a suitable for all day wear. I have shot in all sorts of foul weather and run flat on wet grass and mud. I have never once slipped wearing either a pair or Merrill's or the pair of North Face trails shoes I wear now. This is nothing more than people making a mountain out of a mole hill. You can safely shoot this sport in all sorts of conditions wearing a good pair of trail shoes. There is no need whatsoever to wear football cleats. Somehow that doesn't stop people from bringing it up.
-
Further on the subject of knee pads.
I have a friend that shot the recent nationals. He has VERY bad knees. He usually wears a spandex/stretchy brace on both knees when shooting. (Keep in mind, this is a GAME) so that his knees don't fail him. He shot this match wearing on ly one on his worst knee as he was concerned that the SOs would gig him for "Competition Gear" or visible knee pads.
This is BS. Does he always wear his braces? No, he does not. Why? because ion the couirse of a normal day he doesn't run thru 10 courses of fire, he walks around like most of us do. What would happen if the SHTF? He would react and worry about his knees later. The big difference being that he prize in Real Life is LIFE, in IDPA the prize is a little piece of wood with a few words scratched into a brass plate.
If IDPA wants to be for real tactical training, then lets play using "Simunitions" equipment and shoot at each other, sort of like Paint Ball. Now we can really call cover vs concealment if we change the walls to paper.
Until then it is just a game. If we did that it would still be a game. Keep in mind it has RULES. Real life confrontations have only two rules. Rule #1: There are no rules. Rule #2 Cheat
Jim
IDPA is a sport and like all sports IDPA has rules. Every time a sport draws a line in the sand someone always comes along and complains why the line has to be in that particular spot. 9 times out of 10 the person complaining does so becuase it doesn't suit him personally. IDPA and USPSA for that matter, can't be all things to all people no matter how much you think it should be.
If your friend had taken a second to read the rule book he would have realized that there is only a prohibition on hard knee pads. Soft knee pads are allowable if a competitor has a need for them just as long as they are covered by clothing. If he hwas unsure of the legality of wearing knee braces he should have asked the match director for a ruling before hand. I saw plenty of guys wearing two knee braces. Not one of them was giged for it. It is amazing how flexible match officials can be when you take the time to open your mouth and ask instead of just assuming you can't.
The real problem is that there are too many people holding court on the shortcomings of the IDPA rulebook when they really don't have a clue about the rules and the rationale behind them.
-
It's funny how every year right after IDPA nationals we read the same bill of complaints against the sport, usually from guys that very rarely shoot the sport. I have been on the wrong end of some bush league calls in USPSA. Somehow I find a way to get past it and still enjoy the sport.
-
... If we want to stop the dumping we need to have a rule that states you can only make up shots after meeting the requirements of the COF.
In my opinion that doesn't work, you are essentially eliminating Vickers count scenarios.
Not to mention that it becomes a safety issue when there are often targets up range of you when you complete the COF.
-
And as long as we keep limiting ourselves to a specific capacity they can say "See they even agree that they don't need more than 10 rounds in a magazine."
We are our own worse enemy.
I am sure that the anti gun forces in this country are intimately aware of the rules regarding mag capacity in IDPA.
Since Bullseye shooters step to the line with even less than we do, should we ask them to either stop shooting or go strictly to high caps to protect our sport? While we are at I think we should we force revolver shooters from our game. We wouldn't want the anti's to think that there is no need for auto loaders when a 6 round revolver can compete. -
-
Just because a stage is a Vickers count stage it doesn't automatically exempt the assessment of a penalty for round dumping. The two can and should co-exist.
Every single sport that I can think off calls on it's rules officials to exercise their judgment in making calls during the course of an event. This notion that an official making a judgment call in IDPA is completely unfair must be unique to IDPA in the sporting world.
If you don't think it is your place as an official to use your best judgment and experience to assign a penalty as called for in the rule book than you might want to rethink being an SO. What is the point of having a rule book when an official will tell you flat out that he will never ever enforce one of the rules under any circumstances.
Really? the definition of "VICKERS COUNT STAGES" is simple and I quote from the rule book:
In Vickers Count scoring, as many shots as desired may be fired, but only the best hits as specified by the course description will be scored.
Let's now check the good old dictionary for the definition of "DESIRED"
de·sire
de·sire [di zr]
vt (past and past participle de·sired, present participle de·sir·ing, 3rd person present singular de·sires)
1. wish for something: to want something very strongly
2. find somebody sexually attractive: to want to have sexual relations with somebody
3. request something: to wish for and request something (formal)
n (plural de·sires)
1. craving: a wish, craving, or longing for something
2. something wished for: something that or somebody who is wished for (formal)
3. sexual craving: a strong wish for sexual relations with somebody
[13th century. Via French désirer < Latin desiderare ]
-de·sir·er, , n
Word Key: Synonyms
See want.
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Additionaly in ALL other sports that I am aware of there is not a "duality or conflict" within the rule set when the application of penatiles is accessed by officials making a judgment call.
If you are going to be a smart alec you might as well look up the words caveat and exception while you are at it.
You can take as many shots as you like, except when you dump a round with the express purpose of causing a premature slide lock. The two can co-exist even if you don't like it or refuse to acknowledge it.
Just because the rulebook says you can take as many shots as you like during a COF doesn't mean that they can't list exceptions to that rule, and round dumping is quite clearly an exception to a Vickers count stage. I don't understand why that is so hard to fathom. Sort of like in USPSA where everything is supposed to be shot freestyle, except where otherwise noted.
-
God, I hope they don't add another division. I don't see the point of having a high cap division. IMHO it doesn't add anything of value to the sport, while at the same time it marginalizes the valuable skill of reloading on 80% of IDPA stages. If they do add one I would prefer that they recognize, true compact carry guns, with barrels 3.5 inches and shorter.
I believe it would add a little bit of realism to the stage since it's supposed to be "Defense of Life" situational stages. I carry an M&P compact with 13 rounds or a full size with 19 rounds (All my 17 round mags hold 18). I never "Down load" my mags for defensive carry so why would I want to "Down load" them to practice defensive use?
Using your logic if I carry a Wilson Carry comp should I be allowed to use it in CDP? I am sure someone out there carries a gun with a Doctor sight on it or a SVI wide body with a giant magwell and tungsten guide rod. The sport can't be all things to all people otherwise it would become an unmitigated disaster. The second you draw a line in the sand someone will come along and question the rationale for putting that line in that particular place. I don't think anyone wants to be involved in a sport where the line moves from year to year. I know I wouldn't.
-
I wasn't there.
I would like to know how many and what kind of hits she had on the last target.
How far out where the targets?
Bruce
No more than 5 yards from P2. Someone in the squad will have to tell you what type of hits she had.
-
As I said in the other thread when the targets are close, say 5 yards or less, and you put a tight group of three into the down zero on the last target of an array which also happens to get you to slide lock at an advantageous moment it is obvious. You can always claim that the SO can never know what is going through a shooters mind and you would be correct, but if you are warned before hand that they are going to be watching for round dumping at a particular spot in a COF and you go ahead and do it, than it's all on the shooter.
First off I shoot both games, and I like them both.
While I agree with what you posted above, the problem comes when in that situation a shooter intentionally puts his first round on any target in the berm, and then fires two more into the -0. He's at slide lock, and there are only 2 holes per target. How could the SO justify a FTDR in that case. I realize the shooter is a cheating ba$tard
in this case, and possibly should be DQ'd, but you have to have probable cause. I also agree that good course design would go a long way to fixing the problem.
Bruce
No disrespect intended.
How could you accuse him of cheating when we have a rule that allows the shooters to shoot as many shots as he wants at each target.
Just because a stage is a Vickers count stage it doesn't automatically exempt the assessment of a penalty for round dumping. The two can and should co-exist.
Every single sport that I can think off calls on it's rules officials to exercise their judgment in making calls during the course of an event. This notion that an official making a judgment call in IDPA is completely unfair must be unique to IDPA in the sporting world.
If you don't think it is your place as an official to use your best judgment and experience to assign a penalty as called for in the rule book than you might want to rethink being an SO. What is the point of having a rule book when an official will tell you flat out that he will never ever enforce one of the rules under any circumstances.
-
10 round states could not shoot that division. If IDPA is suppose to test some real life skills, why would using a standard capacity mag make problems. I think being programed to reload after 10 rounds is a bad thing when I carry a 17+ round gun.
IDPA is indeed supposed to test real life skills. Those skills include being able to shoot quickly and accurately but it doesn't stop there. It also tests gun handling skills, and being able to reload a gun quickly clearly is a skill of immense importance. Allowing shooters to start a stage with 15+1 marginalizes that skill on 80% of IDPA stages.
Since Bullseye shooters step to the line with even less than we do, should we ask them to either stop shooting or go strictly to high caps to protect our sport? While we are at I think we should we force revolver shooters from our game. We wouldn't want the anti's to think that there is no need for auto loaders when a 6 round revolver can compete.
IDPA DEFENSIVE MULTI-GUN
in IDPA Shooting
Posted · Edited by rubberneck
The rules are there to create a level playing field for the largest possible pool of competitors.
At IDPA nationals I was told that 70% of IDPA members were from the northeast which was one of the reasons why it was moved to Pa. I found that number hard to believe but it came from a person who should know so I am prepared to take it at face value. I didn't have the chance to ask what states they considered North East but I am pretty sure that it would cover NY, NJ, Mass and Maryland. All four states have some sort of magazine restrictions.
Look on the bright side. If the magazine issue bothers you that much you can always find a USPSA 3-gun match to shoot.