andrewtac

10.2.1

Good question.

Making one rule for foot faults and taking out interpretation.

Mean, an emotion. While I agree it would suck, it would leave emotion and feelings out if the call was the same for all. I would be irritated if it happened to me, but hopefully I'd be smart enough to learn not to do it again. There are grey areas, this is one that can be easily cleaned up.

I wouldn't whine if called on me. My point with this is "significant" leaves room for interpretation as you demonstrated in your example. Why not make the rules easier and leave less room for interpretation?

Adjusted lips last night and left mags loaded (I remembered doing that last time on recommendation for new springs). I am shooting in a couple hours. I'll also order more recoil springs today.

It is not lowest common denominator at all, it is making it black and white. While I agree with your thoughts (some situations warrant less or more penalties) I am only suggesting the change to remove the various interpretations and make it black and white. A group consensus can be made, but there is always one who disagrees. It is much easier to quote rules verbatim to offenders than try to explain what they really meant, in my opinion.

I do, not talking about myself, as an RO. I will say occasionally i probably have screwed something up and will again, not intentionally. Yes significant advantage can be defined, but someone always comes up with some way to game it. Good on them.if within the rules. I don't think every scenario can be figured out. If there was one rule would we have to get together and determine significant advantage, would there be arguments after a call, would we waste time on it, etc. Why not make it simpler for all of us (shooter and RO).

This is true, but to make it more impartial in the case of foot faults one rule for all circumstances; I'd say one per shot regardless.

I've got the measurements from tripp, I'll check them when I get back in town good idea.

I think I am 1.18, nothing changed. I found OAL based on the method on here (marking the feedramp and looking for the least amount of impacts). Also, same lube. I use grease and oil, same as always. I will say the feedramp was silver from impacts today. Usually it is dirty with maybe a little silver showing, today there is a clear path.

SS 40 I put together, tripp system mags, 200 grain bayou RN. I had issues when I first put thr gun together with nose dives failure to feed, usually first or second round. the slide release was hitting, fixed that, the ramp overhung the well, fixed that, higher mag catch. I have probably put 8k through with zero issues, it ran. It would run with 10 rounds in the mag. So I took a break for about a year or so. Finally shot a match today. I have been practicing the last couple months. Probably shot nearly 2 maybe even 3k rounds no issues the last couple months. About a week ago I replaced mag springs, ran it twice no issues (500 or so rounds). Last night I cleaned all the mags, first time ever. Same gun, mags, reloads, everything. The problem is back I think I had 4 maybe 5 of them today. It was always after the first or second shot of a fresh mag (sometimes on start sometimes after a mag change. I did not isolate the mags to see if it was just one. Again only thing I changed was cleaning the mags, are the springs directional? Any other ideas? I won't be able to shoot again for several days.

Pretty sure Lonestar could do it.

I believe the shot impacted 13 feet ahead of us, so didn't break that rule. He was not on the slide nor the mag when he pulled the trigger, also during the perceived unloading no finger on the trigger. You are correct in it was like any other shot at that point. Even if he did say he was "unloading" at the time (didn't kept his mouth shut, I still don't think this was malicious, I think he was busy trying to remember if he had any clean underwear) he could have probably protested it and gotten it overturned as ultimately it was like any other shot during the COF at that time. I think it was Virginia count, so he got additional time and an extra shot, not 100% on that.

I think the moral of the story is the rules are the rules. I think uspsa tries real hard to leave gray area and interpretation of the rules out of our sport. I know there are some areas (like how many procedurals; which I wish they'd just change to one per shot period to not allow interpretation). I too was very upset by this, might have even messed up a good friendship over it. I was exactly where you are, the rules must be changed because surely they did not intend for this to happen. I know everyone there(to include the shooter), even probably Gary and the other RM believed the guy was unsafe and deserved a DQ. But, the rules are the rules and while some folks like to interpret what they think they mean, words mean things. Don't interpret because you feel it was wrong, read the rules. This was the reason I brought this up in this thread, while not the same the theme is very similar. People felt something was unsafe, and wanted to interpret the rules rather than take them at face value. I thought long and hard on what I was going to submit for a rule change but couldn't get around not having to interpret what I thought the shooter was doing or restrict other normal activities (like shooting after If finished when you see targets). If you can think of a black and white way to fix it, submit it. I know Gary, and all other RMs would much rather have to make an easy call to DQ someone for doing something unsafe than have to make a tough call (not saying they like to DQ, just that easier calls are favored over hard ones). I would be happy as if it happened again I'd have an answer. Look at all the emotion it brought up here, imagine what it was like on the range that day.

The description you gave of the IPSC was basically my decision to go with it. I didn't have the time you did on all there but I handled several prior magwell prior and came to that conclusion (or something similar, easier seating, lighter, and smooth).

Yeah I know, I wish there was something but I don't think the engineering and development costs would be worth it. In order to keep the pistol nearly identical (little weight, no added size, able to dry fire like we want, etc.) I would imagine it would not be cheap. It would be hard to make something that would strap on and work. The airsoft is likely the best option, but that is entirely different pistol. I cock the hammer for the first pull and simulate the rest.

Your thumb.

Agree with the others poppy type recoil response. It works, but very far down the list of choices. I have 6# or soi need to try to sale or trade. Perhaps I'll save it for the next powder shortage.

Hopefully we secede if that is the case, glad to finally be home in Texas. I am just getting set up for limited, I'll be upset if it occurs. Probably just stick with SS if it does.

+2, frustrations of shooting SS.

I am sure it will work. I did it in 10mm for a bit when that was all I could find. This was when. I first started uspsa, I ran some sub major and maybe even major loads. I remember it being really dirty. Be careful not to double charge, I never did but I bought a light for my press because it made me nervous.

Lone Star innovations has some 80% L10 frames that he will finish. I am not sure if he has any left. I was in the same boat, wanted a metal grip and other hardware (SVI). He is building a short block for me to finish. He also stocks SVI grips and hardware.

I think it should be directly related to lockup and timing. The difference in impact if you had a single shot would be negligible at close range, based on ballistics. Likely more to do with combination of the setup (springs, timing, comp, lockup) than the load. Maybe try to alter those things, one at a time and look for a change.

It did include the last shot. Sorry to derail the thread, the intent was to give an example that many could feel something was unsafe but within the rules. Thanks Gary for all you do for the sport, wouldn't be the same without you and the others that put in the time.