Nevadazielmeister

I just saw CDI Torque for the first time today while over at Limcat Customs. They like the tools and said pretty much the same thing as above. I will also look into these tools.

I disagree, because this was the BEST thing to happen. Not only was this a lesson for the shooter but ALSO for the child. As a parent, I never pass up an opportunity at a life lesson. I think it was great that the child was there and learned a very valuable lesson, even at the expense of the father. If I were the father, I would be upset about having my day end early but I would be more proud and happy if I saw that my son or daughter learned from the experience.

Yeh, okay, you got me, it's not him per se but the hot girls he brings with him. Maybe that is it.. I don't know.

Yes, a perfect example of how some people assume they know what other people know, when they don't know anything about the person they are commenting about. Right?

Thanks to most of you for your ideas and assistance. I was thinking of this format: -Stage would be at the end of the line of stages, if possible. You would restrict access to this stage with roping or caution tape. Explain that no shooters allowed past a certain point. -As the squad comes forth, they are held as a group at the staging area and the first shooter is brought forth by the RO with the understanding the number of targets there are, say 10 for example. No steel, no 180 traps, nothing super tricky. -Once the course of fire has been run, the shooter and the RO score and tape. The finished shooter is then instructed to go into a corner and not speak with anyone else, but can watch the next shooter. -As the group grows, the fun increases as everyone watches with anticipation of the current shooter possibly making the same mistakes they made during their course of fire. -Once the squad has completed the stage, they are asked to not share the stage layout or discuss the stage with any other squad as they proceed back to the other end of the line of bays. Other RO's and Squad leaders can be tasked to look out for sharing of information. This seems very doable and am not sure it would place any unfair advantage between friends. Thoughts?

I think the idea of a prize table has been lost throughout the years. The concept is pretty straight forward: The bigger the prizes, the more talent you will attract to your match. The higher the talent, the greater the interest by people who have no chance at the prize table because they want to watch and possibly shoot with the amazing folks who will get a prize. One of the best ways to gain interest in your match is to squad some talent or big name person (say Taran Butler) and then watch the shooters flock to your match. Then, you get to charge a higher match fee thus paying for the greater prize table. When you go random or reduce the prize table, you lose that interest. I personally would LOVE to see extreme talent and would love to be squadded with them. But again, this is reduced because of so called "Super Squads" or "Glam Squads" who breeze through. I am against those. Let the super starts shoot with the regular guys and it is a MUCH more enjoyable experience for everyone. Just my two cents. P.S. I have gone to two major matches and never saw Taran, just saying.

Thank you gentlemen. I did not want to assume there was a consensus and wanted to make sure. I feel this is the best way and will carry on.

Congratulations on the wins Christian. Well shot at both matches!

You bring up a good point. Having recently certified as an RO I have been reading the rules and thinking about past experiences. I have had one or two shooters who went through all two motions ("Unload and Show Clear") and then without further command from me, pulled the trigger and holstered before I could get to "If Clear, Hammer down and Holster". In my review of rule 8.3.6 it reads: “If You Are Finished, Unload and Show Clear” or “Unload and Show Clear” – If the competitor has finished shooting, he must lower his firearm and present it for inspection by the Range Officer with the muzzle pointed downrange, magazine removed, slide/bolt locked or held open, and chamber empty. Revolvers must be presented with the cylinder swung out and empty. If a competitor has been stopped by the Range Officer, they will be given“Unload and show clear” as the command." Now I might, if I felt it was too fast, say something to the competitor, but since they clearly showed it was unloaded by pulling the trigger, what harm? I mean they would have it holstered before I even got to the second to final command. I could be a stickler and have them do it over, but wasn't sure if this is being proper or difficult out of spite. What say some of the other registered Range Officers out there? Now this could be detrimental to the shooter because if I as an RO saw that there was still a magazine in the gun and ready to chamber a round, I would exclaim "Stop" and then start the "Unload and Show Clear" command again. But in their haste, they would "hammer down" and BOOM, their day is over. Thoughts?

Ahh, I misread the OP's original post. The shooter fired twice at one target and then yes, two procedurals would apply. My mistake.

In my review of rule 10.1.1, 10.2.2 and 10.2.4, I only see one penalty, not multiple penalties for multiple rules. If that were the case, he would get 3 procedural penalties. In my training, it is important for the RO to assess procedurals that are fair and consider whether a competitive advantage was gained. In this case, the shooter didn't really gain much of an advantage and the single procedural really levels his score to be fair.

As we all know, rule 3.2.4 reads "After the written stage briefing has been read to competitors, and any questions about the course of fire have been answered, competitors shouldbe permitted to conduct an orderly inspection (“walkthrough”) of the courseof fire. The duration of time for the inspection must be stipulated by the Range Officer, and it should be the same for all competitors. If the course of fire includes moving targets or similar items, these should be demonstrated to all competitors for the same duration and frequency..." A stage idea I have been toying with is where the competitor is not allowed to inspect the stage before hand, basically going through the stage without prior knowledge. This can be achieved in several ways, but is of interest since it might replicate a more realistic shooting scenario. The shooter truly would not know the stage design before hand. I did this during a PRS long range match in which the shooter was given 3 minutes to find the target, range it using only their reticle and then take 2 shots. ("Find it, mill it, kill it"). The question is, does this contravene the rule above and how to interpret the word "should"? Has anyone tried this before and what were the results? Is there a safety concern?

Welcome to forums Carlos. Glad to have you here. Reloading is the best tool to increase your accuracy, so enjoy!

Yes, the grip safety is inoperative. Anything on those guns is because Johnny put them on, so I believe they are all custom.

Yes, we shoot the exact same ammunition. It is easier that way. Again, thank for your service to the greatest country in the world. Please let me know if you have any other questions. N

Please PM me with any questions. They are by far the best handguns my wife and I have ever owned.

And the... ahem... finale:

And side by side:

I think this boy needs some porn to push him over the edge:

I am loading 9.0 grains of Vithovouri 3N38 with a 124 grain Montana Gold hollow point. I am at about 168-170 power factor. The gun is very soft and shoots VERY accurately. I am accurate out to about 250 yards. The powder burns very clean also.

Yes, but you are just ticking the surface. Noise Rating Reductions are actually for more than just one frequency, but over a spectrum. So when you read NRR think about how really the marketer is just picking the biggest NRR and not the average NRR across all frequencies. In this study we can all learn a lot more about hearing damage and protection: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5634813/) Note in the study it states "The attenuation of hearing protectors is commonly labeled (and marketed) with values obtained using continuous noise at hearing threshold levels in a laboratory setting (e.g., noise reduction rating). When products designed for impulse noise are tested under these conditions, the noise reduction rating is negligible (<10 dB) and the consumer is left misinformed." It would be good to read this study to understand how difficult rating noise reduction is. All of the shooters using marketing for their purchasing decisions have the potential of not really hearing the truth. (sorry for the pun)

Nope. How is it unsportsmanlike? How different is it when someone looks at the written stage brief and course design online? What unfair advantage are they gaining?

I agree with everything said here, but don't forget the mental side of things. I would also add what is possible with a handgun. I only brag to explain what is possible and to showcase how high quality handguns come into play. Sunday I was practicing 2-gun with some friends and I decided to run the same course, once with my Limcat Razorcat and SBR carbine and then I ran the whole course with just the Limcat. With just the Limcat, I was able to hit the nearby steel no problem, but then hit 3 50% IPSC targets at 100 yards, 65% IPSC at 150 yards and another 65% IPSC at 175 yards. My final shot was an 8 inch cicle at 250 yards, but that took me 5 shots to hit. I saved 4 seconds off my time. Anything is possible. Which is the mental aspect to this sport. You have to believe that you can hit the target and your body will figure it out.

Yep, having just completed my certification, I agree with this. Troy McManus is very fair in his interpretation of the rules and I would trust his judgment. I suspect he would come to the same conclusion. To the RO, I would recommend that he send an email to NROI and request a review. This will help the Match Director and the Range Office in their understanding of the rules to ensure this does not happen again.

Dr. Martin, Thank you for sharing this information. I just wanted too clarify a couple of things. I understand this was only a test of buckle and strap tourniquets, correct? Also, the test was "examined effects of buckle and strap features on converting pulling force to strap pressure." but did not seem to cover the actual effects on blood circulation, yes? While I see that this was probably a good test, I still do not think it can be used to make purchase decisions to ALL tourniquets, correct? In my review of the abstract of the study, there was no mention of the windlass type tourniquets, so where do those stand in comparison? Or maybe I missed something? Sincerely, Neil (not a doctor)