Jane

Congratulations on your division win, Bones. Always fun to watch a master at work.

Someone was DQed yesterday at Nationals for having removed a firing pin safety from a Glock. So the question you have to ask yourself is: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you punk???

I think I may agree with both Ken and Brian. A scale may be off by 0.2 oz. Unless a match has access to a calibration standard weight, they need to assume their scale is plus-or-minus 0.2 oz. Benefit of the doubt to the shooter - if his gun is weighs at 39.2 oz for SSP, he's OK. But a shooter needs to realize that what Ken says is correct. His gun may actually weigh 39.000 oz. The match scale may tilt to the low side. So the match scale may weigh his 39.0 oz gun as 39.2 oz. Any more and he's shooting for fun...

It's not a matter of being rattled or not rattled. It's a matter of the way you grip the gun, every time, automatically depressing the thumb safety from Safe to Fire. It's not something you have to remember to do. Well, Duane... assuming the timestamps are correct, nobody can accuse you of posting a hasty reply to this one

AMEN to that! I get annoyed by the kool kids at matches who initial all their score sheets before the match has started. I know this is a USPSA discussion, but at last year's IDPA Nationals we had two score shoots with NO STRING TIME and BOTH MORONS HAD SIGNED THEM (shooter and SO)

Rules? There ain't no rules in a bear-fight, Butch. But there is rules in an IDPA match, and they is what they is. Lessee... taking a magazine and reducing its capacity beneath what the manufacturer manufactured so as to be able to have an even number of rounds so you could reload at slidelock assuming a boring match with each-gets-2... I'm thinkin' that would look to me like "competition only" equipment. Which isn't an FTDR, it's simply "not permitted". (Not to mention how that bear's gonna laugh in your face when you could have stopped him with just one more bullet.....)

And then... for a reality check of shooting on the move and moving targets... Sevigny shooting the 2007 Georgia IDPA state match:

As a "paper" sharpshooter (I do better at the classifier than at scenario stages), may I offer the opinion that not all stages have to be "fair" to everyone. For example, IDPA encourages "occasional shots" out to 35 yards. A novice with a Glock 23 isn't going to do well with those targets. So be it. I see nothing wrong with some stages where master shooters will find a challenge and other folks are going to have to raise their level or else really suck, as long as such a stage is safe for people to shoot regardless of their skill level and preferably isn't a procedural trap. Edited to add: The above comments are a knee-jerk generalization in which I am referring to shooting challenges. I do agree that as far as mobility is required (a necessary minimum running speed, getting up off a knee to run, etc.) that thinking of shooters with physical limitations is definitely necessary.

A section of idpaforum is devoted to IDPA courses of fire.

Not for sanctioned matches. From the rules clarification on the IDPA website:

From the rule clarifications recently posted on the IDPA website:

On the now official idpaforum, the Area Coordinator for Canada has posted an observation that one of the new clarification wordings makes it sound as if shooting on-the-move may only be done at the beginning of a stage while the shooter moves toward cover. After that, all targets must be engaged from behind cover, if there is any cover available on the stage - i.e., cannot leave a position of cover and shoot targets on the way to a different position of cover. I personally hope that interpretation doesn't stand, but it's something people who design courses of fire may not have noticed.

Well, you're a lot younger and more energetic than I am, John. I shot it all on Wednesday last year (shooting Weds again this year). By the last two stages, I was zombie-walking. The open-the-door-and-there's-a-mover-and-it's-the-only-target-on-the-stage stage was my last... I shot so badly I FTNed the thing. Curt Nichols (the MD) said he got home after shooting it in one day and asked himself, "What have I done??" Maybe he's got a simple match this year. Somehow, I doubt it.... Jane, tired old woman...

http://www.moonclips.com/content/example-machine-cylinder.htm http://www.clarkcustomguns.com/moonclip.htm

I "think" that a lot of guys who shoot ESR shoot .45 to make power floor. Certainly there are a lot who shoot .45 ACP autoloaders. Count the number of people shooting CDP (.45 ACP) at last year's IDPA Nationals or at any other major match. BTW... if you're new to IDPA, you might also want to check out idpaforum. Here's one thread there where guys there are discussing .45 revolver loads.

Yes... isn't he dreamy! (in best teenage girl voice...)

and because she's a girl

Everything can be found in that, glasshoppahs.....

Yes, although not to the question of a reshoot in such a situation. (page 74 of current rule book):

You'll receive an envelope with a confirmation letter, waiver, equipment survey, etc. I scan such stuff to PDF, and my last year's was scanned on July 6. I think staff and SOs hear later, though. This thread has a post from Robert Ray on June 15 of last year saying confirmations had been mailed. YMMV and past performance is no guarantee blah blah blah... http://idpaforum.yuku.com/topic/4756?page=6

It's unfortunate when SOs don't keep up with rule changes. Going back into the dim past of prior IDPA rule books.. The little red book and little green book do include the language If the course of fire specifies a Tac-Load, a magazine change with retention is not acceptable and will incur a procedural penalty. If a magazine change with retention is specified by the course of fire, either method is acceptable. But then, the CoF drawing for the Classifier in the LGB (page 7) specifically says "TACTICAL LOAD or MAGAZINE CHANGE WITH RETENTION" for stage 3. With the new "interchangeable" sentence in the 2005 rule book, the CoF description now only says "tactical load". Sounds as if Ben's SO is combining the rule from the old rule book with the CoF description from the new one.

[drift from original question] You're required to shoot 3 targets whilst moving but are stationary. 1pe You're called twice for cover. 1pe A stage requires taking a knee, moving, taking a knee again. You have a knee injury and don't kneel. 1pe. A stage has two sets of targets that each require tac sequence and you brain fade and shoot them two and two both times. 1pe. A stage has two targets that need to be engaged weak hand-only and you don't. 1pe. You drop two mags from your mag carrier. 1pe. [/drift from original question]

"You and your family are driving outside of Roswell, NM, when you are attacked by a swarm of whirling Texas stars. Using available cover, defend yourself and your loved ones."

Duane, the mnemonic trick somebody once posted (assuming two on paper) Priority gets a Pair of shots Sequence gets a Single shot

While there is the "equal distance = equal threat" language, the rule book also says "targets must be engaged in tactical priority unless tactical sequence IS SPECIFIED" (my emphasis). So to my mind, if tactical sequence is not specified in the CoF description and cover doesn't dictate how to engage the targets, two equal threat targets can be engaged as the shooter chooses. The 2001 rulebook (page 38) said: "targets within 2 yards of each other are considered equal threat and no tactical priority should be required." The same language occurs in the previous "Little Red Book" (March, 2000) on page 24. I realize that many IDPA people have come to assume that if it's not a "priority" situation that tac sequence must apply. But that's not how I read the rules. And in both the more recent rule books is the following: "Well-designed courses of fire should have the following attributes: ... The sequence of target engagement should be obvious to the shooter without extensive briefing or instruction. "