Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Schutzenmeister

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    894
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Schutzenmeister

  • Rank
    MC Hammer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Minot ND
  • Real Name
    Mike Carraher, L1636

Recent Profile Visitors

897 profile views
  1. Please remember, the last lines in 9.1.4 clearly state "[…] targets must be scored as is, using the actual target as the basis for the scoring call." If there's a hole in a target, be it scoring or no shoot, you're required to score it based on the evidence on the target … i.e., there's a hole there! However, earlier in the rule it also states "[…] the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined." (referring to an unrestored target …) This is a case where the RO is not only permitted by rule, but required by rule to exercise judgement. If the RO has adequate evidence to determine the current shooter DID NOT put that hole in the NS, then he doesn't score it. (But he must make DAMNED SURE it gets pasted before the NEXT shooter!!!)
  2. As the title for this section is "USPSA/IPSC Rules", I think it interesting to note that IPSC banned such holsters last year. (That is unlike us where USPSA has taken no position on them. (See IPSC 5.2.7.4) A significant portion of their thinking on this subject rested with FLETC having banned such holsters - and specifically the SERPA holsters - a couple of years ago as there had been too many incidents causing injuries while using them. I don't see USPSA banning them anytime in the near future, BUT … Given that FLETC has banned them - Given that IPSC has banned them - should an injury occur during a USPSA match I can only imagine the tact an ambulance chasing lawyer might pursue in court asking WHY we haven't' banned them. Just thinking out loud here ...
  3. What Gary said … 2.3.3.3. Plus, If you, as the shooter, do not agree with the scoring call … in this case one that leads to a reshoot … the appeals process is spelled out in 11.1.3. Again, as this is a scoring issue, it ENDS with the RM per 9.6.6. No appeal to an arbitration committee is allowed on a scoring call.
  4. For those of you who don't believe Gary … The rule is 9.6.6. This is a scoring issue. It stops with the RM and CANNOT be appealed.
  5. It's interesting here to note the difference between USPSA and IPSC on 9.1.6.1. Sometimes you really can't tell which hits are which. IPSC defines how to score it ... USPSA really says nothing.
  6. The "if clear" language was added around the time you specify to clarify it is ultimately the shooter's responsibility to ensure his gun is empty at the end of the course of fire. Prior to that there was the occasional DRL who, upon having an AD during that process, would try to assign blame to the RO for having erred on telling them the gun was clear and issuing a range command telling the shooter to pull the trigger. This was ALWAYS a BS defense, but it nevertheless gained traction. Accordingly, the sport (both here in the US and internationally) added the "if clear" language to unmistakenly put the onus on the shooter where it rightfully belongs.
  7. Under 10.4.1 you could, in theory, declare in the WSB that any shot impacting a side wall (on an indoor range) is deemed a shot fired in an unsafe direction. A DQ would then fall under 10.4.1. It would also be incumbent on the match organizers under various provisions of 2.1.xx to ensure such shots were unlikely (or impossible) given the course design.
  8. OK … We're getting too close to the match for me to allow this to simmer any further. For the purposes of the 2019 US IPSC Nationals, this is what I intend to follow: - The rules say you may replace springs in PD. All the discussion of comma placement and such in the rule is linguistic BS. I'm not going to try to analyze things at that level for fear of Sr. Mary Euthanasia rising from the grave, ruler in hand, to do even more damage to my knuckles! If, as in the case of a Glock, it is necessary to replace the guide rod in order to replace the spring, so be it. - I have requested better guidance from IPSC on the matter. The ONLY definitive answer I have received is that the DPM spring system (see previous postings) is a no-go. Whether I personally agree with that or not is not the issue … I am the messenger here! - This guide (https://www.ipsc.org/pdf/IPSC Handgun Equipment Check Handbook - Jan 2019 edition.pdf) is what we are required to use while inspecting guns during the match. It does not require disassembly of the gun during inspection. (It also does not prohibit it, if we have reason to look inside …) My instructions to the crew doing the inspections will be along the lines of "Follow the rules and the Equipment Check Handbook." They will call me if there are any questions during their inspections. I absolutely HATE that I'm using this quote, but it fits here: "Don't ask; Don't tell" (with regards to the topic at hand.) Replacement of springs is authorized … That's clear in the rules. Unless the shooter gives me a reason to actually instruct him to disassemble his gun for us to see inside, I have no reason to go there. (And yes … It's been a long standing principle in IPSC that if we need to see the inside of a PD gun to determine compliance we can instruct the shooter to open it up. This HAS been done in the past where the inspector had reason to believe something inside the gun had been altered. As it is now permissible to change the springs, I'm not sure what the reason would be for me to want to open it up … So don't volunteer one!) IF I receive official direction from IPSC that is at odds with the above, I will post it here ASAP. (Remember … IF is a pretty BIG word! I do not anticipate this.) I cannot confirm nor deny what Matt1 said above … The above is about as clear as I can be short of sticking my anatomy in a sausage grinder! (so to speak …) Mike Carraher, IROA RM RM for the 2019 US IPSC Nationals (Rowdyb: PM sent.)
  9. Your chemistry professor has clearly never heard of cataracts or glaucoma … or diabetic retinopathy, and a host of other maladies. Nevertheless - Point taken.
  10. Just an update ... I've had 2 or 3 phone conversations with the President of IROA plus several emails on this topic. He has forwarded the information to the Rules Committee Chairman and the Production Directors for their assessment. We are awaiting their response. I would love to have access to the "instant answer switch," but as you all know, that doesn't exist!
  11. Rowdy … Bad Dog … My head hurts! (I hope you're laughing with me!) I'll do some more follow-up based on what you've provided me. (Remember - I'm not a gunsmith and I do not own a Glock!) I do understand your question and I think you've brought up some good points. I'll do what I can to get some answers. Forgive me for what follows here, but please remember the axiom that especially in PD it is up to the shooter to PROVE anything he has done to the gun is permissible … I am not required to disprove it. Yeah, I know … From your point of view that sucks. But I really am trying to help here!
  12. OK, Good news (mostly) As I promised I sought an official answer and have received one. I spoke at length with the President of IROA (Dino Evangelineos) on the phone yesterday. His answers to me were after consultation with the Executive Committee of IPSC … Hence, this is about as official as it gets. Dino posted his response to my inquiry on an official forum. I will quote it here: I'll grant you, a little cryptic. I'll break down the essence of my conversation with him which should clarify what we discussed: 1 - Clearly, if the replacement springs are from Glock for that model firearm, they're good to go. He's convinced Glock makes and can provide springs of greater or lessor strength. I will leave that to each of you to explore and verify. 2 - If the spring-guide-rod assembly is aftermarket and is substantially the same as the original (but perhaps of a different strength), that should be good to go as well. The defining factors in this case seemed to be 1 guide rod, one spring. (I'll make this more clear in a minute.) 3 - What will not be acceptable for PD (or CO, by extension) is a system like the one DPM is marketing. (Link provided below.) Basically, this is a system where there are multiple springs included when the original design used only one spring. (Note: Such springs are OK in Open or Standard, but will not be allowed in PD or CO as aftermarket replacement items.) https://www.dpmsystems.com/mechanical-recoil-reduction-system A couple of ground rules here, please: - I am the messenger, not the message! - You asked for an official answer; that is what I sought and this is what I got. - As the RM for this years US IPSC Nationals, what you see above is what I am obligated to enforce … should the question arise. I hope this is helpful, but please don't try to split hairs on it … I have too few on top of my head to spare! Cheers! p.s. ... Although we are talking Glock in this example the same logic applies to all other makes of guns.
  13. Race1911 FYI ... I will be the RM for the aforementioned match. I really don't have a choice but to get Rowdy an answer he can rely on. If necessary I have the phone numbers for the folks who can give me the proper answer on speed dial. He will get an answer and it will be one I can support and defend.
  14. No problem … That's why RMs get paid the big bucks. (ROFL) I'm working the question now. I'll get back to you as soon as I get a reliable answer! In the meantime, here is a copy of the official IPSC Checklist … It's publicly available, so I'm not divulging any trade secrets! http://www.ipsc.org/pdf/IPSC Handgun Equipment Check Handbook - Jan 2019 edition.pdf
  15. Rowdy I'll double check and provide you an answer by PM that you can officially rely on for the US IPSC Nationals.
×
×
  • Create New...