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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,345 profile views

Schutzenmeister's Achievements

Sees Sights

Sees Sights (6/11)

  1. I hope you don't shoot MultiGun ... Those rules effectively do away with two of those three already.
  2. You need to find a match with more than one stage!
  3. A8, for some odd reason, has been shooting its area matches in WV for quite some time.
  4. As you seem to be referring to them, the IPSC rules on this topic are VERY different than in USPSA. If you are interested, I suggest you read the IPSC definition of when loading starts and stops, along with what is allowed and prohibited in Chapter 8 during Load and Make Ready. (Yes, IPSC still uses LAMR ...) This is why you don't see dryfiring at IPSC matches.
  5. The USPSA BoD has voted to remove Mike Foley as President per the attached minutes: Microsoft Word - 8-24-21 minutes.docx (uspsa.org) There will be a special election to fill the balance of his term. (Moderators ... This is meant to inform only. If you wish to close it to comments, I understand.)
  6. From having worked the equipment check at multiple level 4/5 matches I can tell you that if the hammer drops during this test the gun DOES NOT pass.
  7. OK ... Under IPSC rules this one gets a little complex. Under 5.1.6 it states: Firearms must be serviceable and safe. Range Officers may demand examination of a competitor's firearm or allied equipment, at any time, to check they are functioning safely. If any such item is declared unserviceable or unsafe by a Range Officer, it must be withdrawn from the match until the item is repaired to the satisfaction of the Range Master (also see Rule 5.7.5). The testing procedures to enforce this are found in the IPSC Handgun Equipment Check Manual. On page 1, under the General Procedures for Handgun Equipment CHECK SAFETY CHECK - ALL DIVISIONS Rule 5.1.6 it states (2nd paragraph): Manual Safety - With the hammer cocked and the safety on, press the trigger. The hammer should not drop. With the hammer cocked and the safety on, press the trigger. Release the trigger and take the safety down to the off position. The hammer should remain cocked. If it does not pass this test, it does not pass the safety check under rule 5.1.6. Additionally, I'm not certain about the configuration and function of the safety you describe on your particular model CZ. IF it also serves as a decocker, then it MUST function in order to comply with the procedures and requirements under If a handgun has a decocking lever, that alone must be used to decock the handgun, without touching the trigger. If a handgun does not have a decocking lever, the hammer must be safely and manually lowered all the way forward (i.e. not just to a "half-cock notch" or to another similar intermediary position). Bottom line ... Safeties should work. (Notable exception is the grip safety on a 1911 style HG. That may be pinned down as it is secondary to the primary thumb safety.) I recommend you get it fixed.
  8. So this has nothing to do with the EU style restrictions on photography and video recordings of things that occur in public and plain view?
  9. The recent BoD minutes had a reference that left me both confused and asking WTF? Reference Bod Minutes: https://uspsa.org/documents/minutes/20210811.pdf Area 1 made the following statement: under WA law it is illegal to record someone without their consent and Area 1 does not give consent to record. Area 6 claimed the same for the state of Florida. Affirmed understand by all verbally and individually. Where do they think we are, the EU? Could someone please explain what this means and the impact on all the Cecil B DeMille wanna-be's doing video at our matches. Thanks
  10. Wonderful way to bury the lead ... The problem is apparently not with the wooden block. It's with the poorly thought out and designed plate holder. Based on this information I might consider what happened REF ... by design. Try running this information by your three RMs in Denmark. See if they consider this a faulty design, prone to REF, that should not be used. Again, the problem is not the wood block in front.
  11. Rasmilling I promise you, the purpose of the wooden blocks at the front of the plates is not now, nor has it ever been to protect the plate holders. They are, and always have been to prevent the plates from turning edgewise or sideways when hit. Nothing more ... nothing less. I suggest you contact one of the following three individuals, if you wish, to confirm what I am saying and to explain this to you. All three are IROA certified Range Masters and all three are from Denmark. If you don't already know one of them they should not be very hard for you to find. Tim Andersen Steen Hofman Nitschke Mark Weisinger I am quite confident they will tell you substantially the same thing I have. IPSC rules do not allow for calling REF in a situation such as you describe. It is up to the shooter to hit the plate again - probably higher - and knock it down or accept the score as a miss. Respectfully Mike Carraher (USA) IROA Range Master
  12. There is nothing under IPSC rules which specifies a minimum amount of any target that must be available to the shooter during a CoF (other than the A Zone must be available). The closest rule is under scoring disappearing moving targets: 9.9.3 Stationary targets which present at least a portion of the A zone, either before or after activation of a moving and/or concealing no-shoot or vision barrier, are not disappearing and will incur failure to engage and/or miss penalties. As the entire plate, for scoring purposes, constitutes an A Zone when the plate is shot and falls, your point is arguably moot. Additionally, it has been my experience that rounds passing through the wood block and knocking the plate over still count for score. Hence you may either consider them soft cover (I wouldn't), or treat them as target sticks for scoring purposes. The shooters either shot through or partially through the wood block and, apparently, the plate did not fall. There is no provision uner IPSC rules to declare a REF here, hence, it is scored as a miss. Had the plate fallen two things come to mind: 1 - The shooter is not going to challenge the RO's call when he scores it as hit ... Question goes away. 2 - A challenge to declare REF due to a hit behind hard cover ( should fail as the wood block is more akin to a target stick than a prop or barrier. I could seek to get a higher level clarification from IROA, but I'm reasonably confident it will say substantially what I have said here.
  13. Understood, Chuck ... But occasionally, when I start quoting IPSC Rules, there can be some blowback. Ticklish question ... Let me start with some history. In previous version of the rules (a couple of decades ago) it was common to show the proper setup for plates as the OP describes ... i.e., with a wooden trip plate in front of the base to prevent it from turning when struck. As I recall, these were always treated as sacrificial. If a round went through it and took down the plate, so what … score it and replace the wood. Not infrequently, the round passing through the wood would destroy the wood making it difficult to determine where it was hit anyway. Potentially supporting this would be current rule 9.1.7 where it states target sticks are neither hard cover nor soft cover … It’s like they don’t exist and anything that gets hit behind them counts for score or penalty as the case may be. I would be inclined to treat the wood in question as no different. Its sole purpose is to hold the target in place while the shooter shoots at it, just like sticks for a paper target. Clearly, the partial hit on the wood which knocks the plate over must count for score. ( The full diameter hit on the wood which takes down the plate only becomes REF and a reshoot (4.6.1) IF the wood is considered to be hard cover. ( As stated above, I’m not inclined to treat it that way. Unfortunately, the rules are not crystal clear on this particular point. I should note that the current rules also include the following: From Appendix C3: For Handgun matches plates should be mounted on hard cover or on metal stakes at least 1 m high. One could infer that that means the wood in front should be treated as hardcover. I’m not inclined to look at it that way. The plate is mounted ON hardcover … The wood in front of the base is solely to prevent it from turning. Hence, my inclination is to treat it the same as a target stick. One final note … Several years ago IPSC rules removed the RO’s discretion to declare REF when a plate is adequately struck but fails to fall. If it’s hit it must fall. If it doesn’t fall you must shoot it until it does. (This is admittedly problematic … I wish there were better guidance, but it has been this way since at least 2016.) If it turns sideways or edge-on when hit it is clearly a REF, or more properly, an illegal setup in the first place. Fix it (make it legal) and reshoot. I did a search on the IROA Academy to see if I could find anything on point with this question. While I found several references to plates, I could not find anything on point. Hence, what I give you here is just one IROA RM’s opinion. That should make this at least as clear as mud! (LOL) Edited to add - If I'm the shooter and the plate has NOT fallen when hit, I would keep shooting until I knocked it down. Otherwise it WILL be scored as a miss per the rules!
  14. Not to stir anything up, but this would appear to have been an IPSC match and not a USPSA match, correct? Just want to make sure I'm looking in the right set of rules before I comment.
  15. Chuck Either way, I see nothing in the IPSC rifle rules that would prohibit what the OP inquired about.
  • Create New...