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

Schutzenmeister

Classifieds
  • Posts

    1,113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Schutzenmeister

  1. Another thing I've seen, in a case like above, is for the RO to stand there quietly for 2-3 seconds before issuing the command. The shooter will sometimes figure it out, sometimes not. But the RO hasn't said or pointed to anything. Is this coaching? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's about as subtle as it can be!
  2. Appendix D states PFs are for HF scored matches only. Chapter 9 states R only or SG only matches may use HF scoring ... MG matches must be scored using Time Plus. Hence, there are no PFs in a MG match. If a R only or SG only match is scored using Time Plus then they have no PF requirements either. Trust me on this one ... I literally wrote those rules.
  3. I believe so ... Yes. My two favorites are Browning's Buckmark and the Ruger Mk II. (May be up to Mk III series by now ... Not sure.)
  4. Just a reminder ... USPSA MG rules do not recognize PF and do not provide for use of a chronograph. Also (though I haven't shot it in years) I don't believe Steel Challenge uses a chronograph either. IPSC doesn't have power requirements for action air or mini rifle. So ... Why let a motto get in the way of having fun?
  5. Sorry Nic ... The "RFPI, RFPO" in your OP title should have clued me in. (My bad!) No, IPSC does not have a discipline for .22 HG. They do have "Action Air" ... but let's NOT go there! 20-25 years ago I used to do EXACTLY what you're talking about at a club in Cheyenne, WY. The outdoor range was closed in winter - too much snow much of the time to even get into it. The indoor range wouldn't allow USPSA shooting with full power guns. Hence, we ran several indoor matches using .22 LR. It worked fine. Folks had a lot of fun. Two things: 1 - Go ahead and use USPSA rules, as far as they can be applied. (Note: ALL the safety rules CAN be applied!) 2 - DON'T call it a USPSA match ... Technically it's not. Perhaps, and most importantly, HAVE FUN! One other recommendation - Use a lot of the 1/2 size targets to keep it interesting, especially indoors!
  6. I posed this question to Mike Foley in 2019. His answer was simple. He's not in favor of USPSA developing rules for a .22LR match. IPSC already has a set of rules for this ... It's called Mini-Rifle. He said if I wanted to do such matches to use the existing IPSC Rules. See: http://legacy.ipsc.org/pdf/RulesMini-Rifle.pdf Why reinvent it? It already exists and we have full authority (as a member region of IPSC) to use these rules.
  7. We're not supposed to say "Go read the rules." so I won't. Go read the bylaws! (I have.) I can't find ANY provisions there that would allow for the action you seek. You would have to get a change made to the bylaws, which, by the way, can only be accomplished by the BoD. I seriously doubt they're going to approve a general membership ballot initiative such as you propose. But feel free to lobby your AD to get him to put it on the agenda!
  8. No ... Unless you can show me a rule providing for it. (News flash ... You can't.)
  9. @nasty618 You need you reread my post and note your comment which I quoted. The attitude going with your comment is reckless and irresponsible. Hence my reference to Darwinism. I personally know @BritinUSA. He has an enormous amount of experience as both a shooter AND as a photographer. I also have more than a little experience with cameras and lenses. His forensic analysis was quite good. He also refrained from making any serious condemnation ... He just analyzed the photo. I wasn't at this match so I absolutely will not make any call based on this one image. There were enough folks there in person to do that, if necessary.
  10. I would opine that ours is NOT the sport where Darwinism should be allowed full and free reign.
  11. Mostly true ... But in my experience, and where I'm the RM, only the RM will do this. It's not required by the rule, but it does ensure consistency in application. It's not wise to let everyone apply different standards within a match. However, IPSC 11.5 is worded such that video or audio evidence could be used and submitted to an arbitration committee.
  12. Reminder ... We're talking IPSC rules at the moment. USPSA handles this differently. STRICTLY speaking, what you propose would be in violation of #17. (Paraphrased) Substitution with OFM parts is OK but modifications to them are prohibited. (See 17 and 17.1 from a few posts ago.) So technically - No, you cannot modify an OFM part. HOWEVER ... 18.4 (I didn't quote all of it, but you can look it up if you wish.) allows for the substitution of AM springs and trigger assemblies. Who's to say that some entrepreneurial individual can't buy up a box of Glock spring assemblies, modify them and sell them as AM parts? Clearly there are numerous true AM assemblies out there that make their own rod/spring assemblies for Glock (and other firearms) in various strengths. Under older rules, a few years ago, this answer was easy: Not only No, but HELL NO! Unfortunately, it's a little more complex today. I'm going to fall back on the same advice I gave RowdyB back on June 17, 2019 ... It's kind of long, so I won't reprint it. Just scroll up about 9 posts or so! Cheers
  13. Acknowledgement to Terry ... Sorry! I found your posting there sometime AFTER I posted here. I've replied on that site and will also post my response here: OK ... First and foremost: Remember, I am just one RM. I have no authority to make official policy for or on behalf of IROA and/or IPSC. What follows are my thoughts on the topic. The history of PD (to include the current PDO and PDOL variants) is one of extreme restrictions. If you remember asking VP questions on the GV about PD to the tune of "Can I ...?" the answer was almost always a swift NO! (Enough with the initials?) The impetus of the division was to by a "Production" gun (as listed on the IPSC approved list), take it out of the box, go to the match and shoot it. A lot has happened since those early days of PD. Manufactures have come up with better and better PD guns (at ever increasing $$$), added various options and interchangeable parts which we allow to be substituted, and now we have a MUCH more complicated situation with respect to what is and is not allowed in PD. I shall limit my thoughts at the moment to Terry Docherty's postings from this past July 21st ... "Sig Sauer has a grip module from their "pro shop" that is a factory part that has been sent to a gunsmith they use and has been stippled and sold by the proshop." Before I go any further, let's list the applicable portions of the rules ... just to save everyone having to look them up: I've noted the portions I think applicable in red. Now here's where it gets sticky ... and I will admit I'm going to take a "conservative" approach in my response and stick with a traditional "NO!" approach. (Sorry ...) Sig has taken their manufacturing approach to a somewhat new standard with their interchangeable "grip modules." I will deliberately stick with their term of "module" and not refer to them as "panels, frames, or grips." They have come up with something new which I'm not certain anyone else is using at the moment. This complicates the discussion as far as current IPSC rules are concerned. Clearly, a grip module can be substituted from one firearm to another within the rules so long as it is listed for use on an approved firearm on the IPSC list. (Item 17, subject to the restrictions of 17.1 refers.) However, 17.1 specifically states that the addition of stippling is prohibited. Some of you will likely point out that Sig offers a stippled module as an option. Before you "Ah Ha! It's a factory option!" I suggest we look at exactly what is advertised. From Sig's web page on this item: "P320 X-Series Carry Grip module. Custom grips, painstakingly hand-stippled for a more aggressive texture than factory feeling." OK ... I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I would say the emphasized portions of Sig's own marketing (above) indicate this is a modification of a factory part and, I would opine, places it in violation of 17.1. They take an existing module, hand it to a gunsmith, and have it "painstakingly hand stippled." As such, I think that constitutes a prohibited modification. It matters not who does the modification ... You, the manufacturer, or a subcontractor. As described, it is a modification. I admit, if this part were listed as a separately manufactured assembly my opinion might be different. However, this is not the case. The next argument falls under "aftermarket grip panels." (18.3) Notice the wording here is "grip panels," not "grips" or "modules." If one looks at Sig's web page one will find both "grips" and "grip modules" listed under "parts." Look under "grips" and you will find complete grips (similar to those on a 2011 type gun) and grip panels (similar to those on a traditional 1911.) Here is where I am drawing a distinction: A "grip panel" is not the same as a "grip module." I do not take issue with a "grip panel" being stippled, so long as it matches the profile and contours of the OFM standard grip panel. I do not believe stippling changes either of those. It merely changes the texture. As it is not possible to install "grip panels" on this firearm ... only to replace "grip modules" ... I don't believe one could substitute an AM part under 18.3 and call it legal. I would welcome someone with actual authority to tell me I've over analyzed this and that I'm wrong. Unfortunately, in the absence of such a pronouncement, I would have to say No ... I don't see how someone could put a stippled grip (of whatever description) on a modular Sig firearm and consider it PD legal. Cheers ... Comments and/or rebuttals are welcome. Please remember, I stated this as my opinion. It is NOT an official IPSC/IROA position!
  14. Terry In truth, I haven't been following this issue. Please remember: I'm just one RM. I have no authority to officially speak for IPSC or IROA nor to establish policy. Clearly, Sig has created a new paradigm with their concepts! Have you considered posting this question to the IROA Academy? That forum is exclusively for IPSC/IROA and may draw more informed responses than just mine. I'll look at it and let you know what I think, but I'm not sure what the official response would likely be. (Give me a couple of days!)
  15. Despite having officially requested one, I've never received an answer nor have I seen one posted. Hence, I continue to operate based on my post from June 2019.
  16. Ten feet is not necessary. Is it possible this actually qualifies as a DQ under 10.4.7?
  17. Interesting. Did this purport to be a USPSA match? If so, I think they need to be reeducated.
  18. Assume further that it is a special classifier match with ALL classifier stages ... Shooter reenters on a second gun for all stages. In theory he could win the match on his second gun. Methinks a tweak to PS may be in order!
  19. From the USPSA Member's Page, Classification System: From the Feb 28, 2017 BoD minutes: Not exactly new ... But that's where it came from.
  20. Respectfully, asked and answered. If you want a more official answer than what I provided you need to contact IPSC directly and request an official interpretation.
  21. I am an IROA RM but I do not have input to "official" rules interpretations for IPSC ... However: The full text of the applicable rule (as you previously quoted) from the appendix is: In my experience, IPSC tends to be VERY strict in its interpretations of rules - especially when it comes to anything in Production. Milling of the slide for your optic is permitted - BUT - What you seem to propose is to also mill an additional modification in order to move the rear dovetail sight to a new location. Based on what I highlighted above, I STRONGLY suspect this would likely get you moved to Open. If you want a more authoritative answer, I recommend you post your question on iroa.invisionzone.com and request a more "authoritative" reply from either the IROA President or Vice-President. Be aware, they tend to take quite some time to respond ... Sorry! Addendum ... Side note ... The OP specifically asked about IPSC Rules. The holster issue you mention is basically a USPSA issue only, due to a difference in the way we wrote our rules. Under IPSC Rules the shooter has no similar constraints on holster choice and may use a "race" type holster if he desires. I would also note that virtually all Open shooters have their optics frame mounted in one way or another. PO shooters MUST mount their optic on the slide. This tends to cause a higher failure rate in the optics ... Hence some shooters like to have the irons remain as a backup.
  22. Not really. There is a doctrine in contracting referred to as Privity of Contract. This transaction was a contract between the match organizers and the shooter. HQ USPSA was not in any way a party to this contract. Hence, they have no legal standing, one way or another, in any dispute arising therefrom.
×
×
  • Create New...