Schutzenmeister

Hence - I would score 1 miss, 1 FTE. Also, I question how many targets you could see once you got to the end of the CoF ... Was it more than 8 rounds? Yeah, I know ... Level I. But still, the only leeway I can actually find is that you may use boxes and specify where or when specific target arrays may be engaged. I see nothing which indicates you can ignore the 8 rounds from one position rules. (Or have I misplaced that rule somewhere at this late hour!!???)

Without going back and actually quoting folks ... Nik - The revised 11.1.2 would prohibit the bringing of an arbitration on 2.1.4 basis or for a DQ after the shooter has already shot the CoF. However, suppose the arb is filed and the shooter is awaiting the decision before they attempt the CoF. (It would appear to me the revised wording creates the right on the part of the shooter to insist on a decision before the attempt at the course.) The central question then becomes just what does "Safe Angles of Fire" include within the context of 2.1.3 and 2.1.4. I'm having troubles with the concept that designers and match organizers can say it does not include avoiding the placement of targets that could easily break the 180 when shot on an "as and when available basis." MHS - I looked over the topic you referenced ... Sorry, but I don't see how jumping in the air has anything to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about targets that by the very way they are set up ALLOW (but not necessesarily FORCE) the shooter a clear and unobstructed view of the scoring surface of the target in the normal course of fire while violating the 180. That is what I think violates 2.1.4. IMA45DV8 and Tom - I agree ... 10.5.2 is pretty clear. Engaging a target beyond it should be a one-way ticket home. That is a significant reason why I see a proper reading of 2.1.4 as prohibiting designers and match organizers from placing targets in such a position or orientation that could reasonably allow - or possibly even encourage - a shooter to engage it past the 180. 1.1.5 is pretty clear also. It states the shooter may "shoot targets on an 'as and when visible' basis. It does not state 'as and when visible - EXCEPT when the shot would be in an unsafe direction' basis. Instead, the book places the onus on designers and organizers NOT to put the shooter in that position. It preserves the idea that the shooter may rely on the fact that if they can see the target they can safely engage it. Given the "fog of competition," it makes little sense to me to set the shooter up with a situation that could reasonably and predictably lead to an unsafe act. And, for the record, I have already posted there are two basic ways to avoid the problem ... Neither one of them involves going back to a 'box-to-box' shooting style. All - It's clear I appear to have a different intrepretation on the subject. Please give me credit for discussing it rationally, though it's also clear I don't seem to be winning many converts! If you still disagree with me ... well, that's cool. The forum is here for spirited discussions! I've pretty much exhausted my logic on the topic, so I will give it a rest. Thanks for your rebutals.

Perhaps it's because I read the rule quite literally ... "as and when visible" means that if I can see the scoring surface of the target, I can safely shoot it. 2.1.4 restricts course designers, host organizations and officials from placing a target such that, although I can see it, I cannot shoot it because it is too far up range. That is a shooter's trap. Further, it becomes subjective in its enforcement ... at EXACTLY what point does it violate the 180? Different ROs may call it at different points ... hence the administration is not fair and equal to all shooters. And even if it's the same RO on this stage for every shooter, what about a similar situation with another RO on another stage? Am I (the shooter) supposed to read the minds of the various ROs in order to determine when and where they will say I've gone too far before engaging the target I can still clearly see? Until overruled by an official intrepretation from above, I will continue to hold this opinion. If USPSA issues an intrepretation contrary to my view, I'll comply with it. I might not agree with it, but I will comply with it ...

Tom I believe we have long ignored the wording of 1.1.5 and 2.1.4 in this respect. I think we are begining to see the results of that now. Shooters are starting to challenge the target presentation as not in compliance with the rules and the AC is upholding the challenge. There are two major ways to avoid the problem. One is by angling the target such that the scoring surface is no longer visible once the shooter passes 180. The other is through the use of props and vision barriers. Perhaps this needs to be reviewed by NROI and the BoD to see if they either need to change the wording on these rules or to issue an intrepretation to one effect or the other. Just stating my opinions ...

See also the Production Rules Revisions from the USPSA Rules page ... I suspect the answer is ... No.

Boom ... You've done your research well! Yes, pinning of the grip safety is allowed and, though certainly not universal, is not uncommon.

Curiosity ... Did the staff actually "recommend" shooting the stage a certain way, or are you using that simply as a figure of speach?

And THICK skin!

(Moderators - I really don't know how to capture all the relevant posts and move them to a new thread ... However the discussion of 1.1.5, 2.1.4, and target presentation has nothing to do with the OT ... "Significant Advantage." Could someone please move this discussion to a new topic? Thanks!) My apologies on my post on this point ... A friend has privately pointed out I may have been misunderstood in what I meant to say. 1st - I do not maintain that a target presented in violation of 2.1.4 makes a "Stage" illegal ... It only makes that individual target presentation "illegal." This is something that can be fixed under 2.3, etc. It would appear there "may" have been such a target at the A6 ... I couldn't see it from North Dakota, so I won't judge! However, from all descriptions, it would appear that stage instructions were significantly altered between Friday and Saturday and THAT is the reason the stage was tossed ... Inconsistent administration of the CoF. (Anyone who was there ... Does that sound like what the desicision was?) As for the matter of "as and when visible" and target presentations ... My understanding and intrepretation of the rules is: 1.1.5 - States I am allowed to shoot target on an "as and when visible" basis. Simply put, if I can see the scoring portion of the target, I can shoot it. It does not say I am required to pull out a protractor and determine if the target was somehow placed beyond the 180. 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 place restrictions on course designers and match organizers as to where they may place targets. To quote 2.1.4, 'Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an "as and when visible" basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire.' 2.1.3 states 'Courses of Fire must always be constructed taking into account safe angles of fire. ..." It goes on to address other items as well, in addition to "safe angles of fire." In other words, the course designers and match organizers should be the ones pulling out the protractor during set up to ensure that targets may be safely engaged from any position in the CoF where the competitor can see them. If not, it should be fixed before the 1st shooter. If the match is already underway, then decisions need to be made under 2.3. In my mind, I cannot justify a definition of "safe angles of fire" which excludes violation of the 180 (90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop). Simply put, I think this is the one of the 'primary' safe angles of fire to which the rule refers ... in addition to the tops of the berm, potential richocets, etc. Finally, in my reading of the changes to 11.X - I can see no direct reference to 1.1.5, 2.1.4, or much of anything else. However, the revised 11.1.2 would preclude a shooter from engaging a target that is in violation of 2.1.4 and then filing an arbritration for reinstatement from the ensuing DQ based on an illegal target presentation. That appeal must be filed BEFORE he attempts his CoF. (For an example, go to last year's Nationals and read the Tasha Hanish Arb and Decision ... Hopefully that will clarify what the revised 11.1.2 is (I believe) trying to avoid.) Hopefully I haven't stuck my foot too far in my mouth with these opinions ... If I have, I'm certain I'll be informed of it! Just remember ... They're just my opinions - and I am NOT an RMI or the DNROI!

If the target could be seen and engaged from beyond the 180, then it was an illegal target presentation and should have been challenged before the shooter attempted the CoF. See Rule 2.1.4 (especially the last sentence) and the changes the BoD made to the Arbritration rules effective 1 March due (I suspect) to a similar situation at the last HG Nationals. (Moderators: Should this discussion be split off into a different thread from "Significant Advantage?")

Based on the last 2 MG Nationals, I'd say "No ... You won't be." You see, there hasen't been much of any following for HM at the MG Nationals the past 2 years. Maybe THAT'S why the BoD decided to effectivly "broaden" the definition of HM ... An attempt to attract SOME shooters. I predict that if there is little to no participation in HM at the next 1 or 2 Nationals, the BoD MAY consider dropping it altogether. Just my thoughts.

See the BoD decision quoted in post #38 ... Regardless of the opinion of this poll, it would seem your 10mm should be acceptable for HM per the current rules.

Let's see ... How can I put this? Nyet ... No ... Nein ... and Forget it. Everything that currently makes major in Lim, L10, SS can be purchased factory standard at most any gun store. Major 9 does not fall into that category. I think there's too much danger of blowing up non-custom guns trying to make major with a 9 to allow its introduction into these dividsions. I would be open to possibly allowing .357 Sig, though. It is a factory produced round clearly capable of making major in a factory standard .357 Sig.

Keep safe, my friend. Mike Carraher Major, USAF, Retired

I don't see where anyone has commented on it yet, but the BoD changed the definitions for HM in USPSA effective 1 Mar 2010. (If I missed the comment, sorry ...) Hence, 10mm (or even 40 S&W) and 10 rounds appears to be quite legal ...

Which is a significant reason why, in International competition, the trend has been towards physically handcuffing the briefcase (from your example) to the wrist. It then becomes a stage prop and you can do with it as you please ... since only the RO has the key to unlock it. Personally, I think this approach is dumb and can potentially lead to safety problems in the event of a jam or other malfunction. It is better and more sensible to allow the WSB to state (in some way or form) the briefcase is "simulated" handcuffed to the wrist and must be carried as such unless there is a malfunction where the shooter needs to put it down in order to safely clear the gun. There are times, I believe, where we take 1.1.5 a little too far.

My thinking on that was more in line with writing something like this: "Any competitor faulting at this location will be penalized on a per shot fired basis, as it's a significant advantage" or "any shooter faulting the line to hold open the door will receive a single procedural." Essentially trying to help all squads to make the same call.... For a Level 1, where the ROs roam with the squad, perhaps ... But at a higher level match I think the CROs should work this out with the RM and keep the WSB more simple.

Another way to view this is that you have 2 seperate matches ... When you combine them, it becomes a Tournament. (See 6.1.4.) I haven't taken the time lately to play with EZWinScore for a Tournament, but as I recall, you enter all the HG stages and register shooters for that, and enter all the (Rifle or SG) stages and register shooters for that ... all in the same screen. Each "match" can be printed out seperately and, as I recall, you can then print out the combined results for an overall "Tournament" score. (Bill Noyes ... If you're out there, you're probably the expert on this!)

One other item to consider if you are among the crowd who thinks the shooter should hold the door open with one hand and shoot with the other (as opposed to using a toe ...) With virtually every door, this will create a competitive disparity between right and left hand shooters. For example, a left handed shooter holding the door open with his right hand will shoot SHO ... The right handed shooter who (because any given door will always have the hinges on the same side) will also use his right hand to hold the door and shoot with his WHO. (Unless he wants to contort himself and cross arms ... creating another disadvantage and possibly a safety problem.) Hence, it is more properly a stage design issue ... The best designs (IMO) open the door towards the shooter OR allows for the shooter to pass just far enough through to use his body or foot to hold the door open. (A little OT, but there it is.) I would be opposed to EVERY shot always being penalized as that is simply too draconian. In most cases a per shot penalty goes WAY beyond the value of any advantage gained by the error. Also, putting every possible description into the WSB could make the WSB longer than the rule book. I wouldn't care for that either. The central question which needs to be addressed, either before the first shot - or later if the situation was unforseen - should be "Does a single 10 point penalty totally eliminate any advantage the shooter may have gained, or does he need to be wacked harder to keep him from gaining an unfair advantage over other shooters?" I think the current rule, as written, addresses this reasonably. I might also question a WSB which stated something to the effect of "any fault will be penalized on a per shot basis" as possibly being contrary to the rules. Just my thoughts ...

We've even gone so far as to look at the split times on our timers when shooting indoors. In particlar, Open guns can cause enough of an echo to register multiple times on the timer. When we see a aplit of .06 or .07 on the last shot, we KNOW something is up. (Very few shooters in the world can do that, and certainly NO ONE at our local club!) We use the review function to find the correct shot time to record on the score sheet. The RO is required to record the shooter's attempt accurately. If the timer "malfunctions," but an accurate time can still be determined, that time should be recorded and no reshoot issued. (That's a round-about explanation of what I read in 9.10.1.)

I am frequently amazed at the number of shooters who will argue over the roughly 1/10 second advantage that may be gained by such "gaming" and then ingnore their basic shooting skills. It is far more gratifing, IMO, to save that 1/10 of a second by shooting faster and more accurately ... or perhaps saving 1/2 to 3/4 of a second by practicing my reloading skills than to worry about the minor amount gamed on the position of the gun on a table. Just my point of view ... no offense intended to any individual.

It's not a done deal, yet. However, there is serious discussion of eliminating Modified and replacing it with Single Stack ... most likely of the 1911 variety. The decision will most likely be made at the General Assembly meeting in Greece around October of 2011.

SS is also subject to weight limits ... 43 oz with empty magazine. D5, #18.

It's not. Steel Challenge has it's own set of rules. Absolutely correct ... SC has its own rule book. I just reviewed my copy and I see no prohibition against what you saw. The shooter will, however, be DQ'd if the gun goes bang in the process.

See Appendix E3 for a picture. Notice the waist is indicated as above the hip bone. (You can feel that if you try!) The picture seems to suggest the bottom of the belt should probably be above the hip bone in order for the belt to be at the waist. Best I can do ...