Schutzenmeister
-
Posts
1,522 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Schutzenmeister
-
-
3 hours ago, BritinUSA said:
[...]
I do wonder if the Major requirements should be changed for Standard Optics. Perhaps set Major at 150PF with a minimum bullet weight of 145grn and diameter if 9mm. Essentially 9mm +P ammunition.
Can't agree ... We already watered down Major when we dropped it below 175. Seems like every time someone whines about MAJ/min the chorus either wants to further dilute Major or to simply eliminate it. I'm not in favor of that.
-
6 hours ago, IVC said:
The rule 9.5.7 starts: "A competitor who fails to shoot at the face of each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty..."
It requires to shoot at each scoring target with at least one round. It doesn't talk about hits or score, those are addressed elsewhere. In your example of two targets and one shot, did the competitor *shoot* at each one (different than whether the competitor *hit* each one)? The procedural penalty should be the same whether there was no hit, partial hit or full diameter hit on one of the targets as it's assessed based on what happened at the shooter location, not what happened at the target.
When two targets overlap it is physically possible to shoot at both targets with one shot. The rule doesn't say that one round can only be shot at one target. In my example each target was shot at by one round ... It just happened to be the same round on both targets as evidenced by the hits.
-
I tend to view it as one is not sighting in the gun ... One is sighting in the system. The shooter is Part of the system.
I do pretty much what @shred described above.
-
1 minute ago, IVC said:
Even if it's a partial hit and the popper counts, there is rule 9.5.7 that requires at least one shot at each target. If this happened to me, I would take one quick shot at the fallen popper, just in case it was a partial hit and I can claim the score without incurring a FTSAT.
Not quite correct ...
Assume 2 paper targets overlapping. 1 round is fired at the combined array. It strikes the non scoring line in such a way that it counts for score on BOTH targets. You score both targets accordingly.
WHICH target would one consider he did NOT shoot at? Hint ... If there's a scoring hit on a target you cannot make a credible argument for FTSA for either target, regardless of number of shots fired.
-
1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:
I think IPSC got rid of Fixed Time too, it's all Comstock, all the time.
Correct.
-
To my recollection, there have only ever been 3 US based IROA RMs: Arnie C., John A., and me. If there were others, it was more than 20 years ago.
-
10 minutes ago, shred said:
Troy was the next in line after Amidon (his rulings also sometimes were a bit wacky). He's a certified IROA RM and been doing the RO gig a very long time.
Sorry ... Troy's IROA certification is that of RO which he was awarded in 2018. Amidon was an IROA RM.
-
On 9/6/2023 at 3:06 PM, Blackstone45 said:
IPSC rules just say that racking/cocking handles are prohibited. It would take some really creative interpretation of the rules to say that an optics plate that sticks out slightly is a racking handle. Appeal to RM, and if that fails, fork up for arbitration.
Based solely on what I've read here as to the description of the situation, I concur.
-
6 minutes ago, HesedTech said:
Why? Please explain.
Because this test applies to ALL semi autos, not just your Shadow. I covers ALL Divisions (except Revolver), even those where you have full permission to do anything to the triggers. (Open, Standard, Standard Optics, and back in the day - Modified)
Edit to add:
Do we have to wait for someone to be injured or killed to add a common sense safety inspection prior to competition?
-
2 hours ago, IHAVEGAS said:
Are there any known incidents of people getting hurt due to a gun being out of specification on this check? Not debating, just trying to learn.
In my personal experience, not exactly. That dosen't mean it hasn't happened. I have seen the damage a detonation out of battery can do. These were caused by other factors though and not what we're discussing here. Still ... I don't like the damage an uncontained exploding case can have whatever the cause.
The worst case of something like this was probably the USS Iowa in 1989 ... Open breech, detionation, massive explosions ... 47 (?) dead. The Navy botched the investigation. Bigger gun, but uncontained detionations should be avoided.
I've also on occasion witnessed a gun going full auto. The shooter may or may not be able to control the muzzle rise in that case. (I've seen that both ways.) I don't know the root cause on those incidents, either.
47 minutes ago, Blackstone45 said:if this were true, it would only be applied to 'Production' guns.
I'm pretty sure the point of the disconnect is to prevent out of battery detonations?
Badda-Bing, Badda (No)Bam!
22 minutes ago, rowdyb said:Put the stock hammer back in and I bet all will be fixed.
That, or find a competent gunsmtih to fit things properly ...
11 minutes ago, HesedTech said:Maybe that's the intent when it was written.
I went and measured my Shadow 2s at what distance the hammer would not drop when the slide is out of battery. The slide was 3.5 mm back when it would not drop with trigger pull. But there's a caveat, the breach was visibly open only 1.5mm.
The question then is how and where do they measure and is it consistent across brands of guns?
See how ridiculous this rule becomes. But it's the rule if you want to compete.
At 1.5mmm gap from the face to the barrel hood on my gun it cannot be measure. Why? Because I can't get even a feeler gauge into the gap properly. I would like to see picture of someone measuring this.
I assure you, that's STILL the intent today. As to your Shadow ... I don't own a CZ so I can't intelligently address your question. I haven't got one to experiment with. However ... I have seen feeler wires ... perhaps you could try one of those.
Edit to add:
You might also consider the shaft of a drill bit of the appropriate size in your case.
-
1 hour ago, HesedTech said:
The rule isn't really for safety purposes, it's to force competitors into a stock or near stock configuration.
I cannot possibly disagree more.
-
On 9/5/2023 at 6:28 PM, shred said:
I vaguely remember it's gap between barrel hood and breechface they look for, not slide travel or many guns would fail. @Schutzenmeister probably knows more. I wasn't paying a great deal of attention to that test at the last half dozen IPSC equipment checks I've been through.
1st - I didn't write these procedures ... I also am not usually the person actually performing the tests, especially so when I'm the RM. However:
The measurement gap to which they are referring is the gap between the barrel hood and the breech face as @shred has indicated. By this point in the cycling virtually ALL semi-automatic handguns SHOULD have activated the disconnector thus preventing the trigger from being able to release the hammer and ensuring it cannot again be released until the gun is fully (or nearly fully) back into battery. Let's face it ... A gun that goes bang while not in battery is unsafe! It also prevents a gun from going full auto, another unsafe situation.
And yes ... the slide on most semi autos I'm familiar with, certainly the ones we use in this sport, will travel some distance to the rear BEFORE the barrel disengages and presents you with a measurable gap. (The differences may be some guns like the Browning Buckmark or the Walther PPK with a FIXED barrel.)
Where did they come up with the 1/16" (1.15875 mm) and 1.5 mm? The gods only know ... and the oracles at Delphi have as yet to provide me with any insight on that topic! FWIW - A US penny is listed as 1.52 mm thick. (A dime is too thin ...) Your other option for measurement is a set of automotive feeler gauges, for those of you old enough to remember setting the gaps on plugs and points!
-
8 hours ago, -JCN- said:
I hope to gain enough knowledge of the application of the rules that someday I’ll sit for the RO class.
In all honesty, cart and horse ... Take the RO course as soon as you can manage to. That's the place you'll actually learn the rules and how to apply them.
-
We're I called to review this design I'd ask some questions ...
What is the purpose of A? A starting position? Eliminate A and put a board on the ground to mark the starting position. The fault lines of B are adequate per the rules, but you may want to close the back side of the area to prevent unnecessary retreat.
Is A simply a "don't shoot from here" area? Then close off the up range portion of B with fault lines in such a way as to eliminate it as a shooting area.
WSBs tend to be too long and verbose. Good stage design and set up generally renders that excess wording unnecessary.
Principle: K.I.S.S. It really does work.
p.s. Your sketch isn't bad. Trust me ... I've dealt with worse!
-
I'm dealing with luddites and troglodytes. Procedures do not define the shooting area, rules do. The reason it gets stated in the WSB is because of folks like you who do not understand that and it has become standard convention.
Tell me this ... If I fail to tell you not to break the 180 while shooting can I still DQ you when you do, or is that something covered by the rules which I don't need to tell you? Yeah, a stretched out example, but it's the same principle. If it's already in the rules it need not be separately briefed.
-
15 minutes ago, RJH said:
3.2 says procedure is a requirement, so you answered your own question in where the rules say that exactly.
Also 10.2.2 says a competitor will get a procedural if he doesn't comply with the stage breathing. How are you going to give a competitor a procedural for not complying with the WSB if you don't describe in the WSB where the shooting area is?
I've only been doing this for about 19 years, but as I recall the WSB has required a procedure all that time. I don't have a rule book that old in front of me, but if you do maybe you can point out the difference
If you want implied wsbs, maybe IDPA is your name
I've been in the game for over 30 years now. Yes, a stated procedure IS a requirement. Telling the shooter to shoot the targets after the start signal IS a procedure. Not faulting lines while shooting is NOT a procedure, it's covered by the rules. And finally, you're relying on the wrong rule. Penalties for firing a shot while faulting are covered under 10.2.1, not 10.2.2. Faulting a line while shooting is a Specified penalty, NOT a violation of "procedure." It has nothing to do with "implying" anything in the WSB, rather it isn't necessary to spoon-feed already existing rules to the shooter in the WSB.
-
27 minutes ago, Joe4d said:
may not be a requireemnt.. But you dont have a shooting area, if you dont define a shooting area.
The shooting area is defined in the WSB,, not on the ground..
Case in point.. A box on the ground.. WSB says,, Start position standing in box, hands at side.. yadda yadda.
At signal engage t1-t-6
I see that as the box is simply the start position,, and I am gonna move if it helps me..
You cant just decide that box is te shooting area unless you spell it out in the WSB as a shooting area.The construction of the shooting area in and of itself defines the shooting area else WHY go to the trouble of nailing sticks to the ground and painting them red or orange. If all that is needed is a starting position, just paint an X on the ground and say start here ... Then the ABSENCE of fault lines tells you you're free to go anywhere. I've seen that, too.
Edit to add: We see a lot of things now being done that are done because of DRLs and what has become standard convention to deal with them instead of dealing with the situation.
-
2 hours ago, RJH said:
Also "procedure" under 3.2, is exactly the place that you would tell somebody where to shoot from. And it's a requirement. And I think it has been for basically ever
Yes ... 3.2, Procedure is Where one would insert that information.
Again, IF it is a requirement, kindly tell me exactly Where in the rules it says that.
And no, it has NOT "been for basically ever." (I've been in the sport long enough to make that observation.)
-
1 hour ago, Nik Habicht said:
....and apparently that time was pre-2001, because I heard that same sentiment from the old shooters at my first match.....
Yea @Nik Habicht, but you already KNEW I was older than dirt!
Too many folks like to use the montra of "Freestyle" as a rubber crutch to dance around the rules. Let's consider what is and is not in the rules:
1st - There is NO requirement in the rules anywhere that I can find stating you MUST tell the shooter in the WSB that he has to shoot from inside the shooting area. If you can find that verbige, please let me know where it is!
Given the above, let's look at what the rules DO say:
1.1.5 Freestyle - This generally allows shooters to solve the challenge in any manner they choose (subject to the rules) but goes on to say: "However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions, locations or stances." Newsflash ... A fault line is a physical limitation.
2.2.1 Discusses numerous physical barriers, including fault lines. 2.2.1.1 discusses how to build them, and 2.2.1.2 what a shooting area is ... to include fault lines.
3.2 Covers the WSB. Nowhere in there does it say you have to tell the shooter he must shoot targets from within the shooting area.
10.2.1 (along with 10.2.1.1 and 10.2.1.2) specifies penalties for shooting while violating fault lines. I think most of us are familiar with it, so I'll not reprint the whole thing here.
Given that the use of physical limitations is authorized by the definition of Freestyle, that 2.2.1 covers how to construct fault lines and that they help form the shooting area, that there is NO requirement to include that information in the WSB under 3.2, and FINALLY that 10.2.1 spells out penalties for the specific act of violating a fault line while shooting, I must ask:
Why then, in heavan's name, do we need to TELL someone in the Procedures section of the WSB what is already put forth in the rules - i.e., you CAN shoot from outside the shooting area, but you WILL BE SCORED ACCORDINGLY!
FWIW, the rules are virtually identical under IPSC on this. However, what I virtually never see is anyone in the rest of the world having to be told in the briefing that they must shoot from inside the shooting area. Is the ROTW really that much smarter than we are? Or do we just have more DRLs?
-
26 minutes ago, Joe4d said:
Chuck had the correct answer,, way up yonder.....
Barry is trying to use a rule that assumes a different WSB than the OP had.
You cant use a rule that defines a penalty as justification for that penalty if its not part of the stage.
That would be like enforcing a foot fault penalty because there is a board on the ground,, When the WSB makes no mention of shooting area.
A WSB that simply says,, engage T1-T6... Vs a WSB that says,, engage T-1 through T-6 from within the shooting area..
In the first you cannot score a foot fault,, in the second you can.There was a time in this sport, apparently now long forgotten, when folks had enough sense to understand what fault lines were and the automatic consequences of shooting outside the lines. Now we have to be TOLD to shoot from within the shooting area. Oh for the simpler days ...
-
1 - I am assuming you are referring to IPSC MR as it does not exist in USPSA ...
2 - See IPSC MR Appendix D, Line 11:
QuoteSpecial conditions:
11. Magazines must not be clipped, taped or otherwise attached to any other magazine.The special conditions apply to ALL Divisions, not just one. Items applying to only Standard Division are rules 13 through 15.
Therefore, one may NOT couple magazines in IPSC MR, regardless of division.
Hope that helps ...
-
Hey @Squirrel45
Glad to hear you're hanging in there. Yeah, Chemo's a BITCH! But they kind of pointed out to me that cancer is fatal and you will likely survive and recover from chemo ... So far, they’re right. I finished chemo and radiation back in February – I’m still here; the cancer is gone!
The only shooting I’ve done since was for my CCW. It was embarrassing! My usual 3” group couldn’t even be contained on an 8.5 x 11 inch sheet of paper. I got enough hits to qualify, but damn! I’m still trying to build muscle mass back and have some neurological issues, but this is all temporary – or so I’m told.
Your weekly pattern is all too familiar, I’m sorry to say. Hang in there and keep going as long as your oncologist says it’s safe to continue. I wanted to quit, but no one would give me permission to do so … Thank the gods!
Hold your wife dear. Were it not for mine, I would have crawled into a corner and waited for the end. She wouldn’t let me. Hang in there. Don’t worry about school, work, or much else. Get through the chemo and you’ll have the rest of your life to catch up on all that!
-
^^^^ So buy both. The cost on this one time investment is generally less than a L2 match fee.
-
^^^
^^^
Barrel hits… but still hits the target… how do you score it?
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
No, they don't. But they also do not prohibit it. The various rules under 9.1 are consistent ... The RO must determine whether or not an accurate score can be determined. If yes, score it. If not, reshoot. Under some circumstances the presence or absence of a grease mark can be used to help make an informed decision.
In the case of the 2 poppers as presented by the OP ... I suggest all review 9.1.5.4. They both score. The rule on scoring metal targets is they must be shot and overturn to score. (I'm paraphrasing here.)
If it's been hit, and especially if it falls, whether by 1 shot or 10, I cannot with a straight face call a FTSA on either target.