Schutzenmeister

The applicable rule is quoted below ... Conceivably, one could argue he pointed the firearm in an unsafe direction thereby violating the rules for a safety table. However, I would be more likely to educate him this is not acceptable and only disqualify him if he does it again.

I'm waiting for them to allow me to use my M1 Carbine ...

True ... In a 5" 1911. However, IIRC, the Major PF was actually based on a milspec 230 ball from an Officer's model 1911. (May have been the Commander length ...) The muzzle velocity was a bit lower for that.

@shred ... I was referring to the early days before IPSC's formal establishment. Think Chapman, Cooper, Weaver, etc. Had comps, optical sights been invented? Yeah, I think so ... but they weren't exactly much in use. Then, it was chiefly the 1911 vs. various revolvers - mostly .38/.357, but occasionally larger - and the occasional 9mm, I would guess like the Browning Hi Power. Have things changed ... Of course. Both in terms of equipment and what the "practitioners" of the sport pursue. But, if we want to keep going down this rabbit hole, we should all just chuck our current equipment (and any meaningful PFs) and just shoot .22LR. But even then, I think we'll still be stuck with comps and dots.

In effect, everything was limited as I don't believe comps and dots had come into use at that time. It wasn't called Limited until they decided to create 2 divisions, Open and Limited, circa 1994 IIRC. As for SS ... The 1911 was VERY much in use at the time. SS, as a division, came from the Single Stack Society who was trying to bring these "classic" guns back into the mainstream of the sport. In fact, SS in an IPSC match is called Classic Division. The current names may not have been in use, but the guns were.

Only indirectly ... Point in case, a well tuned Open gun can make 165+ PF with little to no perceived recoil to the shooter. It actually derives to impact power on target.

You're late to the party .... I came to that conclusion in 1994!

That rule came about AFTER they did away with Modified Division. There's no reason they couldn't change it again for a new division.

Hmmm ... I wouldn't have thought they'd fit.

Personally, I think the biggest thing that killed Modified was the fit in the Standard box requirement ... It took some really insane engineering to pull that off. If IPSC were to attempt Standard Optics with the same box requirement Modified had thenI don't care what the caliber is, it'll be DOA.

I seem to recall that was the original intent for that membership type. Why we drifted from it I know not.

Correct. PCC is a completely separate rule book from HG. Nevertheless, PCC matches are frequently run concurrently with a HG match.

It just started in USPSA ... Limited Optics. I suspect IPSC will wait and see how it fares here then decide.

I read it the same way ... Plus, your second set of sights are legal if they're irons.

I read pretty much the entire thread from the now 9 year-old post. It included the following: Based on this, I think the designer's intentions are clear ... Shoot T1 or T3 first - It dosen't matter. This is just another case of unfortunate/poor wordsmanship in the writing of the stage procedure. (I've been in the sport 30+ years now ... I've had time to see this more than once!) Why do we have to overthink this? As has been stated before, by numerous officials in authority, the WSB cannot override the rules.

Why?

You may be correct ... But ALL of the listed activities are games/sports. No one is supposed to be shooting back at you! Incoming rounds change the calculus!

For the record, NON of the above sports are "real world" ... If you want "real world," enlist and serve in an active combat zone ... or become a cop and serve a felony warrant.

Agree to disagree ... 1.2.2.2 does not grant any exemption to 1.1.5 in terms of freestyle and specifying target order. I still think the procedure needs to be reworded to bring it into clear compliance with the rules. You may be right on a previous ruling, but I don't recall it.

In reading the classifier information I think it is poorly written. Specifying T1 THEN T3 on the 2nd string the procedure violates rule 1.1.5 ... Freestyle. There is no exemption under 1.1.5 that would allow for specifying target order here. The intent is clearly "engage one target, reload, and then engage the other target." DNROI an HQ should revisit this classifier and update the wording on it to bring it in alignment with the rules. I would be hard pressed to approve a penalty at all for what was described. JMHO ... YMMV

Sarge ... What you or I may individually like or loath, one of the two will be USPSA President come January. As Lucy (from Peanuts) used to say; if you don't vote, don't crab!

Looks like there was a winner in A8. The Presidential run and A6 will go to a run off. Watch your inbox for the notification of the dates ... Then GO VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE(S) OF YOUR CHOICE!

You do know that PT stands for "Pain and Torture," don't you? (I've had PT for more injuries than I can count!)

Interestingly, I just double checked the Multigun rules. Under MG 5.1.2.2 bipods may be added or removed at any time during the match. I don't know why they didn't carry this over to HG rules ... but, they didn't.