NickBlasta
-
Posts
428 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by NickBlasta
-
-
Very little handgun experience to start, classified into C, made master in 6 months and GM 17 months after that. Bit less than 2 years.
-
I cut a piece out of my holster body (bladetech) for mine with the old dremel.
-
1 hour ago, Posvar said:
I would like to know this as well. The Romeo3 Max and XL are a little longer in the front and maybe the plate would need a bit of opening up.
Anyone with any more info on this specific optic on the S2 optic ready gun?
It doesn't fit.
-
39 minutes ago, IVC said:
10.2.3 addresses multiple penalties. The maximum number of procedural penalties is the number of shots (after the reload), which is 6.
12 scoring hits are available. 12 penalties can be assessed.
-
1 hour ago, Schutzenmeister said:
George Jones (RMI) answered a similar question VERY well about 4 years ago:
Tag him for one or the other on those six shots, but not both. He's already losing 10 points for every shot fired ... Why would you want to hit him for 20 points each? Let's say he was also foot faulting (with significant advantage) ... Would you then apply 3 penalties per shot fired? (i.e., 30 penalty points for each 5 point potential shot fired) Let's get real.
Each shot he fired was ONE ACT. He may incur only ONE procedural penalty for each shot. (Note: Scoring penalties for extra shots and/or extra hits are another matter ... See Chapter 9.) Hit him with the failure to reload penalty as that counts per shot no matter how many targets are available downrange and call it good.
Said rule only applies for the referenced reason, trying to give general procedural when specific ones should be used. In this case two specific penalties are being given. There is nothing in the rulebook that says two (or more) specific procedurals can't be given for one shot. The correct number of procedurals is 12.
-
11 minutes ago, ck1 said:
Seems to me that someone would need to make a Romeo 3 Max/XL-specific plate or something in order for me to realistically want to give it a go... I mean IMO, not having to permanently alter or marry a particular optic and gun is kinda the whole point of going with the OR model vs just getting an S2 cut/milled. Plus, I wouldn't want to shave/alter a $500+ optic that has a HIGH probability of having to go back at some point under warranty during it's life of ownership...
Freakin' Sig
they always have to do Sig-stuff and try and make everything proprietary like with their barrel threads on the MPX's... There's probably not even a good reason engineering-wise why the R3 Max/XL's have to have those extended/angled fronts on their bases other than just being different, but it makes them not truly compatible with RTS2 plates/mounts even though they share the footprint...
You would need a plate that raised the optic up above the slide, because the optic is too big for the cut itself.
-
Have one in my hands and I can tell you it doesn't fit the cut.
-
2 hours ago, Limitless13 said:
Hey guys, figured it would make sense to revive an old thread instead of bringing up a new one. Are some of the new grip modules that are on the market legal for Production/CO? I'm specifically looking at the Polymer 80 version. I doesn't look like it adds an additional magwell like the Wilson Combat does. Thoughts?
https://www.polymer80.com/pistol-frames/pf320ptextm-grip-module-1/pf320ptextm-grip-module
Any replacement grip module is allowed if it meets the criteria in 21.4.
-
23 hours ago, Quack said:On 5/25/2020 at 12:43 PM, NickBlasta said:Is there anywhere to buy the factory plates in the US?
Can use the P10 plates.
They're the same size?
-
Is there anywhere to buy the factory plates in the US?
-
2 hours ago, cellguy030 said:
Couple references in this thread to the product or service, IMO the product for the fee is the slot in the match... not the completion of the match. maybe for those that are concerned about this simply need to change the wording of the registration for what is being paid for.
The language you use is important.
It helps to be up front that a service is being provided to the buyer rather than a product. A product can or can not be delivered, pretty black and white. A service you are arguably already providing (registering a person, squadding them, building the match on their behalf) it can help you win chargebacks more easily.
-
You're right, I personally wouldn't buy one without a lifetime warranty.
-
On 5/7/2020 at 12:29 PM, waktasz said:
Trigger shoes are not legal and adding mass to an X5 trigger that has a history of questionable drop safety may not be a good idea.
Only if it pokes out the sides.
-
5 hours ago, davsco said:
i don't agree with this at all. if the (no) refund policy was laid out in the registration legalese, then that should/would be binding. golf courses and all sorts of businesses (airlines, etc) have no-show policies where if you don't cancel within an x-hour window, you've lost your money.
To be fair there's an extra level of complexity where the merchant has an agreement with the credit card company, listing where chargebacks are and aren't acceptable. The person organizing the match is bound to this merchant agreement, even where contracts you make with the cardbearer might contradict it.
For example if my merchant agreement with the CC company says "cardbearer may chargeback in instances where the product/service is not received or is significantly different from described", nothing I try and bind the cardholder to in terms of agreeing to no refunds will fly. I could say 'but you said you were fine with no refunds' and the CC company will say 'you agreed to give refunds under these conditions'. I speak as a merchant who sells nonrefundable deposits and wins chargebacks.
So in winning the chargeback what he did may have been "legal", you can only argue about whether or not it was morally correct. -
Anyone put a Romeo3 XL on one of these? Do you use the RTS2 plate?
-
Looks a lot like a sideways bullet having tumbled after hitting the steel. I would say the call is legit.
-
2 hours ago, IVC said:
Splatter is part of the jacket or bullet and doesn't count per rule 9.5.5. If the bullet itself was a partial hit and continued down range, then rule 9.1.5.3 says it counts for the penalty. The question here is "what hit the no-shoot?"
A partial hit on metal target is similar to hitting the outside perforation on D zone, where part of the bullet counts for score on the target, but the other part allows it to count down range for score or penalty. It's also how shots on perforation of no-shoots count for targets beyond. The trick with metal targets is to determine what really happened - a full hit, a partial hit, was it the bullet or splatter.
Technically 9.5.5 only counts if it exceeds your bullet diameter...
How I've seen the RMs score it at majors is that if you have a hit that's partial on steel, and then anything at all that resembles a bullet, or a piece of a bullet (including any kind of semi-conical radius, or any piece of lead that leaves grease on the paper), in the NS, you get the NS. If it looks clearly like just a piece of jacket (a sliver, or a mere tear) you do not get the NS.
-
21 minutes ago, IVC said:
Just to clarify - I'm not arguing that this is a loophole or a technicality that makes it legal, I'm arguing that this is completely within the "spirit" of what should normally be considered legal. The dirt on the outside is off limits and there is a well-defined boundary on the inside. Nobody wedging their foot against the fault line will get a procedural.
It's not well defined because the entirety of the fault line is the boundary and half of it is covered by dirt. It would be equally as arbitrary to say "it's okay because if you don't touch the fault line at all you won't get a procedural".
-
The justification I've seen used against assigning foot faults in these situations by RMs is that it no longer provides the physical reference indicated by the rule. The shooter can no longer physically feel where the shooting area ends. Though there is a rise to the inside of the fault line, the shooting area actually ends on the far side of the fault line ie, the buried part.
-
No because of the portion after "unless".
-
21 hours ago, Chili said:
Same story for me on an older Trubor but I still don't have my replacement, been waiting since March.
Sent in a cracked slide 8 months ago, still waiting.
-
On 11/1/2019 at 5:38 AM, ELSOS said:
Any words on their warranties for the guns out there? The big seller for some has been the lifetime warranty. If they aren’t making open guns anymore do they have replacement parts for when guns break?
I imagine they will eventually only do what they mostly do now, which is offer to replace your old model gun with something they currently produce. If they say they can't fix it because they don't make open guns anymore you may be able to convince them to do it, maybe not. The terms of their warranty allow them to decline a repair for whatever reason they want.
-
There was a point where STI began to notice that the prices being charged for custom 2011s were considerably higher than the prices it was charging.
Reasonably, STI wants to bring its prices up somewhat from where they are, but not quite to custom prices. They know they are seen as the entry-level 2011, so they can't just raise prices. At least not easily. So, boom! The DVC is born. It's flashy, and the price is higher. Gradually, the old lines (Trubor, Edge, etc) are discontinued.
People of course begin to notice that the guns are not really different from the old lines, and in fact may even be worse. Comps and slides are cracking. People still go to custom vendors. So the company thinks... another brand redesign. If competition shooters know the product isn't worth the new price, let's advertise to... tactical shooters! After all they're spending the prices we want on custom Glocks, we can get them to buy our guns! They're half plastic already!
So they drop the Staccatos, marketed towards timmies. Enter the gradual phase-out of the DVC line.
-
11 minutes ago, Southpaw said:
So what's the penalty for doing this? And if the answer is a bump to Open, then what happens if an Open shooter does this?
Gear violation during the COF, the relevant rule covers both, which is that if you're not shooting open you go to open, and if you're shooting open you now shoot for no score.
How long did it take you to make GM?
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
Just like practicing any skill, you make huge gains in the beginning and then it takes more and more repetition for incremental gains. The 85% to 95% gap represents that incremental gain delta for most people very well I think.