RickB

We did have fun, all 58 of us. We decided to tell everyone to stay at the desk, since there was no advantage to moving, and if the "official word" turned out to be that the shooter shouldn't move, we could have had some invalid scores. I'll forward the results as soon as I get the four postal stage scores separated from the other two stages we shot on Saturday.

Not true. Either 9 rounds or 10 rounds for the entire match. Do not have to have a 9 rounder to download 10 rounders to 9. Best regards, Jim You must load to division capacity, unless the mag will not hold that many. If you have a 1911, and own 9- and 10-round mags you can mix them and load them all to the same, lower capacity, but if you come to a match with only a beltfull of 10-rounders, you cannot choose to load them to only 9. See page 21 of the rule book.

If you have one 9-rounder in use, you can load the 10-rounders with 9, but you can't choose to load the 10-rounders to 9 unless you are using a 9 in conjunction with them.

While I'm happy to concede that no benefit may be gained from moving, I'm asking about what happens if someone does? If the table is not cover, then leaving the start position is OK, and allowing the shooter to stand while engaging T3-4 seems to support that. Nothing in the procedure says the shooter must remain at the table. Lots of people have shot the stage, and I suspect more than a few have not stayed at the table; did they get dinged with a procedural? Should they?

On stage 3, since the shooter is given the option of standing to engage T3-4, the table is not cover? Can the shooter move from the table for shooting or reloading? That is, I can see someone taking two steps to the right, from the start position, to get a clear view of T3, and then staying there to shoot and reload, if there's no cover. As long as T3 is engaged before T4 (tac priority), it's okay to move from the table to engage them? Also, in the video, it looks like the shooter engages T4 before T3; T3 is much closer to the shooter, and the no-shoot doesn't qualify as cover, so shouldn't T3 be engaged first (before T4)?

The awards are in the form of a personalized certificate, which is mailed. The match, prize table drawing, and award announcements are all done on match day.

Sixth annual championship, hosted again by Northwest Practical Pistol Association, and Renton Fish & Game Club. Saturday, August 18th. 12 stages, ~140 rounds. Prize table, and awards per IDPA guidelines. Website, with match entry form, to follow.

The IDPA box will allow "slampad" style basepads, but I don't think any of the "+" bases, designed to increase capacity, will fit. A firend of mine shoots a Para P-14 in CDP and USPSA Limited, and he has to remove his Dawson pads for the gun to fit in the box; I suspect the same is true of S_I guns.

I cannot imagine investing any time in a one-round reload technique, involving an altered style (round in weak hand, still supporting the gun), or shooting strong hand only, to facilitate the reload, for the odd occasion when it might be a benefit. Certainly, performing a standard, well-practiced reload is the way to go.

Before the latest rule book came out, I interpreted "type" to mean any gun that was legal for the same division as the gun being replaced; I mean, isn't that what divisions are for, to separate the different "types" of guns? But, it now appears that you must replace a Glock with a Glock, a SIG with a SIG. I think any 1911 could replace another, but I don't know if you could replace a Beretta with a Taurus, even though they are functionally identical.

I'm trying to get the four stages included in our June or July club match. We usually attract 50+ shooters.

One procedural on the first one. If the shooter blew off TS on both arrays, a FTDR might be appropriate, but I'm no mind reader, so . . . The course description should address the reloading issue. The consensus seem to be that no visible threats = behind cover, even if there is no cover, per se.

I wish it were that simple, but I've heard responses to this (on the idpa board iirc) saying thay you need to be behind cover, and that this means close to cover. Just saying that even when something looks like there's only one way to read things, someone else will show you another way. IOW, behind cover could mean either cover is between you and the targets, or also require you to be "close" to cover. Actually, it is that simple, if we're talking how to define "use of cover". The rule book is very specific. It is not always possible to be absolutely certain if someone is complying, but there shouldn't be any doubt as to the standard. As a SO, my "favorite" is when a shooter is twenty feet uprange of the cover, and is pieing around at a target that is just beyond the cover. I'd say the target is using cover, and the shooter is out in the open, but there's nothing in the rules about how close the shooter has to be to cover, and the farther away, the tougher the call.

We call out the cover positions in the stage description. Some walls might be vision barriers only, so to prevent (hope to avoid) confusion, we'll spell out exact what is cover. Why leave the shooter, or SO, guessing? If a SO can't consistently make calls, someone should take the timer from him. The rule book is specific enough that shooters shouldn't be left to wonder about cover calls. Either it's cover, or it's not. Either the shooter is using cover, or he's not. Every SO working our club matches is certified ( we have 15-20 certified SOs), and we don't let anyone else hold a timer.

Your speedload-then-pick-up-the-mag video appears to show you simulating engagement of a target, and then retrieving the mag. No reload is complete until the partial mag is stowed, so you'd have to pick up the mag off the ground and then stow it before firing a shot. Also, since tac loads are almost never done on the clock anymore, saving time on the tac load doesn't really get you anywhere (except on string two of stage three of the classifier . . .). If you fired a round, and then picked-up the mag, you'd certainly be looking at a 3-second penalty, and if the SO (Ess Oh) was following the rule book, he'd give you a FTDR.

I think most clubs expect shooters to play by the rules. If you want to practice otherwise, that's fine, but the IDPA rule book essentially says, play by the rules - the spirit of the rules - or you'll get dinged, and hard, for not doing it the way we want you to do it. Accepting penalties isn't going to fly.

If I had five places to put something, the list of places would include those five, right? I think you are looking for something that isn't there. I might even agree that what you are proposing - ejecting a mag onto the ground, reloading the gun, retrieving the spent mag and dropping it down your shirt - is not really addressed in the rule book, but I suspect you might find plenty of SOs who disagree. Even if Bill Wilson declared your technique legal, I still don't see you getting any benefit from it. About the only time I do the tac load anymore is on string two of stage three of the classifier, and your technique would certainly be of no benefit in that case.

I take the glossary definition of proper storage to be exclusive of other options. The rule book definition of "speed reload" includes reference to leaving the mag behind, so if you stow the mag rather than leave it behind you should be OK, but you can't stuff the mag in your shirt. I'd think the opportunities to use your described reload - dropping the mag on the ground, then picking it up - to competitive advantage, would be pretty limited.

Tactical priority, unless otherwise specified. If one target is two yards closer than the other, then the closer must be engaged first. If the targets were nearly the same distance from "box A", then the shooter would have the option (if it is a "trick" stage, trying to ding you for not being able to tell the difference between twelve feet and thirteen feet, it is a bad stage design[er]).

I also think 9+1 in ESP is the way to go, unless stage designers are intentionally trying to punish shooters doing it. Most stages are paper targets, engaged twice each.

LOL, that's rich. .8 / .5 is still pretty punitive, but it depends on the distance of shots. That's why the "HF" USPSA scoring works so well, it "automatically" adjusts fo different courses. The IDPA arbitrary .5 is WAY too high for the bad-breath distances IDPA is shot at. Should be closer to .25 major and maybe .40 minor, for starters. The vast majority can't shoot 25%-30% charlies, like they do in an IPSC match, and hope to have a good score at an IDPA match. Match winners are often averaging a point or two down per stage, not a point or two per target. I think the original Vickers scoring valued each point at .3 second, and it was subsequently changed to .5; sure makes calculating the score easy, and that's why Vickers works so well.

The first two, and maybe three, Western States Single Stack Championships, held at Rio Salado, used "Leatham-Enos" scoring, which was load 8/major and points are worth .5. Load 10/minor, and points are worth .8. I'm working on a match, in the Seattle area, in which we will use that scoring system, and allow competitors to use either USPSA Single Stack, or IDPA gear, with everyone shooting for overall results. Courses of fire will be freestyle, but not necessarily USPSA legal, with no specified order of engagement, cover, concealment, etc. IDPA guys will have to run, and IPSCers will have to aim!

That's just lousy course design. Assuming it was a scenario CoF, how could running thirty yards, and shooting from forty yards, both satisfy the procedure? I've never shot an "as visible" scenario.

It should be addressed in the printed stage procedure. Anything that blocks the view of a target can be considered cover, unless the contrary is spelled out; why keep 'em guessing?

Since you used the past tense, has your thinking changed? What did you define as being "behind cover" in the past? I remember having this discussion when I took my SO class from you and Dennis Gilbert down in Medford. IIRC our discussion was inconclusive. Respectfully, Mark Kruger My thinking hasn't changed, but that's not to say anyone agrees with me. I try never to have a course description that leaves open to interpretation, what I intend (good luck, right?). If there's a wall, that's cover, unless the course description says, "wall A is a vision barrier, and not cover". That way, nobody reloads there, and I don't have to have a "real world" discussion. The other SOI for your class, by the way, was Jon Gilbert. When is an Oregon club going to host a sanctioned match?