RickB

I shot the '05 season, including two sanctioned matches, with my Detonics Combat Master, drawn from IWB, and loaded 7+1. My scores certainly suffered, but it was a good experience, revealing shortcomings in both the gun and me. I've gone back to a 5" gun and 8-round mags for matches, but feel a lot more confident with my carry gear in the real world.

Limited 10 has always been popular in my Section (Seattle area), usually outdrawing Production, and often outdrawing Open. We have had an interesting shift lately, where shooters known for shooting a specific division have suddenly changed, a handful of "Limited shooters" going Open, and a handful of "L10 shooters" going Limited, so the numbers have shifted a bit. Single Stack is being shot rarely, and single stack pistols are very popular in the northwest; Limited 10 in this area is a single stack division.

Why can't the DOH holster be legal for every match but the SSC? I'd say the SSC is "bigger" than USPSA's provisional national championship, and it's sort of letting the tail wag the dog if the rules for the (very successful) SSC change for three years, only to then go back to what they were, if SS division fails. Back in the day, when CART ran the major open-wheeled racing series in the US, they still had to run the Indy 500 under USAC rules; even though the race counted toward the CART championship, it was not run under CART rules, as USAC had the sanctioning contract. Even those CART guys were smart enough to figure out that their championship didn't mean beans if it didn't include the Indy 500.

The classifier at a local club match was thrown out today; I don't know the number, but it consisted of three PP and three USP, set ten yards downrange of a barricade. At start, engage the targets from within the fault lines. Someone, including an RO, decided that shooters did not have to start in, or shoot from the box. Apparently, the MD got into it with some shooters who were adamant that "from within fault lines" did not reference the shooting box attached to the barricade, and as long as they started with their hands on the X's painted on the barricade, they could start and shoot from wherever they wanted. It appeared, during the RO walkthrough, that the MD was anticipating some trouble, because he made a comment along the lines of, "I won't comment on the status of the box". How can "from within fault lines" be intepreted as anything other than "within the box"? Of course, saying "within box A" would have been nice, but still? Is there some "buzz" concerning this classifier?

A lot of what I've read here, in terms of complaints, should be directed at the individual SO or course designer, who gave you ambiguous calls and/or ambiguous stages, and not at the rule book. If the course design is good, there shouldn't be much room for getting into trouble with the rules. If a CoF is properly described, and properly laid out, there should really be only one way to shoot it. I hear a lot of people describing situations where they got dinged for shooting a stage in a "totally different" or "very creative" way, and that doesn't suprprise me; the creativity should remain in the mind of the course designer, not the shooter. We hosted a sanctioned match a few weeks ago, and a large part of the staff match is confirming that after fifteen shooters had shot a stage, that there was no "other" way to shoot it. If we discover that a target can be seen from a place the designer didn't anticipate, we put up a vision barrier. If allowing make-up shots from cover, on an array that is to be engaged on-the-move, would encourage shooters to run to cover rather than engage on the move, then that should be addressed in the course description, not by dinging shooters who discover the oversight. If you want to shoot the head three times, when what is being simulated is a failure to stop with two to the body, then we separate the target with a strip of tape at the neck, and say two to T1 and one to T2. Course designers, MDs, etc. owe it to shooters to eliminate ambiguity, and while asking questions helps, there shouldn't be lots of questions to ask. I voted for following the rules to the letter at sanctioned matches, but letting the equipment and other, non-safety rules slide at local matches. Some new, interested shooters don't have legal gear, but I'm not going to send them home, and lose a shooter. We had a "revolver match" this year, and allowed any 6-shot revo, and any safe holster, to encourage folks to try it. That seems perfectly reasonable, and I doubt that anyone in Berryville would voice a complaint. It's something else entirely, when clubs decide that a rule isn't "tactical" or isn't logical, and decide to ignore it. Or, they institute a rule that can't be supported by the book, because it IS "tactical". We had a number of rules interpretations at our club that I'm sure were not what Bill Wilson himself had intended, but they were not at odds with the rules, just not the way someone else might interpret them (not to hijack the thread, but just for anyone who's interested, we decided that "if cover is available" meant, "if there is cover on the stage". Some clubs interpreted "available" to mean the shooter was at that moment already at cover. Others decided it meant two steps from cover, etc. You can't argue that any of those interpretations is in direct violation of the rule, even if you disagree with the interpretation).

"Behind" from whose perspective? The definition of the word behind suggests that there is something between you and whatever is the point of reference; if I'm standing at the front of the bay, looking into the stage, and there's a table I'm suppose to start "behind", then I should be downrange of it.

The gun in the pics appears to be a re-blue, as well. My Father never said anything about it getting re-blued. What makes You say it been re-blued? The edges, especially around the trigger guard, appear (in the posted photos) to be rolled-over from over-buffing. The same softness appears on the cocking serrations and some of the other 90-degree edges. The barrel photos show a High Standard WWII-era replacement barrel (P on one side of the lower lug, and HS on the other?), definitely not original to the gun. Notice how the slide sits slightly forward of the frame? The rear of the slide/frame/extractor/ejector was originally finished (blended) after the barrel was installed, so all those parts would match. The replacement barrel isn't exactly the same as the original, so the slide/frame relationship is slightly changed. I have a 1918 Colt with a WWII barrel too, and such guns are fairly common, if they remained in government service after WWI.

Sometimes, there's not enough time to set up every stage so that it can be shot without instruction, either in the form of the scenario (Bad Guy one takes a shot at you, THEN Bad Guy 2 shows up . . .), or in the form of the course description (Engage T from cover, then engage T2 and T3 on-the-move . . .). It could take an hour to set up vision barriers that force the shooter to do the same thing as a few words. Nobody would leave cover with only one round in the gun, either in a game or on the street, if they knew there were three threats immediately ahead, would they? That's why I could never understand "running dry in the open"; if there are three targets that must be engaged in the open, then you'd better make sure you have at least six rounds in your gun when you leave cover. The rules say you can't leave cover with an empty gun, but a shooter who's read the course description knows how and where rounds will be needed, and it's his responsibility to reload as necessary. At our club, we try to make all stages eight rounds or fewer, or twelve rounds or more, so that either all the auto pistol divisions must reload, or none of them do. While we never intentionally do things that make it impossible for revos (such as eight-round arrays with no cover), we don't let the tail wag the dog, either. Our monthly club matches draw 50-60 shooters, and often times there are only one or two revo shooters.

The gun in the pics appears to be a re-blue, as well.

No you do not. According to the rule book; Yes, you do have to continue to use cover during your reload, you just do not have to move completely behind cover to reload.

I don't think you are required to use mags of the same capacity, but are instead required to load all mags to the same capacity. If the gun fits in the box, with the mag(s) in place, it is legal (assuming it meets all the other requirements, as well).

If a shooter does a speed load, then racks the round out of the chamber, that is the proof that they did an improper reload, and should be penalized. If they rack a round out, they need to pick up the empty mag before firing a shot, if they want to avoid a penalty.

I'll usually design CoFs with a lefty bias, as I prefer it that way, and it gives righties a look at how course design impacts the shooter. Another area that needs adressing is port height. Typically, ports are rarely more than 5' high at the top, meaning anyone over 6' tall will have to squat to shoot through them. I'd like to set up a stage where all the movement is right-to-left, and all the ports are 5' high at the bottom; and see how it goes for the folks who are used to being accommodated.

Saturday, August 19th, at Renton Fish & Game Club. 11 stages, 130 rounds. Random-draw prize table Lunch included in $45 match fee. http://northwestsection.org/waidpac06/ __________________

Although I've actually used it more for IPSC and IDPA than carry, I like the Kramer #3 IWB.

I have two 010's, one for 5" and one for 6". I'd never used the 5" one until last Sunday, and discovered that the plastic trigger lock device is situated at a bit of an angle to what I consider "square" to the mounting; when the gun is holstered, it is held so that the butt points away from the body, and the top of the slide is kind of angled into the kidney. I don't see any way to adjust it, other than perhaps trying to shim the plastic trigger lock base so it's more square to the pouch part of the holster and the belt mount. Anyone done any tweaking to the 010, to change the angle?

Yes, I suppose you could if you wanted to. I asked because I wanted to understand if you were abiding by the rules or making up your own rule(s). Dinging someone with a procedural for a rule interpreted at a single match, held perhaps 1500 miles away and for only a few hundred shooters of whom an unknown number are SOs seems unfair. Respectfully, jkelly It would appear, despite dictionary definitions of "engage" to the contrary, that for the purposes of the IDPA national championship, steel must be neutralized to be considered "engaged". If I, or you, follow that example, are we abiding by the rules, or making them up? If the interpretation of "engage", requiring neutralization of steel, is used uniformly at nationals, on all stages, would you accept that as a definitive, if contradictory, interpretation of "engage"? I don't have a dog in this hunt, but it would benefit everyone if we had a single, guiding definition, and there seems to be some conflict between what the book says, and how the rule is interpreted at the highest level.

I don't have my rule book handy. Does the rule book say that the Nationals are to be considered the de facto "right way" to interpret rules? Respectfully, jdkelly Would I have phrased it that way, if it was in the rule book? The rule book doesn't tell us to look to Hackathorn's column for rule clarifications, but it, too, has been accepted that when Ken addresses a rule in his column, his published "opinions", if you want to call them that, are THE WAY.

Not very grammatical, but for what it's worth: "At every IDPA match I have shot at that had steel or reactive targets, including 4 Nationals, the shooter had to engage (shoot at but not necessarily hit) the paper targets, but the reactive targets had to be hit and knocked down before exposing himself to them to shoot other targets in the stage without receiving a procedural penalty." IDPA Nationals has always been considered the de facto "right way" to interpret rules that need interpreting, and according to this, steel must be dropped, to be considered "engaged".

I see guys getting at least one, or two, or three fingers very close to the muzzle every time they load and unload, using the forward serrations, especially if the put their hand over the top of the slide to rack it. I see a lot of guys getting lazy when they do so, and sweep themselves. Having the hand out near the muzzle isn't a good idea.

After long and thoughtful debate, we've decided at our club that "engage" means to appear to shoot at a target, at least once. What really got us talking about it was a stage with three targets, to be engaged from cover, in tactical priority. The middle target was a pepper popper. A shooter fired twice, slightly repositioned himself at the cover, fired once, another reposition, fired twice. He had engaged the three targets, in tactical priority. Trouble was, the steel target was still standing. I argued for a procedural, since the steel target had, in my mind been bypassed, and therefore the requirement of tactical sequence had not been fulfilled. Another SO pointed out that the guy may have missed with every shot, but why should I apply the rule differently to steel than to paper? I argued, because I can. I can see that he missed the steel, so he should not expose himself to it in order to go to the next target. We decided it should really be handled in course design, with the steel target placed where it can't be engaged but bypassed if left standing. I was envisioning a hypothetical situation in which a shooter could fire a round, with no real expectation of hitting anything, but fulfilling "engagement", then later exposing themself to the traget, then knocking it down later still. We allow shooters to expose themselves to paper targets that have been engaged, assuming that they are neutralized and no longer a threat; if a shooter shoots at a steel target, should he then be allowed to expose himself to this "engaged" target that is still standing?

We look at crossing an opeing as a bad idea, and remove it from our CoFs, rather than worry about whether or not it is in the rule book.

I shot my carry gear throughout '05, and found out just how limiting it can be, in terms of match performance. In '04, I shot ESP with a 5" .38 Super, drawn from kydex, and finished most of the local matches in the top five overall, with attendance in the 40-50 shooter range. I finished second OA in ESP at our state match. In '05, shooting my Detonics with 7-round mags, drawn from IWB leather, in CDP, I usually finished in the middle of Sharpshooter class, and at the two state matches I shot, finished in about the same place. Shooting the little gun was more a desire to prove the gun and my ability to shoot it, since I hadn't really done much of either. Now that I'm satisfied that the gun works, and I can hit some things with it, I'll be going back to a full-size match gun.

I think it is to prevent someone from retaining a mag by ejecting straight into the pocket. Along the same lines as not allowing stiffening of the lower pockets.

Not THAT many years ago, the Indy 500 was run under different rules than every other race on the circuit. Parties agreed that the event was important enough to not get into a terminal pi**ing match over rules, and the show went on. If you're signed up for the event, and you were going to use your DOH holster, just use something else, instead.