rvb
-
Posts
1,575 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by rvb
-
-
I see where you're coming from, but I think you're stretching the meaning of a Mozambique drill.
Hi Steve,
I searched the rule book and don't see "mozambique" mentioned anywhere.
The text of the rule for vickers scoring is:
the course description may specify that a
certain number of shots may be required on specific areas of the
target, i.e. two (2) shots to the body and one (1) shot to the head.
So while you think I'm stretching the meaning of a specific drill, I think you are using that drill to limit the text of the rule.
That is exactly what we are doing on these arrays is requiring a certain number of shots go on specific areas of the target. We are also adding a shot sequence.. However, nowhere do I see an exception to requiring shots on specific areas if a certain sequence is required... so IMO the rule still applies [er, um, "may" apply].
So perhaps we'll just have to AGREE to disagree.... and at that it comes full circle to "ask the SO how it is to be shot AND how it will be scored if ...." 'cause if they are close and you'll let me double the head (as in 1-2-2H-H), I'm going for it because I see a definate advantage over 1-2-1-H-H.... but it's not faster-enough to make up for a PE if an SO like me considers it avoiding a transition!
Stage design is everything, isn't it.Yup!
-rvb
-
Powdervalleyinc lists them as in stock. I just double checked cause I ordered 2k last week that should be showing up soon (I hope).
-rvb
-
... the back of the bow IS slightly concave. What are the consequences of having it slightly concave, or slight convex for that matter...
Sorry for forgetting to reply for a couple days...
The back of the sv trigger that was giving me problems was slightly convex. That added to it's over-all length as far as the disconnector was concerned.
Like I said I didn't bother to attempt to fix, I wanted a different trigger anyway.....
-rvb
-
RyanVB, the "avoiding the transition" bit only applies to a Mozambique drill. There's no body to head transition required or implied .... So, why would there be a procedural for all head shots in the case below...
On signal Engage T1-T2 with two rounds to the body in Tactical sequence then reengage
T1-T2 with one head shot each.
Steve,
Ok, I might have missed a tiny detail on the wording in the rules. I had to wiki "i.e." as used on pg 45. If used as "for example" then a moz is just an example as I originally thought. If wiki is right on the usage then maybe it is only applicable when specified as 2 on body and 1 on head?
I took "ie" to mean 2+1 is an example of shots being required on specific areas of the topic. If I had to guess, I'd guess 2+1 was intended to be an example and the book should have said "e.g." Do we have any english professors in the house? 
But regardless we ARE talking about a moz now, right? 2+1? Book doesn't say that 2 body + 1 head changes if there are more than 1 target to 2+1 on, it only talks about where on a target the shots are specified. I don't see anything in your stage description that means pg45,P3 doesn't apply. Your stage description tells me very specifically I should shoot 1-2-1-H-H. You did specify 2 to the body and 1 to the head (just as on pg 45). The bold part is a required transition on a that drill, right? The rulebook tells me the shooter "may" receive a PE if they shoot it 1-2-2H-H (or as Chills described) since you will "circumvent sight alignment transition," right?
As that section of the rules states: "CoF designers and MDs should be aware of this possibility and decide beforehand how to handle it." THAT is the point I am trying to drive home. Even the rule itself admits to the possibility of confusion and in practice it IS handled differently everywhere. Either the very scripted stage description needs to be dropped or the shooters and SOs need to understand before the first shot is fired how the stage will be scored. Especially with wording such as "may be considered...."
Is there another section of relavant rules I'm missing?
-rvb
-
^^^^
I am just reiterating/re-emphasizing what Highvelocity wrote on the first page, especially the bold part:
The head is the body but the body's not the head. If you had shot T1 in the head twice instead of head, then body, you would've been OK.Now... I know I left my range lawyer bar card somewhere...
Oh well... I am probably better off just leaving this thread alone.
Pg 45, Paragraph 3.
Search the rulebook for "transition" and the relevant sentence contains the first hit.
Can't shoot all to the head to avoid a transition.... or it, um, "may"
be a procedural. Between the definition of tactical sequence and the transition clause, these types of arrays are so constrained by the book that designers don't need to get all out of shape about where every shot goes and when. It's just a memorization game and a hoke-pokey dance routine at that point. Unfortunately, and I say this all the time... this has to be the most unknown rule by shooters, stage designers, and MDs in the book. "3 ea., tac-seq, 2/body +1 head" should be all that's required in the brief for this type of array and that in itself is quite limiting in how it can be shot (at least to any advantage in number of transitions).
The 2 kickers are 1) you have to know if the SO/MD actually does consider that a PE and 2) heaven help you if you actually do attempt to shoot the body and it accidentally goes into the head. Even if you still had to "transition," the holes in the paper "may" say you are screwed.
The most brilliant way to handle this that I have seen was by my buddy JJ, the Maryland State MD. I kept bringing this up that the SOs AND the shooters had to be made aware of how this was to be handled so it would be handled consistently and fairly. Ever since his stage briefs have state "3 to ea target, at least 1 must be a head shot." If you want to accept the higher chance for disaster and put all 3 in the head, fine. any order is fine. It lets the shooter balance that risk/reward.
As has been said many times in this thread (and I agree with it), it really comes down to doing exactly what your are told faster than everyone else. But heaven help you if you miss up into the head. You'll need a whole team of range lawyers to OJ you out of that situation.
Now, if we look at the exact situation you mention (2 in the head then one in the body), well you still have a transition, so no foul there. But per the dance steps the THIRD shot was supposed to be a head shot. So even though you made it harder on yourself by making one of the body shots a head shot, you may be rewarded with a PE because the body is not part of the head.
The common theme in my post??? Dance steps make scoring a headache. I'm not just coming at this as a shooter, but as an SO. The SO has to know if the transition clause is in effect and if 2+1 is an exact required sequence.
my 2 pennies.
-rvb
-
Couldn't you just shoot all head shots like this:
T1: Head
T2: Head, head
T1: Head, head
T2: Head
Then done! ?
The way I see it the CoF description did NOT specifically say "2 shots center mass".
Technically on the second time around on T1 you "may" be avoiding a transition. Possible 3 sec PE.
-rvb
-
I had a hangfire once with some cheapo factory .45. Forget the brand now. I was at a small idpa match. Gun went 'click' and I started to clear the "malfunction." Just then it went 'bang' as I was about to grab the slide. RO confirmed he saw my finger was NOT near the trigger. Round just caught the top of the berm. Scary. The first and only time I have personally seen one.
-rvb
-
rvb
in Range Diary
Had an ... interesting... match today at Bend of the River Club, MI08. Shot Open.
Indoor match, only 3 stages.
I did something I'm kinda embarrassed with myself about.... ashamed a little even? I purposely tanked a classifier. It was 99-22, Nuevo El Pres. Turn, draw, first 5 shots go well, then on shot 6 I rushed getting to the reload and pulled the shot just a smidge onto the edge of the no-shoot. Reloaded and then as I was coming back across I remember thinking "shit, I'm pretty close to making M in open, what if this NS gets me a stupid valid 71% and wrecks my %?" So after the 12th shot I fired a 13th. Right smack in the middle of the A of the NS. Take that. Extra shot, 2 NS, 1 M. Can't get a crappy valid % w/ 40 points in penalties!
My run was awesome except that hit which caught the line on the NS. First 12 shots were in 5.45 (5.75 for 13). Aside from the shot I pulled into the NS I had one C and one D and the rest As. Lesson: follow through on the last shot in an array!!!
I won both of the field courses, even w/ a mike on stage 1. Open feels very weird to me. I kept wanting to reload after every 6-8 shot array. Stopped myself each time before actually pressing the mag release... but twice my thumb was on it and my weak hand was off the gun on the way to the mag. Part of that is years shooting production and idpa and part is my dryfire training. I've been practicing my reloading between positions lately. I guess I need to just practice moving between positions and leave out the reloads.
Shot calling was good. All A's on stage 3 (and just .36 off the fastest pace). Still need to work on the timing on this gun. Took a lot of patience I felt on the dot getting back on target. I think I lost that patience on the mike on stage 1.
I should have won the match. 1st on both field courses. Stupidity on the classifier dropped me to 4th. Didn't realize I had let making M in open become that important to me... I don't even think of myself as an open shooter! Guess you really do learn things about yourself in competition.
-rvb
-
... but if the bow is too long it could be causing the disconnector to bump the sear as it resets and that can cause hammer follow. It is pretty rare, things have to just right (or just wrong) for it to happen.....
Just two nights ago I found something similar with a .45 I put together.
I like some over-travel in my triggers. I don't like them to stop right after the trigger breaks. I was adjusting my overtravel stop to get it where I wanted it. Simultaneously I started seeing hammer follow and even the occassional double. I now have a couple thousand rounds on the trigger work I did and just assumed I had screwed that up and was about to order more parts and practice some more when I decided to look at it closer.
What I found was that the SVI bow is a little long. It was pushing back enough that the disconnector is hitting the sear spring, causing the spring to not put tension on the sear. As I was adding in over-travel, I was lifting the spring off the sear. At least I'm 99% sure that's where it was hitting. I saw some wear there, too. I guess I'll double check it's not the disconnector hitting the sear as you mention (thanks for that tip).
I have a stirrup die and thought about working on the trigger to get it to work, but I decided I never liked the feel of it and I'd rather put in an sti trigger that matches the feel of my open gun so I'm just going to order a new trigger (and sear spring in case it is bent out of correct shape contributing to the problem).
-rvb
-
The BOD is supposed to have a phone meeting to discuss it next week.
Thanks!
-rvb
-
This thread has been going on for 5 weeks or so now. Please don't make me read the whole thing to find out if someone has already done what I am about to ask........
Has anyone put the issue of internal (not externally visible) parts* replacement and/or modification (in addition to polishing) in Production Division through the proper chain to get a by-the-book-official-no-more-questions-asked RULING on the issue?
* in addition to those parts mentioned on pg 75, D4.21
Perhaps another 5 weeks of debating will help? Perhaps no one wants to know the answer?
-rvb
-
Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy, reliability and function
Okay, now you've switched to the 2008 rule book. I'm with you.
Tell me what part of a Vanek trigger is "internal throating and polishing"?
Tell me what part of an overtravel stop is "internal throating and polishing"?
Tell me what part of a swapped-in aftermarket connector is "internal throating and polishing"?
Again, please give me a *little* credit.
Sorry, didn't realize we were debating old rules. That's what I get for skimming.
Notice I didn't comment on the issue, just quoted the rule.
-rvb
-
how can you possibly tell me you did it to "enhance reliability"? Which is the *ONLY* context in which the rules allowed "trigger work"....
Bruce
my book says :
Authorized modifications
(Strictly limited to these
items and their stated
guidelines)
•Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy,
reliability and function
So the context of helping accuracy is just as viable as helping reliability.
-rvb
-
I've been working on these lately and even just commented on it in my range diary (rvb's diary).
I don't grab the mag well, I just draw normally up to the point the WH would normally be getting to the gun and then the RH makes room at the beavertail for the web of the WH to come in. At this point the gun is held by the SH fingers even though the thumb and back of the palm is off the gun. Hard to discribe w/o pictures. As the WH gets control the SH is removed. Seems very solid to me.
I look at the target as I draw and start to press out as I would on any draw. As the WH comes to the gun, I have found that LOOKING at the transfer makes the process must faster and much more consistant. I think of this as being much like a reload and looking the mag into the well. Sure you can do it w/ 'feel' but it's not going to be as fast or consistant dispite how it 'feels.'
-rvb
-
The card is pretty much useless anyway. Get your local MD to post your classifications on the web site ... most MDs are not doing this and they should be.
Doesn't that make the website pretty much useless and the card still very important??
I have my MA classifications signed on my card from years ago. The only one on the website is from when I shot Nats and HQ entered it. I don't shoot classifiers because ( a ) I am no longer req'd to and ( b ) I find them painfully boring. The card is the only valid proof of my other classifications.
-rvb
edit to add: of the majors I have shot since the website classifications came on line, they STILL required me to bring my card even when they also claimed to be verifying off the website.
So, IMO website = useless pain in the *, card = important.
-
If, as you both assert, an unpasted target is an REF (under 4.6), you will never score a course of fire with unpasted targets - its a mandatory reshoot (per 4.6.2), and it doesn't matter what size any of the holes are, or if you can determine a valid score or not. So, again, why is there a rule that covers the scenario of how to score unrestored targets, if you're never going to score them in the first place?
I've been on the fence on this issue, not sure what the right answer was. I think you make a very solid point here. If the ability to determine score was an exception to the reshoots under 4.6 or 8.6 I would think 9.1.4 could simply be listed under those sections as an exception? Under 8.6.4 as 'another external influence,' would you really want to leave the reshoot up to the shooter?
Definately agree as a competitor you have to keep going strong no matter what happens on the stage so long as it's safe, and RO doesn't say 'Stop'.
-
I only use new brass and once shot buy more. I guess that I just never got around to picking up my brass yet...
Doesn't that defeat the point of "RE-loading?"
Doesn't going to Walmart become cheaper at that point?
If you don't want to pick it up I'd suggest at least buying once-fired brass to save some $. Unless you can afford it and your bullet's jackets are made of gold!
agree with the others if the powder funnel is new a little polishing on the funnel helps. Or it will polish itself over time with use. I personally like 0.015" of bell. enough that it positively/consistantly works the powder measure but not so much the case sticks on there or over-works the case.
-rvb
-
rvb
in Range Diary
Been a while since I updaated here.
Been dryfiring about 4-5 nights/week lately. My index is feeling right on. I never have to search for the dot with the exception of a little polishing needed on weak-hand transfers. I have my WH-transfer draws down to 1.1-1.2 w/ a click and the dot is there 90% of the time; just need that last little bit of WH consistancy. Speaking of WH-transfers, I've found if I LOOK at the transfer and see the gun go in the web of my WH, the transfer is .2-.4 faster every time, like looking a mag in on a reload. Feels slower but it's always faster and more consistent.
Been working on accuracy dry-fire. Found the dot is much more stable if I rotated the grip around a little clockwise. This seems to have gotten my grip more behind the gun and I'm more consistantly pulling the trigger straight back.
Been working on lateral box-to-box movements. Stairs in the middle of the basement make a nice visual and distance barrier. So w/ that visual barrier and about 6 ft of movement I have my time down to 2.8 to draw-2-RL/move-2.
Got to the indoor range on Friday. Accuracy practice and grip adjustments paid off. All I did was timing drills and SHO/WHO but my groups were the best they've ever been during timing drills.... 50-cent piece sized groups on the 2s and 1s split portions.
Still need to run a LOT more timing drills. I can't nail the propper grip off the bat yet w/o the dot dipping low or hanging up. After a couple shots I can get it there, but I'm always adjusting.
Also shot my .45. Used handloads for the firsttime. 230gr zeros over 3.9 clays. WOW. Felt like a factory 9mm load. I seem to have resolved all the problems with the slide locking back (cut a couple coils off the plunger spring and polished and slightly flattened the catch in the slide stop). Also the safety goes on/off w/ a more "normal" amount of force. Gun has started hammer-following though. Guess I get to practice sear work some more. Going to get the jigs this time. Gun is crazy accurate.
I'm hoping I can get to a small indoor match up in MI this weekend... haven't shot a match since Oct!!
-rvb
-
It's said that chicks dig scars.
Did you buy it to race it or show it? Don't race your show car and dont sweat the fenders on your race car.
-rvb
-
2. what if the shooter pauses b/c he thinks he sees an unpasted target, but it was really just half-pasted hole?
And what if that hole flys away?
I had that happen once a couple years ago. Thought my 2A was a M/NS until the "hit" on the NS flew away just as I was about to make up the shot... Should I have asked for a reshoot?
I considered that another of life's lessons to trust what I call. Haven't made the same mistake since. I learned I must keep going.... Going like hell untill I'm done or I hear "Stop!"
-rvb
-
Mine was always the same on or off, but I never use it where there is a lot of air movement.
Then after I moved to a new home (in a new state) I just happened to notice a difference one day. I then bent the little metal tab on the cover out so it made better contact with the ground ring and it was consistent again... something to check.
-rvb
-
That just BLEW my mind. Grabbed my world and turned it up side down.
-rvb
I had the same reaction. Time to do some testing!
BK
I won't be trying it any time soon. I had a huge problem for the longest time of focusing on the target. It worked fine up to ~10 yards but after that the sights were just too blurry and even if I -thought- I was all aligned, I wasn't and my accuracy suffered. Took a LOT of work personally to get my focus on the FS and my accuracy is worlds better than it was 2 years ago. I still target-focus on close stuff and sort of look through the sights, but I'm ok with that as I'm seeing "what I need to see" to get in the A zone. But I now know when it works and when it doesn't and it's not even a conscious decision but rather, well, seeing what I need to.
So either someday when I get to the multiple world championship level I'll do a 180 and realize how wrong I am now, but it's just not for me. Or we just figured out that EG has some FREAKISH eye focus genetic thing going on. haha..
But to me what is amazing is hearing someone so accomplished say something that goes completely against what we KNOW to be RIGHT... and to say it like it's just so obvious. Just goes to show there is no ONE right answer, so long as you're seeing what you need to make the hit. Amazing. [and humbling]
-rvb
-
For me the focus must be on the target, otherwise as you mention it will be hard to call your shots.So I use the same focus in Open than with my standard gun. I use the front sight just like it was a dot on my open gun.
But if I was just using a regular front sight, I would probably focus on the iron sight.
But if you use an Optic Front Sight, then focus on your target.Regular Front sight, focus on your sight.
That just BLEW my mind. Grabbed my world and turned it up side down.
-rvb
-
Hello
you can find an interesting reply From Eric Grauffel Here :
could you cut-n-paste for those of us w/o an account?
thanks,
-rvb
I took "ie" to mean 2+1 is an example of shots being required on specific areas of the topic. If I had to guess, I'd guess 2+1 was intended to be an example and the book should have said "e.g." Do we have any english professors in the house? 
be a procedural. 
Leaving a # on an answering machine
in What I Hate
Posted
ditto.
"this is rvb, xxx-xxxx. I'm calling about such-n-such. Again, this is rvb, xxx-xxxx"