Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About IVC

  • Rank
    Finally read the FAQs
  • Birthday 12/13/1970

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Temecula, CA
  • Real Name
    I. V. Cadez

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Great - thanks. I'll out of town in March, but will definitely try to make it in June.
  2. If the last shot is not recorded on a proper stage, there really isn't any other option. If the time is not known, the score is not known. So it's either reshoot, or leaving the match and pouting in the parking lot.
  3. We were talking about a very specific subset of the situation that you describe - when the shooter had to quit in the middle of the stage due to malfunction/squib/out of ammo/any other reason, and when the total points were going to be zero. If that happens, it really doesn't matter whether the last shot was recorded or not, the score is zero. Not recording the last shot gives the shooter better score. If this better score is still zero, the score can be determined accurately because 9.5.6 specifies that the minimum score for a COF is indeed zero. In the "standard" scenario when the last shot is not recorded and the score cannot be determined, I agree with you and I would award a reshoot. Is this "double standard?" Yes and no. The rule uses ambiguous term "faulty," so I would interpret it based on the situation - if I can determine the score with certainty, record it. Reshoot otherwise. Compare to one of the basic scoring rules in 9.1.4. If the score can be determined, it will stand. Only if it cannot be determined does the shooter get another chance. With timer and zero-COF I would use the same principle. If the score can be determined, it is what it is.
  4. I do follow the rules. The rule says: "If a timing device is faulty, ...," so if the timing device is NOT faulty the rest of the rule doesn't apply and therefore no reshoot is granted. It's not arbitrary, it's very literal. Actually, to allow a reshoot when the timing device is not faulty would be "personal philosophy."
  5. It's similar to popper calibration - just because it doesn't fall it doesn't mean it's faulty. Instead, it goes to calibration and if the calibration passes, the popper is scored as a miss. There is no such calibration for timers and not picking up a shot doesn't make them faulty. We are talking about industry standard timers with industry standard sensitivity. The timer rules are there to prevent obviously incorrect times from being recorded, not to provide a loophole for reshoot. If anyone tries to use it as a loophole, they have to expect to get a pushback with the strict and literal reading of the rules which would let them keep the score they earned. Why are we even debating this?
  6. Nor per 9.10.1, so we are likely not talking about the same rule. What rule did you have in mind?
  7. The sentence that deals with reshoots in 9.10.1 starts with "If a timing device is faulty..." so if someone requested a reshoot after obviously zeroing a stage (trying to play the rules on a technicality), I would counter that the timing device is not faulty (also a technicality). Further, "not picking up the last shot" is something that the competitor cannot know since he does not have access to the display of the timer until after "the range is clear," so there is no practical way for a competitor to even make a claim that the time wasn't recorded correctly unless the time was zero (which is why the rule 9.10.1 exists).
  8. There is nothing to argue if the last shot is not picked up and the score is zero - the score can only be lower if more shots are picked up...
  9. IVC

    Revo holster

    Double Alpha Racemaster - works for any barrel length and is legal in most games.
  10. You are joking about mud pits, but I had the "privilege" of RO-ing a massive mud pit stage during our annual Wave Charity Match (130+ shooters, charity match for veterans to learn scuba diving) just a few months ago. We had the worst rains, in Southern California desert no less, and I drew the worst stage at the bottom of a shallow depression. The mud was actually clay and it was ankle deep, adding about 10 pounds of sticky cake-like material to each foot that you couldn't shake off. Cleats made no difference - the whole base moved with every step and it felt like shallow quicksand. Let's not talk about mud pits...
  11. IVC

    Safariland holster 1911

    Also, the rules have changed for 2019 and you can now have DOH in SS. Won't change which holster you pick up, but it will change the mounting system you choose.
  12. I don't anything about "it" which is precisely why I put a disclosure, so your meme is completely off the mark. What I do know is that if you are catering to an anti-gun government request, you are walking the anti-gun path regardless of your need for the high moral ground that it wasn't the intent, it just happened. If someone pointed out that you would be removing the humanoid targets and it happened, he was right. He indeed "knew so much that was so." Even if the final decision to remove metric targets was completely independent of any politics and was there for "practical purposes," remember that those "practical purposes" came about for a very specific reason.
  13. Remove "devious plan" and the rest of the sentence stands - it was the first step and there was not only a clear path, but also a clear motive. It might have been convenient not to have had any plan at the time, if nothing else then for the plausible deniability purposes, but if someone pointed out the slippery slope and it was ignored, it's good enough to establish quite a bit of causality. "Intent" can be argued, the "first step" not so much. I wasn't part of it in any way, wasn't even aware of the sport at the time. My beef is with the incrementalism that is eerily similar to how gun control works in California where I live - the path is clear, the motive is clear, yet we argue on whether there was a conscious intent as if it somehow vindicates the end result.
  14. ^^^ Agreed. I was responding to a different post above, where Jack said he couldn't hit jack without the sights. He was shooting fast, though, and was relying solely on index.
  15. Shooting fast without sights is point shooting and I'm not sure we want to go into that discussion. Follow up shots and transitions based solely on index are point shooting too. What we are talking about here is aiming, just not with sights. If the gun is lined up such that muzzle is centered just over the back of the slide, then the whole "system" is centered below the target, it's not point shooting, it's aimed shooting. Indexing is there to bring it close to the final position, but it's still the arrangement of the rear of the slide, the muzzle and the target that allows one to make the hit.