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

IVC

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    428
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About IVC

  • Rank
    Sees Sights Lift
  • Birthday 12/13/1970

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • 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. 11.1.3 prohibits use of "audio, video or photographic evidence." Splits on the timer would be "audio evidence" and you cannot use them in arbitration, so you don't have a case if the RO records the time based off of the last shot. Also, the only way to ask for a reshoot in your scenario would be under 9.10.1, which only states that the time must be accurately determined.
  2. 9.10.1 - Requires that the timing device operated by the RO can be used to determine "accurate time," reshoot otherwise. The last shot is all that is required to get the accurate time (provided the timer is not otherwise faulty).
  3. The classification rule doesn't really kick in until you hit B class, at which point you also know how it works
  4. It was. The bag belonged to the MD, he used the payment processor to help him...
  5. That's a very nice setup and quite an interesting stage - more like that would be welcome...
  6. As for moving to Limited, I started in L10 Minor because that's what I had. I moved to major soon after, but remained in L10 for two years due to the commie-state magazine laws. When I finally moved to Limited, there were two big differences: (1) stage planning allowed for more elaborate, more efficient plans, and (2) train myself NOT to reload as I'm leaving a position, but only at the point where the stage plan calls for the reload. Moving from Production, you'll have to work on two more changes: (3) major scoring changes the calculation of speed vs. points, and (4) faster draws and reloads because the gear allows it.
  7. Since we moved to reloading... I bought a Roll Sizer last year because my Hundo gauge kept failing quite a bit of finished rounds even with the U-die. After rollsizing, I still kept the U-die to get the same brass shape as before. No problems since, even if I still get some rounds to be "stiff" in the Hundo. As for the Roll Sizer - it's a very simple and quick process. Case feeder connects to the machine using plastic tube and brass collects in a large bucket bellow.
  8. That's an interesting point - I don't think it is because the procedurals start accumulating after the failure to reload, but 10.2.3 is not clear about what it means by "the maximum number of scoring hits that can be attained by the competitor." The example in the rest of the rules clearly shows that the idea is to accumulate after the fault happens, not before. My reading is that 10.2.3 tells us that procedurals accumulate up to the number of available scoring hits and then they stop. On a paper target with two available hits, you can get up to -20 in penalties based on the technicalities. Then, you accumulate extra shots/hits/no-shoots and other "shooting penalties" for each occurrence independently.
  9. To the extent 10.2.4 is not "above" as stated in 10.2.3, I would agree. But I wouldn't assign too strict a meaning to the word "above" as we are talking about numbered rules that are explicitly referenced when the intent is to make an exception - 10.2.3 could have explicitly listed 10.2.1 and 10.2.2. as the only rules being limited. The way I read the "above" is that is applies to the section 10 in general. Otherwise, we can argue that 10.2.2 can be used to penalize failure to reload, then apply 10.2.3. I think it would be silly to try to play this game, though...
  10. The sentiment is right, but you can't make up rules based on how you feel - it's much more important to enforce uniform rule application across all sanctioned competitions. In this case, there is a rule governing the application of multiple procedural penalties.
  11. 10.2.3 addresses multiple penalties. The maximum number of procedural penalties is the number of shots (after the reload), which is 6.
  12. You're certainly not seeing it in the eyes of the law. Payment processor's rules that allow a charge-back to be physically processed have nothing to do with the contract law that regulates whether the organizer is entitled to the entry fee per the cancellation policy. If anything, you're conflating the law with the payment processor rules - just because the payment processors transfers the money back to a person doesn't mean that person doesn't still owe the money.
  13. Depending on how you see it - I see it as theft and theft is illegal, even if the payment processor was the one to facilitate it. It's just something you don't do to your fellow shooters, or at least not without being outed. (I understand the policy of this forum not to out people, but that's just the forum; other MD-s will find out.)
  14. Probably not - he didn't bring the disrepute to the sport, which is required for 6.4.4.b. What you have on hands is someone who owes you money. You could go to court and recover the fees regardless of how the bank handled it. The contract you have and which includes the refund policy is independent of any payment network. It's a legal contract that applies equally to someone who paid cash... While you're not likely to go to court over such a small amount, the real-life remedy is not to allow this person to compete at your match until he pays you what he owes you. You can throw in the extra fees and interest, just to make a point. If you have buddies who are MD-s, you can share the info and everyone can require this person to pay in cash. Similar to how deadbeats have to pay when buying used cars. Short of that, you would have to make a case to NROI that this is stealing from you, which it is. Probably categorize it under "disrupting the match" rather than "bring disrepute to the sport." Stiffing you for entry fee certainly affects your ability to set up matches in the future.
  15. IVC

    929 Brass

    Stiffer for him, jiggle for her, but let's not allow our minds to wander... On a serious note, I use 0.040 with Federal and it seems just right. What you want is a small amount of movement to help with lining up against the charge holes, but not too much. If I had to choose, I'd choose tighter fit since too much slows down the reload. Another consideration that someone mentioned above is that the thicker moonclip puts brass closer to the firing pin and, at least in theory, it helps with ignition. In practice, I haven't noticed the difference - if you're running your trigger so light that 0.005 makes a difference, you're playing too close to the edge anyways. It's like loading to 126 PF - even if you can keep it consistent, there is no point since you can't tell the difference from 130+ anyways...
×
×
  • Create New...