IVC

True, of course, but to pick that point you have to either see it, or figure out how to find it. And remembering that it's "1/3 or 1/4 from the no-shoot" requires you first to remember the fractions, then to recognize it's that target as you're shooting, then to find the edges or reference points and triangulate, then to aim and shoot. Whereas if you could see the lines you could pick that spot by simply centering between the (visible) lines.

Looks like we were typing the same thing at the same time about problems with major/minor scoring What you are trying to change is exactly what the problem is. For close A/C shooting at speed, which is the main differentiator between shooting major and minor, the penalty for minor is DOUBLE. It looks like 4 vs. 3 isn't a big deal, but it is because these are "close C-s" that are counted as "points down" (no IDPA pun intended) and the major penalty is 1 point, while the minor penalty is double that, at 2 points. Similarly, D-s are essentially "fliers that were good enough" that turn out to be effectively No-Penalty Mikes in minor, but will score DOUBLE that in major and still count as only 3 major C-s.

Slight change of topic, still related to the survey: major vs. minor scoring. What this thread shows is that the major scoring doesn't adequately account for the higher PF. Alternatively, that the minor scoring over-penalizes lighter recoil. If the scoring was "about right," we wouldn't worry about major being a competitive advantage or affecting the LO, we'd simply say that those who shoot major get the benefit of the scoring at the expense of the recoil. But this clearly isn't the case, and we know it from the Limited. Only in the SS it seems to be somewhat balanced because of the different capacity limits. And, in the Revo, it's the opposite and arguably the most pronounced - because of the very heavy price of reloading, major scoring doesn't nearly compensate enough and 625s are dead. So, what should the scoring be? I'll add one sort-of-pet-peeve of mine with scoring - zones are not visible and one has to guess, especially when targets are partially covered, distant, or the light is unfavorable. If I can't tell where the A/C line is, I have to shoot for the "middle of the brown" and that takes away the ability to fine-tune shot placement. There are a lot of head shots where the only reason I can't pick the A zone consistently is because I can't see the lines well enough at speed. And counting a minor C as two major Cs is now a big difference.

Those are beefy guns and it shouldn't happen. If something loosens in a 929, it should do the same in most semi-autos. I have two 929s and they are much softer shooting than most lighter semi-autos. I understand target loads will have very light crimp, but this seems excessive.

Most of us seem to agree on two points in Production: that Production-10 is outdated, and, that Production is a necessary division. The debate is about Production-15 vs. Production-something-else. My vote is for Production-something-else. I prefer length-based magazine restrictions such as we have in the unlimited capacity divisions (the pistol ones, not PCC obviously, lol). They are easy to enforce, allow some aftermarket modifications, anyone showing up with an actual Production gun doesn't have to worry about loading the magazines incorrectly, and ROs don't have to count rounds or sneak around checking dropped magazines after they counted to 15. The true lo-cap divisions are the ones that have natural limitations and they should stay that way. Single Stack major is 8 because that's what could fit for the past 100 years. And minor is 10 because that's also what fits. Similarly, revolvers have natural capacity limits.

This is a very good point and it's actually making me change my mind on the "LO major!" While from the perspective of the sport alone it makes sense to have major/minor scoring in any division, it is not the only consideration. If people buy, own and shoot 9mm limited guns, allowing major would *force* them to either get different guns that they wouldn't get outside the sport, or to be at a scoring handicap.

The problem with this is that you would still have significantly different hardware that makes it uneven, even though it's all "Lo-cap." Revolver (which I shoot from time to time and hold pretty high classification) is significantly different from a 1911 with polished trigger (essentially a lo-cap Limited gun), which is different from the SA/DA Production guns and the "plastic fantastic" DAO guns. If anything, we could have a "lo-cap" *division* and then within it specific categories such a revo/plastic DAO/DA-SA/SS, etc. But that's essentially the same as keeping the current *divisions* and not mess around with categories. I see too much worrying about divisions with just a few shooters. This is unwarranted because people mostly look at the overall standings anyway. If I shoot an unpopular division, I really don't care how I did inside that division. And a new guy who is worried about his placement can always break it down further into, e.g., classes and proclaim that he "won the Production U class" or something of the sort. But those people are rare. New guys just want to shoot and regulars know what matters when looking at the score sheet. And just to drive the point home, just a week or two ago I shot a local pistol match (not USPSA, an all steel match) with a revolver. That was the ammo I had on hand so that's what I shot. And it didn't matter at all that I beat the other revo guy by a large margin, it was fun that I beat most of the semi-auto guys. And even that didn't matter one bit, since these are not real competitors who practice or shoot a lot. So, in the end, shooting an unpopular division is more like being in a category than in a division.

This is not a political forum and moderators frown upon anything that is not shooting-related. We discuss these types of issues on CalGuns in California, which is "gun forum" with all the politics that comes with it (as opposed to "shooting forum" such as this one). But this shouldn't be too controversial so I'll answer it here. After justice Thomas wrote the decision in Bruen and established a much stronger method for evaluation of gun laws (historical tradition vs. strict scrutiny we expected), there are a bunch of very ripe lawsuits that are waiting for the decision of circuit courts. In 9th Circuit, where CA is located, we actually already have a ruling by district court judge Benitez which enjoined the enforcement of the magazine capacity, but we are waiting at the moment for the circuit court (court of appeals) to issue a ruling. And if they try to play games, it's going back to the Supreme Court in a hurry. Most (if not all) LE agencies in CA already have in place policies not to mess with any magazines, partly because of the preliminary injunction, partly because of the "freedom week" (related to judge Benitez I mentioned above), and partly because most see writing on the wall. Our sheriff in Riverside county, Chad Bianco is a great pro-2A guy, so he has an additional disdain for enforcement of any magazine limitations. (Moderators, if this is not appropriate, feel free to delete or move. The topic is important because it affects discussion of divisions with administratively restricted capacities.)

People stuck with 10 round magazines in Limited are no different that people stuck with 10 round magazines in Open, C/O, L/O, PCC. Why no Open-10, C/O-10, L/O-10 and PCC-10? The point is that divisions other than L10 are all based on the gun itself, while L10 is the only one that is based on the magazines. And this distinction is based on a concept that is about to go away, which is the state laws limiting magazine capacity. Actually, I would LOVE to see PCC change to PCC-10 for a season or two, just "to show those rifle guys." And there should be a limit on magazine length in PCC-10 - factory only, no special basepads. LOL. (This is joking, of course.)

On minor vs. major... Just wait until CO and LO guys start demanding major scoring with minor power. 4-point Charlies for everyone! And then cue in the .22 crowd, because "ammo is cheaper and it allows recoil sensitive to join." Rimfire could be like steel challenge - counts the same as anything else as long as it goes "ping." If the rules allow weaker round, people will shoot it as long as you get 5 points for Alpha.

L10 is an anachronism and it needs to go. First, the recent Supreme Court precedent will soon result in legal magazine capacity limits going away. Second, in states with limits and no grandfathering, everyone shooting any hi-cap division will be shooting the same, only 10 rounds. At least for the time being, until the limits are lifted by the courts. Third, in states with grandfathered hi-cap magazines, those with hi-caps will shoot Limited, not L10, so the guy shooting L10 will be an odd duck regardless. All the other divisions - whatever. The more the merrier. Most people anyways compare themselves to other "similar" divisions. Per-division, per-class and (ugh) per-category distinctions are silly, but don't hurt anyone. Those who care can slice it and dice it any way they want, and those who don't care will just look at the overall score anyways. Anyone celebrate getting "High C class, foreign senior, single stack local level 1 match champion?"

Interesting situation - the rules don't specify which flags are updated and which are not. So it comes down to how the scoring calculation is implemented and it could be implemented differently in the future without violating the rules. However, here is an important constraint. As the system is calculating your classification, you don't have a class - the system is trying to *determine* your class. It cannot convert F to B or vice versa simply because it *thinks* you'll be a specific class. You're not that class at the moment, your class is being calculated, you don't have a class. To figure out the class, the system will take scores that are available and those are the ones that are NOT flagged A, B, C, D, G, I or X. These flags simply say "not valid for classification calculation" as entered at the time of the match. The rest of the flags, E, F, Y and "no flag" are then sorted by date and the last 8 are selected, everything before becomes E, two will become F and the rest will be Y. Could the system go back and do some additional exchanges such as determining new B-s? Sure, the rule doesn't specify that B flag cannot be changed. But doing the second iteration based on updated B flag could now produce different classification, so the loop could continue. And it makes no sense anyways, because it's dealing with low scores that matter only early on as you move up the classes more rapidly.

You shouldn't be able to "break the wrist more" as your wrist should be rotated as far forward as is necessary to fill in the gaps. This is controlled by the gun itself, you rotate until it stops. Similar to how you push your strong hand up until it stops. If your gap is because you're not rotating the wrist enough and not because the palm is too small, then I'd suggest you experiment first with more wrist before you accept the gap as your style.

Don't sweat it - pick the style that works for you and forget about the orthodoxy. The role of the hands on the grip is to prevent movement of the gun and the "no gap rule" is there to maximize the leverage when your hands are fighting for the real estate on the grip. But if you have smaller hands and your support hand is in full contact with the grip and as high as it goes, it's already serving its role whether there is a small gap or not (assuming I understand correctly how the gap appears). Either way, even if the gap is slightly suboptimal (and I'm not at all convinced it is without seeing it and measuring performance) it is more than offset with the comfort and the leverage of the thumb. The real issue with Tangfolio/CZ oversized safeties is when they are the toggle style. It looked so cool and worked awesome at the range when putzing around, but after the first few times the safety got engaged in the middle of a course of fire because I was riding it, I cut it at an aggressive angle so that only the front part could serve as the rest.

The main rule about engagement before activation is covered under the course construction, rule 2.1.8.5. Once you know that you can shoot any target before activation and that WSB cannot prohibit this (except Level 1 matches, rule 2.1.8.5.1), the question is now just that of cover. Barrels are by default hard cover (Course Construction, rule 2.2.3.4, and Scoring, rule 9.1.6). This means that barrel in question must have been declared "soft cover" in the WSB, otherwise it would default to hard cover. Once declared soft cover, scoring and usage is covered under Range Equipment, rule 4.1.4.2. Soft cover is treated as if it's not there for scoring. Declaring a barrel "soft cover" is not a good idea at many levels. First, it's an invitation to shoot through the barrel and damage it quite a bit. More importantly, shooting through a barrel can be risky as bullets can get significantly deflected and under some circumstances even trapped inside the barrel. A high velocity projectile doing donuts inside the barrel could potentially find an exit hole in any direction, a recipe for disaster. As a quick side note, trip down the memory lane. The new rule 9.9.3 requires target activation on the clock, by mandating activation with or before the last shot. This is because some years ago, before the rules about shooting area were cleaned up, a competitor ran outside the barriers, stood on the wall feet, engaged a hidden swinger at arms length and not activated, then before finishing the course of fire but after firing the last shot casually walked to the activator and stepped on it to activate the target "during the course of fire." But one thing that never changed is the ability to shoot targets at any time, including before activating them.

Provably wrong statement.

The glossary defines "stance" as "position of limbs." A WSB that doesn't specify position of limbs doesn't define stance and therefore doesn't define the start position correctly. You can ignore the part after the "e.g.," but you cannot ignore the definition itself. If you think that "position of limbs" doesn't matter, write a short segment that you would put into a WSB and that you would consider to satisfy the requirement to define the start position, so we can analyze your example and determine whether it does or does not meet the requirements of 3.2.1 -> start position -> stance -> position of limbs.

Rule 8.2.3 does not allow the RO to start anyone in that condition.

It is NOT silent. From the "A3 - Glossary" It explicitly defines "...and stance" and then defines what "stance" means, to include limbs/arms/hands.

Another good reason to always start with the rule book (and this is "rules" sub-forum) is that when you get certified at any level by the NROI, you learn that EVERY decision you make MUST be supported by a SPECIFIC rule.

Whenever you have a question about gear or configuration, the best place to start is the rule book itself. Appendix D7, rule 21.4 tells you that grips cannot be "modified to create a thumb rest." But this is only about the grips. Most of the limitations on allowable modifications come from the rules 21 and 22 which both specify that you have to be able to justify a modification is allowed, or it's a bump to Open. So, as broadside72 points out above, what passes for a "thumb rest" in CO is some other external part that is allowed to be replaced under 21.6 and that by pure coincidence (sarcasm) also serves a very useful purpose of being a pseudo-thumb rest.

That would be a circular definition that would allow complete omission of the start position from the WSB because, well, it's not in the WSB to begin with.

And this is another reason not to play games with the WSB and push the rules. I mean, it's one thing for competitors to game the rules, but for organizers to game the WSB in order to provide an intentional hidden point of contention that won't have any impact on the outcome of the competition is plain silly. If the intent is to have "any hand position," it's trivial to include this language in the WSB and avoid any questions that will inevitably follow if the hand position is missing.

Not specifying something is not the same as specifying that it can be any. Otherwise we couldn't differentiate between "must specify the start position" and "should specify the start position." And "hands anywhere" must be specified if that's the intent, otherwise the usual "wrists below belt" can be included. Not only is this required by the rules, but it also has a formal role before "are you ready?" can be issued. The competitor must assume the start position per 8.3.1. before the RO can proceed to the "are you ready?" While many will rest the shooting hand on the gun in the holster while visualizing the stage to make it clear they are not yet ready, some will not. A guy holding hands in front of him with eyes closed could be visualizing the stage, or could be ready. There is no need to specify all the details that are in 8.2 such as not touching the gun. Those are the rules that the RO enforces if the competitor doesn't know them. There is no penalty for violating 8.2, so it's up to the RO to make sure the rules are followed. In fact, most of section 8.2 specifies what cannot be in the WSB ("... must not require") while only a few address what is not allowed by the competitor and those are up to the RO to make sure are not violated prior to the buzzer going off.

As for the gear location and setups, it's going in the right direction. Who cares if the magazine is behind the hip or not, or what type of holster it is? Remember SS when there was no DOH holsters and it was the *front* of the grip that had to be above the belt? What's the purpose? Just let it be, let people run it the way they like it. It's not going to make anyone a better shooter and it's all equitable anyways because everyone gets to reposition the gear the way the like it. The same goes for trinkets such as magwells and thumb rests - it's easy enough to add pseudo-thumb rest and pseudo-magwell. And nobody ever won a major match because they pushed the limit with the gear.