IVC
-
Posts
1,174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by IVC
-
-
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.
-
On 5/17/2023 at 8:08 AM, CHA-LEE said:
This is the exact example of how not listing the hand position in the WSB can waste time for everyone during a match and ultimately detract from everyones enjoyment of the stage.
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.
-
Both CO and LO are fine, red dots are here to stay. And if anything, it's the Production that should get more in line with CO since production guns these days come out with larger capacity magazines and all sorts of small enhancements. It should be literally that Production and Limited mimic CO and LO (give or take major scoring in LO, I'm on the fence with that one).
Anyone wanting to shoot lo-cap divisions or irons has plenty of choices.
-
4 hours ago, Sarge said:
Disagree based on this
Yet "start position" *requires* stance and 3.2.1 *requires* "start position" in the WSB.... Hmmm....
-
2 hours ago, ddc said:
Where in the rulebook does it say "Position of the hands is part of the "start position."" ?
Appendix A3 (Glossary) defines the "Start Position" as "The location, shooting position and stance of the competitor..." But the same appendix also defines "Shooting position" as "The physical presentation of a person's body..." and, more importantly, the "Stance" as "The physical presentation of a person's limbs (e.g. hands by the side, arms crossed etc.)."
If 3.2.1 *requires* specification of the "start position" and the definition of the "start position" includes *three* elements (uses keyword "and"; all three are required), one of them is the "stance" and the "stance" is defined as presentation of the limbs, with specific examples of hands and arms, I would say the Rule Book DOES say hands are a part of the start position.
-
To continue this discussion from a slightly different angle...
WSB *must* include the start position, per 3.2.1. Position of the hands is part of the "start position." If the WSB does NOT contain the initial hands position, it's not compliant with 3.2.1. Explicitly stating "any hand position" does specify the starting position and passes the muster, but omitting it is in violation of 3.2.1. So, the lazy way of forgetting it is against the rules.
Anyone disagrees on this interpretation of 3.2.1?
-
1 hour ago, broadside72 said:
I have always shot with the finger hooked but I have giant hands that make guns look tiny.
And this is why "the modern technique" defines principles and uses standardized metrics to measure performance, rather than trying to create "an image" or "the look" the way it was common in the past. Everyone is different and will have to fine-tune many details of individualized technique, from grip to gear position on the belt to mechanics of the draw and the reload.
In fact, virtually all sports and activities these days have moved to this performance-based approach to training and defining the technique through effect on performance rather than the orthodoxy.
-
Draws and movement, luckily, are something that you would mostly train in dry fire anyways. Sure you need to confirm your dry fire training, but that's something you can do from time to time. If you have only one target at your live range you're somewhat limited but you can still make up your own drills. The key is to understand what you're trying to train, then find a setup and design drills that work for you.
For example, if you're working on transitions, the goal is to look at the new target, present the gun, fire when you get the acceptable sight picture. You can do this by starting with gun pointed downrange but off target. If you want to do "back and forth" transitions, you'd have to work within the cone of fire that is available to you, but you'd generally have two (or more) aiming dots on the target, then move between them. Just make sure you account for potential misses so you don't damage anything when you push it hard.
For different distances all you need is different size targets at the same distance. If you have only one target, you'd have to paste on it smaller targets, then do the transition drill above by shooting at the different areas of your target. If you pay attention to the different quality of the acceptable sight picture for different sizes of the target, you're training distance transitions. In fact, this is what you do in dry fire and where you'll train most of it, while using live fire to confirm you're doing it right.
-
On 6/11/2023 at 1:07 PM, RangerTrace said:
I ending up installing a new, unused Lee 9mm sizing die I had laying around that I had forgot about. Crazy how much easier it is to pull the handle without the "U" die.
Sizing and powder drop neck expander are the two problematic dies in any setup. That's why some of us started preprocessing the brass, where on pass one it's depriming, swaging (also used as a test for depriming problems), then sizing and neck expansion. The second pass keeps the universal depriming (just in case), there is no swaging (activator rod removed from the toolhead) and no sizing (would negate the neck expansion from step 1). Amazing how smooth the reloading can be if the brass is not fighting the press :-).
-
Also, check the tip of the swager rod as that can be a potential problem. It should be slightly beveled so that the upward force initially pushes the crimp to the side, not straight up.
-
There really isn't much of finesse there - if the swager rod gets stopped and it's *not* off center or otherwise impeded by anything other than the crimp, you can either power through it and force the swaging, or you can stop the press and remove the brass. The purpose of the swager is to force the opening of a certain size to ensure a primer will fit on the next station. So, the rod will either get through and make the opening, or it will stop the press before the potential kaboom at the next station.
I'd check alignment to make sure the rod is in the center of the case, then make a decision on how much force is too much and either accept the stoppage or add some force. Of course, make sure the backer is set up correctly so you're not adding stress to the shellplate.
-
If you're just learning calling shots, I would separate it into two individual steps. First, you have to see the sights as you fire. Second, you have to register what you see and act upon that information (e.g., fire a follow-up in a match).
From my experience, the harder of the two is the initial "seeing of the sights as you fire." Once you train your brain to "take the snapshot" of the sights as you fire, the next step, the processing of the information, is easier to train. This is because after you know what to "see" and "notice," you have all the information you need and the remaining training is about putting it to good use.
One can argue it's the same thing, seeing and processing, but it's not really. If you try to mark your target without being sure that you're seeing what you need to see, you might be doing yourself a disservice by trying to "make up" location of the called shot when you don't have the information you need. It's akin to rushing a shot by blind point shooting and expecting that accuracy would come with time, when in reality you need to see and recognize the sights even when point shooting.
A drill that worked really well for me, and which is in one (or more) of the standard training books, is to shoot at the berm without any target. Slow deliberate shots, shots off of a draw, transition and shoot, fast follow-ups, etc., all without any specific reference points. All you're looking at is the sights. You want to train your brain to see what is available out there and at speed at which it happens. You can also add a drill of "registering" in your brain how high the sights went in recoil (this is not part of shot calling, but it helps with forcing your brain to take a mental snapshot of sights on demand). The more you play around with just seeing the sights, the easier will it be in the next step to use that information and correlate it to an actual target to get to the shot calling.
-
On 2/13/2023 at 4:34 PM, broadside72 said:
You didn't engage the targets after the reload per the WSB requirements. So you can be penalized under 10.2.2. I would also think that its 6 penalties because of the significant advantage of the time savings and lack of transitions.
What would be "each occurrence" in 10.2.2 and at what exact point in time would you asses the penalty? Keep in mind that you cannot define "occurrence" based on the number of shots pre/post reload, because NROI said so. And which 6 penalties would you assess that are NOT based on the incorrect number of shots pre/post reload, which is also something NROI claims you can't do.
-
On 2/7/2023 at 3:23 PM, waktasz said:
4-4-4 reload is no good because it says engage the targets, reload then engage the targets. You have to shoot at least one shot to Engage a target, per the rulebook. So 3-3-3-r-1-1-1 would work
Even though I agreed with you a few days back, I'm actually rethinking this. "Engage targets" is a generic phrase, where the penalty is assessed under the FTSAT (failure to shoot at a/the target), and is covered only in 9.5.7 as far as I can tell (I did keyword search and looked up in the index). The rule says:
---------------------
9.5.7 A competitor who fails to shoot at the face of each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty per target for failure to shoot at the target, as well as appropriate penalties for misses (see Rule 10.2.7).
---------------------
If we are to play games with the VC extra shots being per COF and ignore there is a mandatory reload in between (NROI explanation), the wording of 9.5.7 also only specifies "in a course of fire." So, if I do 4-4-4-reload, there is no penalty per 9.5.7 since the literal wording is per COF, not per substring (or whatever we call it). I don't see another way to get a FTSAT.
More importantly, if 9.5.7 doesn't work and we go back to 10.2.2 which would penalize non-compliance with WSB in 4-4-4-reload, I'm more than happy to get a "per shot" procedural for non-compliance since I didn't fire any shots after the non-compliance - I'll take 0 x (-10). And if the NROI explanation stands, I can't get a procedural for firing too many shots prior to the reload, so I end up without procedurals.
Thoughts?
-
A lot of skill is transferrable between divisions, especially the important things such as stage planning (assuming you don't change capacity much) movement, entry into positions, leaving positions, transitions, calling shots, etc. However, you will lose speed and consistency on classifiers, that's for sure.
Are you at the stage where every small detail hurts your ranking, where you're pretty close to the top guys? Or are you at the stage where you're still working on the low hanging fruit associated with movement, low stance, shooting on the move, array engagement, etc.? If you switch guns, you can work on latter, but not on the former. My 2c.
-
26 minutes ago, waktasz said:
4-4-4 reload is no good because it says engage the targets, reload then engage the targets. You have to shoot at least one shot to Engage a target, per the rulebook. So 3-3-3-r-1-1-1 would work
Yeah, you're right. I thought it was too good to be true. But then I thought it was too good to be true that one can ignore "with only two rounds," yet NROI says otherwise. Either way, one can manipulate the number of shots when before/after reload is not symmetric, e.g., it's free style-reload-WHO. Shoot all but one free style, then add a single shot WHO. Anyways...
-
46 minutes ago, Southpaw said:
And 4-4-4, reload actually isn't stacking according to current definition per glossary: "Shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing."
I would say that either both, 2-2-3-reload-2-2-1 and 4-4-4-reload ARE stacking or NEITHER IS. My plain English reading of the rules is that they both ARE stacking because it's not the correct number of shots per WSB - sure the total is correct, but that's not how the rule is worded and engaging target with 1 or 3 shots when 2 are specified is, at least to me, an incorrectly engaged target.
But if the NROI says it's not and that the reading of the rule means that the incorrect number of shots applies only to the total (with which I disagree), then one cannot argue that there is anything wrong with 4-4-4-reload because that one ALSO entails the correct TOTAL number of shots. So, either both are wrong or both are right. I say both are wrong, but NROI says both are right, so the next time I'll shoot the El Prez 4-4-4-reload and then submit it for the question of the month and link back to the interpretation in the OP.
-
1 hour ago, Boomstick303 said:
If you life depends on it are you reserving shots? Nope. Are you calculating in your head if you need to take another shot based on a point system in the real world? Nope. You shoot until the threat is neutralized.
Even if we look at real life and for a moment forget it's a game, Virginia Count teaches you to be accountable for each shot. If anything VC is more applicable to self defense than Comstock simply because in real life there is huge accountability for any shot that can hit a bystander. But we are getting off track here, and I don't want to get flamed too much...
-
22 hours ago, broadside72 said:
This situation still isn't stacking as the shooter didn't shoot more than required at one target while shooting fewer at another target.
Per current rules, it's literally no different than shooting 4-4-4, stopping the timer on the 12th shot, then reloading to comply with the WSB. It's the same as in the past when a guy walked on the outside of the wall, stood on the support, shot the swinger before activating it, then before finishing the COF but after firing the last shot casually walked to the activator and stepped on it to avoid a procedural. The rules got changed after that to prevent that type of shooting, not to make it easier to do it.
In this case, if the NROI explanation is that the reload must happen after engaging targets, 4-4-4 complies. And if the number of shots pre/post reload doesn't matter, than 4-4-4 also complies. Neither current rulebook nor the NROI explanation apply any differently to 4-4-4-reload than they do to 2-2-3-reload-2-2-1. And if I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong.
-
5 hours ago, Boomstick303 said:
What practical skill is VC testing?
The same as any other course of fire - the ability to figure out the correct tradeoff between points and time. You can shoot as many shots as you want in VC, just some of them are treated as hitting a no-shoot. It's still the same HF calculation, just different penalties. Arguing against VC is similar to arguing against procedurals when using various contraptions that make shooting more difficult.
A more practical gaming skill that VC tests is whether you fire a make-up shot on a called Mike in a VC course of fire (you always do). And how well you called that Mike to avoid the extra hits penalty.
-
34 minutes ago, broadside72 said:
You can't claim stacked shots here because as previously described in other NROI posts it has to save a transition to be stacking and that did not happen in this instance.
It's not in the current rules and I'm going by the book at the moment.
Let's see how it changes in the future, and it might very well be that this type of shooting will result in no procedural penalties due to the new transitioning rule. But in the meantime, it's important to stick to the current rules for two reasons. First, interpretation should be based on the rules as-written, without relying on additional sources that are not part of the rulebook, at least until those rules are changed. And second, we don't know which rules will get adopted, and it might even happen that this particular NROI post and associated comments influence what happens next.
-
1 hour ago, waktasz said:
You can't give two penalties for one action
The only limit would be that the number of procedurals cannot exceed the number of scoring shots (10.2.3). I don't see why one couldn't get multiple, not only the extra shots/hits on VC stage, but something like faulting the line and shooting free style when WSB requires WHO/SHO, or similar...
Any thoughts on why it would/wouldn't work? (I haven't thought about this, it's just from the top of my head.)
Carry optics,, thumb rest
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
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.