IVC

Revolver is a fun secondary division for occasional shooting and practically all revolver shooters at my club (large, well over 100 competitors at each match) shoot other divisions most of the time. When you go to shoot revolver, you go for it because you feel like shooting a revolver that day and working on different aspects of the game. The transitions, movement, entering and leaving positions are still the same, but your strategy (obviously) changes. Given the extremely low participation, and meaningless concept of "winning," why limit it with unnecessary gear restrictions? I would just make Revolver division to be a "Revolver Open" where anything goes. The argument that the red dot will dissuade people from shooting it is dubious. What revolver shooter would think to himself the day before: "gee, I was going to shoot revolver, but I can't win now because of the dot so I'll just go and shoot something else"? The capacity change for minor killed the 625 which is way more of a financial hit (to those who are in it for the money) than adding a mounting plate and a dot. At least it's trivial to add the dot on a revolver and it doesn't require any extra machining. As for HF and gaming with the dot, consider this. There were classifiers that had 8 shots and HF were based on 625 with a reload, then 929 showed up if you see the problem. And there were newer classifiers with only 6 shots before a reload, so 929 shooters could shoot them with a 625 and get major scoring and easer reload. And it still made no difference in any measurable way.

I'm rereading the explanation of the call and in the blog they say: "And 10.2.2.1 says we can’t assess a procedural penalty for failing to follow the stage procedure for shooting too many shots at T3 before the reload." This is factually incorrect. 10.2.2.1 says that we cannot assess a procedural under that rule, not that we cannot asses a procedural penalty at all. It even states that the "...penalties... are addressed in other rules..." There are just way too many inconsistencies and stretched interpretations of the rules (to the point beyond breaking them) in that writeup that I looked up if it was posted on 4/1. It wasn't, unfortunately.

The timing of the reload here is not contentious, but if it was, I would argue that the comma in the WSB makes a big difference since it says that the first part is to engage T1-T3, reload, then something else. While it does also say how to engage (not only what to engage), the timing of the reload is based on the initial part of the sentence which primarily declares which targets need to be engaged. My guess is that a regular person would give two procedurals, one for the one shot too many and one for the one shot to few. This is what I would like the rules to be (looks like they are not going to be that way and it's debatable whether they are that way at the moment, which is what we are trying to sort out). Anything short of two procedurals puts upside down all VC classifiers.

And one such rule is 9.4.5.3 which uses the term "...per target incorrectly engaged." My point is that if the WSB says "with two rounds only," the plain reading of the rule would be that engaging T3 with three rounds would be an "incorrectly engaged target." And the glossary in appendix A3 doesn't add any extra light or changes the plain reading of the 9.4.5.3, it even starts the definition with: "Shooting more than the specified shots...", and by my reckoning shooting three while the WSB specifies two is pretty much the definition of "shooting more than the specified shots" since 3 > 2. I think. More importantly, we also have a rule 10.1.4 which states: "Procedural penalties cannot be nullified by further competitor action." which is logical and how it should be (there is an example in that rule, but that's just an example; the rule is complete in the initial sentence). If the NROI indeed means what they say in this analysis and if they indeed want to change the rules to muddy the waters with skipped transitions, they have to change the other rules that simply state "follow the WSB or get a procedural." This discussion isn't even about the correct number of procedurals, it's about whether to apply ANY. It's going to be interesting to see how this whole mess develops.

This is not in the current rulebook. At least I couldn't find it between section on penalty for stacking and the definition of stacking. I understand NROI is considering making changes, but we are talking about what is in the rulebook at the moment. Rule 9.4.5.3 specifies procedural for "incorrectly engaged target" and then references appendix A3 for the definition. Appendix A3 states verbatim: "Shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing." If the NROI claims that the target are "correctly engaged" and that 9.4.5.3 doesn't apply, then what's the point of specifying in the WSB: "engage T1-T3 with only two rounds per target?" Cleary engaging with three rounds isn't the same as engaging with "only two rounds" and engaging with three rounds is not a correctly engaged target per the WSB.

There is nothing in the current rules that would differentiate (4, 0 - 0, 4) from (3, 1 - 1, 3). There is an example in A3, but it's just an example, not an exhaustive list. The wording only uses "more/fewer", so even if we argue that more/fewer applies to the totals for the COF and not before/after reload, still the two cases cannot be differentiated under the current rule wording. They are either both valid (no procedurals) or both invalid (stacking). It's even more weird that the NROI would want to change the rules to explicitly allow these types of misuses, instead of trying to clean it up. If it was up to me, I would say that there is one procedural for too many shots fired before the reload and one procedural for too few shots fired after the reload. If the guy fired the 13th shot and hit the target more than 12 times, it would be an extra one for the extra hit. But it's obviously not up to me

Is it already adopted? I looked at the actual wording of the most current rules published on the USPSA website.

This also makes no sense. Imagine that the COF was to shoot weak hand after the reload. Using this argument, I could shoot 3-3-3 free style, then shoot 1-1-1 weak hand.

The reload is at the correct time since WSB says to reload after engaging T1-T3 which he did. But I'm not following why 9.4.5.3 doesn't apply (stacked shots) since the default is that stacked shots are NOT allowed (unless specifically authorized). The appendix A3 defines stacked shots as: "Shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing." which is exactly what the shooter did.

You're looking at the difference between POI at the muzzle (center bore) to POA (center of the aiming point). With iron sights, it's slightly different even based on which sight picture you use. In your case, center of the glass is close enough approximation for the center of the aiming dot.

Second shot shouldn't be high, especially with a revolver - trigger speed is slower than the gun settling post recoil. It's almost certainly the grip and stance, where you let the gun remain high instead of using your wrists and your body (through stiff shoulders) to passively return the gun on target. What works for me is to mentally separate driving the gun from running the trigger - simply think that someone else is pulling the trigger while you're controlling the aim. Because the trigger is longer and requires much more movement than a semi-auto, it feels as if the gun is back on target and you're waiting for it to go off all by itself. Even as you operate the trigger before the gun is ready, by the time the gun fires it seems that the shot lags the aiming.

Fast reload is like a fast draw - one component is the speed of the action itself, another is the time to settle on the target. When you initially practice just the draw or just the reload, assume easy target or you're wasting time trying to train two somewhat different concepts simultaneously: gun manipulation and acceptable sight picture. So don't worry too much (initially) about the trigger pull or the acceptable sight picture, get to the point where you train the mechanics of the action and can do it fast. Obviously, the gun has to be in the vicinity of the correct position at the second beep so you know that when you start working on the acceptable sight picture you have a good starting point, but you don't even have to call your shot (better not to call it than to call it incorrectly; alternatively, call it but don't worry that it's not quite on target). When you add the second element, settling on the target, your par times will go up until you refine the acceptable sight picture and link the the two elements together. But, since your mechanics will be tuned enough at that time, you won't be playing the game of trading off the lack of mechanical speed for the sloppy sight picture. This is why all dry fire books tell you NOT to press the trigger in most drills of this type. Only when you have the speed sorted out should you start varying the difficulty of the targets and include some hard/small targets where the most of the time will be on the acceptable sight picture and not on the mechanics of the reload. If you do this too soon, you'll end up cheating yourself by taking too long on the mechanical part and not long enough on the settling of the sights, and you'll think you're beating the par time when you're not - sure you finished in time, but the shot at the end wasn't good. This will show very clearly when you try to confirm it in live fire. If you draw/reload in live fire on difficult targets (and you should), you'll see the distinct separation of the fast, fixed-speed mechanical part of the drill and the target-dependent, variable-speed part of acquiring the acceptable sight picture. In fact, you can see this as two separate drills and start working on them in parallel - work on the mechanical speed with tight par times and easy targets, then separately on the full drill with a good shot at the end (and the target-dependent par time). A good par time for the mechanical part would be 1.0 seconds, although you should start at somewhere between 2.0 and 1.5 if you're still working on the basic mechanics (race guns, race pouches). Beyond that you're getting diminishing returns, it's much better to have a 100% @ 1 second than to have 75% @ 0.8 seconds (unless you lost a match by 0.2 seconds and you couldn't squeeze it out of getting in or out of positions better). And if you read any of the dry fire books and see that the par time goes up for more difficult targets, don't get caught in working on those drills too soon - if they give you 1.4 second par, it's still 1.0 seconds for the reload and the rest is for the acceptable sight picture and settling the sights. If your mechanical reload isn't there, you'll spend 1.3 seconds on the reload and 0.1 on the sights, you'll feel you're doing great, but you'll train incorrectly.

The bullet travels in an arc. If it weren't for the air resistance, this arc would be a simple parabola. Still, the bullet travels up, reaches maximum height, then falls down. Where the bullet strikes the target is where the arc intersects the target and it's the "point of impact" or POI. The sights define a straight aiming line and where this straight line intersects the target it's the "point of aim" or POA. The arc and the straight line will intersect in two places (theoretically possible to have 0 or 1 intersection, but those are not the case here), one before the apex of the flight and the other after. Those are the first and second zeros where POA matches POI. The only way to have bullet drop after 25 yards is if it's the *second* zero at 25 yards, which means that the bullet peaked *before* 25 yards and is on its way down, which means that the range of your gun is less than 50 yards. It's actually possible, you'd have to shoot almost vertically into the air, have the bullet peak at about 15 yards but many hundreds of feet high in the air, then come almost vertically down at 25 yards. I'm sure you're not doing this. Any pistol caliber will cause the bullet to peak beyond 25 yards, so sighting in at 25 yards will sight in the first zero and the bullet will be on the way up through it, it will reach the peak somewhere past 25 yards and then come down, intersect the POA for the second time at the second zero, then continue a bit and fall to the ground.

The bullet will keep on raising past the 25 yards since at that distance you're zeroing using the first zero. If you're going to compensate, you should keep your aim lower until the distance where your bullet hits the second zero, and only higher from that point on. The location of the second zero will depend on your load and the height of the sights, but it won't be too far behind because pistol rounds are neither fast nor aerodynamic. I sight in at 25 yards too, and I only compensate at very close distances by aiming slightly high, e.g., the top of the target for the upper A zone. Everything else is pretty much "point blank" because the bullet is raising for the first 25 yards and would be the "height of sights" high at 50 yards if it weren't for the gravity, but gravity nicely cooperates here and pulls the bullet back to keep everything tight. Things quickly deteriorate past 50 yards, but they are pretty good to about 75 (depending on the bullet speed) and past that, if you want to play with long shots, you would have to know your holdovers like a rifle shooter anyways.

The main difference between major and minor isn't even recoil - a light duty gun shooting +P is much closer to a competition major than to a heavy, bulky 9mm @ 128 PF. The main difference is the practical size of the target. Shooting minor is akin to smaller targets because each charlie counts as two major charlies. It changes the strategy of balancing speed and accuracy. If you want to mess with scoring, modify rules to remove 9.2.3.2 and use Virginia count stages with steel and some harder paper shots. If you think that hard-open-hard transitions will mess with timing wait until you see a Virginia count stage.

LOL. It's a game. Even IDPA realizes it.

Agreed - it's one of those rules that is there to provide intent, but is not nearly mature enough to provide real teeth. And it doesn't have to be mature until it does become a problem, if it ever does. In the meantime, it's best enforced through common sense - as long as it's not something obviously egregious, there are no good ways to enforce it in an objective way, so stick to the simple "if it fits division requirements, it's good to go," which is precisely what the rest of 5.1.7 suggests.

The problem with S/N is that, at least in the USA, only the frame is serialized. Even for chrono one can replace the barrel or, with Sig FCU, the whole gun. Serial number isn't the solution if there is indeed a real problem with switching guns. For the sake of argument, let's say that switching guns becomes permitted. What exactly would the strategy be and who and how would get any advantage by switching guns (within same division, obviously)? I mean, when was the last time you looked at a stage and thought to yourself: "If only I could shoot my other gun on this stage."?

Not at all, why would one cheat if they can legally use 5.1.7 and 5.1.8? There is nothing in 5.1.7 that says how the problem happened, only: "in the event ... original firearm and/or sights become unserviceable or unsafe during a match." Self-inflicted problems are included. And even 5.1.8 doesn't say that significant modifications on the sly are are a DQ, not even that unauthorized substitutions are, only that they "... will be subject to the provisions of Section 10.6," which is the generic unsportsmanlike conduct. It's right there with 5.3.1 about the dress code - subjective and meant to provide a means to stop disruptions, but far from a fine tuning tool with well defined limits. So, say you're the RM and the competitor asks you to replace the gun under 5.1.7. The only potential issue is 5.1.7.2 about "competitive advantage." You have two guns, say a Glock and a Sig in front of you, one is broken. Which one is a competitive advantage over the other and how do you justify it to the arbitration committee if it comes to that? Do you have a table of firearms that lists which one is a competitive advantage over which other ones in which specific situations? Do you even know the characteristics of the two guns in front of you? As the old Greek saying goes, "what you cannot enforce, do not command." The rules 5.1.7 and 5.1.8 are there to show general intent, but are not easily enforceable so they are not "real rules" and will eventually have to be rewritten if there is ever an issue of people switching guns. But I seriously doubt that anyone will gain anything by using a gun that he could've used in the first place anyways. So, keep the rule there as a "general intent" and in case it becomes an issue, first use subjective calls in 10.6, then if it continues and becomes a big issue, modify the rules to deal with the problem. That's how the rules about activated targets and the use of supports outside shooting areas evolved - there was a problem and the rules were adjusted and rewritten to deal with it.

RM cannot know that you switched guns, he doesn't have a list. The stage ROs (if they are per-stage) also can't know what gun you're shooting because they too don't have a list. If the gun looks the same, nobody knows if anything is changed between stages. The whole "gun switching gaming" is a big hypothetical with the primary remedy to DQ under "unsportsmanlike conduct," which is a catch-all RM power to prevent a $#!%$-show if someone goes way out of line (subjective, rarely used, akin to enforcing dress code). I wouldn't worry about it, if the gun is legal for division it's good to go. Nobody will win a match because they switched the gun, nor will they gain anything by shooting two different guns. More importantly, if someone REALLY wanted to switch guns and still play it by the book, there is a simple way - break the gun before every stage where you want to shoot a different gun (for example, put in a broken guide rod and tell the RM you don't have super glue).

L10 is for legally restricted areas such as CA. I started shooting L10 because I had a Limited gun in the safe and it came with castrated magazines, so L10 it was. Once we have magazine restrictions removed by courts (coming up *very* soon, we in restricted states follow these legal cases), L10 needs to go, not to be revamped into yet another red-haired stepchild. Outside restricted states, L10 makes no sense. A proper Limited gun with restricted magazines just for fun? A 1911 that uses abominations of "thin and long" magazines to pretend to be some "high capacity single stack"? No, just no! Let the courts strike down magazine capacities nationwide, then retire L10 as it's no longer needed.

You definitely need to confirm zero. Shooting "bullseye press" and from the bench should give you the same POI (even if different group size). If you can't make it to match and you still get high impacts with only one method, have someone else shoot your gun to confirm. Isolate the problem and be systematic about it. Don't even think about technique and details until you figure out what's going on mechanically.

Ratchet assembly is transparent when adjusted correctly and there is no need to remove it. It's there to prevent short-stroking, not double-stroking. In fact, you can easily double-stroke if you're working on adjusting or fixing a single station without ever engaging the ratchet since it is reset at the very top of the stroke. The only time the ratchet will lock is if you try to move the arm up before the cycle is complete and then you can still easily unlock it if you indeed want to move the arm up. It's a warning system that kicks in very rarely and which is easy to bypass, so removing it is sort of a lazy way out and looking for trouble. But it's a personal choice, as my buddy three-fingered Pete always says. Either way, removing ratchet should be an informed decision and not something you do because you can't adjust it. First, make it work. Then, load ammo with the press the way it's designed. Only then consider modifications if you don't like what you have, or if you think you'll make it better.

Limited Optics is to Limited what C/O was initially to Production - take the same guns and allow red dots. I would like to see Limited Optics keep major/minor scoring to make it sufficiently different from "C/O+", but either way it's just going with the times - take a Limited gun and add optics, so it's an arms race with guns, but not with ammo. If you get into arms race with ammo, you go to compensators, popple holes and Open. So, a great division for traditional Limited shooters who want to upgrade, but don't want the hassle of loading for Open. Quite similar to the initial appeal of C/O, until the whiners got the capacity increased so they wouldn't have to deal with stage planning and the lack of magwells (and I'm not against it, I would just like to see the poo' man's Open guys have to reload like the pedestrians in Production).

I would guess that your eyes are close in dominance if you have to close one. Otherwise, your brain would automatically tune out the non-dominant eye and you'd have no need to squint or close it. When I started paying attention to my eye dominance, I realized that my eyes are pretty close in dominance, so I started squinting for the shot and opening both eyes for transitions. It made a lot of difference - I realized it was too easy for the brain to try to "average" the two images coming from two eyes and I would pull shots to the side at speed. But back on topic, I would bet it's what someone mentioned above - when seeing dot you're likely trying to say "now" when you have dot in the middle of the target, which is about the worst time to jerk the trigger because the dot is moving away from that spot right at that time. If you keep the dot "dancing" in the middle and jerk the trigger, you'll be subconsciously keeping muzzle in the vicinity of the center and your groups will reflect the average wobble with some hits in the center.