IVC

Normally you say nothing. Until the competitor gets into start position you assume he is visualizing and getting ready. There is some wiggle room with new shooters at level one, or when a competitor is clearly assuming incorrect start position, but it's usually sorted out with a quick sentence or two.

I find it funny both ways - one group thinking that small tweaks will make a difference and another group getting upset that the small tweaks the first group is using are not consistent with their intent. In reality, I have never seen a match where the person who shot the best didn't win.

On steel, you have to be patient with the sight picture. If it's a borderline shot, don't take it. It might feel "slower" but it's not about speed, it's about vision. Make sure you see the sights and are sure of the shot before pulling the trigger.

Or the "magazine outside the gun" - I've shot at least one classifier (Tick-Tock, 13-05) where the location of the magazine wasn't specified except to be "outside the gun" so it could be lined up with the magwell, just barely not touching it. You pick up the gun by slamming the magazine into the gun even before you get your grip. Our local matches always have a mark for where the gun is centered and a mark or area where the magazine needs to be when defining an unloaded start. Either be specific in the WSB, or don't fret when people follow written instructions in the way you haven't anticipated...

Bowing out - the thread seems to have outlived its purpose.

Another reference to "black and white" - the rule 6.2.5.1 IS "black and white" even if you're using interpretation to make it into what it should have been instead of applying it the way it is written. We can agree that sights falling off shouldn't result in the bump to Open, but that doesn't mean that the rule is ambiguous or that we are following it, it means that we are simply not applying a rule that we don't like. Once we get into the selective application of rules, we no longer have the ability to complain how Level 1 matches ignore gear positioning (magazines/guns too far from the belt, guns too low, holsters too open), or how some guys sometimes get a reshoot if there is a malfunction of their gun close to the start, or how at L1 on a steel plate sometimes it's "shoot until it falls," sometimes it's "you hit it, get going," but it's practically never "it's a REF, here's a reshoot." The discussion of whether and which rules we can change on the fly because we don't like them would be a different thread. My point is only that as far as the rules go, it's a clear cut. As far as what it should be, I'm with many here who argue it needs to change. As far as what should be done in practice, if you don't bump to Open you're creating your own rules (for better or worse, it's a separate discussion).

The rule we are discussing is indeed "black and white." It says what it says, I didn't write it and I wasn't the one to put it there so I don't have a dog in this fight. If you think that there is ambiguity in "during the course of fire," you have to state which part is ambiguous. And, if you think that the rule 6.2.5.1 allows for some division requirements not to be satisfied during the course of fire, you also need to specify which division requirements can be violated and why you believe the rule makes this distinction of allowing some division rules to be violated, but not others. For example, reloading into a fully loaded 171mm magazine during a course of fire in C/O is a violation of division rules in 6.2.5.1, so there must be a way in the rule itself to differentiate between violation of D7-8 (magazine length) and D7-13 (sights).

Your interpretation would have to change the language and therefore doesn't apply. The plain meaning of the "directly attached" prevails. There is no requirement for two parts to touch in order to be directly attached. Whether you add a shim, washer, or a coat of oil, the sight is still directly attached to the slide. More importantly, the rest of the sentence provides the context as well. Back to the original discussion, if you want to argue the optics falling off, the rule says that the requirements of the division must be satisfied "during the course of fire." You'll be hard pressed to find any linguistic interpretation that has an alternative meaning from the plain reading of "between the beginning and the end of the course of fire."

Sure you can see it that way, but you're taking a concept that is already poor and a stretch and you're removing the last remnant of logic from it. You are not really "competing within a class." The class is there to track your progress, like belts in martial arts or handicaps in various sports. It's really your generic ranking of skills and competence. Those who attribute meaning to the class or handicap in the competitive context are completely missing the point - you either beat another person or you don't. Want to beat everyone in a class? Get better and move up. You already beat everyone in a class? You're already the next class up (your skill is there). Getting consistently beaten by someone in a lower class? Either you're not yet at the level of your classification, or more likely, the other person is not correctly classified (intentionally or not). No matter how you look at it, you're competing against everyone in your division and you're looking at what your percentage of the winner is. That's your ranking. People with higher percentage beat you, people with lower percentage were beaten by you. To move up 5%, you have to have 5% better hit factors (roughly). Simple. To say it differently, let's say you are at a huge match with the top shooters there. The winner is at 100% and the rest start gradually down from there (sometimes not so gradually, but that's besides the point). Everyone has a score. You draw the line at 95%, 85%, 75%, 60% and 40% and look who's closest to that line from below. There are your "class winners." Yet, the guy with 41% still beat the guy with 39%. Actually, if you look at the "top 20" rankings on the USPSA website, this is exactly what you'll find - ranking of classifier scores per bracket. Anyone who feels special for being at 59.9999% and thinking "I'm the best C shooter in the country" is (again) completely missing the point. If you now mix divisions such as shooting Revolver in Production, not only is the concept of "competing within a class" already meaningless, but you made it completely arbitrary because the same percentage no longer represents the same skill. At least if you tried to compare within the class you were comparing apples to apples because scores translate directly to performance and all you're doing is pretending that you're winning something when you're not. Beating a guy in the same division, regardless of the whole class mess, means that you shot better and with more skill than he did. When you mix divisions, it's now apples to oranges and you're comparing raw scores which are no longer a reflection of skill comparison. Sure you can always compare two numbers, but it literally means nothing at that time. In other words, I can run faster than Micheal Phelps can swim, but as long as we compare his distance in one minute and my distance in one minute we can "compete against each other." Right?

That's all fair enough and people should shoot what they feel like. I'm not against it. I've seen people shoot their CCW guns, ported polymer guns with no optics, full power loads, you name it. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's not even that you won't be competitive if you shoot the wrong gun or ammo, more that you won't know how well or not you're doing because comparison is not apples to apples.

Look at HF. For example, a fast one such as "Can You Count" needs 4.6 in Revolver for C and 6.4 in Production for C. Shoot 5.0 or even 6.0 with revolver in Production and you're D, while you'd be C if you shot Revolver division.

Same classifier but the hit factor is significantly different for the same level of performance because reloads are much slower and the splits are somewhat slower. Also, it's much harder to shoot revolver with one hand because of the long trigger pull. Look at the classifier calculator in the USPSA app and see where the 100% Revolver brings you in Production.

Here is what it looks like - there is also a relive cut around the magazine release and some trigger guard undercut. This is where it sticks. It's on the back (or front; there is enough room sideways). The last photo shows the shape of the magazine well. It wasn't touched, at least wasn't supposed to be touched.

I'm not really a Glock guy, but just for for fun I wanted to get a TTI (Taran Tactical) Combat Something G34, so at the same time I sent a G29 I had laying around for a professional stippling. Both guns came back really nice, except that after a while the G29 started acting "sticky" when the mag was inserted/removed and now needs to be pulled out. It wasn't immediate, I noticed it a bit later. I rarely shoot the G29 so I haven't bothered to diagnose the issue, but it occurred to me that I can at least ask here to see if anyone had a similar problem. If it was a stock Glock, I guess I would just mark the magazine to see where it's scraping. Since it had work done and precisely in the grip area, I'm inclined to check first to see if anyone has any ideas, advice or has had a similar issue after modifying the polymer grip. My guess is that the heat from stippling likely slightly deformed the overall structure. Any way to check or correct the problem? It's not a big deal because this is just an occasional range gun, but if I can fix it I would.

So, how would you personally interpret and define the intent of the rule D7-13 which states: "Optical/electronic sights REQUIRED; must be attached directly to slide between rear of slide and ejection port, and may not be mounted to the frame in any way"? (Emphasis mine.) You also have to reconcile your argument with the 6.2.5.1 which states: "However, if a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of a declared handgun Division during a course of fire, the competitor will be placed in Open Division, if available, otherwise the competitor will shoot the match for no score." (Emphasis mine.) There is one capital letter word "REQUIRED," one "must" and one "will be." What would be the alternative intent of these rules that would support your interpretation? Note that I agree with you that it should be the way you describe it and that it makes no sense to interpret it any other way, but it isn't that way at the moment so we have to interpret it the way it's written. That's why I would like to see the rules changed to: "Optical/electronic sights allowed; if attached, it must be attached directly to slide between rear of slide and ejection port, and may not be mounted to the frame in any way." That's what I believe the intent of the rule was anyways. Until then...

That looks nice and you won't loose matches because of the holster. You draw once per stage and most of the time it's on the move so you usually have time to spare. Classifiers are another story, but shooting Production classifiers with Revolver is a, um, interesting concept.

I assume you mean "USPSA Revolver" because plenty of guys use factory ammo outside Open and Revolver.

You can easily load them to 130+, it just happens that most factory ammo isn't there. However, if you're already reloading, 38 Special case is way too long to make sense for USPSA. Much better to load 38 Short Colt which is much shorter case and works much better in moon clips. This is what the OP already does so no issue there :-). Also, since it's a 627, it can handle any pressure up to the level of magnum, so you can load 38 Short Colt to pretty much any pressure that the brass will handle (it will get sticky on extraction before it gets to the limit of what the N Frame can handle).

Another quick note on 627 in general, just in case you're not aware. Most, if not all 38 Special ammunition is sub-minor. If you want to shoot 627 you're either looking at the full load 357 Magnums, or you have to reload 38 Short Colt and make sure you make the PF. Of course, you can load hot 38 Specials (out of SAAMI specs) or down-load the 357 Magnum since your 627 can handle it all, but they are both very long cartridges that are not the best for reloading on the clock. In Revolver division you'll see 9mm and 38 Short Colt for minor and 45 ACP for major, with some also shooting .40/10 in their S&W 610, but those are rare.

Just one small observation - the (very old) rumor has it that the original intent was to prevent a certain "troublemaker" multi-national Production winner from shooting his irons in C/O and dominating it. This was in the early days, before cyborgs such as Max Michel and others made the C/O what it is today in terms of speed and hit factors. I don't know whether this is true (and if not, feel free to correct me), but it's the only logical explanation for that obsolete rule. I would expect it to be removed in the future since it's not needed, doesn't make sense, it's the only division with a requirement on the sights and it would be all much cleaner if it was simply dropped. However, we are in complete agreement that in the meantime the rule is what it is and the interpretation is very clear.

Here are the markings for your reference. The first one is "Speed Beez" made by CompTac (same as what you have, just different branding), the second is an older Safariland (no idea if they still make them) with soft liner that looks like (or is) suede. I believe Speed Beez can be ordered in the same configuration that goes high on the cylinder, but with the longer body. The one in the photo is technically for 2.5" barrel, although clearly it works with any N frame. As a side issue, the two guns are a 627PC V-Comp and a 929. Both have quite long barrels and V-Comp is not production legal because of the muzzle brake (haven't checked the barrel length requirements, I would only shoot them in Revolver division anyways and I would use a DAA race holster there).

Here are two that should work - if the barrel of your gun protrudes, it should be exempt as "Yaqui" holster in D4-20. In both cases the the cut doesn't go further than the half of the cylinder.

Specifically, D4-20 states: "Revolver holsters open no lower than halfway down the cylinder." Separately, D4 Special Conditions 3, requires a gun to be on the approved list. The list has a generic approval of "any revolver up to..." for several manufacturers (S&W, Ruger, Taurus, Colt), but not for all. Revolvers not on the list are still not allowed in Production, while they are likely fine in Revolver.

Are you an RO? You would still have to rule by the book and not by your feelings, and this one is a clear cut by the book. Arbitration is there to resolve issues where the rules are not clear or where the interpretation by the RO/CRO/RM was incorrect (or correct) in the field, not to overrule the rules you disagree with.

This is why the new guidelines call for "wrists below belt" or "wrists above shoulders." It avoids interpretation of what "relaxed" means. Even in this thread there are posters who are way uptight and their "relaxed" might be something quite different from you or me . The only effective way to force some unusual hand position is to have marks on the wall. If you don't want people leaning hard, you create marks for the feet position too.