IVC
-
Posts
1,174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by IVC
-
-
It's similar to getting close to 180 - can you tell with certainty that it's 181 degrees? Usually not. It takes about 10-20 degrees over before you can make a definite call. It's not that you can't tell if you were watching a video, but you're watching live and from an off-angle where your own position affects how well you can tell angles. A rookie RO will argue "any amount over 180 is a DQ," where a more experienced RO will say "of course it's a DQ if it's over 180, but the question is whether you can visually determine the angle when it's very close, not whether you should DQ someone if you know they crossed the 180."
It's a different emphasis - rookie RO is seeing a rule and wants to apply it without much thought of how certain he is about the call, while the more experienced RO knows the rules and is deciding whether he can put his word against the shooters that the violation has occurred.
The same is with trigger - "visibly outside the trigger guard" doesn't mean that any RO from any angle will see the finger, only that the finger is outside and that it is visible from somewhere. That's why more experienced RO will make a warning to tell the shooter that the finger should be better positioned in order to avoid a call based on the inability to see the finger outside the guard instead of issuing a DQ based on his own inability to see it. If the finger was completely inside the trigger guard and the RO can see it well, then it's a DQ...
-
As others pointed out, being faster is not about running faster or shooting faster, it's about doing everything sooner.
Look at the draw of some of the top shooters. What you'll notice is that they are fast, but don't look to be trying. What's the "trick?" Pay attention to when the shot breaks, not how fast the hands are moving. The same goes for shooting a stage. Look at the how soon the top shooters engage targets and how soon they move away from the targets they've just shot, not how fast they are moving. There is all the time you need to save until you get to the very top level, where small fractions of a second add up.
As a side issue, this is also why top shooters have good transition times - it's not that they move hands faster, it's that they both move away from the target they just shot sooner, and, they settle on the next target and recognize the sight picture sooner. These are all mental skills, not physical ability.
As a rule, you don't lose 5-10 seconds by being outrun by some young guy. You lose that time by not doing what you can do regardless of your age.
-
4 hours ago, BritinUSA said:
Secondly, it made the division easier; Some might see this as a good thing, they prefer easy rather than demanding and while this has almost certainly led to more participation in the division, the risk/reward ratio has changed.
Not sure why would anyone consider it to be "harder" when you reload a few extra times. Mess up the strategy, have a standing reload, eat up some time, but is that really harder?
A marathon is harder than a 10K race, but if all they do is make you wear pink shorts and have to stop at every water station until you have finished your drink, you'll be slower and look silly to some, but it won't be harder, just slower.
-
3 hours ago, RadarTech said:
But in the end-it is a start position that is poorly defined.
Why? Anything that is not specified is free style - pick your poison.
Besides, if someone starts outside the shooting area and has to run around to get to the first position, it’s comedy gold. Record it and threaten to post it here...
-
4 hours ago, Jollymon32 said:
If you stick your gun completely through the "solid plane" and fire, then the the "shot" was not fired through the barrier, it was on the other side of the barrier.
If you stick your gun through the wall you're not using a designated opening and that's not allowed.
I really believe you're passionate about this issue and the discussion is in good faith, even if there is a large disagreement. Hashing this out is still important, not only to convince you, but for other RO-s to see what can happen. With that said, the "solid plane" wording is quite appropriate. It doesn't say that the mesh is always treated as a solid plane, it says in THIS SINGLE RULE the mesh is treated as a solid plane and the rule is about SCORING HITS, not using walls for SUPPORT (I'm not yelling, just emphasizing). You cannot extrapolate language from one rule to the next. If you could, it would be in the glossary such as "Solid plane: an inpenetrable interpolation of the mesh wall into empty spaces between mesh strands where if you stick your fingers through they will get chopped off by those who use the word 'gamer' when they lose a match to a better shooter." There would also have to be additional rules using this new "solid plane" glossary term.
It's almost as if I claimed that those mesh walls cannot be loaded on the truck/trailer by using mesh to lift them because some rule about scoring says it's a solid plane. Loading the truck, scoring hits.... completely different concepts and not connected. The same goes for using walls for support. It's more like loading the wall onto the truck, where you make physical contact with the wall and use it for support, than it is about anything scoring related. Again, completely different concepts - scoring vs. support.
-
3 hours ago, horhey232 said:
Apparently the CRO/RO decided to call hit if the shooter hit the steel in the calibration zone but didn't fall and count it as a hit and a bunch of shooters wanted a reshoot under that call.
That's a blunder, I would even call it incompetence. Calling a hit without steel falling is not allowed at any level match. Oh, well, you also got to learn what happens when match officials mess up a stage...
-
3 hours ago, horhey232 said:
Among the 6 C class shooters I placed right in the middle beating 3.
That's great and that tells you that you're more than ready for the next class up. You will make that C class and as soon as you do, you will set your eyes on B. It's always like that with people who are competitive and decide to work on goals - you look at the steps ahead of you and climb them one at a time.
I am glad you had a positive experience and that you picked a good and measurable goal. Now you know how to look at your performance - match is to compare against local competition, classifiers to get an idea of your overall skill level nationally. Before you know it, you'll start looking at the top guys at your local matches and trying to figure out how to shave the time and start matching theirs. That's the idea, when you measure progress with classes, but you compete against the actual people in the match...
-
4 hours ago, Jollymon32 said:
These inconsistencies have to either be resolved by a rules update, NROI decree, or match day arbitration.
They are not inconsistencies.
It's similar to being able to fault lines and walk outside shooting area, just not being allowed to shoot while faulting and getting a procedural if you do. It's not an inconsistency that there are actions that are "not allowed" while they are "possible" at the same time. Rules tell us how violations are treated. Shooting through a mesh wall is the same as shooting through a hard cover. Not impossible, just "not allowed," at least not allowed for score or penalty. Shooting through holes in the mesh wall is also "not allowed" in the same way. Wall is allowed as a support if it's within the shooting area and fingers through the mesh are support. The "solid plane" wording is that wall is treated as a solid plane in the context of shooting through hard cover.
This might be addressed by the DNROI simply because it's (clearly) causing issues, but the rule book cannot spell every which way that a wall can be used for support...
-
17 hours ago, ChuckS said:
"The view of T1 is not the same from A and C since those are different locations. " View and location are different things. A location is changed by moving both feet. A view is broken by a vision barrier. One could walk along the fault line from C to A or from D to B and have the same view of T1 and T3 respectively based on the glossary definition of view. This is what made my head hurt. If I say that T1 and T3 are not included in the down range arrays, my head does not hurt.
Since the thread is reopened by the higher authority...
As you walk from A to C you lose array on the left so even though you keep T1 in sight, it's a different view. It's not "a view of T1," it is just "a view." It includes all targets you can see, not just one specific target you are interested in.
The way I look at it is that the concept of "view" is required in order to make "location" meaningful. Consider standing at A, then just shuffling your feet and, voila, your have a new location. So the rules must have a way of differentiating such superficial movement from creating a new location. Enter "view." As long as you putz around A you might be getting technically a different "location" if your both feet moved, but you are retaining the same "view" because you are seeing all the same targets. In addition, the definition of the "view" clarifies that vision barriers create a new "view" for the purposes of limiting the number of rounds, so that each "target cluster" is a separate entity when evaluating the stage.
In a way, "location" and "view" work together to define the concept of what we would call a "shooting position." Change "location" a bit by shuffling feet and you're still in the same "shooting position" because you're seeing the same targets. Look around from the "shooting position" and you'll have a "view" of different target clusters, separated by vision barriers. If the "view" changes, your "shooting position" has changed.
Here's an example. If you remove T1-T3 from the stage, your locations A and B become a single location. They offer the same targets (views) and the difference between the two becomes superficial, the same as if you shuffled around A alone. You can still have all the rest of the targets because they are in different views (there is a barrier in between). If you now removed the wall in the front, you'd end up with an illegal stage because it would require 12 rounds from the location A/B (becomes a single location with a single view).
It could be explained better in the rules, I guess... Probably need to have concept of "view" broken down into "view of a target cluster" (single set of uninterrupted targets) and "view from location" (what individual target clusters are visible from the location).
A quick and easy way to look for irregular course is to determine if there is a "shooting position" where you have to engage a lot of targets and you can't engage them from any other "shooting position." Every time you suspect there is such a cluster, look for any other location in the course where some of the targets are visible. If you can't find such a location, it's not a legal stage. Otherwise it's legal.
-
On 8/9/2020 at 3:33 PM, Jollymon32 said:
I think not, as per section 2.2.3.4 which states "All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane..." Indeed this rule then goes on to state that this solid plane is Hard Cover (un-penetrable) - so if the solid plane is un-penetrable for bullets, how can it be penetrable for fingers?
It is NOT "unpenetrable for bullets." Clearly bullets can go through it so it's penetrable. It's just that it is a hard cover so bullets that go through don't count for score or penalty.
It is similarly NOT "unpenetrable for fingers." Fingers can go through too. The fingers that go through the solid plane of the hard cover won't count for score or penalty downrange. But fingers don't count for score or penalty anyways. So rule 2.2.3.4 is happy with the fingers going through the plane and not counting...
-
4 hours ago, Jollymon32 said:
I continue to maintain that a competitor that reaches through a mesh wall for support or to gain a competitive advantage violates 2.2.3.4 and the ability of the user to do this signifies that the range equipment has failed in its role according to 4.6.1 and thus the shooter needs to be stopped and issued a reshoot or conversely not started if they are starting with their fingers through a mesh wall.
4.6.1 is a failure of range equipment. The wall didn't fail. It was the same before and after the shooter. If he tore the mesh, then you could argue that it was REF. For rule 4.6.1 to apply, something must "fail."
There is nothing that combines 2.2.3.4 and 4.6.1. They are separate rules and address separate issues. Let's pretend that rule 2.2.3.4 doesn't exist (or that it says what the rest of us are saying it says). Without rule 2.2.3.4, rule 4.6.1 is still valid on its own. It addresses a failure of equipment. The wall was the same before and after, it was in the same location before and after, it wasn't damaged or otherwise different for this competitor than it was for any other competitor. So, what failed for rule 4.6.1 to apply?
Similarly, rule 2.2.3.4 is its own rule. It addresses the hard cover aspect of mesh walls. You cannot shot through them even if there is room to shoot without hitting the structure (and there is plenty of room in mesh walls for that). That's what the rule is about. Sure it says the wall is a plane, but it doesn't say that one cannot stick fingers through solid plane. Does it? So the guy sticks fingers through something that is considered "solid plane for the purposes of hard cover." He did it. How does rule 2.2.3.4 apply to this if it doesn't address it at all (it addresses hard cover)?
-
5 hours ago, boudreux said:
I cant believe this post was revived after 2 years.
Ooops, sorry, I didn't realize it was an old thread (I wasn't the one to resurrect it, but I still commented on it...)
-
I roll-size my 9mm and .40 and it helps quite a bit with the random range mix fodder, but for revo I have dedicated brass I purchased new and it's always separated and used only for revo. It doesn't have to be roll-sized in my setup, but I still do it since the process is fast.
Remember, roll-sizing removes the bulge at the bottom of the case, which doesn't happen in revolvers. At least not nearly to the extent it happens with semi-automatics. So, if you have in-spec brass and you only shoot it in revolver, chances are roll-sizing is irrelevant.
-
T1 and T3 are definitely part of the arrays and are visible from A/B, but they don't count towards the limit in 1.2.1.3 because they don't have to be shot from either A or B.
The view of T1 is not the same from A and C since those are different locations. The view is from location - at location C, you have four views: array on the left, T1, T3 and array on the right (assuming you can see them from C, hard to tell about T3). They are separate views because you have vision barrier in between. At location A you have two views: array on the left WITH T1 and array on the right. There is no vision barrier between array on the left and T1, so it's a single view (and even with that it's still 8 rounds).
Even if the array on the left was four targets and the view at A offered 10 shots (array + T1), the stage would still be legal because you are not required to fire those 10 shots from A, given that T1 is also offered at location C.
-
It's legal - there is no single location that requires more than 8 shots, there is no single view that requires more than 8 shots.
Location A does not require more than 8 shots. It requires only 6. T1 is visible from C which is both a different location and a different view. You can work out the rest of the locations and views similarly. When in doubt, ask yourself if there is a place where you have to shoot more than 8 shots without moving or going around a vision barrier. Since you can get to T1 and T3 from different locations, they are not required to be shot from any specific location so they don't factor into the count.
-
3 hours ago, broadside72 said:
2.2.3.4. All such barriers are considered to represent a solid plane and are considered hard cover unless designated as soft cover (see 9.1.6).
That independent sentence says walls are solid planes. Its does not say anything about bullets or fingers in the sentence that defines barriers as solid planes. Yes, the sentences after the definition cover treatment of shots through barriers but does that change the definition in the previous sentence?The context is that it's hard cover so that you cannot shoot through the holes (mesh) then claim you didn't hit the hard cover because there is no bullet hole in the mesh. There is nothing in that particular rule that says you can or cannot touch the wall, use it as a support or stick your fingers through it. That's addressed in different rules.
Remember, the rules changed to exclude certain barriers from counting as part of the shooting area because of the way some people used the support structures to shot behind the walls. As the rules currently stand, the wall is either inside the shooting area or not. If it's inside, the rules that govern how walls and structures can/cannot be used for support prevail. To prevent someone from touching the wall or using it for any type of support, just make sure that the wall is *outside* the shooting area and this discussion is moot.
Personally, I really like to see shooters mess around and exploit "design bugs." Not because they will somehow win matches, they won't - it's still based on the overall skill, but because it gives me a toolbox of "bugs" to avoid when designing or evaluating a stage. Realistically, these types of little tricks are more of a useful knowledge than serious competitive advantage.
-
You lost me at "carry gun," but then "P" in USPSA does stand for "practical," I guess...
-
We already have "Limited with Optics" - it's called Open.
-
Just now, StealthyBlagga said:
Please re-read my statement above - I never said a grease ring is required. I said "the presence of a crown, grease ring or similar evidence of an actual intact bullet...
Fair enough, I apologize for misunderstanding.
Just now, StealthyBlagga said:A bullet may ricochet and become so deformed that, when it travels on to hit a target, it no longer leaves a crown-like arc that can be scored. Because such a hit is indistinguishable from that of a rock, piece of wood or other secondary missile, rule 9.5.5 instructs us to presume it to be a non-scoring impact. While the shooter may feel that they deserve the hit, 9.5.5 says no.
We still have a disagreement about this - bullet can be deformed, it still scores. Ricochet is about bullet on a *different* target hitting a target. Those don't count.
-
On 8/20/2018 at 9:31 AM, RippinSVT said:
Actual load to load POI variance at practical distances is more closely related to recoil impulse, twist rate, bullet design, etc. I know there's gonna be people who dispute me based on their experience, and none of what I've said covers every factor/situation, but I have tested perhaps 100k pistol rounds and hundreds of loads, just from a bench, over the years for accuracy, from 10-100yds and what I said above is an opinion based on that data and nothing more.
On a serious note, ^^^^ this.
Physics is pretty clear as to how gravity affects trajectory (virtually no effect at close distances) and geometry is pretty clear about how sights above the bore affect sighting process at different distances (zero offset at sighting distance all the way to the height of the sights offset at the muzzle). The remaining parts, also the unknowns, are gun while bullet travels through the barrel and is being spun, bullet spin at the muzzle and through the air, and interaction of the bullet with the air. These more often affect accuracy (spread) than precision (POI), but they can (and will) affect both in certain situations.
-
On 8/20/2018 at 9:31 AM, RippinSVT said:
External ballistics having an appreciable effect on POI inside 50 yards is a fallacy for everything but the slowest 45acp and 38 Special loads, where it's still only a few inches.
You underestimate the level of under-loading at level 1 matches. Declared PF of 125, can barely perforate the paper. Poppers that will get knocked over by wind standing up after a few hits...
-
17 minutes ago, StealthyBlagga said:
That some here may not agree with the way I would handle the call does not make me wrong. If you disagree, please reference the RULE that contradicts my assertions.
...
I agree. In the case referenced by the OP - a near-perfect hole without grease ring - the lack of a grease ring does not, of itself, negate the hit. However, in the specific case of a larger-than-caliber hole that I was responding to, the presence of a crown, grease ring or similar evidence of an actual intact bullet is required by 9.5.5 to negate the PRESUMPTION that the hole was caused by a non-scoring impact (examples given).
It is NOT required.
Here is the rule: 9.5.5. Enlarged holes in cardboard targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter.
The "e.g." stands for "for example" from Latin exempli gratia. It's a sufficient, but not a necessary condition. As such, it is NOT required, whether there is a presumption that the hole was made by something else or not. Rule 9.5.5 deals with debris and splatter, not with scoring of deflected bullets. It also allows hole of ANY size to be scored as a hit/miss/penalty per section 9.1 regardless of the grease ring. It is just the the grease ring is a "visible evidence."
-
15 minutes ago, cjmill87 said:
Maybe a silly question but which % does this relate to, the actual % or the % possible? Recent example of Lvl II below
The first one - the actual percentage. That's always 100% at the top (the winner) and everyone else is scored relative to the winner.
The "possible percent" is the number of points relative to the total number of points available (add points for each stage). In the example above, the overall winner didn't win every stage so he didn't get the maximum available number of points. Here's a simple math. Take the number of points the winner got and divide by the percent possible: 1,478.1591 / 0.9506 = 1554.975, which is the total of points on all stages - 1555. If you now divide the number of points for each competitor by the total, 1555, you'll get your "% psbl" numbers.
Notice that the total number of points is always an integer because it's the sum of available points per stage (which is the number of points one can earn, twice the number of alphas plus the number of steel targets on standard stages). Individual scores on each stage are fractions because they are just the "stage value" (an integer) multiplied by the HF percentage of the stage winner. When you add up all stages, you end up with total points which are now no longer integers (unless you win all stages or math just works out to have zeros after the decimal point).
-
1 hour ago, MemphisMechanic said:
(EDIT: How to shoot B class clasifiers consistently? Dryfire your draw and reload like crazy. You don’t have to shoot horribly fast to land a C or B classifier if your draw and load are quick. You have to stop taking so long to accomplish those tasks, and it’ll leave you plenty of time to hang good hits on paper.)
^^^ This.
It's a common misconception that you have to push your trigger speed to get better scores, when it's about doing everything else faster and creating a buffer of time to spend on getting good hits. If you're in D class, your draw and reload can be relatively easily shortened by 1-2 seconds combined. Spread that extra time over, say, 10 shots on a classifier and you have 0.1-0.2 extra time per shot to place them smack in the middle, resulting in higher and consistent score in the same amount of time. Then you can take the waste out of transitions and you get quite a bit of "free time" buried in your current runs...
Cutting shooters slack
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
As expected, this deteriorated into "you're letting shooters get away with safety violations" instead of "how certain can you be that a safety violation has occurred when you suspect it did..."