IVC
-
Posts
1,174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by IVC
-
-
OP - not a DQ unless RO claims the barrel is a gun, which would be up to arbitration to determine and my guess (personal) is that it would not be a DQ.
The problem is that we have an ATF definition of a firearm as the serilalized part, but that's not the only definition and it wouldn't be prevailing in this situation. Much like we wouldn't use what the state of CA believes to be an "assault weapon" or "unsafe handgun." We don't have a definition of a firearm in the USPSA rules (thankfully), so it would come down to what a panel would think about it. Knowing the people I shoot with, few if any would decide that the barrel alone fits the definition of "a firearm."
-
50 minutes ago, rowdyb said:
At make ready I rack a commercial snap cap onto the ground. RO says "pick that up and I didn't see it ". We both knew I should be dq-ed for it.
What rule prevents you from having a loaded gun after "make ready?"
-
9 hours ago, ima45dv8 said:
See 10.2.8.3.
Says "using the other hand..." (emphasis mine).
The others pointed it out above too. There is nothing that automatically requires that one handed shooting be unsupported, which is logical since free style can be supported based on the location of the support. Even classifiers must specify "unsupported" if that's the intent (albeit, most classifiers that I've seen, where one-handed shooting was required, had nothing to support a hand on).
-
2 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:
You have your hands on the firearm. You are in control. That means you are responsible. No one else.
Rule 10.5.5 must have been written by irresponsible sissies then - it calls for the RM in case the RO is swept to determine whether it's a DQ (responsibility of the shooter). We either change the rules or you're wrong. No, it's not a false dichotomy, it's the fact that we either allow for RM to make some determination (rule 10.5.5) or we go by your underlined rules above and it's always shooter's fault and sweeping is an automatic DQ. Can't be both.
As for the personal attack about the luxury of excuses, I happen to be both a skipper and a pilot and I've done and still doing my share of dangerous sports and activities, so precisely because I do understand the role of checklists and protocols in creating safe environments, I also know the danger of allowing casual behavior when serious consequences can happen.
-
4 hours ago, DKorn said:
As the shooter, and especially as a trained RO, I should have recognized that pointing my muzzle down range while he was fixing the target was unsafe. Even if he directly and explicitly had told me to aim at a target off to the other side that would have absolutely meant that my muzzle would be down range but nowhere near him, the right thing to do would still have been to refuse.
Agreed, but you didn't refuse and instead ended up in the situation that you describe in the OP. The discussion is about determining responsibility for the sweeping and whether it warranted DQ of *you*.
-
2 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:
If the RO tells a shooter to do something that would violate one or more of the four universal firearm safety rules the shooter should either refuse or should modify his firearm's status before proceeding so that no safety violation occurs.
That's not what happened here. The OP didn't point his muzzle at the RO, the RO walked in front of the OP's muzzle.
There was a safety violation and there is no question that such safety violations should never occur. However, the safety violation wasn't by the shooter, but by the RO. If I wave my hand in front of your muzzle, is that your or my fault (we're not addressing whether it's a safety violation, it clearly is, we are addressing who committed the safety violation). If something like that happened, who should be DQ-ed, you or I?
-
3 hours ago, RJH said:
If i can't trust a loaded and holstered shooter to not draw his gun while a person is downrange setting steel, i will have him unload. If they are so dumb that they need their hands on head to understand that they can't draw, while a guy is downrange, maybe this sport isn't for them
They don't need their hands to know they cannot draw, we use this so that *everyone else* knows they are loaded. If there is a delay, the person won't just walk away from the start position by mistake. If you have a better protocol, by all means share it so others can chime in.
Again, it's a made up rule and the purpose is to have a visual confirmation. Sort of like having flagged PCC.
-
3 hours ago, RJH said:
Hope you realize that this^^ pretty much directly contradicts this:
Not even close. The rules we use at our range in situations like this are made up rules and they are as much a problem as what happened in this thread - arbitrary rules with more or less safety built in, not objectively evaluated and implemented on the spot.
-
6 hours ago, DKorn said:
I agree that there are scenarios in which sweeping is RO interference and shouldn’t be a DQ. However, pointing my gun in a generally unsafe direction - down range when there is someone working on something down range - is completely and totally on me.
These situations are frustrating because they are not explicitly addressed in the rules, they come down to interpretation of various general safety rules, and there is a serious potential for unsafe situations.
I see it as the RO problem and only the RO problem. Once he gives you "make ready" command you are not only free to point down range, it's considered the safe direction. If he now modifies the rules because of a prop malfunction, he would have to make up some rules on the spot about what he is allowing you to do, then he would have to be next to you to ensure you follow those rules because there might be a misunderstanding between the two of you - these are not rules from the rule book, these are rules that the RO is creating on the spot in order to ensure the safety of the range. That's not a good position to be in as a shooter and it's created by the RO.
At our range we generally require a handgun shooter to put his/her hands on the head if they are hot and someone needs to go down range. This is not required by the rules, but it is also not forbidden. It not only prevents any handling of the hot firearm by the shooter until explicitly authorized (again) by the RO, but it's a signal that the person is hot in case the fix takes longer and the shooter must be unloaded. I would not allow a hot PCC shooter while someone is fixing the stage - there is no holster and the hands are on the gun. It is inviting to the type of situation that you found yourself in and it's not fair to the shooter, not to mention that it is dangerous.
Hopefully we see a rule update where these types of issues are explicitly addressed. It's not hard to have a protocol for these quick fixes and either require a shooter to be unloaded always (most would agree that it's not practical and not required), or create a system for how to have a hot shooter with people down range. Winging these situations is a recipe for disaster.
-
11 hours ago, ysrracer said:
Brutal. Lol.
-
2 hours ago, DKorn said:
I was the shooter. I screwed up, and I probably should have been DQ’d. Ultimately, I am the only one responsible for the safe handling of my firearm, and I was part of a series of events that ended up with an unsafe situation - a loaded firearm pointed at a person during a match.
You didn't do anything unsafe with the gun. The RO did something unsafe - he was the one messing around with the stage props AFTER he had a shooter begin the course of fire (8.3.1 is clear that "Make Ready" is the start of COF).
Someone posted above that if the RO waves a hand in front of a shooter who is taking a sight picture it's not the shooter's fault, it's the RO interference. 10.5.5 is pretty clear about it too...
-
On 7/6/2020 at 7:12 AM, motosapiens said:
also sounds like clear shooter dumbness to lower his pcc when someone was downrange, even if they were off to the side. big no-no imho. (especially when he was directed to go muzzle up).
Most shooters are not certified ROs and they don't really know the details. If the RO tells them to do something, why or even how would they refuse? Based on what?
-
On 6/28/2020 at 6:08 PM, terrydoc said:
Gee Id hate to get on your wrong side if I picked up your brass by mistake
This was not a mistake...
The first time your employer pulls back the amount of your paycheck out of your bank account because they didn't use whatever you provided them, please post here. Extra bonus if you post the employer's "explanation" that it's completely legal to get the money back because the bank obliged with the charge-back. We can all laugh together how silly it is of you to consider that a theft... because, you know... the bank did it so it must be "legal" and... because, you know... the employer didn't actually use what you provided so why pay for it.
Right?
-
12 hours ago, revoman said:
So if I shoot a 8 round stage and the last shot is picked up and I don’t like my time I can ask to see 8 splits and if only 7 show up I get a reshoot. I think from now on I will be asking to see all shots on the timer especially if I have a bad run. In fact 9.10.1 should include RO has to show shooter every split before scoring starts.
11.1.3 prohibits use of "audio, video or photographic evidence." Splits on the timer would be "audio evidence" and you cannot use them in arbitration, so you don't have a case if the RO records the time based off of the last shot. Also, the only way to ask for a reshoot in your scenario would be under 9.10.1, which only states that the time must be accurately determined.
-
9.10.1 - Requires that the timing device operated by the RO can be used to determine "accurate time," reshoot otherwise. The last shot is all that is required to get the accurate time (provided the timer is not otherwise faulty).
-
The classification rule doesn't really kick in until you hit B class, at which point you also know how it works
-
On 6/11/2020 at 9:24 PM, terrydoc said:
I thought it might have been stealing from peoples bags
It was. The bag belonged to the MD, he used the payment processor to help him...
-
4 hours ago, motosapiens said:
Here's an example from sunday's match.
That's a very nice setup and quite an interesting stage - more like that would be welcome...
-
As for moving to Limited, I started in L10 Minor because that's what I had. I moved to major soon after, but remained in L10 for two years due to the commie-state magazine laws. When I finally moved to Limited, there were two big differences: (1) stage planning allowed for more elaborate, more efficient plans, and (2) train myself NOT to reload as I'm leaving a position, but only at the point where the stage plan calls for the reload.
Moving from Production, you'll have to work on two more changes: (3) major scoring changes the calculation of speed vs. points, and (4) faster draws and reloads because the gear allows it.
-
Since we moved to reloading...
I bought a Roll Sizer last year because my Hundo gauge kept failing quite a bit of finished rounds even with the U-die. After rollsizing, I still kept the U-die to get the same brass shape as before. No problems since, even if I still get some rounds to be "stiff" in the Hundo.
As for the Roll Sizer - it's a very simple and quick process. Case feeder connects to the machine using plastic tube and brass collects in a large bucket bellow.
-
28 minutes ago, NickBlasta said:
12 scoring hits are available. 12 penalties can be assessed.
That's an interesting point - I don't think it is because the procedurals start accumulating after the failure to reload, but 10.2.3 is not clear about what it means by "the maximum number of scoring hits that can be attained by the competitor." The example in the rest of the rules clearly shows that the idea is to accumulate after the fault happens, not before.
My reading is that 10.2.3 tells us that procedurals accumulate up to the number of available scoring hits and then they stop. On a paper target with two available hits, you can get up to -20 in penalties based on the technicalities. Then, you accumulate extra shots/hits/no-shoots and other "shooting penalties" for each occurrence independently.
-
51 minutes ago, ChuckS said:
10.2.3 does not apply to 10.2.4.
To the extent 10.2.4 is not "above" as stated in 10.2.3, I would agree. But I wouldn't assign too strict a meaning to the word "above" as we are talking about numbered rules that are explicitly referenced when the intent is to make an exception - 10.2.3 could have explicitly listed 10.2.1 and 10.2.2. as the only rules being limited. The way I read the "above" is that is applies to the section 10 in general.
Otherwise, we can argue that 10.2.2 can be used to penalize failure to reload, then apply 10.2.3. I think it would be silly to try to play this game, though...
-
2 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:
Tag him for one or the other on those six shots, but not both. He's already losing 10 points for every shot fired ... Why would you want to hit him for 20 points each? Let's say he was also foot faulting (with significant advantage) ... Would you then apply 3 penalties per shot fired? (i.e., 30 penalty points for each 5 point potential shot fired) Let's get real.
The sentiment is right, but you can't make up rules based on how you feel - it's much more important to enforce uniform rule application across all sanctioned competitions. In this case, there is a rule governing the application of multiple procedural penalties.
-
10.2.3 addresses multiple penalties. The maximum number of procedural penalties is the number of shots (after the reload), which is 6.
Chamberchecking during the match?
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted · Edited by IVC
Personally, I wouldn't point a barrel at anyone and I wouldn't push the limit on doing something that could be perceived as a provocation, but that's just me. Would I object if someone was looking at me through the barrel alone? I'd probably treat it similarly as if they flipped me off - inappropriate, but meh. Might tell the RO to address it under "unsportsmanlike conduct" if the person continued doing it to me after I told them not to.
Also personally, if someone used a barrel to chamber-check ammo and was doing it while the rest of us are shooting, I'd laugh more than anything else. I gauge all my ammo because I'd had issues in the past, so anyone who is doing it on the spot and using a crutch is deserving of more pity than scorn.