IVC
-
Posts
1,173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by IVC
-
-
3 hours ago, RJH said:
Not sure 4.5.2 allows arbitration in this instance
The rule would be 11.1.2 - either request arbitration before attempting the course of fire, or anyone who shot it in the upright position at any time after it got crooked, claiming that it was a competitive advantage to have it tilted for the later squads.
-
In the specific case of the leaning popper, if I was on the committee, I would likely vote for keeping the stage. There are two reasons I have for keeping it and one for tossing it.
Reasons to keep it is that the calibration zone didn't shift much, it's still the same circle, and the shooting challenge is very similar. The second reason is that I can't tell if the initial position is depicted correctly, or if the popper already leaned somewhat in the beginning. If all I can see as evidence is the final position, I have to work from memory of how it looked before, then try to decide if the shift was significant.
The only reason to toss it is that a straight popper at larger distances is more forgiving for elevation misalignment, where the bullet hits below the calibration zone but is still centered and on the popper. Whether this is significant enough would depend on details of the stage and experiences of other committee members.
just my 2c.
-
The amount is not specified in the rules so it would be left to the arbitration if a shooter decided to contest it. That is the only mechanism to resolve "judgment calls" that are not prohibited from arbitration.
in arbitration, it would be a case-by-case judgment call by the fellow shooters. The type of discussion similar to what's in this thread would go on for a while, then they'd vote.
The only remedy would be to throw the stage out, as it would be impossible to reshoot it by the time the case is decided.
-
Just saw this thread, could've saved me a lot of time as I went through my red dots and collected info, primarily on the type of battery I need so I can always have spares.
One suggestion: update the OP with the link to the Google drive at the very top, so late comers like me know where to find the most current data.
-
On 9/18/2023 at 8:53 PM, SufferInSilence said:
Now my argument is in the case of the Canik Rival-S. The rule says the grip cannot be “modified to create” a thumb rest. The Rival’s grip is not “modified”… it’s created and specifically designed for it. Canik even offers an OFM/OEM thumb rest for that non-modified (factory created) area. Therefore it’s not a ‘creation’ rather, an intentional design.
Rival-S does not have thumb rest in the version it is approved on the list. The fact that they offer an OEM part doesn't make it production legal any more than using an OEM magazine that is too long for division would make it legal in Limited or Open.
While 21.4 talks about allowed grip modifications, it's rules D7 21 (the main section) and D7 22 that control allowed modifications in general. You can see adding a different grip to an approved gun as "modification of the grip", or you can see it as any other modification of the gun (regardless of whether it's OEM or not). If it is a modification of an existing grip, it's not allowed. If it's not, it's a modification of the gun that must be explicitly allowed and you have to show which rule allows it. There is no such rule that allows that particular modification, so it's not allowed.
-
11 hours ago, perttime said:
My first RO stage was a short one. Competitors had to start at the front and retreat to see targets through a second window. So I learned to start moving back right after the Beep. And I learned to keep the timer pretty near a PCC for the last shot.
10 hours ago, StefVanHauwe said:After going through the RO program in Belgium, I really like the format, since it provides an efficient mix of theory, practice and the start to grow your experience under controlled circumstances.
Since you're both European (and I grew up in Europe too, but have moved to the USA long time ago), I have a question about the local matches. Do you have a lot of L1 local matches that happen regularly (e.g., every weekend or every other weekend) and with large attendance?
The reason I'm asking is that in my area, Southern CA, we have a lot of matches and a lot of people shooting so our L1 matches provide a lot of training and a lot of variety of stages for getting experience. We even used to have a structure until a few years back too, with shooting through the windows and going through the doors. All of our local ROs have done hundreds and hundreds of shooters way before getting into the class. And all of us have seen many awkward retreating stages, multiple shooting plans where the RO has to move quickly, tight spaces around the walls and barrels, quiet PCCs and all the other tricky setups. Is it similar over there?
-
The question isn't which program has stricter requirements or is harder/easier to pass, the question is whether the outcome has measurable differences. In this case, the question is whether the ROs from different systems perform differently.
Take the L2 requirement. It's a sanctioned match under the same rules as L1 (the exceptions for course construction are relevant for the CRO, not RO). At L2 the RO is likely assigned to a single stage, so not much variability compared to a typical L1. Is the RO going to have measurably better performance than the USPSA one after just completing the training?
I would say that the experience is extremely important but experience always comes outside the training.
-
The extra rear sight requires tinkering with the front sight to get the elevation correctly. Wasn't worth it for me, I dedicated this gun to optics. Post photos of how it ended up and whether there are any issues.
-
5 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:
I think in time major goes away and all divisions become minor only.
If Charlies are the issue, and they are, might as well call for the whole target to become a single Alpha zone, thus eliminating the whole major/minor debate. Or, dropping both the power factor and the caliber requirements so that marginal centerfires can compete too.
You're not necessarily wrong, but it should be up to the shooters to stop shooting major, not up to us, the peanut gallery, to eliminate the possibility of beneficial scoring with the higher PF. Even the new Limited Optics division is already a concession to the "we don't want guys getting 9 points for the A/C splits" crowd.
-
6 hours ago, Superkaratemonkeyfighter said:
A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want.
Ugh, some genius coded up that typing l.i.m.i.t.e.d m.i.n.o.r switches to the nonsensical phrase above. Happened in my post above, I reported it to mods, let's see if it gets fixed.
I'm pretty sure you didn't type the stupid phrase above
-
2 hours ago, truespode said:
Yes, there is Nationals implications
...
if there is less than 10% representation at Area matches then it does not get a place at a National.
...
I know that more divisions "water down" things but I don't think it matters really.I'll double down and ask: "why does it matter?"
There is no effect on other divisions, the top guys will shoot whatever their primary division is, the competition will be the same, the overall standings will be lower for those in slower divisions. So what? We still have silly class recognition within divisions, yet we are talking about divisions being a problem...
-
The answer of "lim. Min." wasn't about competitiveness, it was about how the OP is worded. If you said "minor only" or something like that, that would be a different story.
Production 15 is likely coming. The 10 round legal limits were gone nationally in 2004, and they are about to be gone in the holdout states through legal cases and the recent Supreme Court precedent in Bruen.
But the real question is why suddenly all these threads about tinkering with the divisions? What's the big deal about having a division with smaller participation? When you go to a restaurant, do you write reviews suggesting they drop the menu items that are less commonly ordered? Or we just leave people enjoying what their pleasure is and celebrate variety of choices?
-
There is already a hi-cap minor iron sights. The Limited Division.
-
1 hour ago, 2MoreChains said:
D7 21.2b
Holes are in the frame, not on the slide.
-
The rules for each division are addressed in appendix D, with Carry Optics being in D7. Any statement about holes being allowed or not must be supported by a specific rule.
Here's how the process works. Special conditions (5) states that anything that is not *specifically* authorized is prohibited and rule D7 19 incorporates "special conditions" into the requirements for the division. Rule D7 21 requires that the shooter can point to the rule authorizing the modification, in this case the holes. The Ranger Master *must* more shooter to Open if the shooter cannot point to the specific rule, per D7 21. So, as a shooter, you must be able to point to something specific. You can't just say "it's no big deal."
In this case, I would argue that the modification (holes) is/are not on the prohibited list, D7 22, and that the rule that allows holes is D7 21.2a, where the holes are similar and not worse than stippling. If the RM doesn't accept that (which would be a joke to try to make such a point), as the shooter the OP would have to point to a NROI ruling. Absent both of these (D7 21.2a and NROI ruling), the RM would have to move the OP to Open.
In reality, nobody in their right mind will question the holes. But it's important to understand the process for defending any modification as it might be something trickier than a few holes that you'll have to defend in the future.
-
1 hour ago, CHA-LEE said:
Is that stage or others like it an anomaly vs what we are normally exposed to in 24 round stages? Absolutely.
^^^ Exactly.
The strawman counterargument pushed in this thread is that there *exist* stages and stage designs where the extra capacity matters. Doh, nobody is denying that. The argument is that those stages are very uncommon, not that they don't exist. And not only are they uncommon, but they must have exactly between 22 and 25 rounds (which eliminates all short and medium courses) and they have to have a very specific flow to add any time.
Even this classifier didn't add the cost of a full standing reload, only a fraction of it, because there was still movement that ate a part of the reload time.
-
Loosen the two screws holding the plastic cover over the case pusher. If too tight, the cover can contact the pusher too much and interfere with the movement. Also, double check what you're lubricating around the pusher. There is dirt and debris that will catch in the grease if you lubricate in wrong spots or use anything but the lightest amounts.
-
23 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:
Most guys here can reload on the move with zero lost time.
Most guys here can use misplaced sarcasm to make a strawman argument.
-
On 9/22/2023 at 10:19 AM, Superkaratemonkeyfighter said:
That new classifier ( trigger freeze I think
it’s nice to have 24 and not have to reload. There might be a couple more it’s nice to have 24+1
Yup, there is always a way to construct a stage like that - hosing and no idle time. But if you added one more target to the classifier, there would be again no difference between 20 and 24 rounders. Even replacing some targets with steel, while keeping the count at 24, would provide an interesting dilemma for most shooters.
But we are talking about the "vast majority" of time, not about "impossibility" of the few extra rounds making a difference. Take all the stages that you've shoot recently and count how many had (1) between 22 and 25 rounds, (2) were constant hosing and (3) had no significant movement. Then compare to the number of stages that didn't fall into that category.
-
On 9/20/2023 at 7:26 PM, Runswithwood1 said:
I went with 10 yards, seems to be a good happy medium for uspsa stages
You don't sight-in at the distance you'll shot, you sight-in at the distance that will give you the maximum point blank range and where you'll have to make minimal adjustments, if at all, in your aiming point at any practical distance.
-
The lip will break. When it does, I just put some electrical tape around the "tongue" that simulates the round/follower and make sure it's semi-rigidly stuck in place. After that, the "springiness" is gone, but they still work very well.
I almost wish they offered two versions, one solid and one with moving parts. I'd get the solid one, simply because the other kind breaks. And if it doesn't break, you're likely too gentle
- missing reloads hard is part of learning and training.
-
What PF and what OAL are you looking for? If it's going to be your "generic load" that chambers in all guns, you'll likely go shorter and will have to drop a few tenths of a grain.
-
4 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:
You're really never seen a shooter miss a piece of steel 2 or 3 times? Never seen someone take to many make up shots and run a high cap gun dry? I'm honestly surprised, maybe shooters around here are trash but I see it from time to time.
Of course I've seen it, and no need to get sarcastic because my statement wasn't that idiotic.
Most B and above shooters here will plan conservatively on steel if they are not comfortable with an array, so when they miss any number of times they don't run dry. Unless they miss a lot, which happens too, but then the extra few rounds are neither the solution nor what they should fix in their shooting. The conservative plan is simply to reload at the best point before the steel.
Here's my observation. Newer shooters who struggle with hitting targets won't lose much by running dry, they've already spent a few rounds per each piece of steel. The seasoned shooters who are mid-level classes will consider difficulty of targets and reality of potential misses in their stage plan, so they'll mostly arrive at the array with some ammo to spare. And even the top level shooters, who not only practice speed but also work a lot on avoiding make up shots, will rarely make a plan that doesn't allow for make up shots on steel. So, the situations where the small amount of extra capacity is crucial are rare, and most of us can roll with anything that is 20+ without making changes in stage planning.
-
7 hours ago, zzt said:
I have mountains of 40sw brass. So much that I don't take it from my home club range anymore.
You might, but at most ranges there are slim pickings of .40 compared to 9mm. The ratio is at least 10:1 in favor of 9mm.
7 hours ago, zzt said:You are also incorrect about 9 major and 40. If you choose your major powder wisely, you are not compressed and have plenty of gas to run the poppels and the comp.
My point was about availability of brass.
If 38 SC was plentiful and free, and you had to pay for 9mm brass, nobody would ever shoot 9 Major. Nobody. Literally the only reason 9 Major exists is the brass availability. Yes, 9 Major can work out and have enough gas, but the number of powders is much more limited and there is no benefit in cramming it all into a shorter case. Everything from feeding to the choice of powders is a clear win for the 38 SC. Except the brass availability, which brings us back to the original point.
How much of a Target Displacement = Range Equipment Failure
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
So we would vote differently. That's the idea of arbitration, to see what different shooters think.
And I would likely agree with you if it was a medium or hard popper (as I mentioned in my reply) precisely because of that issue. But if it was a generic popper, I don't see it as too much different to toss the whole stage for everyone. Again, that's how I would vote, this is not based on any course construction rule.