Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

IVC

Classifieds
  • Posts

    1,163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IVC

  1. Barrels are hard cover unless declared otherwise in WSB. Rule 9.1.6.1 addresses full diameter hit through hard cover (not just barrels) and it states that (1) it doesn't count downrange for score or penalty, and (2) if it cannot be determined which shot went through hard cover, it's a reshoot. So, in this case, looks like both hits were partial hits on hard cover and they both count for score, regardless of the size of the hole on the target. If I misunderstood, and the second shot was a full diameter hit *through* the barrel, then that hit doesn't count. The distinguishing characteristic of the rounds that pass through hard cover is the lack of grease ring on the scoring target. Note that this is neither required nor necessary for scoring a hit, it's just a good way to figure it out. In the end, if the score cannot be determined with certainty, it's a reshoot per 9.1.6.1. Otherwise, the hits will count based on whether they passed fully through the hard cover or not.
  2. Home, a few beers, bored, Enos forum member... you get the idea.
  3. Let's say the second popper didn't fall, but got hit in the same way. If we use your interpretation, is there a procedural for FTSAT? Is it grounds for calibration call? What if the second popper doesn't get hit at all, can the competitor claim he shot at each target, he just used the same bullet?
  4. That's the correct call for partial hits and the total score, the question would only be whether 9.5.7 for FTSAT applies or not.
  5. The rule 9.5.7 starts: "A competitor who fails to shoot at the face of each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round will incur one procedural penalty..." It requires to shoot at each scoring target with at least one round. It doesn't talk about hits or score, those are addressed elsewhere. In your example of two targets and one shot, did the competitor *shoot* at each one (different than whether the competitor *hit* each one)? The procedural penalty should be the same whether there was no hit, partial hit or full diameter hit on one of the targets as it's assessed based on what happened at the shooter location, not what happened at the target.
  6. Even if it's a partial hit and the popper counts, there is rule 9.5.7 that requires at least one shot at each target. If this happened to me, I would take one quick shot at the fallen popper, just in case it was a partial hit and I can claim the score without incurring a FTSAT.
  7. It is, but only if it's a partial hit. It's not clear from the OP whether it was a partial or a full hit.
  8. No, the term "ricochet" is used in the rule book a few times in the same way as it's used in this thread, to denote the bulk of a bullet that is deflected (as opposed to fragments or jackets, which would be "splatter"). It has nothing to do with what the bullet hits or how it scores. A partial hit on any target keeps the bullet in place for scoring (including penalties). What happens after a partial hit counts. A full hit on any target is "the end" for that bullet as far as scoring goes. So, if there is a full hit on a target, that bullet is out. If that bullet (ricochet) now hits another target, it doesn't count. But if that target is a popper and it falls, then it becomes a REF because the target is no longer available and it was dropped in an invalid way. The same as if you shot the popper through hard cover.
  9. I'll have to disagree with the few posters who talk about zeroing off-hand. If you're a good shot, you can do it as a shortcut and nobody will be able to tell the difference. Like a very good carpenter making a precision cut while holding everything in his hands. But it will be at best as good as if you used a bench, and more likely than not it will introduce some personal bias. If your POI changes from what's at bench rest and you change your sights to compensate, you have a gun that is not sighted in. The bullet won't hit where the sights point, the bullet will hit where you moved the sights as you pulled the trigger. Even if you're very consistent in how you pull your gun off the target, you should still have a mechanically correctly sighted gun, then, if you want to keep the flinch (or much more subtle issues), you can always "aim high right." But few will agree that this is a good thing.
  10. The video in the second post is spot on with respect to several commonly misunderstood issues. You need longer distance to get windage correctly, no matter what distance you intend to shoot. Your sight(s) should be mechanically centered over your barrel. You need to zero at a longer distance regardless of what distance you believe will be the "engagement distance." Pistols are zeroed at the first zero and the bullet is still rising, so zeroing at close distance will significantly affect your point blank range - you will have to use holdover at intermediate distances. Use bench rest and eliminate as many inconsistencies as you can. You want a gun that is mechanically zeroed correctly. If you have to make adjustments for the style of shooting, make it with how you aim (until you correct it), not with the sighting system. The infamous "low left flinch" needs fixing, not "custom zero." My guns are zeroed at 25, but I understand that 15 works well too. There is no need to zero at closer ranges and play the game of intentionally making it low, you're also losing ability to set the windage accurately. Just go for the good distance, get a good windage and have a gun that shoots point blank at any distance you'll shoot (assuming you're staying within 50-ish to 75-ish yards).
  11. (wouldn't let me post two photos in a single post)...
  12. Here's the verdict - it ALL worked! Phew. The external properties of the load are HAP 115 at 1.143" (varies up to 1.145" or so), trying steel MBX magazines and stock Glock polymer magazines, with MBX and TTI extensions. Turns out I don't have any TF extensions, so at least that limit doesn't affect me at the moment. From top to bottom: MBX 170 (or so) tube w/MBX extension, Glock 30/TTI extension, Glock 17/TTI extension, Glock 17/TTI base plate, stock MBX magazine. The capacity was as expected, 56, 30+11, 17+5, 17, 23. I felt a slight snag when loading 30+11, but it fed without any issues or perceptible snag. Turns out I have a few more MBX tubes and extensions, but I expect them to all work the same as the largest one. Here's a photo of the stacked rounds:
  13. The problem is that manufacturers change design and specs and I have some older ones. I'll test them and post results. Perfect - thanks. It's good to know that it's not sensitive because I really dislike tinkering with "combat" setups. They should work quite reliably within the combat parameters of reliability and accuracy. Completely agree on all points - not only is reliability much more important, but even 1" at 50 yards with a red dot that is a couple MOA fits into the old fallacy of "measure with micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an ax." And if you mounted that Vortex on a PCC just to test loads, hats off to you - you have way more patience and OCD than me :-).
  14. So I checked some TTI magazine extensions and there was no issue feeding at 1.14x. But I only tested the basic 17 rounders with +5 extensions. I wanted to make sure first that the stock Glock tubes don't snag and to check the extensions where I can better see and feel if there is an issue. Time to test some mega-zines, I'll post results in this thread so others can be warned if there are issues.
  15. Ugh, I'll check it out. I have several different magazines and extensions. Don't like the idea of loading to the magazine dimensions, especially if it's just the extension. Messing with the OAL will change the internal pressure and, in case of a PCC, might affect accuracy by changing the bullet jump. But if there is a feeding problem, I'll have to address it. The magazine I'm using for testing is a BMX all metal magazine. That one will likely feed everything, much like their .40 magazines easily feed my 1.200" Limited major loads. But the stock Glock magazines, and especially the extensions... ugh again. Thanks for the heads up, I'll check it out.
  16. While true, the income breakdown shows advertising fees are just over 10% of the overall revenue. Membership dues and activity fees are still the primary driver at over 80% of the revenue.
  17. Here's a link to the latest financial statements, accessible by all members. There isn't that much to go around on a 2.8M revenue, especially given that it's large enough organization that it requires a few people to run it. But I would agree with opinions here that non-nominal salaries tend to create less than desirable dynamics. Similar to our political system.
  18. Seems like we are saying the same thing. Multi-gun pretty much proves it.
  19. So they are replacing something they believe has no impact with something that measurably has no impact. And expect things to change... SMH.
  20. I was responding to the one guy, but you're right, there were several of them. All quitting. "Lapsing membership" is a euphemism for quitting the organization. It means no longer being a member...
  21. Why? You're quitting, you're done. If your ex wife told you how to live, would you listen just because the divorce isn't finalized?
  22. That's a valid question. Clubs are free to do it, much like they are free to use any local format for free. My take is that you give a few buck to the USPSA to keep track of your classifiers and to use the existing rule book, so you have consistency no matter what club it is. At the higher level, you give it a few bucks to have L2-Nationals competition. For international competition, it's IPSC anyways. The PSCL you mention is exactly what an arbitrary local match looks like. The rules are "borrowed" from any number of organizations and can be modified to match the local ethos. No affiliation, no classifiers, no membership. The biggest benefit of running unaffiliated is, I guess, that nobody can quit in protest if Max doesn't file his paperwork with the state on time. It's just "don't let the door hit you on the way out" goodbye, and you continue using the same rules for free while Max deals with catching up on administrative tasks.
  23. We vote for the board and the board can make the change. But the big picture is this. Local clubs run everything, from stage design to bringing in new shooters. The USPSA fees are nominal and what happens at the HQ has little to no bearing on where the actual shooting happens, which is at the local level. I would like to clean it all up, that's would be my OCD side, but in the end, whatever happens with the organization, most of the shooting will be minimally affected. So, whether we are upset or not, the show will go on, mostly unaffected.
  24. Of course you can. But if you're not a member, the opinion doesn't matter. Not to mention the hypocrisy of claiming not to give money to an organization only to pay the fee to participate in their events. I mean, if I'm boycotting McDonald's, I should go to Burger King, not visit their drive-through on the sly... For those who didn't renew, what are they going to do about it? They are already out. Are they going to quit again if nothing changes? Or stomp their feet? The only way to make a change is to work on the change. Leaving is not working on the change. If we need votes to make a change, are we going to ask members to vote, or are we going to ask former members to give us their opinion?
  25. Unfortunately, if you look at the timeline, we are talking about many years, closer to a decade. The real question is why so many members didn't know what's been going on here or chose not to pay attention until now. And it's not all bad, the way it comes out in forums. USPSA doesn't have structural problems or problems with the product. It's the personnel and management that need to be sorted out. Even if USPSA runs out of all the money, it's the local clubs that run the matches, own props, set up stages and attract shooters. As long as there is an umbrella organization that provides rules and keeps classification system, everything will be fine. And it takes very little to have that. We just need to clean up our house...
×
×
  • Create New...