GeorgeInNePa

Fine, don't read it, it's your perogative....But don't complain when you get moved to Open for an infraction....No one is asking for a new shooter to have complete comprehension of the rules, as people who have shot in matches for years still don't have that. But, they do need a basic understanding of the rules for their division, otherwise how will they know when they have a re-shoot? Or how will they know when they are breaking a rule as far as equipment is concerned? If they want to play the game that way, then let them....But let there be no complaining when something comes down that they don't like.... GrumpyOne- let me give you another perspective. First- I'm not advocating ignoring rules. I have shot USPSA for 3 year now- almost entirely Production. I am a current RO. I have only after reading this thread have I heard heard such I thing as getting bumped to Open if I have a mag in my front pocket in the two situations identified in detail in this thread. I've been to several major matches and many local matches where this was NEVER an issue. I have almost always started with my first mag in my pocket at the MR and almost always have put my partial mag in my front pocket at the ULSC command. I have never been bumped to Open. This combination of rules or whatever you think- IS NOT OBVIOUS. Now maybe after many of us have sliced and diced the rules here- we can see how it can be interpreted such that a bump to Open is justified based on the current rules. There is no way in hell in my mind- was this the intent of the rules we have in place today. Sure... enforce the rules today but damn it we need to change them. That's because there are two types of ROs. You've only run across the first kind.

Competitive advantage. Apples and zebras to having a mag in your pocket before the beep or while showing clear...

115gr CCI Blazer got me a 141PF at the Area 8 out of my G34 (OEM barrel).

I would second that vote. It is a rule that doesn't need to be there. It serves only as a "gotcha". It has nothing to do with safety or fair/even competition. (this has probably already been covered, but I just wanted to chime in.) It is only a gotcha if you don't know the rules. At a level III match or higher, competitors should know the rules. At a lower level match, the RO or MD could educate a competitor. I agree with the Gary, there is no reason to change this rule. The BOD will do what they think is best for USPSA. Nope, it's ridiculous. It's a gotcha, it is unnecessary, just like the original "10rds only". Remember the way it was before "10rds only, after the beep"? It's the same. I have yet to hear "your" side of the argument from anyone in person, at a match. Changing this will not change the game at all. It neither enhances safety, nor does it do anything to enhance or make more fair, the competition. Changing it will remove a way for some people to go "A-ha! I've got you now!" Of course, this is just my opinion. I have mentioned it to JA, when I saw him at a match and I will be emailing my Area Director and whoever won the USPSA Presidential election.

It almost seems like you are personally insulted.

I would second that vote. It is a rule that doesn't need to be there. It serves only as a "gotcha". It has nothing to do with safety or fair/even competition. (this has probably already been covered, but I just wanted to chime in.)

"Mags carried forward of the hip bone may not be used after the start signal." Seems simple enough.

He can play and have fun in Open, can't he? Oh, I forgot, there would be zero chance of winning...

Shot this today, Production. 68 points (1 C), 8.33 seconds. The calculator says 93.1606% Anything over 84% would bump me into Master, so if my math is correct, I'm at 86.6%. Finally...

When you ask him a question, face to face, he'll tell you not to say "John said so". He'll help you with the applicable rules to quote when talking with the RO/CRO/RM...

I wasn't aware there's a way to do that. Mark, We all agree that in a perfect world the plates would always separate when and only when hit. This is an imperfect world so on occasion a plate will get knocked off by another plate or it will not fully separate from the arm of the star. I am saying lets set up a special case rule where we look at the Star and say the following: If a plate fails to separate, the shooter has the choice of shooting it down or asking for a 'calibration shot' said shot will be fired from the same position that the shooter engaged the star from, the ammo for the calibration shot will be between 115 and 120PF. If the plate fails to fall, then the shooter gets a reshoot, if it falls the shooter gets a miss. In the case where a plate gets knocked off by another plate falling, the shooter gets the point. NO REF called. If the shooter deliberately shoots the center protector plate of the star in an effort to knock off the plates without actually engaging them the penalty will be a DQ for Unsportsmanlike. Or less draconian we could award him 5 FTE and 5 Mikes. A match should never be decided with an "imperfect target". Might as well just draw straws for the win...

The max length is 141.25 and 171.25, there is no wiggle room. The minimum PF is 165 and 125, there is no wiggle room. My mags fit the gauge, with no room to spare. You could not fit a human hair in between the two. I've never minored (except when shooting Production, then I have whatever Blazer gets), but I have had a 165.1PF at a major match in Open.

I think you meant that over the years, there have been a few different lengths of mag tubes produced.

Finally! An idea I can get behind.

One of our guys had a serious circulation problem that led to him losing both legs. He now has 2 prosthetic legs. He shoots with a walker and also with his wheel-chair. Many stages, he shoots one handed while holding himself up on the walker. We have been known to push the wheel-chair on bigger stages for him while he reloads.

This is why Limited should be "No optics and no ports. 6" barrel length, maximum." Add your favorite length of magazine and they you go. Simple.

I'll bet it took the plates down nicely...

I have read through the thread to this point, and still cannot figure out what exactly is the problem with major PF in your view. (Playing devil's advocate here) You want to focus on accuracy, then add in a penalty for shots beyond the number required by the stage. This would be different than Virginia Count as shooter could take as many shots as they wanted, but the "extra" shots would incurr a penalty less than a procedural. That way competitors have to make each shot count. The timers already keep up with the number of shots that the shooter takes (sans some level of possible error that would have to be dealt with), but it would not be that hard to do. capacity would not have to be changed from the way it is now, but the competitors would have to decide if making up that "C" to get an "A" hit is worth taking an "exceeding required shots" penalty. I won't even go into what the penalty would be, as I am only suggesting this as an alternative to something that I do not feel needs to be changed. I shoot in revolver division by the way, and I use the revolver that is my avatar currently. I have witnessed shooters in the other divisions take 3 sometimes 4 (very fast) shots on each of 3-5 targets on a stage in an effort to get two "A" hits. I knew from watching them through the entire match (they were in my squad) that they could have made two "A" hits without the need for more than two shots. Firing 3-4 shots at a faster pace was what they preferred instead of simply two shots at a slower pace. Mind you I was not competing against them, as they were not in my division, but I thought that they were shooting more than was necessary given their apparent level of skill. I have seen this occur at pretty much all of the matches (aside from the Memphis Charity Challenge) I have participated in. I think that an "excess shot" penalty would change how many shooters think and plan when they engage a stage. Just thinking about the idea causes me to imagine the call against the idea. Texas Stars, Polish Plate Racks, and swingers would be the bane of competitors given the number of shots that are currently taken at them but the general competitor contingent. Once again I say that I don't think that this idea should be done, but it has a better chance of causing more focus on accuracy that getting rid of major PF would ever do. Why not just put in a Failure To Do Right penalty? The last thing we need are any more penalties. Wanting to win puts a focus on accuracy...

I set my .416 up so that the scope is a bit further forward than normal. I like to see a black ring around the image.

Learn how to shoot and learn how to read a stage. Stop worrying about everyone else.

I used to take my completely stock G17 as a back up. If you need to resort to a back-up gun, you likely have already trashed a stage big time. You are just looking to finish the match. A few years back at the Area 7 match, my G34 started doubling and tripling. I went to the G17 and shot the rest of the match.

For the last 3 years, I have been shooting 1 match per year, just to knock the rust off. I had zero drive to shoot. I shot 2 matches in the last two months, and found that I miss it again...

Sure he can. As long as it's understood they're shooting in Open...minor. My reasoning? Not much of a reach IMO. Does the G19 look like that in it's stock configuration? No, sorry. Open gun. Jim The new "clarification" doesn't remove the current rules, it only adds to them, correct? If so: 7 Maximum size Handgun and all magazines (revolvers are exempt) Yes, handgun with empty magazine inserted must fit wholly within a box with internal dimensions of 8 15/16” x 6” x 1 5/8” (tolerance +1/16”, -0”) (8.938”x6”x1.625”) (227.01mmx152.40mmx41.28mm) ----------------------------- 8 Maximum magazine length See # 7 ----------------------------- 9 Maximum ammunition capacity Yes, maximum 10 rounds loaded in any magazine after the start signal ------------------------- If a Glock 19 with a Glock 17 magazine stuck in it will fit the "BOX", then there should be no problem. http://www.uspsa.org/rules/2008HandgunRulesindexed.pdf See Appendix D4

Easy, drop a 10mm ammunition in the barrel. What OAL length, what bullet shape, what case length. Why 10mm? The gun isn't marked G20.

Barrels are visible externally and have been restricted all along. I said nothing about changing that. So what's the question that you want answered? And by whom? If you have an unmarked replacement Glock slide and an unmarked conversion barrel, the difference would not be externally visible at all . . . and if this combo IS legal, it would be functionally no different than a a gun with a stock Glock 35 slide with a conversion barrel. I don't have them handy, but I think the 'bull barrel' effect is a red herring...if it there were a 'bull barrel' issue, I would think the "2 oz over stock" weight limit would be a better way to address it. I just noticed a lot of would-be newbie shooters on here and glocktalk with Glock 22s and Glock 35s want to be competitive in Production, but don't reload. Being able to buy a conversion barrel for $100 would allow them to cut their shooting costs in half, rather than having to spend $500 on a new gun. Regardless of how the rules shake out, I really think there should be added language to the rule or a criteria for future interpretations of the rules that bases decisions on whether a competitive advantage is gained. Does anyone really think there is a "bull-barrel effect" in a bore size difference of .045"? Seriously? You can say, with a straight face, that the weight difference in putting a barrel made to shoot 9mm in a gun designed to shoot .40S&W is measurable? If you asking me... - Do I think there is a "bull barrel effect"? Nope. Not really. Whether that is legit or not isn't really the point. It is one of the reasons that was given for that swap not being legal. Maybe it was a slippery slope issue? For sure, it was a line in the sand. Could we measure the difference in weight? I don't know. Don't care. I'm not into dragging a scale around anyway. The caliber is certainly measurable. Along the same lines, we have seen that putting a 40 barrel into a Glock20 (10mm) makes it Production illegal. But, shooting 40 out of a 10mm barrel is not (40 and 10 both being the same caliber). ?? On the externally visible part... We would allow guide rods to be swapped, but not barrels. Both are externally visible. ?? I'm not advocating any of the above one way or the other (though I could, as I have opinions on them after considering them quite a bit). When I suggested that it was a good question, it was because some of these issues need resolution and consistency. Since we can now change the barrel and the slide to aftermarket parts, does it really make a difference? Before, the slide might be marked G20 and the barrel marked nothing, now both parts can be marked nothing. Can someone on the BOD tell me how you would enforce that rule? It might look like a G20 and you might think there is a .40S&W chambered barrel in it, but how do you prove it? What do you use and how do you prove it? The rules = Fail.