Morphire
-
Posts
243 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Morphire
-
-
I can't count how many times I've experienced mistakes made getting the proper times and scores down on paper.
If you aren't calling them back, then I am SURE that mistaken times and scores WILL get recorded.
I've never seen an interference reshoot on a Standards, that I can recall. I've only seen just a few (offered) on field courses and such. Ever.
Being the clipboard RO and reading directly off the timer is suspect as well. You are further away, the timer is likely bobbing around, and you don't know if the timer RO is holding the timer up-side-down or not. I've had to give a reshoot...to a National Champion shooter...due to a time getting copied down wrong in a similar manner. I am pretty sure a 6 second run showed up as a 9 second run while the RO of the clipboard read the (up-side-down?) timer as I cleared the shooter/stage.
I do understand your concerns and definitely agree with them all. The frequency isn't even what I'm concerned as much about as there are quite a few rules that come into play infrequently is ever, but could be very important to a competitor if they are relevant in a particular situation. I believe the calling out and reply of the times is a best practice for RO and Scorekeeper. My question was much more one of rule 8.6.4 and whether or not our good time calling practice may indeed be screwing over a competitor for the possibility of a reshoot. Remember that 8.6.4 also says that the RO may allow a reshoot if the interference comes from "another external influence" interfering with the competitor. Since 8.6.4 allows the competitor to choose whether or not to accept the reshoot (not mandatory) the COF should be completed before making the offer to the competitor should it not? According to 8.3.8 that comes at "Range is Clear" and not in the middle of the strings. So if you're calling out the times for the intermediate strings are you not in fact eliminating the ability for the competitor to be able to "accept or decline the [reshoot] offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt"?
-
Excellent reasoning. You sir, are a DRL-in-Training (said with all due love and affection for fellow DRL's). Remember, examining the rules to that level of detail is the first step in admitting you have a problem. Sadly, no 12-Step programs exist but you likely will have better scores down the road as your understanding of what is and what isn't allowed will give you an advantage over many of your competitors. To put a fine point on it, 'should' and 'shouldn't' play only a marginal role in this game. 'Will' and 'Shall' and 'May' are used frequently in the rulebook and carry much more weight.
Okay I'm actually laughing out loud and my wife is wondering what's going on up here. =] I come from a sport (airgun field target) with a very loose and undefined set of rules and I thoroughly like the fact that USPSA has a godo set of rules to work from so understanding them well is a bit of a priority for me. I'ts nice to know I'm in the apprentice program for DRL. http://www.brianenos.com/forums/style_emot...lt/rolleyes.gif
The straight answer is, even though he shooter may have heard "intermediate" times called, if he's on string two of a three-string COF, he hasn't heard the total time for the stage. 8.2.4 is satisfied.Interesting. I'm assuming you meant 8.6.4 and not 8.2.4. Since 8.6.4 doesn't make a distinction between a time given at the end or the middle of a COF it still has wiggle room. That seems to leave the RO some judgment in whether or not to grant a reshoot if they feel interference was given.
I'm assuming since the COF isn't finished until the "Range is Clear" command is given, that even if the shooters isn't being made privy to their times the offer for a reshoot wouldn't even be offered until then as opposed to at the end of string two where the interference occurred. Do you agree?Not really. Consider the example of a piece of steel that either wasn't reset or fell before a shooter could engage it. If the RO sees the situation he would be correct in stopping the shooter right then and requiring a reshoot rather than waiting for the shooter to waste ammo through the remainder of the COF, only to announce a mandatory reshoot due to Range Equipment Failure.
Bullets are precious. Waste not, want not.
Hmm not really the same situation since one scenario requires a mandatory reshoot due to 4.6.2 (Range Equipment Malfunction) and the other is subject to the all mighty "may" as in the RO may offer the competitor a reshoot (8.6.4). In 8.6.4 the RO "may" offer a reshoot and additionally the competitor "must" accept or decline it so the RO should allow the competitor to finish the COF (all strings required) in my opinion, and then offer the reshoot at "Range is Clear". The competitor can then determine if they wish the reshoot. I'm still leaning to thinking the times being called out negate the ability to use 8.6.4. I understand the benefit of calling out the times and having them called back out to you and so therein lies the rub. The rule seems to counter good RO/Scorekeeper practice.
-
I always try to position myself so the RO can just show me the timer and I can write it down and then either tap the RO or just say "got it" to let them know I have the time recorded properly.
That method however does not confirm that the correct times get recorded.
Well really neither does the Scorekeeper callign back the times to the RO but that seems ot be even finer splitting of hairs.
Like Flex, I'll say the time out loud and make you read it back. I've had to offer maybe two or three re-shoots under 8.6.4 in my time as an R.O., none on a standards/classifier type stage. Has this actually been a problem, or are you just musing aloud?Definitive guidance could probably be elicited from NROI....
No it hasn't been an issue. It's definitely me just musing. The only time it's been a problem was the discussion betwen myself and the RO at this particular stage. I've never had the scenario come up but then again I've never had a number of scenarios come up that are in the rule book yet. Hopefully I avoid a good number of them that might result in a tough call having to be made in the future. Thanks for the guidance!
-
8.3.1 “Make Ready” – This command signifies the start of “the Course of Fire”. {snip}
8.3.8 “Range Is Clear” – This declaration signifies the end of the Course of fire." {snip}
So no, the multiple strings in a Standards stage are not separate COF's in and of themselves. If in the RO's opinion (that's why it says the Range Officer "may" offer the competitor a reshoot, and not "will"...) significant interference occurred, and the interference occurred in other than the first string, the competitor would have to reshoot the COF, and that includes all component strings of a Standards stage.
Mark,
So would you therefore be negating the ability to allow a reshoot per 8.6.4 if you called out the intermediate string times so the competitor could hear them before offering them a reshoot?
A scenario may make it clearer what I'm trying to figure out specifically.
Shooter is on a three string stage and is hearing the times for each string called out and repeated by the RO and Scorekeeper. Somehow the shooter gets bumped by the RO during the draw on the second string. Let's assume the RO feels the interference is significant enough to allow a reshoot offer to be made.
First does the RO still have the ability to offer a reshoot based on 8.6.4 since the shooter has been told the times of at least part of his COF? My thinking is no, the RO can't offer a reshoot since the conditions of rule 8.6.4 haven't been fully met. Hence my thought that the RO shouldn't be calling out times for multi-string stages unless the shooter is specifically asking for them and knows that they are screwing themselves out of the possibility of rule 8.6.4 being used in their favor later.
I'm assuming since the COF isn't finished until the "Range is Clear" command is given, that even if the shooters isn't being made privy to their times the offer for a reshoot wouldn't even be offered until then as opposed to at the end of string two where the interference occurred. Do you agree?
-
Chances of somebody being interfered with while shooting a standards is relatively slim... compared to the clipboard RO and the timer RO having a miscommunication while calling out hits and time while on a shooting range wearing hearing muffs.
I call out the times from the timer and expect the clipboard RO to call them back to me. It just one check and balance that helps to get the right score/time for the shooter.
I wouldn't negate a reshoot on those grounds.
I always try to position myself so the RO can just show me the timer and I can write it down and then either tap the RO or just say "got it" to let them know I have the time recorded properly.
I tend to agree with your desire of allowing a reshoot but according to rule 8.6.4 doesn't it state that a reshoot may only be offered if the shooters has not heard their time or scores?
8.6.4 ... "The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt."
-
Alright a simple need for some clarification from an RO and Scorekeeper standpoint if you please. I was certain I'd read on here how to rule this but I have done searches and haven't come up with it again so my memory or my search fu must be weak.
Okay so it's a multiple string stage (standards) and the RO is showing the timer to the scorer after each string. Does the RO or the scorer call out the times? I've been taught, no you don't call out in the time in case an event occurs later in the COF that could possibly bring rule 8.6.4 into play. If you had been calling out the times then the rule is moot since the shooter has an indication of times for the earlier strings.
8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. The competitor must accept or decline the offer prior to seeing either the time or the score from the initial attempt. However, in the event that the competitor commits a safety infraction during any such interference, the provisions of Section 10.3 may still apply.
When Scorekeeping a milti-stage this past weekend I reiterated to the RO that he should just show me the timer and I'll write down the time indicating when I had it and he could move on. He was adamant that each string was in and of itself with its own COF and so the shooter should be told his time. When I tried to explain that it took rule 8.6.4 out of play and was a detriment to the shooter, he said that each string was it's own separate COF and if he interfered with a shooter on another string then only that string would be reshot. When I disagreed I was told that I shouldn't be ROing from the grandstands and to let him do his job. I tried to explain the situation further but he wasn't interested in letting me finish a sentence so I eventually just did as he asked and IMO potentially could have screwed over a competitor. This was all a level I local monthly match.
My thoughts are that since the scoring of the COF doesn't happen until AFTER all strings are shot that anything that could bring 8.6.4 into play would result in a reshoot for the entire COF and not a particular string. The other competitors don't get the advantage of seeing what their scores are for the previous strings to allow them to better manage the rest of the strings, so it's only fair that the whole COF be reshot IMO.
What do you guys think? Should times be called out so that the shooter can hear them on multi-sting COFs? Does rule 8.6.4 force an entire multi-string COF to be reshot or just the string where it occurred?
FWIW I can see the competitor asking for their times to be called out knowing that they are giving up the ability to later call rule 8.6.4 into play if they are interfered. But I don't agree with taking the right away from them.
-
Okay everyone, a little update.
The www.GAStateChampionships.com website has been updated with some links that include the updated matchbook, squadding schedule and stages. The squadding schedule and stages are included in the matchbook if you just want to DL one file.
Looking forward to seeing everyone there!
Kevin Allen
-
Someone needs to post a video of the big steel stage (I think stage 1) at Area-6 this year
. I don't believe anyone grumbled about having too many rounds left on their belt after that one.That bad boy was called "Field of Steel" and it was the brain child of Peter Oliver. We actually had only one shooter, a local guy names Boris Zaretsky, shoot that 32 pieces of steel, including two Texas Stars and all steel hardcover, CLEAN with his 1911 skinny gun. We of course kid him that he had to shoot it clean cause he didn't bring enough mags to make any misses. =]
I came to the line with 54 rounds on me and finished the stage with 4. I carried 5 mags on my belt and used one of them to charge the gun but after that stage I now carry 6 on my belt. I also keep extra mags in my bag in case Peter gets sadistic again and I want to start with a barney mag and 6 on my belt. 71 rounds is pretty ridiculous isn't it? =]
Of course I COULD just shoot more accurately and stick with 4 mags. But what fun is that?!?!
-
Maybe...for lack of a better term...shooters are smart enough to do the math and aren't caught up with how big their nut sack is.
Just for clarity. I am caught up with how big my nut sack is.
-
Hello everyone,
The GA State Championships have a web presence as of tonight.
http://www.gastatechampionships.com/
We obtained a fairly generic URL so we could use it for other IPSC, USPSA, 3-gun, Multi-gun, Steel Challenge, etc. matches in the future. Right now all it has is the information for the 2008 GA State USPSA Pistol Championships. Entry forms for competitors and RO's are downloadable as well as the stages. The stages are still in a pending state awaiting NROI approval but we wanted to get them to you as soon as we could. Hotel information and accurate directions all also linked there for those wishing to plan early.
We have also obtained the domain http://www.rbgcpracticalshooters.com/ for the River Bend Gun Club Practical Shooters, the home club for the match. There will eventually be generic information about the club listed on the official River Bend Gun Club website (RBGC.org) but this gives us a place where we can be more nimble about getting up to date information out on the net as fast as we can. When the RBGC.org site is published, it will also contain links to the GAStateChampionships.com website so you can get there a lot of different ways. =]
Kevin Allen
-
Anyone know where you can get one of these things anymore? 2 Alpha in Canada doesn't have them any longer even though they show them on their webstore and Speed Shooters isn't importing them either. Anyone have a line on where I can get one??
-
I use these from SKDTAC for production and IDPA. Work good for me. I would have gone with CompTac if I hadn't gotten these.
I can't agree enough with this recommendation. I tried the ready tacticals when I noticed that two different local production grand masters used them exclusively.
I had been using the comp-tacs and was very pleased with them except for one problem. They use a tensioning screw to adjust them for your mags and in doing so weren't all that good about variances in mag widths. Basically if I moved the mags to different pouches i woudl get different tensions for the draw. Plus there were times when the screws woudl adjust with use and I'd wind up with a mag that could either fall out or be so tight as to wedgie me on a reload. Good for a laugh but not the most fun I've had at a match.
So I bought 5 of them for use with my glock 34 and was instantly pleased with their construction and auto tensioning. The just use the tension of the thick kydex to hold the mag in place and work wonderfully. And then I figured out a nice added bonus. They glock mags work PERFECTLY for the M&P also so I didn't have to buy an extra set of pouches for my other pistol! Nice bonus. The design of the teady tacticals also eliminate the need for the extra hardware fro tensioning so the mag is less wide and it allows me to keep my mags closer to the front of my body than the comp-tacs did. It's a small thing but when you have 5 mags on your belt it winds up putting that last mag a full mag width closer to the front of your body. And how many times do I hear that eliminating extra movement is a key to speeding up your runs? =]
Since then I've sold all my comp-tac pouches and have replaced them with ready tacticals from SKDTac.com. Couldn't be happier.
-
For limited I've owned the Ghost Ultimate and the Guga Ribas which I use now. The Ghost was retired for me after I had my gun pop out of it on a seated start. The external lock on the Guga Ribas can be easily set to the middle lock and swept off during the draw stroke. In the middle lock it is no less locked than in the full lock position. The only difference is that the lock handle is positioned out in the open where it can be manipulated easily during the draw stroke.
Now keep in mind that all of this information on the Guga Ribas only holds true if you use it right handed. The left handed "version" of the holster just flips it and leaves the locking mechanism up next to the body and unavailable for a sweep unlock on the draw. A big flaw in the design if you ask me but since I'm right handed it hasn't affected me.
Build quality on the Guga Ribas is second to none with an all metal design that uses a ball joint for incredible adjustability in placing the pistol at your preferred angle. It's very secure on the belt and offers the unique ability to remove the trigger guard portion ofthe holster from the belt attachment to allow you to "ungun" while still maintaining the pistol in the "holster". I wouldn't do this without letting people know what your doing but it's perfectly safe and legal to do due to the design of the holster.
-
Stuart,
What are your thoughts on the tactical sight vs the competition sight? They look to be the same sight with the corners knocked off on the tactical. Is that the case or is it a really different sight picture?
Thanks!
CZ75 SA converted to DACZ custom comp hammer
action job by Matt..
still has FPB in place.
trigger is 6# to 6.5# DA and right around 2# SA
CZ tactical rear sight and plain black front .100 and serrated.
CZ aluminum grips
Ext ambi thumb safeties
CZ ext mag release.
SP01 trigger
grip tape
steel guide rod
11# recoil / 13# hammer spring
beveled magwell
-
My experience has been the same as Kevin's and TRP's - factory trigger is plenty good enough. My only complaint with the gun is the sights.
I've got Dawsons both front and back on mine and they work great! Serrated back blade and FO front. They are a bit of a bear to install due to the VERY tight tolerances of the stock sight install but they are good to point of aim at 20y with my 147gr jhp zero/3.35gr TG load.
I had Dan Burwell do his standard 3.5# trigger job for me and had him keep the sear break in the same place as the factory configuration so I don't have that looong first stage pull to deal with that some trigger actions on the M&P are using.
Oh and a tungsten guide rod from speed shooter specialties is a hot ticket for helping with some muzzle flip. I was surprised how much it helped the shot cycle on mine.
Kevin
-
I hope not... I really wish I would've bought one with the mag disco - that writing was my inspiration to stone the side of my slide Don't get me wrong, I love the way it turned out, but it was a PITA.
Hope you aren't planning on shooting that gun in Production class. You may have opened the door for a question of whether or not you just bumped your pistol to open. Is it slide refinishing? Is it lightening? OY! My brain hurts. =\
-
Why oh why is it a 9mm and not a .40? I'd think the market would be there for a limited gun. If all they build is 9's, then someones gonna have to build 170mm mags and optic mounts for them.
Well in 9mm you will get interest in Production USPSA and IPSC divisions AND SSP IDPA as well. They are probably banking on the much larger competition markets that 9mm will run into. Just my guess.
-
I like traditional checkered wood. Use the ones you like the best. You'll never know until you've spent some money and tried different types.
Man that is sooo true! So much of the gun and grip is subjective. You kind of have to go on a journey experimenting and modifying or discarding things until you hit on the thing(s) that seems to make sense for you. Then do like Brian Enos says and keep experimenting and trying new things to see if you can improve further still.
For me it's the Operator grips in micarta from VZGrips.com Just the right combination of aggressive and smooth. It sure is hard to beat a plain set of wood grips that you tune to the right width for your hands and then tape up with some TruGrip tape from Eric. Cheap AND custom! =]
-
I've got 9 hi-cap 9mm mags for my M&P and 8 hi cap 9mm mags for my Glock 34. Never had a mag failure with either gun using any one of those mags so I'm probably overly cautions with all those extras. It is nice to have a few loaded and ready to go at a match in case I run into an issue with a reshoot or something.
Now my Limited gun is a 2011 STI built by Derek at Millennium. I ordered it with 4 tuned STI mags with dawson bases and have since added an additional stock STI tube with a dawson base just to try a stock one vs. my tuned ones. My limited experience shows that tuning does have some definite benefits from a reliability standpoint.
I just ordered two of the DocterUSA SPS/Grahms tube and basepad kits to try them out. They supposedly load 21 .40SW but I can only get 20 in each of them. And they do not drop free on their own unless fully loaded. Looks like another tuning issue to address but I'm not sure if I'll attempt it myself or have Grahms do the tune since he designed the basepads for these puppies.
If the SPS tubes work out to be 21 loadable and even better if they are 21 reloadable for some added flexibility then I'll probably try more of them til I have a good comfort margin of say 10 mags. If not then I'll most likely opt to try some SVI tubes to see how they work out. Someone's always selling or buying tubes so I figured it's good to experiment a little to see what I like and what the gun likes.
-
Okay an update from my issue.
I've pretty much torn my tool head down and started all over again. The toolhead used to look like this.
Station 1 - Lee Undersize .40 size and decap die
Station 2 - Dillon Power die
Station 3 - left this one empty
Station 4 - Redding Competition Seating die
Station 5- Lee Factory Crimp Die
I moved the Lee Undersize size die to station 2 and removed the decapping pin. I installed the Dillon size and decap die in station 1 instead. The Dillon Powder die got moved to he empty station 3 and the rest stayed the same.
I double checked the bell in the powder die and adjusted it slightly to give a smidgen more flare. I readjusted the shell plate to make sure it was nice and smooth with little to no slop.
With both of the size dies in place the press is MUCH SMOOTHER to run. I think the U die in station 1 was too much work for the press and I was having to muscle it. I think that lead to too much jiggle in the setup and that lead to messed up consistency in the OAL. I need to work on getting the bench even more stable in general but this has helped tremendously.
And the OAL issue is pretty much gone now. w00t!!
The power of the BE forums search is mighty. It just takes a long time to read all the great information for the nuggets you need. Thanks to everyone that contributes. This place is a goldmine!!
I've put the original dillon size and decap die in station one. I moved the Dillon powder die to station 3 and
-
I sold my Gugas two weeks after buying it. The grass was not greener.
I think I was the one that bought it and I couldn't be happier! Go figure. =]
-
DAMN! I'm having the EXACT same problem with mine in the same set up and just came on here to see if I could find anyone with a fix. =\
I'll let you know if figure out anything.
I've got the Uniquetek helicoil kit on the head holding it perfectly still. And I've adjusted the shell plate tension so that it's about as solid as I can make it while still letting it turn smoothly. I've checked everywhere for dirt or some other sort that could be causing 4h inconsistency. I'm about to pull the Readding Competition Seating Die off the press and try the Dillion instead to see if I can get things working.
-
I'm sometimes amazed when people look at me weird when I point out my own no shoots or other foibles. I'm a new shooter and am really interested in every point I earn. But I could care less about getting credit for points I don't earn.
It's a gentleman's sport much the same way golf is supposed to be. You are ultimately competing against yourself, and to cheat is to cheat yourself. This has been an enjoyable thread to read for that reason alone.
Kevin
TY56598
Section 6
Chamblee, GA
-
I prefer to avoid a non-threat behind a threat target when designing stages. It is very easy to require the shooter to be forced to leave cover in order to shoot the threat and avoid the non-threat. So in order to hit the threat (and avoid the non-threat) the shooter gets a PE for cover violation. This is a trap that should be avoided.
Not necessarily. A shooter can take the shots on the move and avoid the cover penalty. The non-threats can be used to force movement as well as accuracy.
Kevin
A26038
Chamblee, GA
. I don't believe anyone grumbled about having too many rounds left on their belt after that one.
Calling out times on Multi-String COF
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
Damn you're good!! Perfect solution to my conundrum. Thank you!