Morphire
-
Posts
243 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Morphire
-
-
First to say that I'm a total newb and just got my first classification (Limited C Class) and haven't attended anything other than local matches here in Area 6.
But I'm also a nationally ranked shooter in another shooting sport that doesn't allow prize tables and has no classifications so maybe I'm not a total newb. Just mostly a newb. =]
I LIKE the idea that I'm a C class shooter and I want to see myself improve to B and then A and so forth hopefully. The Classification system for USPSA has worth to me! I definitely don't want to see it go away. I consider it much more about a gauge for me to see how I'm doing overall and not about how I fare against others at a match. That match day score is always going to depend on how I shoot and how everyone else shoots anyway. It's negligible to my C class other than a score ranking for that day. If I win my class then all the better as it shows I'm improving and should be getting a new classification soon.
I also LIKE the idea of a prize table. I think it encourages shooters and I think it can increase match attendance. And who doesn't like to get a prize? So the problem isn't the class system or the prize table per say but how do you make both of them work together, if possible?
My thoughts are that you award the class winners with a trophy and a prize (gun preferably). Something to put on the mantle and something to play with. Those that place 2nd through whatever in their classes are awarded trophies only. The prize table (minus the guns given as prizes for each class winner) goes to random drawing for all participants with the class winners excluded. My thoughts are that the prize table should have no more top prizes (guns) available to be consistent. No one seems to disagree that the class winners didn't shoot their best that day and deserve some kudos for their efforts. The sticking point seems to be the 3rd place D shooter taking a trip to the table before the 10th place M. Might something like this solution work?
Kevin
-
It's been said that Dave also did not use a magwell. Another $79 savings! I wonder if anyone else competing in Limited did not have a magwell?
I believe Dave does use a magwell of sorts and it costs about $80 to reproduce. It's an opening and blending of the mag chute using glass bedding compound internally to the grip so that it doesn't look other than stock to casual observance. He used to use this and listed the guy that did it on his sponsors page. I have no idea if he still uses it though. I'll have to ask him next time I run into him.
Magwell or not, stock glock or not, Dave is a class act all the way. Always ready with a friendly smile to an unfamiliar face and free with advice and encouragement to us new shooters he encounters. Glock has quite a spokesman in him and his abilities!
Great work Dave!
Kevin
-
Sometimes there's more to RO'ing than black and white.
Funny. And here I thought the RO was interested in making sure the rules were followed and that the shooter was safe. If you are gonna call it, then call it., If you aren't, then let it go and get on to the next shooter. I guess I just disagree with your tactics on this one. The RO isn't in the business of getting a shooter "flustered" as far as I'm concerned.
Kevin
-
Obviously SV, but who else? Are Bedell and Millenium Custom the only ones turning out a non-ported hybrid barreled limited gun?
Bedell and Mellinium are the only one's I've seen so far in my searching. I'm having Derek at Millenium make me one as we speak.
Kevin
-
The shooter should be concerned with shooting...and only shooting...that is why there is an RO and scorekeeper there also.,..you can't hang every damn thing on the shooter...
Granted I'm a total noob here only having shot IDPA for a few months, but I'm the one holding the loaded weapon. The sport is entirely safe until I charge my pistol. At that point I'm the only one ultimately that is going to be held responsible for any unsafe behavior. Be it intentional, or unintentional. Be it my "fault", or someone elses fault.
When I charge my weapon I enter into the same mode I do when I carry concealed. I'm armed and potentially dangerous to myself and others. Every action has consequences. In this particular circumstance I'd say everyone got off very lucky that no one was hurt. I agree with the DQ although it's unfortunate for the shooter. I completely agree that the SO should have been DQ'd as well. A mistake was made on both their parts and they both should bear the weight of that mistake. They were what, a 5# trigger pull away from disaster?
My fellow IDPA shooters call me a gamer and other comments cause I'm always looking at the rules and how they are to be interpreted. I look for ways to maximize my potentional competitive egde. All of those things are the competitor side of my IDPA shooting. The argument to not DQ the shooter is part of that same side of IDPA as far as I'm concerned. The other side of me is the safety conscious person that always maintains that I'm running around with a loaded weapon in a controlled environment that ultimately requires my own dilligence to control my actions in a safe manner. That side of my IDPA shooting can't ever compromise. That's the side of IDPA that says the shooter should be DQ'd.
This is an excellent thread! Thank you to all who are sharing your opinions.
Kevin
Well it isn't written down anywhere, but what do reckon the IQ of any RO might be who lets himself get in front of the shooter....bet you could count it on the fingers of ONE hand...Now is that the shooters fault....don't think so...
Even Albert Einstein can RO a shooter that has a total brain fart and turns a weapon on him. It's not always the RO's intellect that is in question.
-
I think Novak makes a +1 follower that might alleviate this problem. You might want to try it. (Note: I have read about them, but still have yet to order some. There doesn't seem to be an on-line ordering system to purchase them.)
The Novak Handgunner Outlet (NHO) +1 follower weren't any help to me with the new (tapered) mags. I was still down a round in Limited.
With the old mags, I could run them 20+1 if needed (NHO follower, non-tapered mag, Dawson basepad and spring).
Attempting to follow your advice I went ahead and purchased 5 dawson base pads for my mags. They are the newer #6 follower, tapered, .40 mags. I loaded each one up to find out where the capacity was and found all but one of them to reliably take 20 rounds. The one mag+dawson combo would only take 19 rounds. At this point I'm holding off trying out the NHO +1 followers. Just thought I'd give a little feedback on what I'd found out. I'm feeding them with a G35 and using WW White Box ammo.
Kevin
-
Some guy named Dave Sevigny doesn't use one. He's won a few matches.
Actually he uses an integral bevel job built up with acuraglass by Daniel Tripp. The well is called a Speedway Magwell and you can find out info on it at www.southpawcustom.com if you wish.
Kevin
-
I'm new to USPSA shooting but have been shooting IDPA for a short while with a Glock 34 in 9mm. I shoot a load from Atlanta Arms & Ammo, Inc. that is a 147gr (hornady) hollowpoint at minor PF. It's wicked accurate in my pistol and is very soft shooting.
They are listed as 9mm Subsonic 147gr JHP Match on the box end and come in a blue box that is factory reloaded brass and a black box that is using new brass (starline I believe). The Glock Factory team, and other's, use this brand in black box for thier match ammo. Best of luck to you!
Kevin
-
What really got us talking about it was a stage with three targets, to be engaged from cover, in tactical priority. The middle target was a pepper popper. A shooter fired twice, slightly repositioned himself at the cover, fired once, another reposition, fired twice. He had engaged the three targets, in tactical priority. Trouble was, the steel target was still standing. I argued for a procedural, since the steel target had, in my mind been bypassed, and therefore the requirement of tactical sequence had not been fulfilled. Another SO pointed out that the guy may have missed with every shot, but why should I apply the rule differently to steel than to paper? I argued, because I can. I can see that he missed the steel, so he should not expose himself to it in order to go to the next target.
There is also the argument that the shooter could have repositioned himself to the other side of the cover to engage T3 and still maintain cover for a non-neutralized T2, and then come back to T2. Confusing, but I can definitely see your argument re. steel vs. paper engagement. There is the counter argument that the SO should be worrying about FINGER and MUZZLE violations rather than scoring the CoF. The SO has to wear two hats if my undersanding is correct though. Safety first and score procedurals second.
We decided it should really be handled in course design, with the steel target placed where it can't be engaged but bypassed if left standing.Great for an ideal world, but still leaves open the question of what will happen at an away match where the MD and course designers haven't thought that situation through to the same degree. It would be good to have a definitive answer from HQ on the definition of "eangement" for both paper and steel. It'd put things to rest.
Kevin
-
My understanding is that it has nothing to do with bullet holes. Shoot at a target, it's been engaged. Period.
I tend to think in this manner too. What happens if the stage is low light and the bullet holes can't be discerned until later during scoring? Focus on engagement and don't penalize a person for being less than a Master as far as accuracy goes, right? The sport is supposed to be helping us all improve as we shoot it. At least that's what I'm hoping to get ou tof it along with the fun and fellowship.
If you require hits/nuetralization, then you are requiring a SO to be watching targets and not your muzzle and finger. Could be done on some stages, and safely. But can't be done on all stages.Good point on safety but this is what part of the rub was for this COF. Head shots were the required targets and anything other was scored as a miss with a possibility of a FTN penalty if no heads shots were landed. Head shots by definition neutralize the target so we had to distance ourselves from the FTN argument and separate it from the engagement question. FTN was an issue for scoring the target and the tactical sequence was a quesiton of issuing a procedural.
ETA Didn't mean to be rude, meant to start off with "HI! welcome to the sport!"Not rude at all! I'm having a blast. I've been shooting about a month and have been fortunate enough to already shoot my classifier. It's not official yet but it looks like I'm going to be shooting SSP (glock 34) as a Sharpshooter. My three year IDPA membership is in processing now. There are a great bunch of guys here in Atlanta to shoot with. I'm being very well welcomed and taught the finer arts of being a noob. LOL
Kevin
On the other hand, it is usually required here that a reactive target be knocked down before continuing on to the next target in Tactical Priority; which is a definite slowdown. Some of those things drop as slow as the guy falling off the saloon roof in the B western.Real good point. Is it SOP to have reactive targets "react" before you move on in tactical sequence? By that I mean is it required by thte IDPA rules? I didn't recall that.
Kevin
-
We shot a COF last night that made me think of a question to ask the MD. It caused a bit of discussion amongst our grup so I thought I'd ask it of the forum to see what other people's interpretations were.
COF was three targets T1 center at about 3y, T2 left at about 5y and T3 right at about 10y. Two head shots required for each target in tactical sequence with Vickers Count scoring. So I asked (newbie again) if my understanding was correct that it meant T1 for one head shot, T2 for 1 head shot, than T3 for two head shots and T1 and T2 for their last head shots respectively. Given the affirmative, I shot the COF and scored 0 down with 6 shots fired.
Another shooter shot the same way but hit -1 on T2 his first shot on that target and made it up with a head shot on his second shot. He then moved on to T3 and back to T1 and T2 as above. He completed the COF with 0 down with 7 shots fired.
Still a third shooter misssed T2 entirely with his first shot on that target and moved on to T3 for two head shots, then T1 for it's second hit, and then finished T2 with two successive head shots. He completed the COF with 0 down with 7 shots fired.
The question was then broached by me if there was a procedural in a COF when Tactical Sequence was required and a miss on a target isn't made up before moving on (ie. the third shooter in this example). The trick being that, the miss was on a target that was "engaged" but just simply missed (entirely or objectively as in a head shot requirement). Everyone seemed to agree that ignoring a target (not attempting to shoot it at all) and moving on to another target out of tactical sequence was a procedural, but there was a split as to whether or not tactical sequence meant a required neutralization of a target objective before moving on or just an attempt at a proper neutralization. Recall that this is unlimited standard Vickers Count. We seemed to agree that Limited Vickers would have settled the issue through limited round counts.
The stick seems to be over the IDPA definition of "engage" and "engagement". Does it mean a successful attempt at the target objective (ie. successfully meeting the target objective in the case of a tactical sequence requirement) or does it mean an attempt to at the target objective (ie. shot but fail to satisfy the target objective in the case of a tactical sequence requirement).
I hope this was a little clearer than mud so that everyone understands through the veil of my noobosity. LOL
Kevin
1" Rule Compliant Mag Pouches
in Gear & Accessories
Posted
+1 on the Comp-Tac singles. They work great and fit very snugly on a CR speed belt.
Morphire