Punkin Chunker

And when I'm working on a gun, I don't do that, unless: A. Someone is watching me, AND; B. The part is unique, irreplaceable, critically important to function, and is able to roll undetected beneath the nearest nearly immoveable object.

The problem with telling the shooter before shooting the stage is that it IS a procedural to not top off if you're not at division capacity (rulebook links above germaine), and with most range lawyers, if the procedural is noted before they shoot, they can argue that since they hadn't started shooting, they shouldn't be assessed the procedural because they corrected it. Next, to open the can-o-worms about using mags of different capacity (avoid the hassle -- don't mix mag capacities). Yes -- it would be coaching. If the shooter was a first-timer, give them a break. But anyone beyond that needs to be dialed in on the rules.

1. Range slugs that spend their off-stage time plopped in their folding chair and/or gassing their expertise in the background while everyone else on the stage is downrange resetting. 2. Peanut gallery lawyers that step into the dance between shooter and course/RO to point out what they see as a failing on the RO; sometimes to a level of debate, or sometimes just to Big Dog it over the RO who ran the stage. 3. Getting swept (and no DQ, 'cause, you know, he's a new shooter -- and the MD's kin). Okay, get rid of just those three things, and I'll be happy as a clam.

Another fix some people have is a piece of duct tape to make sure the primers don't drop onto the edge of the spent primer cup where it hooks on the bracket. I use a small piece of metal bent to wedge into the cup and bridge the gap between the cup and the swing arm. Otherwise some spent primers hit the edge of the cup and bounce out.

Daisy Dukes. Cute. Reminds me of why I watched Dukes of Hazzard, and it wasn't because there was a whole lot of plot, acting, or dialogue. Please tell me someone on the show says, "Hyuk-hyuk-hyuk," frequently so they can check that stereotype box also. Do we get to watch 'em run down the road in a pick-em-up truck and slay roadsigns?

????? It will probably be thrown back, but it seems that muzzle awareness is supposed to play into safe gun handling. Putting a bullet into a prop downrange is one thing, but blasting a prop because you've become scope-locked and don't know you're chugging shots into a prop less than a foot away? That's safe?

And when it is being engaged, what it doesn't do is move. I don't recall ever hearing of, or seeing, a shooter using a sawing action on the line activating one of these types of targets to make it move while it is being shot.

True -- cornbread are square.

Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. Arthur Wellesley

With ya 100 per. Sometimes I have to remind myself -- when it seems like things are falling apart, I'm actually having a great time that I'll just have to appreciate in retrospect.

Square pegs everywhere have breathed a sigh of relief.

Yes2

The targets in question aren't moving targets -- a target which is made available at any time during the course of fire by some competitor action doesn't become a moving target just because the shooter moves it; it is not designed to be moving when engaged. Releasing the rope and letting the target fall is the competitor's problem, but does not make it a moving target, just because gravity pulls the target out of sight. Same thing with a port -- if the shooter opens a port, throws a couple quick shots downrange, then closes the port, is the target behind the port considered a disappearing target? No -- the targets are still available if competitor action re-opens the port. Likewise, a target which lifts when a shooter pulls a rope is still available at the shooter's choice. 9.4.4 says misses are penalized, so the shooter can make the choice about re-shooting them. There doesn't have to be a rule to require a shooter to make the target available again -- it's entirely his choice to take the mikes or make better shots. Trying to force 'moving target' provisions onto a target that shooter's actions directly control is a red herring and does not apply.

Your toothbrush tastes like Hoppes for a couple of days after you've given one of your guns a good scrubbing.

Trove

Typing that as two words calls into question your Southern-ness.

+1. On Benos Forum, I ALWAYS claim faster splits on my mikes than I really shoot.

Your lawn mower has broken one of the back windows on the house with a spent shell casing.>

I thought you were going to tell her that you saw a biker you thought you knew, but he took offense when you smelled his ass.

If all your friends were going to jump off a cliff, it'd be a good idea for you to join them.

Don't piss in a well you'll want to drink from later.

LT45 has some good points. Instead of rewriting WSB, you could add to walls: Left wall just as it is, but from uprange end, extend the wall to end in Box A. Right wall just as it is, but extended uprange to end in Box B. Extend a fault line across from the uprange end of one wall to the uprange end of the other. Get rid of both boxes, just start the competitor at one wall or another. Roughly, the walls would be configured as two inward-pointing brackets: > <.Then your props would accomplish what your WSB was trying to do.

I think some are alive, but their feet are rubbed smooth from little kids grabbing them on the back and scooting them across the carpet, and saying, "Vroom, vroom!"

Awesome! Doesn't it make you wonder -- is the reason for the helmet just to have someplace to mount a camera?

Set of jumper cables walk into a bar. Bartender takes one look at them, says, "Hey you guys -- don't start anything in here!" I guess he was kind of cranky. They left anyway -- the bartender wouldn't let them charge anything. But it really was their kind of bar -- a real clip joint. Of course it was near their home -- somewhere in DC, maybe close to Battery Park.