Slide lock when RWR is called for?

[Model19]

Had a stage in a match last weekend that called for:

starting at pos A. fire two shots each on targets T-1 through T-3 while moving to cover at pos B.

At B, perform RWR and engage targets T-4 through T-6 yadda yadda

A very experienced shooter asked at the line if he could simply hose all 3 initial targets from pos A. and then move. Answer was No, the Cof Calls for shooting while moving. So he did as directed. Good boy Fido, have a biscuit. Later after the match he asked if he could have taken extra shots at T1 - T3 as to be at slide lock by the time he got to pos. B and thereby perform an emergency (slide-lock) reload instead and let the empty mag hit the ground, saving seconds.

What do you folks think of that second question? I had no answer for him.

[Gregg K]

Let's see, you preplanned to take extra shots to circumvent the COF thereby gaining a competitive advantage. FTDR

I know a round dumping call is not very popular and people will argue that you can't read minds and all that but here you have a case where the shooter has told you what he is going to do so no mind reading is involved here.

[High Lord Gomer]

From page 42:

Intentional “round dumping” to gain a competitive advantage will

result in a twenty (20) second FTDR penalty. A good example is

firing extra rounds from a position in the open so you will be at

slide lock and thus reload at a more advantageous time.

[Chills1994]

this again?

[Chills1994]

sorry... I don't mean to be so crabby. I worked last night and got off shift at 3 AM.

this idea of round dumping in order to be at slide lock topic seems to come up about every three months...probably more often actually.

long story short is that you will end up with posts from either end of the spectrum(s):

A. those who equate round dumping with cheating and if there is even the slightest whiff of round dumping in the air, if that poster is SO'ing, then they will gladly slap that person with an FTDR.

B. then there those posters who will say "I'm not a mind reader...the competitor didn"t dump...he called his shot and made it up. Therefore, I cannot issue an FTDR."

C. then there are the people who exclAim that the no round dumping rule contradicts the Vickers count (unlimited shots) of IDPA stage design. said another way...if you don't want people to round dump, then make every stage limited (virginia count). otherwise just eliminate he round dumping rule entirely

.

usually, the above 3 caMps aRe firmly entrenched in their positions/opinions which can lead to some heated or at least emotionaL debate.

if you want to see how these round dumping threads go, please try the advanced search screen. type in "dump" or "dumping" as a keyword. then click on the IDPA subforum to search.

slight thread drift ahead....seeinmg how this topic comes up so often...it does make me wonder how little the online IDPA Rulebook gets looked at. if I was MD,ing I think I would require a pre-match quiz/test on the rules before a newbie would be allowed to come out and compete.

[Joe4d]

Wile I believe camp C and think the rule should be changed, when you show up to shoot you do your best to follow the rules as written until they are changed.

If the stage specified Reload with retnetion well then that means reload with retention, shoot to slide lock if you want but you still need to RETAIN the magazine. yeh I know thats kinda dumb stowing an empty mag but thats the best I can do with the stage and rules,

Actually this stage should never had seen the light of day, since reloads with retention should never be required,, well actually , "HQ urges" that they not be required on the clock.

I think the use of non definitive verbs like should, encourages, urges, may, used in a published book claiming to be a rule book is the root a large percentage of the inconsistent scoring, hard feelings, arguments, and frustration.

[Forrest Halley]

I think the use of non definitive verbs like should, encourages, urges, may, used in a published book claiming to be a rule book is the root a large percentage of the inconsistent scoring, hard feelings, arguments, and frustration.

This is the kind of reasonable person that should have a hand in writing the next "Rule Book." I believe that the rule book was meant to be prosecuted by honest and reasonable people in origin. I also believe that everybody has an agenda and too many folks are losing sight of honest and reasonable when shooting and regulating a match. The most desperate of these types are those that have peaked and not accepted same.

The poster that decided to have them retain the magazine no matter what is on to something. Issuing an FTDR for round dumping is either going to burn somebody that had no idea what they were doing or tie up the match when a gamer gets called and then gets loud over it and gets the match director involved in protest arbitration. Everyone holding on to the magazine at this point defeats all attempts to circumvent the COF although bending a rule to do so.

[ferges99]

The COF calls for RWR. No RWR equals 1 penalty.

[Gregg K]

Wile I believe camp C and think the rule should be changed, when you show up to shoot you do your best to follow the rules as written until they are changed.

Good Point. We may not like the rules but we have to learn to work with what we have for now.

For those waiting anxiously for the new rule book to come out, forget about it. Joyce posted on the Idpaforum that there is not a new rule book in the works, here is her quote.

"Hi Guys,

Let me quickly dispel the rumor of a new rule book. We are NOT working on one right now"

When you read most COF's, it's usually obvious how it is intended to be shot. Many times all the stuff people pull to circumvent the COF takes longer and puts you at risk for penalties. Just learn to shoot the COF's by the current rules and the game is a lot more fun than always complaining about it.

[Duane Thomas]

This topic has been beyond beaten to death in the past. Please do a Search before asking questions like this in the future. Thanks.

Closed.