Gatekeeper Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Merged topics. Thank you Didn't see this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Merged topics. Thank you Didn't see this thread No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Sorry guys. I don't think it's a big deal to paint the inside of the well but the rules are the rules, even when they seem a bit...off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Whether you agree with the ruling or not, I appreciate the fact that NROI issued a ruling instead of replying to an e-mail. IMO, e-mails from Amidon have no benefit. They aren't available to every USPSA member. They cannot be used in an arbitration. They can be mis-quoted especially if the original question isn't worded properly or included when the response from Amidon is posted. A ruling is black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Yeah, guess I got some scrubbing to do before space city. Anyone know what's the best thing to use to remove whiteout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobmysterious Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 I used odorless mineral spirits and it came right off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Production is without a doubt a difficult one to "legislate," and I don't envy them the task. However, I really wish they would take a more pragmatic approach to some of these things. Grip aids are obviously ok and they provide a competitive advantage. Grip plugs and "speedways" are aids and they are ok despite the competitive advantage. So essentially aids are ok provided they are physical or mechanical in nature, but not visual? It makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David.Hylton Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Wow, glad I revisited this string. There some top level shooters that will have to do some cleaning also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobmysterious Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 Kinda wish I hadn't asked. Figured I needed to though, I'm going to Area 6 next weekend and don't really want to wind up in the open division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Kinda wish I hadn't asked. Figured I needed to though, I'm going to Area 6 next weekend and don't really want to wind up in the open division. No, it is okay to ask, and I for one will encourage you, and any other shooter to continue to ask the questions. Our role is to find the answers for you, and for this forum to accept the moniker as the definitive place for shooting sport questions and not seek the answer to questions is absurd. You got a variety of answers/opinions from both sides of the coin and now we have a definitive one. Whether it is the answer some hoped for (one way or the other) is immaterial. Being afraid to ask a question because you may not like the answer is childish. I took my markers out several weeks ago when feedback was telling me they were going to be ruled out. Truth be told, in the matches since then, I can say that I do not miss them, and did quite fine without them - did not really notice they were gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 No, it is okay to ask, and I for one will encourage you, and any other shooter to continue to ask the questions. Our role is to find the answers for you, and for this forum to accept the moniker as the definitive place for shooting sport questions and not seek the answer to questions is absurd. You got a variety of answers/opinions from both sides of the coin and now we have a definitive one. Whether it is the answer some hoped for (one way or the other) is immaterial. Being afraid to ask a question because you may not like the answer is childish. I took my markers out several weeks ago when feedback was telling me they were going to be ruled out. Truth be told, in the matches since then, I can say that I do not miss them, and did quite fine without them - did not really notice they were gone. So they were banned because they offer a competitive advantage, but not really? Now I'm really confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseywales Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) Just P R A C T I C E - R E L O A D S Edited April 6, 2011 by joseywales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 So they were banned because they offer a competitive advantage, but not really? Now I'm really confused. It was not "banned". It was not legal in the first place. The ruling just clarified that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 WoW, usually I think most of the rules in the book are pretty good but this one seems a bit silly. Like somebody else had said earlier the cat is out of the bag now you have to put it back in. The dot on my SS magwell is more for use during practice as it isn't as graffic as Flex's barber pole and I never notice it during a match but I never thought a dab of nail polish would be illegal. If I read that new ruling right you also can't put a dab of paint on your front sight because it will help you align your sights better? If that is the case what about FO sights don't they do just that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I don't get all this wringing of hands. It's a game with rules. We've just been given clarification of one of those rules. I don't agree with all of the clarifications handed down, but I do abide by them. That's the price of admission. If it's just too much to endure, shoot another division. Otherwise, move on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 If I read that new ruling right you also can't put a dab of paint on your front sight because it will help you align your sights better? If that is the case what about FO sights don't they do just that? Read closer... can't put paint on the slide to help you align the sights better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 If I read that new ruling right you also can't put a dab of paint on your front sight because it will help you align your sights better? If that is the case what about FO sights don't they do just that? Read closer... can't put paint on the slide to help you align the sights better. Yeah like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Yeah like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 If I read that new ruling right you also can't put a dab of paint on your front sight because it will help you align your sights better? If that is the case what about FO sights don't they do just that? Read closer... can't put paint on the slide to help you align the sights better. Yeah like this. LOL, DOH! That is what I get for not reading everything! Also, if its been illegal the whole time and its just being clarified well then I guess that IS good then. Of course I don't shoot production anyway so it won't affect me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I used odorless mineral spirits and it came right off. one of our members sent this to me: For the record ... Goo Gone takes off White Out. Nail polish remover & mineral spirits do not. Just sayin' .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 If I read that new ruling right you also can't put a dab of paint on your front sight because it will help you align your sights better? If that is the case what about FO sights don't they do just that? Read closer... can't put paint on the slide to help you align the sights better. Yeah like this. Reminds me of the blonde joke where the blonde gets TGIF tattooed on her feet. When asked what it means, she replies Toes go in first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I don't get all this wringing of hands. It's a game with rules. We've just been given clarification of one of those rules. I don't agree with all of the clarifications handed down, but I do abide by them. That's the price of admission. If it's just too much to endure, shoot another division. Otherwise, move on... +1. Nicely said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I don't get all this wringing of hands. It's a game with rules. We've just been given clarification of one of those rules. I don't agree with all of the clarifications handed down, but I do abide by them. That's the price of admission. If it's just too much to endure, shoot another division. Otherwise, move on... +1. Nicely said. I get that it isn't a democracy, and we don't get to simply not abide by rules with which we happen to disagree. I've personally never had paint or whiteout or anything on my magwells, so this doesn't affect me in the least. Still, it seems pretty heavy handed and a bit short sighted to hand down this ruling considering how common the paint is in other shooting sports and even among "tactical" types. I just think USPSA took a stand on something pretty inconsequential, and in doing so took a bit of a step backward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) I get that it isn't a democracy, and we don't get to simply not abide by rules with which we happen to disagree. Except for people who constantly say "but it's only a Level I Match, so we don't have to do X" where X is: - sign the score sheet - refer unsigned score sheets to the RM - post provisional match results and have 1 hour to appeal the scores - have designated calibration ammo, gun, and calibration officer (i.e. get any anybody shooting 9mm with factory ammo to shoot a challenged popper) - Range Master make the calls with regards equipment, changing COFs, etc. (i.e. "the MD said it was OK") - have a (updated) written stage briefing (i.e. verbal changes to COF is good enough) Despite the rule book stating explicitly where Level I matches are given extra leeway. [Out of full disclosure, I unfortunately have to say that I've ignored all of the above at one point or another because "it's just a Level I Match".] Edited April 6, 2011 by Skydiver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I don't get all this wringing of hands. It's a game with rules. We've just been given clarification of one of those rules. I don't agree with all of the clarifications handed down, but I do abide by them. That's the price of admission. If it's just too much to endure, shoot another division. Otherwise, move on... +1. Nicely said. I get that it isn't a democracy, and we don't get to simply not abide by rules with which we happen to disagree. I've personally never had paint or whiteout or anything on my magwells, so this doesn't affect me in the least. Still, it seems pretty heavy handed and a bit short sighted to hand down this ruling considering how common the paint is in other shooting sports and even among "tactical" types. I just think USPSA took a stand on something pretty inconsequential, and in doing so took a bit of a step backward. Right now, to us it probably seems inconsequential because we've just bandied about a few posts on it. For them to make the change, to me, means they have been hearing much more about it than a question asked from the Enos forum. That and a seeming desire to get Production back to some conceptual "intent" from which it came. I leave it to the Area Directors who frequent this site to give us more of the rationale behind the decision. I hope that is forthcoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts