rmills Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Please identify the rule you are addressing by page number and rule number (i.e. page 10, C17). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdmoore Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 P33 D.1.D and D.1.E Both are unneeded, C and F seem to cover the issue perfectly. If it holds mags (shake test) and is behind the centerline then who cares if the carrier is canted (very practical for some) or covers less than 50% of tube. This seemed to come out of the blue (read huge non-issue) and have no basis on practical carry. Honestly, has ANYONE heard of anybody getting an advantage this way? Maybe loosening the tension? slicking it up? Straighten me out if I'm missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobrogers Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 P33 D.1.D and D.1.EBoth are unneeded, C and F seem to cover the issue perfectly. If it holds mags (shake test) and is behind the centerline then who cares if the carrier is canted (very practical for some) or covers less than 50% of tube. This seemed to come out of the blue (read huge non-issue) and have no basis on practical carry. Honestly, has ANYONE heard of anybody getting an advantage this way? Maybe loosening the tension? slicking it up? Straighten me out if I'm missing something. I agree 100%. This is just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
down0 Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 "Honestly, has ANYONE heard of anybody getting an advantage this way? Maybe loosening the tension? slicking it up? " Yep. I've SO'ed matches from the local level up to and including the Nat's, and I've seen too many folks 'trying to gain a competetive advantage' by 'adjusting' their holsters. I pesonally know one shooter that took a heat gun to his kydex in order to increase it's cant away from his body. I know one very high-level shooter who deliberately keeps his holster as loose as possible on his belt so that he can use his arm as it hangs down his side to move his holster thru his cover garment to a point in front of his mid-point. I could go on and on. You guys know this game. "If you aint cheatin' you aint tryin'" DownO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenairguy Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Down0, I noticed your NATCA avitar, where do you work? I do my controlling at MEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
down0 Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 "where do you work?" Vegas. Don't tell the NO I'm using the logo, they might charge me! Down0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRD Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Someone explain to me how many PE's you assign to someone shooting extra shots in a Limited Vickers stage... Old Rulebook: "any pick-up shots will incur a procedural penalty of three (3) seconds per extra shot fired" <emphasis mine> New Rulebook: C17: ...the maximum value for each excess shot shall be subtracted from his score and incur a procedural penalty <-- fairly ambiguous, could be read as one PE for all extra shots or one PE for each. ...then on pg15 (i) we get clarification... PP1Bi: ... ...but only assess one procedural penalty. <-- seems to clear it up...but wait! ...in the section on Limited Vickers (pg40)... Appendix 4 B: Any extra shots will incur a procedural penalty of (3) seconds per extra shot fired... <emphasis mine> I wonder how long we'll have to wait to get this stuff figured out...I hope the guys at S&W get an answer before the Winter Nats... - Gabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenairguy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Good point! Here is another, in Appendix 2 page 37 it states "Intentional "round dumping" to gain competitive advantage will result in a twenty (20) second FTDR penalty." In Appendix 4 page 38 the definition of Vickers Count says"In Vickers Count scoring, as many shots as desired may be fired" How can you dump rounds when you can fire as many as you desire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 How can you dump rounds when you can fire as many as you desire? Good COF design eliminates the "dumping" problem almost entirely. I think the rule should stay. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRD Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 How can you dump rounds when you can fire as many as you desire? The thing you are forbidden from doing is to just dump rounds out of the gun in order to go to slide lock and facilitate your reload. The fact that you can shoot multiple shots in a Vickers count stage is what makes this difficult to catch. But if you see a guy with two down-zero hits let fly another 3 then go straight to slide-lock reload, it gives you pause. - Gabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenairguy Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 (edited) I understand the concept, but the definition states "as many as desired". I have also been to many matches and depending on the angle, lighting, and condition of the target it is hard for my old eyes to see holes. I even went to the .40 over the 9mm for bigger holes. If someone shoots, looks at his gun expecting it to be empty, then shoots again at the same target to get to slide lock, then you have something. If someone hoses until empty, they are shooting "as many as desired". [edit] Edited January 12, 2005 by Flexmoney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmills Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 The original intent of this topic and the other corresponding topic was to generate a logical list of issues/problems along with a consensus of "fixes" for the particular issues and then submit it to HQ for evaluation. It appears that several issues have been addressed and others are in the process of being addressed by HQ. At this point with said issues being addressed by HQ at this time (due to many members being in direct contact with HQ), there is no need to compile and finalize these issues in this topic. "Thanks" to everyone for their input and "Thanks" to HQ for their timely responses to the membership! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now