Is it against the rules to use two different loads?

[packeagle]

I've been loading .40 to 145 PF for SSP. I have a bit of a cushion.

My point was that I don't think that IDPA intends for us to use higher power ammo.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[GOF]

Hey, BillR... check your Rules again. Shoot throughs count whether from a threat to a NT or a NT to a threat or through SOFT COVER. Hard cover hits don't count, and hard cover must be designated in the COF description given to the shooter and clearly marked on the targets.

A bullet strike more than twice bullet diameter will not count. But, a .356 9mm bullet would have to be the diameter of a 12 gauge slug to be 'twice bullet diameter". But, we are not allowed to use overlays... so I carry a 12 gauge slug in my range bag. It's not an "overlay" under the Rule book, but it serves the same purpose.

A grease ring is no longer required to determine a valid bullet hit..

The ruling you quoted on bullets hitting props is directly contradicted by the 'soft cover/hard cover Rules..... which contradicts each other on a regular basis. Are those props (the ubiquitous blue barrels I referred to in my use of JHP ammo) hard cover?... and so designated as required by Rule?... or if not so designated are they soft cover? Under the Rules it has to be one or the other.

But... given the marvelous work that the Tiger Teams did with their 3rd grade education level rendition of a "clear & concise" Rule Book... it's not surprising the Rule 1 contradicts Rule 2... and on and on.

And, it's not surprising that those with the same education level pick and choose which interpretation they chose to use at any particular moment. That is the BIG problem with IDPA at the moment..... inconsistent interpretation of inconsistently-written Rules. I have IDPA trophies from the World Championship, a National Championship... a half dozen State & Regional matches.... and I will be darned if I will spend the money (airlines, or gas and days drive, motels, restaurant meals for three or four days, and then a big match fee) to let some newly appointed MM SO throw a PE on me because they can't figure out the new Rule Book.

Why waste the time and the upwards of $1000 to go to one of these clusterfunches?

Why doesn't Berryville just hire someone who understands technical rules writing and let them fix this mess? It's not hard to see the intent. It is hard to accurately interpret the Rules implementing that intent. Every time I imagine the Rules writing process going on, I get this image of the old "Beverly Hills" TV show with Jed and Granny sitting out by the 'cement pond' talking about Rules... and Jethro scribbling frantically with a dull pencil.

[JimmyZip]

Sure. You only have to make minimum PF.

In IDPA, as long as the loads used chronograph, you can use more than one load. Just provide chrono loads for each load used.

I have used 2 different loads at a sanctioned match. I made sure I sent both to the chrono check. At the time I was shooting lead bullets for the majority of my shooting, but wanted to use a plated bullet for an indoor low light (more correctly - no light) stage that required you to use a flashlight.

OP, think your answer is here^^^

[Steve RA]

[Brian Gonsalves]

load to 135, you will not feel the difference.

+1

Can you use two different loads, assuming you turn in both to chrono, sure. Should you? No. Why double your chances to not pass chrono?

As said above, the steel should fall at 105 PF, but we all know that as the day goes on things can change. As cnote said you won't notice the difference or any negative difference. I like the little quicker feel of the snappier round.

My 2 cents

[BillR1]

Hey, BillR... check your Rules again. Shoot throughs count whether from a threat to a NT or a NT to a threat or through SOFT COVER. Hard cover hits don't count, and hard cover must be designated in the COF description given to the shooter and clearly marked on the targets.

A bullet strike more than twice bullet diameter will not count. But, a .356 9mm bullet would have to be the diameter of a 12 gauge slug to be 'twice bullet diameter". But, we are not allowed to use overlays... so I carry a 12 gauge slug in my range bag. It's not an "overlay" under the Rule book, but it serves the same purpose.

A grease ring is no longer required to determine a valid bullet hit..

The ruling you quoted on bullets hitting props is directly contradicted by the 'soft cover/hard cover Rules..... which contradicts each other on a regular basis. Are those props (the ubiquitous blue barrels I referred to in my use of JHP ammo) hard cover?... and so designated as required by Rule?... or if not so designated are they soft cover.

Too funny! Have you EVER seen a blue barrel used or even suggested as soft cover at a match? Didn't think so...

If you need to slice the pie as you're shooting around a barrel, it's obvious to most people that the barrel represents hard cover. In ANY case, the barrel IS a prop. Bullets passing through a prop are not scored. Sorry you don't like the rules...LOL

"4.8.2. The elongated bullet hole rule does not include keyhole bullet holes (a keyhole bullet hole is created by a bullet which tumbles out of the firearm barrel and appears to have gone through the target sideways,) which count for score IF they were made without interference from another object.

4.8.3. Odd shaped holes made by bullets ricocheting off of the bay floor, PROPS, steel, etc., are NOT scored. Only holes made by whole bullets, not fragments, are scored."

[GOF]

Actually, not so funny. LOL to your inexperience with upper level matches showing... ...; which doesn't surprise me. You seem to be focused on the club level matches in your area and attempt to translate that to the Rest Of The World. You do need a bit more experience.

2008 (0r maybe 2007 or 2009... I forget which of the several National Championships I shot) but blue barrels were placed around targets at 30+ yards from the firing position. You didn't need to "pie those" as cover... just hit the targets. I had JHP rounds for my SSR gun. One dinged a barrel, went through and was scored on the target. The barrels were not designated as hard cover... therefore they were soft cover and shoot throughs counted. Check the Rules on hard & soft cover.... although they seem to confuse you.

Yes... I have seen blue barrels used as soft cover. And, at a IDPA National Championship.

Drink all the Koolaid you want... kiss the Ring whenever you feel like it. And (as your posts seem to indicate) pick the Rules you wish to enforce, and ignore those that seem to tax your brain for an adequate interpretation. You are not alone in the 'new ranks" of inexperienced IDPA SOs. You are among many Koolaid Drinkers who fail to see the contradictory Rules.

Pick the ones ya' like and enforce those. Forget the others. They seem... at least to you... too confusing to contemplate. But, have fun!

Edited August 3, 2014 by GOF

[BillR1]

2008 (0r maybe 2007 or 2009... I forget which of the several National Championships I shot) but blue barrels were placed around targets at 30+ yards from the firing position. You didn't need to "pie those" as cover... just hit the targets. I had JHP rounds for my SSR gun. One dinged a barrel, went through and was scored on the target. The barrels were not designated as hard cover... therefore they were soft cover and shoot throughs counted.

Yes... I have seen blue barrels used as soft cover. And, at a IDPA National Championship.

.

IDPA has apparently done many things in the PAST that they've learned from. I've seen the videos from the last few Nationals and I've seen no barrels being used as soft cover. There have also been none in the several state matches I've shot in around the country over the years. That seems like a highly dangerous set-up, since rounds striking the sides can and often do exit the barrel far from the intended point.

Barrels are props, and rounds striking props before the targets do not count for score. I've posted the rule explaining this seemingly difficult concept for you twice now. Change is so hard for some people...

[evilduckhunter]

I don't think you should ever try to use a barrel as hard cover. Their is no need for it. If a MD does insist on using barrels as hard cover then the part of the target that is behind the barrel should be painted black. This way it eliminates the arguments about did the bullet pass through the barrel. That brings up another point if the target is painted part black for hard cover then the barrel is not needed anyway unless you are hiding the target from other shooting positions. As a MD don't put yours SO's in a bad spot with having them try and figure out if a round passed through a barrel or not. We dealt with this issue at a major this year and it was not fun to say the least.

[BillR1]

Barrels as soft cover at any match is a truly BAD idea, but much worse at a big match. Unless the barrel is replaced often, you have the issue of bullet deflection changing over the course of the match. With a few holes in a certain area, the bullet MIGHT go through the barrel straight. What happens with that same area of plastic gets 100 holes in it? 200 holes? Those numbers are not out of the question if the barrel is supposedly used as soft cover and a designed shoot-through.

Edited August 4, 2014 by BillR1

[GOF]

BillR1...Hmmmm? Seems that in a direct contradiction of your early emphatic statements that barrels CAN'T possibly be soft cover... you now admit that they CAN. Although I do have to agree that the practice is a bad idea.

But, bad idea or not it does happen and shooters can be faced with it. That's one reason I carry a few JHPs with me .

[BillR1]

My original point is still valid. A round passing through a barrel and striking a target is easy to score...down 5. The rulebook is clear on this one, as I posted.

[GOF]

No. The Rule Book is not clear. One Rule says no and one Rule says yes. And other Rules just muddy the waters. It creates the inconsistent scoring where one SO/MD chooses to enforce their interpretation of one particular Rule, while others may choose to enforce a different interpretation or enforce another Rule.

Therein lies the MAJOR problem with the NRB. Pick the 'Tribe' you want to be in.

[BillR1]

GOF- You said earlier:

It's not hard to see the intent. It is hard to accurately interpret the Rules implementing that intent.

I agree with this that the intent of most of the rule book is pretty clear. Are there spots that a "range-lawyer" could twist around and create the illusion of inconsistency in the rule book? Sure, but that's likely the case in any rule book. I honestly think people are LOOKING for things like this because they've decided IDPA no longer works for them and they are trying to justify their views and actions. That of course is my own opinion. The rulebook clearly states that it's not intended to cover every situation and possible question. It really shouldn't HAVE to if the intent is clear. Again, my opinion...

[GOF]

IDPA is a game. A game has to have Rules. The Rules should be written clearly enough to mean the same thing to any official in any State, and in any other Country where the game is played. 'Intent' only goes so far. Clear & concisely written Rules go farther. The NRB does not provide those.

There are those who vigorously defend the contradictory & and imprecisely written Rules simply because it is IDPA. They see no further than that, while they have another sip of Kool Aid and kiss the ring.... and say "Well... the INTENT IS CLEAR".

Have another sip of Kool Aid... you'll feel better.

[BillR1]

No kool-aid needed here. Sorry IDPA didn't work out for you. Most of us enjoy it thoroughly.

Safe shooting.

[motosapiens]

I thought the idea was to use full power ammo, not competition only ammo.

What a joke. If that were true, they wouldn't be specifically ignoring the most popular LE cartridge (40 s&w).

[GOF]

BillR1....There ya go again... with another unsupportable 'straw man' statement ..."most of us enjoy it thoroughly". I'm sure some do. But, as is apparent by the exodus of experienced SO after the NRB, not all do. It is truly amazing how you seem to make those blanket statements in the face of actual facts.

As for "not working out for me"... another unsupported conjecture. I have trophies from the 2011 Worlds, 2008 Nationals (of the 3 Nationals that I shot), half a dozen State Championships, and a half dozen Sanctioned Matches across the Southeast. I still shoot some local club IDPA matches with friends. But, I am done spending upwards of $800-$1000 to travel to a major Sanctioned Match only to get screwed by the inconsistent application of the NRB... due to the fact that it is inconsistently written.

Berryville can fix that with a cohesive and properly written Rule Book. They have just chosen not to. And, folks like you seem to keep sipping the Kool Aid.

Edited August 4, 2014 by GOF

[BillR1]

We've discussed this one before. By nearly all accounts, IDPA is growing rapidly. Some folks are leaving and many more are taking their place. IDPA has apparently changed. For most of us, the change is not a big deal. For others, the change is not welcomed and they've decided not to continue to support the sport. That happens. It's nice there are other choices for those folks.

The rule book isn't perfect, but I've never seen one that is in any sport. The issues with it are nowhere NEAR to the point that most of us will stop shooting IDPA.

[GOF]

It depends upon what you mean by "all accounts". (Another of your Straw Men?) There are some VERY interesting figures that RickL put out on the IDPA Forum... that came directly from IDPA HQ... that show the number of Classified IDPA shooters could be as low as 10,000. It has been brought to your attention before, but you have chosen to ignore it.

"By all accounts"? According to the Rules, a shooter must shoot a Classifier annually. That does sound like a very small number of IDPA shooters actually following the Rules that you seem to love so much. Now... I understand that IDPA HQ is doing the "Ra-Ra-Ra we're growing at a phenomenal pace!"... but there own figures seem to belie that.

Just a thought.

[BillR1]

It depends upon what you mean by "all accounts". (Another of your Straw Men?) There are some VERY interesting figures that RickL put out on the IDPA Forum... that came directly from IDPA HQ... that show the number of Classified IDPA shooters could be as low as 10,000. It has been brought to your attention before, but you have chosen to ignore it.

"By all accounts"? According to the Rules, a shooter must shoot a Classifier annually. That does sound like a very small number of IDPA shooters actually following the Rules that you seem to love so much. Now... I understand that IDPA HQ is doing the "Ra-Ra-Ra we're growing at a phenomenal pace!"... but there own figures seem to belie that.

.

Anything I post that states that membership numbers are up is going to be dismissed by you as "unreliable". It's a silly game we seem to be playing, and it's really pointless. Your mind is made up that IDPA is doing very little right since the NRB, and my opinion is otherwise. That's fine with me. There is room for both points of view and for both sports. Shoot and support the ones you like, and I'll do the same.

I'll be shooting 4 more IDPA sanctioned matches in 3 different states before the year is out, so it's easy to see where my dollars are going. Have fun with whatever game you shoot in.

[GOF]

And, you have fun too! That is the point of shooting competitive pistol matches. Hopefully all the SOs you encounter during your next IDPA Sanctioned Matches will share the same views on the NRB and various Rules calls that you do,

I would hate to think that the time and dollars you will have invested in attending those matches would be tarnished by someone who doesn't share your opinion of the current Rules.

[BillR1]

I hope so too, But if not, THAT'S OK! Someone else is the SO while I'm shooting, and THEIR interpretation of the rules is what counts at that time. My opinion of the rule is really irrelevant, regardless of how much money I spent on the match. I'm going to trust people to do their best. If someone makes a mistake, that's just life. It's not like anyone is getting rich doing this stuff.

[GOF]

BillR1... are you kidding me?!! THEIR INTERPRETATION of the Rules at the time is just fine with you? Even though you spent good money to travel to that match? How about expecting a uniform application of well-written Rules across the board... the Country... Internationally ? Why should you travel several hundred miles and wonder what the Rules are when you get there, and leave the comfort of "Your Tribe"?

"My opinion of the Rules is really irrelevant"??? Did you actually say that? Well... yes you did. It's right in the post above. What does that say about how concerned you are with the Rules.

This is supposed to be an International competitive shooting organization and you just stated ( paraphrasing) that firm Rules don't count... and you as a competitor trying to learn the Rules doesn't count... because you'll accept whatever 'interpretation' of the Rules exists at whatever match you're at, and whatever "Tribe" is hosting it?

Man... you are truly a Kool Aid sipper. And, thank you, because you just confirmed every point I have made about "Kool Aid sippers" and their blind acceptance of a Rule Book that is so badly written as to be a joke.

Serious competitor learn the concrete Rules and know what they can and can't do. You just go ahead and muddle through and let whatever newly-appointed Novice/MM SO call whatever he/she feels, regardless of the Rules. The serious competitors who actually learn and follow the Rules will likely be elsewhere.

Have another sip of Kool Aid..... you just told me everything I need to know about you. I'm done with this discussion.

Edited August 4, 2014 by GOF

[BillR1]

You enjoy your games. I like mine a bit less stressful! LOL!!

You're right..I TRUST people to follow the rulebook. If the SO makes a mistake (in my opinion!), then I'll talk to him/her after the match and we'll have a beverage and maybe we'll both learn something. But I'm SURE not going to get all butt-hurt because someone didn't make the exact ruling I would've made. No one is perfect, even those with such vast experience as yourself.

Try and relax at matches...you may find you'll enjoy them more!