Nik Habicht Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Nik, I think we are saying the same thing, in different ways. The switch back would be a no go in my opinion too. I think we agree on how to handle the situation..... Where we differ is that you appear to be in favor of deleting the rule -- and I'm a little more conservative and want to make sure we won't be missing anything if we toss it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJH Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 You are right also in that I think that rule is unneeded and could lead to a subjective ruling. I think subjective rulings are the domain of IDPA and are better left there:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Every ruling is subjective -- if it were objective it could be measured...... I share your concern -- I want consistency across the board -- I just want to make sure that we don't open a bigger can of worms than the current one..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 I think that 5.1.7.2 should be eliminated myself, as it could lead to some subjectivity. As long as the gun meets division requirements, any advantage perceived is going to be by nature subjective. One RM might think a STI is an advantage over a glock in limited (I would agree) but tell that to Vogel. Common sense dictates that people will start a match shooting their "best" (for them) gun and any substitute would automatically be a competitive disadvantage. No, 5.1.7.2 should be retained. Part of its purpose is to keep people from switching back, i.e. picking the appropriate golf club for the stage...... And there are additional rules in the book that give the RM the authority to rule on whether competitor equipment is legal for the division selected.... I've yet to hear of a call where a substitute handgun that met division criteria was not allowed at a major match.... I was at a L2 match where a shooter was told his backup had to be the exact same make and model. He wasn't able to finish the match, because he couldn't find a backup that met the RM's requirements. This is a RM problem, not a rules problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 I think that 5.1.7.2 should be eliminated myself, as it could lead to some subjectivity. As long as the gun meets division requirements, any advantage perceived is going to be by nature subjective. One RM might think a STI is an advantage over a glock in limited (I would agree) but tell that to Vogel. Common sense dictates that people will start a match shooting their "best" (for them) gun and any substitute would automatically be a competitive disadvantage.No, 5.1.7.2 should be retained. Part of its purpose is to keep people from switching back, i.e. picking the appropriate golf club for the stage......And there are additional rules in the book that give the RM the authority to rule on whether competitor equipment is legal for the division selected.... I've yet to hear of a call where a substitute handgun that met division criteria was not allowed at a major match.... I was at a L2 match where a shooter was told his backup had to be the exact same make and model. He wasn't able to finish the match, because he couldn't find a backup that met the RM's requirements. This is a RM problem, not a rules problem. It is also a shooter problem that they don't have a clue when they are being told BS information. Immediate response should have been show me that rule in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 This year I switched from my Open gun to someone's Limited gun when I ran out of ammo and just wanted to finish the match. RM first said no, then I said what? Don't worry I'll shoot the Limited gun slower in Open and it meets Open gun requirements too. Oh and my class is the same too. Now I think his brain misfired for a sec and thought I was going the other way. That's a no no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJH Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Sperman's post is the exact reason I think the 5.1.7.2 should be eliminated. I have also read on these forums about an RM would not let a guy switch from a glock to a 2011 when the glock broke because the RM perceived the 2011 to be an advantage. I ask again, would you not let Vogel switch from his glock to a 2011? Once again, as long as it fits in the division, any advantage perceived would completely subjective. And while everything is subjective, what constitutes an "advantage" seems much more so than whether or not a gun is legal for a division, but what do I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 The problem isn't the rulebook. It's people given the title of RM that are extremely underqualified. Maybe that's a way that USPSA could do something at the local level other than give clubs match credits. Make RMI's available as RM for Level 2 and Level 3 matches and USPSA foots the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnote Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Just wondering? Are these horror stories at level 1 locals where the RM is the MD and also the only guy keeping the matches going with little help ( we have all witnessed this , it ultimately leads to burnout ) or are we talking level 2 matches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) I friend of mine got approval at a level 2 match to switch from his 5" sight tracker custom gun to my 6" gun after his extractor decided to take an early vacation. RM was G. Jones. I was slightly worried he wouldn't allow it at the time and my friend wouldn't be able to continue because the guns are different enough, but it was no problem. RM noted the serial #s and notified chrono. RM told my friend he had to show up at chrono before the end of the day and that was it. Edited December 28, 2015 by waktasz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I friend of mine got approval at a level 2 match to switch from his 5" sight tracker custom gun to my 6" gun after his extractor decided to take an early vacation. RM was G. Jones. I was slightly worried he wouldn't allow it at the time and my friend wouldn't be able to continue because the guns are different enough, but it was no problem. RM noted the serial #s and notified chrono. RM told my friend he had to show up at chrono before the end of the day and that was it. That sounds like George -- and is essentially how that should happen..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I'm in the camp that 5.1.7.2 should be removed. If the conditions of 5.1.7.1 are met, how can the substitute handgun be a competitive advantage? Whether it is borrowed, or if it is the competitor's own backup, the only perceived advantage would be in the mind of the shooter, not in physical form. After all, if it meets division requirements, doesn't it mean that it is on a level playing field with all the other guns in that division? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 As long as we retain something that prohibits switching back, or choosing guns like golf clubs -- I might be on board with that...... No shooting your lightweight blaster on the stages with huge transitions and then switching to the four pound gun for the 50 yard standards..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 As long as we retain something that prohibits switching back, or choosing guns like golf clubs -- I might be on board with that...... No shooting your lightweight blaster on the stages with huge transitions and then switching to the four pound gun for the 50 yard standards..... Agree. If the first gun is truly broken, it's not an issue. If they try to switch back, couldn't that be construed as Unsportsman like conduct, and be disqualified if they lied about the first gun being broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJH Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 5.1.7 says only can switch if gun broken, so unless there are many gun breaks, there cannot be many gun switches. (Simplified English for those that cannot grasp the fact that 5.1.7.2 is not needed to keep people from switching guns every other stage). :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Actually I believe it says "unserviceable". Much like beauty, that is in the eye of the beholder, and in this case the RM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Hypothetical situation: Day one of Nationals my $4000 2011 breaks the extractor. The only thing I can scrounge up is a glock compact to get through the rest of the day. That night, I go back to the hotel room and replace the extractor. Can I go back to the 2011 on day two even if the glock is still serviceable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJH Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 IMO no because, the Glock has now become your primary gun, and it too would have to become unserviceable to be replaced. Although I did not delve into the rule book for this answer, so not 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I think this would fall into the same category as moving equipment on the belt. While you aren't supposed to move it during the match, at the end of a multi-day match, you remove your belt and allied equipment. I would think that the next day, being a continuation of the match, with a substantial break in between stages, the repaired gun could be used again, once the RM gave his approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I think that is what most RM's would decide, but I'm not sure I can find a rule to support the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I'm going to say no. You can switch to your backup, if your primary breaks, but once you switch you stay switched, unless gun # 2 breaks..... On the other hand, if you tell me that you can get the extractor replaced overnight, but might need to shoot through a couple of stages that you'd want to skip that afternoon while you get your gun fixed -- that might happen..... Switching and switching back isn't the only solution to this particular dilemna..... 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