Maybe The Best Ad Of The Political Season So Far…
I don't see any change here, do you?
(H/T to The Hobo Brasser, who sez: "He's the Green Guy .. he recycles".
How's that "hope and change" thingie working for you so far?
It's probably "unfair" to compare the promises of politicians from their first campaign to the next.
Fun ... but in no sense "Civilized".
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
DNF
IPSC History: DNF
"Oh no, not the Dreaded DNF?"
If you have been indoctrinated into The Cult of IPSC for less than ten years, then you are probably unfamiliar with which I choose to call "The Dark Ages of IPSC".
HISTORY OF IPSC:
Initially, the burgeoning sport was called "Combat Pistol", and yes .. it was an unofficial meeting of military and law-enforcement professionals, along with aficionados, hangers on and wanna be's; plus some individuals who just wanted to hone their self-defense handgun skills OR ... people who thought that there was nothing wrong with playing with guns, but there should be some kind of organization which could codify rules, establish a safe environment, and establish a competition environment where they could compare their expertise with others with the same (or similar) attitude toward excellence in pistolry.
The movement attracted a lot of people who .... like me .. had a pistol, but really weren't sure how good they were compared to other people. My introduction in 1983 soon convinced me that I wasn't as good as I thought I was. Not by a long shot!
The 'movement' was initiated by people who had excellent skill sets. They were safe, proficient, accurate, fast, experienced, bold shooters.
What they were NOT was .. they were not people who did a really good job of writing a rule book. (This is a "yuppie" skill ... and not important .. because they all know what they knew, and it was all dreadfully informal.)
Eventually, there were so many yuppies (such as myself) involved in the sport, someone had to take a hard look at the rules and ensure that they were clear, concise, complete, and ... gee .. reasonable? Even to people who didn't have the experience of real-life gunfights and the exigencies there-of?
Maybe, we aren't talking about training to shoot people. Maybe we're just learning to play a game!
There was a period when the hard-core gunzines (shooting-related magazines) ran such articles as:
"IPSC will teach you to get killed in a gunfight!"
*(I haven't researched this, but for a long time it was part of the evolving IPSC lore; today .. who cares? Since 1998 my mission was to teach this one simple lesson: "It's a GAME, Folks!". Since then, the Founding Father of IPSC ... Col. Jeff Cooper .. disavowed any association with IPSC because he was totally disgusted with what has become "a sport". To him, it was and would always remain a means to hone gun-handling skills, based on Speed Power and Accuracy, which would help "Brave Men Who Protect You While You Sleep" to accomplish their mission. For the rest of us ... "It's A GAME, Folks!")*
And maybe it will get you killed if you allow yourself to enter into a gun-fight using the skill-set you learned in your "Introduction to USPSA" class. Or .. maybe it will teach you the gun-handling skills you need to not shoot each other when you're at the range. Maybe it will provide you with incentive to use your handgun safely. Maybe it will save your life when the Bad Guys bust into your house and "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Always Just A Minute Away". I don't know, I don't care, but I do love to shoot in benign competition against people with the same skill sets, and see how I measure up. It's like playing a video game, except you're using real guns and shooting real bullets.
The problem is; you need Rules of Competition, and they need to be clear, consistent, mutually supportive, rational, reasonable, and justifiable.
The early rule books were NOT well written. The rules were vague, inconsistent, often contradictory, frequently arbitrary, and usually not supported by an identifiable rationale.
Well, hell. These guys weren't rule-writers; they were rule-enforcers. THEY knew what they meant, and they often used a sort of short-hand language which made complete sense to them, and why did they need to conform to the mind-set of a bunch of freaking Hippy-loser Yuppies?
Except, of course, that the sport had been taken over by hippies and yuppies like me, and we really wanted to rules to make sense.
On the other hand, IPSC had gone World-Wide, and nations whose governments didn't even want their citizens to HAVE handguns .... let alone practice with them ...were demanding that the Rule Books include provisions which accommodated the considerations which drove their national political strategies.
First Hippies and Yuppies, and now Political Correctness? Yuck!
----
Moving on from Politics to Reality ... IPSC and USPSA ... and then both entities separate but equal .. evolved the Rules of Competition to accommodate National Culture. And Hippies and Yuppies. And clove to "Combat Pistol" priorities, until Colonel Jeff Cooper threw up his hands in disgust, quit IPSC, and retired to his *(profitable!)* Raven Training. He washed his hands of us, and we profited.
One signifier of the evolution of Practical Pistol Competition was the DNF Rule.
1983
As originally codified (See Footnote 1), if you didn't complete the course of fire, that meant that you had met the bad guys in a dark alley and you had run away. That is, you were insufficiently combative. In competitive terms, they took the very worst score on that stage, magnified it, and you were the loser by 'that much' because you didn't complete the Course of Fire .. the "stage". That was the competitive thought as of 1983,
This (competitive) situation was designated as DNF ... "Did Not Finish". That is to say, because of lost of equipment or ammunition, or the malfunction of your firearm, you were unable to continue the militant confrontation consequently abandoned the Field of Combat.
_____
1992
Later, and still entirely in keeping with the concept of Combat Pistolry (and during a period when we should have entirely acceded to the demands of the Hippies and the Yuppies, like me ...), the authors of the rule books (See Footnote 2) decided that .. gee, if you ran out of ammunition, or your handgun was jammed or otherwise malfunctioned .. you didn't just lose the fight, you were DEAD! Your score was not just 'the worst' .. it was ZERO! You were not allowed to abandon the Field of Conflict ... you lost. Definitively!
That was the the competitive thought of 1992.
____
1995
Still later, in 1995 (See Footnote 3), if you were 'assigned' a DNF, you score was still zero. But the explanation was curiously less precise, less definitive, and less easy to intuitively understand the reasoning behind the penalty .... even though you (we) were already conditioned to accept that we had been engaged in a gunfight and were rendered a functional non-combatant in what we already understood to be a 'combat' situation.
My reading on this is that the rule book update was sloppily applied; the authors didn't know what they were doing, or why they were doing it, but they knew the rules and they were determined to proffer that because ...
... because we were all so eager to continue The Sport, we didn't much care what the rules were, we just wanted to be able to go shooting on the occasional Saturday, No .. we wanted to be ALLOWED to go shooting. We were not very critical .. until it was WE who were DNF'd, and eventually we realized that we didn't really understand the rationale behind the (entirely arbitrary) judgement.
Then ... we became active members, and we demanded a voice. We wanted to know WHY this competition was still being processed as COMBAT.
"It's a GAME, Folks!"
2000 ...
"The Toilet Paper Ruleboook", and The End of Combat Shooting
In a surprising and revelatory move, IPSC/USPSA decided suddenly in 2000 to abandon (at least partially) rules which pertained to Combat Shooting ... and finally recognize that this was COMPETITION and not COMBAT!
Penalties would hereafter pertain to competition. We're not shooting at "people". dammit! We're not even shooting at "targets shaped like people"! We're just shooting at cardboard targets, and steel targets, and we have CLEARLY defined that all the rules of competition are based on competitive concepts.
Did your pistol go south for the winter? Did you fail to bring enough ammunition to engage all targets? Okay. You didn't engage some targets? We have rules to cover that ... Failure to Engage. No problem.
The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) encourage that dramatic change of concept in 2003 by issuing a 'provisional' Rule Book Version which was so under-the-covers that it didn't even have a "heavy-duty-cover-in-color" .. instead, the cover was of the same flimsy coarse-fiber paper as its contents. (See Footnote 4).
Immediately (and appropriately) designated "The Toilet Paper Rule Book", the USPSA membership responded with very few criticisms. What we saw would tentatively legitimize a number of "common sense" changes to the rules; the most significant changes were that all references, no matter how inconsequential, to "Combat Pistol", had been changed, or deleted.
Specifically, the DNF rule and any allusions to the "You stopped fighting; you died" .. were gone.
Instead, if a competitor was unable to complete the course of fire, he was merely penalized " ... all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties...".
This changed the penalty structure from a dramatic "zero" on the stage .. or worse .. to a simple administrative ruling which gave credit to scoring which had already been achieved. Or, to put it in context ... you stopped competing, but you may have stopped because of reasons which WE (USPSA) won't attempt to interpret in terms of Combat. And you're not fighting ... you're just competing!
This 'temporary' (or "Provisional') rule book change was so well received .. which is to say, received with so little rancor from even the most aggressive members of USPSA .. that it was later (see Footnote 5) reitterated with only minor revisions in 2001 as USPSA R%ull Book, 14th Edition ("The Red Book").
From this point on, USPSA (and by extension, IPSC) became a 'competition', not 'Combat Pistolry'.
___________________________________________________
Earlier, in 1997, IPSC (via IPSC GREECE) applied to the International Olympics Committee (IOC) for establishment as a "Demonstration sport" to subsequent Olympics competition. The IOC rejected it with a great deal of judgmental prejudice, saying in part that they would not now, nor would they every accept as part of the Olympics a sport which "... is not a sport, but merely a hobby".
(It's a disappointment that this data is primarily available from an anti-gun website; should we as IPSC members not be more willing to archive our disappointments as well as our successes?)
The road to legitimacy has been long, arduous, and fraught with failures. We are no longer a COMBAT TRAINING activity, and that is good. Well, at least my my personal point of view. We are summarily rejected from legitimacy by no less than the IOC. I think the suggestion was presented too soon for the IOC to see that our character has changed, and no one is more bitter about the ill-timed presentation than am I.
We are castigated for our COMBAT roots, with no recognition that we have changed. We are percieved as aggressors, rather than mere competitors. There are other shooting sports in the Olympics; in fact, most of the sports epitomized in the Olympics are based upon combat (Javelin? Biathalon? Even running .. remember that Marathon was in celebration of a Military Victory!)
So, we are not allowed to celebrate our advancement before the world.
But still .. we no longer need to contend with the Dreaded DNF. And in our own small insulated world, that is a major triumph.
We don't lose; we don't die. We are just " penalized " ... all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties...".
I can live with that.
For me, it's good enough.
__________________________________________________________
FOOTNOTES:
__________________________________________________________
Footnote 1:
Rule Book: "The International Shooting Confederation and The United States Region of IPSC"
1st Edition; May, 1983
"The Original Rule Book"
(Page 18)
__________________________________________
Footnote 2:
Practical Shooting Handbook
6th Edition April 1992 (USPSA)
"The Yellow Book"
Footnote 3:
Practical Shooting Handbook
7th Edition, 1995
"The Blue Book"
(Note 1: This was the rule-book currently available when I took my original Range Officer Certification course in 1997. At that time, "revisions" to previous rule-book versions were marked by the note REV in the margin; however, a new version had been approved at that date even though it had not yet been published. During the class, the NROI [National Range Officer Institute] instructor identified the changes and directed us to cross out deleted text, and write in new or amended text.Deleted text is identified like this; added/amended text is identified like this.)
(Note 2: At this time, early attempts to designate rules which were unique to USPSA, but not part of the IPSC rules, were designated as US **.** rule number. The IPSC rules were cited first in the rule book; then the US rule version was cited.
'(Note 1: This was the rule-book currently available when I took my original Range Officer Certification course in 1997. At _____________________________________
Footnote 4:
USPSA RULE Book
14th Edition, 2000
"The Toilet Paper Book"
(Page 22)
5.7.3
_____________________________________
Footnote 5:
USPSA Rule Book
14th Edition,2001
("The Red Book")
(Page 46)
5.7.3
"Oh no, not the Dreaded DNF?"
If you have been indoctrinated into The Cult of IPSC for less than ten years, then you are probably unfamiliar with which I choose to call "The Dark Ages of IPSC".
HISTORY OF IPSC:
Initially, the burgeoning sport was called "Combat Pistol", and yes .. it was an unofficial meeting of military and law-enforcement professionals, along with aficionados, hangers on and wanna be's; plus some individuals who just wanted to hone their self-defense handgun skills OR ... people who thought that there was nothing wrong with playing with guns, but there should be some kind of organization which could codify rules, establish a safe environment, and establish a competition environment where they could compare their expertise with others with the same (or similar) attitude toward excellence in pistolry.
The movement attracted a lot of people who .... like me .. had a pistol, but really weren't sure how good they were compared to other people. My introduction in 1983 soon convinced me that I wasn't as good as I thought I was. Not by a long shot!
The 'movement' was initiated by people who had excellent skill sets. They were safe, proficient, accurate, fast, experienced, bold shooters.
What they were NOT was .. they were not people who did a really good job of writing a rule book. (This is a "yuppie" skill ... and not important .. because they all know what they knew, and it was all dreadfully informal.)
Eventually, there were so many yuppies (such as myself) involved in the sport, someone had to take a hard look at the rules and ensure that they were clear, concise, complete, and ... gee .. reasonable? Even to people who didn't have the experience of real-life gunfights and the exigencies there-of?
Maybe, we aren't talking about training to shoot people. Maybe we're just learning to play a game!
There was a period when the hard-core gunzines (shooting-related magazines) ran such articles as:
"IPSC will teach you to get killed in a gunfight!"
*(I haven't researched this, but for a long time it was part of the evolving IPSC lore; today .. who cares? Since 1998 my mission was to teach this one simple lesson: "It's a GAME, Folks!". Since then, the Founding Father of IPSC ... Col. Jeff Cooper .. disavowed any association with IPSC because he was totally disgusted with what has become "a sport". To him, it was and would always remain a means to hone gun-handling skills, based on Speed Power and Accuracy, which would help "Brave Men Who Protect You While You Sleep" to accomplish their mission. For the rest of us ... "It's A GAME, Folks!")*
And maybe it will get you killed if you allow yourself to enter into a gun-fight using the skill-set you learned in your "Introduction to USPSA" class. Or .. maybe it will teach you the gun-handling skills you need to not shoot each other when you're at the range. Maybe it will provide you with incentive to use your handgun safely. Maybe it will save your life when the Bad Guys bust into your house and "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Always Just A Minute Away". I don't know, I don't care, but I do love to shoot in benign competition against people with the same skill sets, and see how I measure up. It's like playing a video game, except you're using real guns and shooting real bullets.
The problem is; you need Rules of Competition, and they need to be clear, consistent, mutually supportive, rational, reasonable, and justifiable.
The early rule books were NOT well written. The rules were vague, inconsistent, often contradictory, frequently arbitrary, and usually not supported by an identifiable rationale.
Well, hell. These guys weren't rule-writers; they were rule-enforcers. THEY knew what they meant, and they often used a sort of short-hand language which made complete sense to them, and why did they need to conform to the mind-set of a bunch of freaking Hippy-loser Yuppies?
Except, of course, that the sport had been taken over by hippies and yuppies like me, and we really wanted to rules to make sense.
On the other hand, IPSC had gone World-Wide, and nations whose governments didn't even want their citizens to HAVE handguns .... let alone practice with them ...were demanding that the Rule Books include provisions which accommodated the considerations which drove their national political strategies.
First Hippies and Yuppies, and now Political Correctness? Yuck!
----
Moving on from Politics to Reality ... IPSC and USPSA ... and then both entities separate but equal .. evolved the Rules of Competition to accommodate National Culture. And Hippies and Yuppies. And clove to "Combat Pistol" priorities, until Colonel Jeff Cooper threw up his hands in disgust, quit IPSC, and retired to his *(profitable!)* Raven Training. He washed his hands of us, and we profited.
One signifier of the evolution of Practical Pistol Competition was the DNF Rule.
1983
As originally codified (See Footnote 1), if you didn't complete the course of fire, that meant that you had met the bad guys in a dark alley and you had run away. That is, you were insufficiently combative. In competitive terms, they took the very worst score on that stage, magnified it, and you were the loser by 'that much' because you didn't complete the Course of Fire .. the "stage". That was the competitive thought as of 1983,
This (competitive) situation was designated as DNF ... "Did Not Finish". That is to say, because of lost of equipment or ammunition, or the malfunction of your firearm, you were unable to continue the militant confrontation consequently abandoned the Field of Combat.
_____
1992
Later, and still entirely in keeping with the concept of Combat Pistolry (and during a period when we should have entirely acceded to the demands of the Hippies and the Yuppies, like me ...), the authors of the rule books (See Footnote 2) decided that .. gee, if you ran out of ammunition, or your handgun was jammed or otherwise malfunctioned .. you didn't just lose the fight, you were DEAD! Your score was not just 'the worst' .. it was ZERO! You were not allowed to abandon the Field of Conflict ... you lost. Definitively!
That was the the competitive thought of 1992.
____
1995
Still later, in 1995 (See Footnote 3), if you were 'assigned' a DNF, you score was still zero. But the explanation was curiously less precise, less definitive, and less easy to intuitively understand the reasoning behind the penalty .... even though you (we) were already conditioned to accept that we had been engaged in a gunfight and were rendered a functional non-combatant in what we already understood to be a 'combat' situation.
My reading on this is that the rule book update was sloppily applied; the authors didn't know what they were doing, or why they were doing it, but they knew the rules and they were determined to proffer that because ...
... because we were all so eager to continue The Sport, we didn't much care what the rules were, we just wanted to be able to go shooting on the occasional Saturday, No .. we wanted to be ALLOWED to go shooting. We were not very critical .. until it was WE who were DNF'd, and eventually we realized that we didn't really understand the rationale behind the (entirely arbitrary) judgement.
Then ... we became active members, and we demanded a voice. We wanted to know WHY this competition was still being processed as COMBAT.
"It's a GAME, Folks!"
2000 ...
"The Toilet Paper Ruleboook", and The End of Combat Shooting
In a surprising and revelatory move, IPSC/USPSA decided suddenly in 2000 to abandon (at least partially) rules which pertained to Combat Shooting ... and finally recognize that this was COMPETITION and not COMBAT!
Penalties would hereafter pertain to competition. We're not shooting at "people". dammit! We're not even shooting at "targets shaped like people"! We're just shooting at cardboard targets, and steel targets, and we have CLEARLY defined that all the rules of competition are based on competitive concepts.
Did your pistol go south for the winter? Did you fail to bring enough ammunition to engage all targets? Okay. You didn't engage some targets? We have rules to cover that ... Failure to Engage. No problem.
The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) encourage that dramatic change of concept in 2003 by issuing a 'provisional' Rule Book Version which was so under-the-covers that it didn't even have a "heavy-duty-cover-in-color" .. instead, the cover was of the same flimsy coarse-fiber paper as its contents. (See Footnote 4).
Immediately (and appropriately) designated "The Toilet Paper Rule Book", the USPSA membership responded with very few criticisms. What we saw would tentatively legitimize a number of "common sense" changes to the rules; the most significant changes were that all references, no matter how inconsequential, to "Combat Pistol", had been changed, or deleted.
Specifically, the DNF rule and any allusions to the "You stopped fighting; you died" .. were gone.
Instead, if a competitor was unable to complete the course of fire, he was merely penalized " ... all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties...".
This changed the penalty structure from a dramatic "zero" on the stage .. or worse .. to a simple administrative ruling which gave credit to scoring which had already been achieved. Or, to put it in context ... you stopped competing, but you may have stopped because of reasons which WE (USPSA) won't attempt to interpret in terms of Combat. And you're not fighting ... you're just competing!
This 'temporary' (or "Provisional') rule book change was so well received .. which is to say, received with so little rancor from even the most aggressive members of USPSA .. that it was later (see Footnote 5) reitterated with only minor revisions in 2001 as USPSA R%ull Book, 14th Edition ("The Red Book").
From this point on, USPSA (and by extension, IPSC) became a 'competition', not 'Combat Pistolry'.
___________________________________________________
Earlier, in 1997, IPSC (via IPSC GREECE) applied to the International Olympics Committee (IOC) for establishment as a "Demonstration sport" to subsequent Olympics competition. The IOC rejected it with a great deal of judgmental prejudice, saying in part that they would not now, nor would they every accept as part of the Olympics a sport which "... is not a sport, but merely a hobby".
(It's a disappointment that this data is primarily available from an anti-gun website; should we as IPSC members not be more willing to archive our disappointments as well as our successes?)
The road to legitimacy has been long, arduous, and fraught with failures. We are no longer a COMBAT TRAINING activity, and that is good. Well, at least my my personal point of view. We are summarily rejected from legitimacy by no less than the IOC. I think the suggestion was presented too soon for the IOC to see that our character has changed, and no one is more bitter about the ill-timed presentation than am I.
We are castigated for our COMBAT roots, with no recognition that we have changed. We are percieved as aggressors, rather than mere competitors. There are other shooting sports in the Olympics; in fact, most of the sports epitomized in the Olympics are based upon combat (Javelin? Biathalon? Even running .. remember that Marathon was in celebration of a Military Victory!)
So, we are not allowed to celebrate our advancement before the world.
But still .. we no longer need to contend with the Dreaded DNF. And in our own small insulated world, that is a major triumph.
We don't lose; we don't die. We are just " penalized " ... all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties...".
I can live with that.
For me, it's good enough.
__________________________________________________________
FOOTNOTES:
__________________________________________________________
Footnote 1:
Rule Book: "The International Shooting Confederation and The United States Region of IPSC"
1st Edition; May, 1983
"The Original Rule Book"
(Page 18)
2.8 Malfunctions - in the event of a malfunction, the normal procedure will be for the shooter to rectify the situation, keeping the muzzle pointing down range, and carry on with the event. If he is unable to do so, he will stand fast, lower the weapon to waist height and lock onto the target. He will then reaise his free hand to signal the RO/CRO to stop the clock, and proceed to examine the weapon. In the event that a pistol cannot be unloaded due to a broken or failed mechanism, the contest directore must be informed and he will take such action as he thinks best and safest. In no case shall a contestant leave the firing line in the possession of a loaded pistol.(Emphasis in the original)
2.8.1 When, due to breakdown or loss of personal equipment or injury, a competitor is unable to complete or wishes to terminate a course of fire, he will raise his free hand and call "TIME".
The competitor's target score will stand as shot minus applicable penalties and he will be awarded an elapsed time equal to the slowest time recorded on that course plus five seconds.
The penalty may also be stated in the course of fire for not completing a stage or course.
__________________________________________
Footnote 2:
Practical Shooting Handbook
6th Edition April 1992 (USPSA)
"The Yellow Book"
This book contains:
The USPSA Member's Handbook'USPSA Pistol Regulations
The most current I.P.S.C Rules
Combined I.P.S.C Rifle & Shotgun Rules
Copyright 1992 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.
Sedro Woolley, Wa 98284
11:09 DID NOT FINISH (DNF) - When a competitor is unable to complete a course of fire for whatever reason, other than range equipment failure, his score will be recorded as zero for that stage. (See 8.06, 8.08) (Page 54-55)
8.06 MALFUNCTIONS - In the event of a malfunction, the normal procedure will be for the competitor to rectify the situation, always keeping the muzzle pointing downrange, and carry on with the stage. If he is unable to do so, he will stand fast, lower the handgun safely pointed down range and signal by raising his free hand. The Range Officer will stop the clock and proceed to examine the handgun. See 11.09 (page 45)
_____________________________________
8.08 UNABLE TO FINISH COURSE - When, due to a breakdown or loss of personal equipment or injury, a competitor is unable to complete a course or wishes to terminate the course of fire, he will raise his free hand and call TIME. See 11.09 (page 45)
Footnote 3:
Practical Shooting Handbook
7th Edition, 1995
"The Blue Book"
Including:
USPSA Member's Handbook
7th Edition USPSA Rules
12the Edition IPSC Rules
11th Edition USPSA Rifle &
Shotgun Rules
Copyright 1995 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.
Sedro Woolley WA 98284
(Note 1: This was the rule-book currently available when I took my original Range Officer Certification course in 1997. At that time, "revisions" to previous rule-book versions were marked by the note REV in the margin; however, a new version had been approved at that date even though it had not yet been published. During the class, the NROI [National Range Officer Institute] instructor identified the changes and directed us to cross out deleted text, and write in new or amended text.
(Note 2: At this time, early attempts to designate rules which were unique to USPSA, but not part of the IPSC rules, were designated as US **.** rule number. The IPSC rules were cited first in the rule book; then the US rule version was cited.
11.00 PROCEDURAL ERROR - A procedural error is defined as failure to comply with the stated procedure as specified in the stage and/or match information. The penalty will be assed as minus ten points (twice the value of a single maximum scoring hit) per occurrence.
REV: US 11.00 PROCEDURAL ERRORS - Procedural errors apply to violations of stated procedures which are not otherwise covered by other specific rules. Do not apply two different penalties for the same offense ......
[Inapplicable text omitted in this footnote]
Failure to engage (shoot at) a target specified in the stage description is a procedural error. Failure to engage will always result in one procedural penalty regardless of the number of required hits on the target. Failure to engage will not result in a DNF unless the failure is due to the competitors equipment failure, loss of ammo, etc. (See rules 8.08 and 11.09)Failure to successfully engage a stop target results in a DNF.(page 52)
REV 8.08 - UNABLE TO FINISH COURSE - When, due to a breakdown or loss of personal equipment or injury, a competitor is unable to complete a course and wishes to terminate the course of fire, he may raise his free hand. His score will be recorded as zero for that stage. (page 42)
'(Note 1: This was the rule-book currently available when I took my original Range Officer Certification course in 1997. At _____________________________________
Footnote 4:
USPSA RULE Book
14th Edition, 2000
"The Toilet Paper Book"
(Page 22)
5.7.3
In the event that a firearms malfunction cannot be corrected by the competitor, the competitor shall point the firearm safely downrange and advise the Range Officer. The Range Officer shall terminate the course of fire in the normal manner. The course of fire shall be scored normally including all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties.
Copyright 2000 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.
Sedro Woolley WA 98284
_____________________________________
Footnote 5:
USPSA Rule Book
14th Edition,2001
("The Red Book")
(Page 46)
5.7.3
In the event that a firearms malfunction cannot be corrected by the competitor, the competitor shall point the firearm safely downrange and advise the Range Officer. The Range Officer shall terminate the course of fire in the normal manner. The course of fire shall be scored normally including all appropriate miss and failure to shoot at penalties.
Copyright 2001 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.
Sedro Woolley WA 98284
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)