Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Equanimous Phil

Members
  • Posts

    662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • SASS #
    108104L
  • SASS Affiliated Club
    OWSSS

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Switzerland (Europe)

Recent Profile Visitors

3,559 profile views

Equanimous Phil's Achievements

817

Reputation

  1. Maybe somehow like that? Then, you're likely to break the 170
  2. I usually make two lasagnas (one to eat instantly and one to freeze) as it takes about the same amount of time and effort as making just one. The second one I bake to about 3/4, that it gets a light color. Then I let it cool down and put it to the freezer. If I want to eat it I put it to the fridge to thaw it for several hours. Beneficial side effect: you retrieve some of the freezing energy in your fridge. When fully unfreezed I put it in the oven to bake it to full color.
  3. I only watched the movie Blazing Saddles, never the TV series, but this costume definitely portrays the character of Mongo. Imho, the 'B-' should be omited in the rule book, only saying '(any) Western movie, or Western television series'. I don't consider Blazing Saddles a B-Western movie, although Bart would almost qualify for B-Western category
  4. My 73 tells me to wear one with every spent case! And to the initial topic: I consider it a good thing if people who have plenty of money spend that money. Equanimous Phil ...who got his reasonable priced quality headgear from Crappy Cowboy Hats
  5. +1 for AMG LAB, I love mine with the OLED display! By connecting via BT to your tablet or phone you can transfer the times directly to Practiscore. You can set 5 presets and easy change between those. I use my presets as follows: Timing CAS (rather high sensitivity, no delay, no par times, ....) Timing IPSC indoors (low sensitivity, adjusted echo times, ...) Timing IPSC outdoors (mid sensitivity, ...) Life fire practice without TO (random delay, ...) Dry fire practice (extremely high sensitivity, random delay, par times, ...) If you just want to practice dry fire an app on your phone is sufficient.
  6. There's this 'semi official' manual for reloading cowboy ammo with Vihtavuori. It provides data for both powders. Worked well for my .45 Colt loads using N320. VV_Cowboy_Data.pdf
  7. Always worth a link, McCandless' holster maker listing
  8. That's why I came up with idea of maximum one P in each shooting string for sequence errors. In your example, it would still result in one P only. I guess the crux of the matter is also the magnitude of all the time penalties. I guess those values were chosen back when average stage times were quite longer. As I heard (I began CAS in 2018), the game changed a lot due to bigger and closer targets, short stroked guns, and probably a higher level of practiced skills. The game changed but the time penalties didn't and may become a mismatch? A ten second penalty seems like an eternity these days, so people don't want to even think about multiple Ps. But what if a P was only a 5 second penalty? (While a miss could be 3 seconds, MSV still 10 seconds, and SOG still 30 sec)
  9. Yes, SOG. But what if the shooter's answer to the TO's 'why' was different, kind like: 'I completely forget the sequence and once upon a time a TO told me I could dump the rest on one target. When I got the P, I was very stressed and sweat was suddenly running in my palms and for safety reasons I had shoot two-handed'. Would that still be an SOG without the provable intention to gain andvantage? Agree, the SOG issue is of very low priority and it's more important to address things that are of more impact to the game like bad spotter or TO calls. But someone came up with the SOG topic and it seems that such incidents are handled inconsistently. The SHB has been and will be revised all the time as it's a continuous improvement process to allow a safest and fairest game possible (knowing that it never will be completely fair and safe). I think every rule change that facilitates some rule consistency is enough benefit. The current situation where you have to ask the shooter why s/he acted like that is just not satisfying, so I posted an approach that came to my mind. But I'm sure there are other and probably better solutions, such as rewording the SOG. And while it's very unlikely (but still possible) to win your category with a P on your score sheet, it still matters, imho. There are shooters who are happier than the winner when their Alias is not on the very bottom of the score board. Btw, my goal is not that are more P applied. Rather, shooters avoid Ps because of unmistakable rules instead of 'gaming' and provoking discussions.
  10. I estimate that there are a couple of infractions that occur not very often which are already covered in the SHB. Shouldn't be the decision criteria, imho.
  11. I fully second Creeker's statement. There needs to be an objective (as possible) call for every action without hearing the shooter's story afterwards. I understand the hesitation to assign multiple Ps on one stage. But what about only one possble P per shooting string caused by error in shooting sequence? If your first pistol shot hits the wrong target by all means dump the rest on the same target and get one P. But if you do it two-handed while supposed to shoot one-handend get a second P. If you then don't follow the rifle shooting sweep get your third P etc. Imho, this would provide a lot more objectivity and would prevent the discussions above. It would also be easier and clear for every shooter because s/he knows what's allowed after getting a P and how to proceed without getting an SOG.
  12. Yes, according commonsense, that could and maybe should be viewed as 'intentional' and result in a SOG, but as only the shooter KNOWS his/her intentions the shooter's statement is the only basis for a conviction. Brain fades can happen everytime you get a P. It's rather unlikely that one wins a category when earned a P, but nevertheless it's kind of frustrating for every shooter ranked below.
  13. I guess in every other sport the referee would get a lot of laughter if (s)he'd ask players who commited unsportslike behaviour if they've done it willfully or not and if they would prefer to get away with it. In the scenario above, shooter A probably just wasn't aware that his answer will get him an SOG. So, next time shooter A's answer might also be "oh..., just brain fade, completely lost track". A lot of rules in every rule book are originated by just a few participants who want to outsmart the game. Offering loopholes to those black sheep (such as inluding intent) doesn't help the game.
  14. Just a thought: product placement ?? BTW
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.