If this question was ever answered in the equipment forum or deferred I couldn't find it, so decided to get an official answer, whether it be a temporary one or a deferment.
This pistol is new on the market, but we have shooters that are beginning to shoot it. We have 2 major matches in our state alone in the next 5 weeks. I'm sure the calendar is pretty full around the country.
Absent guidance from HQ, MDs are left to make a decision that may not be consistent. It would be better to have a singe ruling from the top that might be temporary rather than to have inconsistent rulings at the ground level.
Thanks.
1. Rule description with page number or addendum page number:
SSP vs. ESP, pages 19 through 22.
2. Description of the problem:
No clear information to determine action type for the FNS 9. Their online information contradicts itself as to whether it is DA
or SA.
or SA.
3. Your suggestion for a solution:
To keep things consistent, HQ should place the FNS 9 in ESP or SSP, even if there is some chance of a rule change during the rewrite.
To keep things consistent, HQ should place the FNS 9 in ESP or SSP, even if there is some chance of a rule change during the rewrite.
4. Justification
why this is so pressing it requires the Tiger Teams interrupt the rule
book revision process and issue a clarification immediately:
This pistol is new on the market, but we have shooters that are beginning to shoot it. We have 2 major matches in our state alone in the next 5 weeks. I'm sure the calendar is pretty full around the country.
Absent guidance from HQ, MDs are left to make a decision that may not be consistent. It would be better to have a singe ruling from the top that might be temporary rather than to have inconsistent rulings at the ground level.
Thanks.
