Thomas H

Anyone interested in getting their initial classification in one day's worth of shooting, or just shooting a number of classifiers all at once---the Eastern Nebraska Practical Shooters will be holding a Special Classifier match on Sunday, May 2nd at the Eastern Nebraska Gun Club. (Directions: http://www.easternnebraskapracticalshooters.com/range/rangemap.htm'>http://www.easternnebraskapracticalshooters.com/range/rangemap.htm --the range is south and slightly west of Omaha.) Registration starts at 7:30, Match begins at 9:00am -- 5 Classifiers Match fee is $15 for the first division, and if you may shoot again for a second division for an added $5. There is a limit of two divisions. A minimum of 68 rounds will be needed, but bring more! Match Order: The shooters will be squadded and everyone shoots the first division. Shooters that choose to shoot a second division will then be re-squadded and repeat the stages. To make the match run smoother, you may not shoot both divisions the first time around. Shooters that shoot two divisions will be required to help stay and break down the stages. http://www.easternnebraskapracticalshooters.com/

JT Wrote: I appreciate the offer. It looks like there is a Super 8 in Rock Falls that still has a couple of rooms, so I'll probably go with that. (Unless there is something about Rock Falls that I should know... ) Looking forward to the match...

Just bumping this as a reminder---Area 3 this year is in Grand Island, Nebraska. Should be quite a match----the range is excellent, and Sherwyn has probably come up with some horribly devious stages...like always. (Those who were at the Great Plains Sectional last year know I'm talking about.) Website URL has changed a bit, so go take a look: http://www.grand-island.com/index.aspx?page=1007

Awhile back, JT wrote: Is there a posted rate for the match hotel? Or some sort of registration code we should be using to get said rate from the hotel? I can only see a link to the hotel's website from the A5 website, so I'm wondering if I'm missing any information I'll need to attempt to get a place to stay. (This is assuming they have any rooms left, of course.) T.

I don't think there were any cases of poor stage design for the match. Yes, you had to move sideways and backwards several times---but in no case were those movements dangerous. In the same vein, while it was occasionally possible to shoot a target past the 180 line, the shooter _always_ had a number of chances to hit the target safely. I think the stages were fine. I'm thinking the number of DQs could (in part) be blamed on the weather. In that cold, it was hard to concentrate, and in several cases, cold guns and cold hands just added up to fumbled gun-handling. In this match, for the first time ever, I did NOT have fun shooting. I was frozen and miserable, my support hand was injured, and I just couldn't handle the firearm well in that level of cold. (I have almost NO cold resistance---kind of pathetic, actually.) I didn't enjoy the match. That being said, the really important thing is this: The match itself should have been a ton of fun. The stages were nicely tricky and fast, the props were excellent, the general attitude was great---the whole thing, on any other day, would have been a blast. How it went for me had _nothing_ to do with anything the match people could control---the weather just killed it for me. However, I am planning on coming back next year, because if they plan another match at the level of this one, I want to shoot it! It'll be great. With that level of stage design, the general format of the match, the prize table setup, and just the overall level of fun---this really is a match that people should come shoot. You won't regret it. Unless the weather hates you. I'm glad Porter has decided to move the match date. I just hope the new date matches a time when I can come shoot.

I initially had a large post I was going to make regarding some of the things that have been said regarding competitors "screaming" and such, but I decided it wasn't worth it---as thus far, most of the people replying weren't there, and it won't really make any difference at this point. I'll just say two things: 1) One person's idea of "screaming" may be other people's idea of "yelling loudly as they don't have powered ear protection, just regular, and the winds were really high", and 2) The young shooter with me wondered out loud why the RM over-reacted so much to the _laughing_ (true, loudly spoken) comments by the shooter, including, in her words, why the RM "was being so rude". And yes, I was there. I had no comment to make during the entire time, so it was interesting to watch how a mistake in communication (initially, the shooter was yelling to be heard over the wind, and was being humorous over his request for a reshoot, and the RM heard "yelling at him" and demands instead of requests) turned into a argumentative confrontation as the RM pointed a finger at a competitor and yelled at them to back off, then yelled at the rest of the squad "Show me the rule in the book. Got that? Show me it in the book!" This was after several people on the squad tried to explain (yes, yelling loudly) the situation after the RM had yelled at the initial competitor. Many failures in communication, on both sides. The initial competitor wasn't meaning to be confrontational---he was just loud, and laughing as he asked for a reshoot. But after a long day fixing problems, the RM didn't hear it that way. When the RM reacted, several people on the squad (who should have stayed out of it) tried to explain, but since they all were talking loudly, the RM just heard yelling directed at him, which made the situation worse. It went downhill from there, including when a shooter showed the RM the exact rule in the book applicable to the situation, and the RM said "Yes, of course it is a re-shoot!" ---which is what everyone knew in the first place, but everyone thought the other person disagreed with. So, for those who weren't there and have no idea what happened: Shooters didn't mean to yell AT the RM. The RM reacted to handle what he thought was confrontational competitors who needed to settle down. People watching were wondering why the RM over-reacted. The RM was wondering why everyone had gone insane and was yelling at him. Everyone thought the other person was arguing over a clear rules call. And to top it all off---the RM had been initially called for a calibration that was now unnecessary as the popper had fallen over due to the wind, and when the RM got there, the shooter asked for a calibration on a fallen popper as a joke---which started the whole thing. Apparently I _am_ going to post a lot, instead of just two things. So: Indeed, shooters should stay calm. There is no reason ever to scream at an official (or _anyone_) at a match. In the same vein, range officials should stay calm. Lack of calm on everyone's part leads to poor communication, whereupon we get situations like this, in which both sides end up wondering what the hell is wrong with the other guy. Other people who are chiming in with "they should have been DQ'ed for unsportsmanlike conduct" and such---might want to wait until they know details before jumping to conclusions. [Edited to fix typos that turned a sentence into gibberish.] -TH

I'm glad to see that you are replying to requests for information---I have emailed you a number of times since June 28th when I first placed an order with you. I ordered, paid the amount you requested, and have not seen anything since. My order was placed on June 28th, and you quoted "3-weeks to delivery" (I still have the email) at that time. It is now the end of December--and you have had my payment since June 28th--and I don't have the items I paid for. The order was: 5 mag pouches Left handed shooter (so pouches on right side) Glock 9mm mags Solid loops ...and it was paid via PayPal on that day, and you accepted the money. I've emailed you on August 21st, October 2nd, and November 4th. The only time you replied was when your site went down, and I informed you of it along with my request for my ordered equipment--that was in October, and you said "Don't worry, your magazine pouches will be sent." Well, I haven't seen them yet. I do see from this thread that you have completed other orders placed months after mine, however. I would rather have not made this public, but since you don't seem to respond to emails, this seemed the only way to obtain the equipment that I've already paid for. Your quoted delivery time was 3 weeks, and it has now been almost 6 months. I've heard great things about your work, and so in spite of the horror stories about poor customer service and lies about delivery times, I decided to order from you. It wouldn't have been nearly as big of a problem had you simply been truthful up front that it would take several months to complete my order. (This is under the assumption that you will eventually complete my order.) However, since at the moment, all available information says that you took my money and aren't planning on doing anything else, I am now requesting this publicly. I note that in my previous emails to you, I copied the original set of emails where we discussed my exact order, where it should be sent, etc. So unless your computer lost its memory multiple times over the last 6 months, you should have my order information. However, just in case you don't, I will PM you with the email set in which we agreed on my order, its price, and how it should be shipped. Please ship the equipment I paid for six months ago. Note to anyone else reading: The minute my order arrives, I'll post it here so that it will be obvious that Mr. Elderton fulfilled his responsibilities and did the job for which he accepted money.

Thanks. [sigh] My skills aren't up to consistently supporting an A-class card yet, in my opinion. Guess I've got a lot of work to do before my next major match. (DoubleTap, next year.) I've got until then to get my skills up to par. (A-class by .06%. Sheesh.)

Hmm, where have we heard that before?

Hmm. My question to you would be: "Are you having fun shooting?" Maybe it is just my personal take on things, but I'm in this because it is fun. I have a goal as to what I'm going to accomplish, and I work hard on that goal---but big match, small match, simple stage, complicated stage, classifier, local plinking, whatever I happen to be shooting, I'm going to have fun doing it. I want to do my best, and increase the level of that "best"---but in the end, I'm doing this particular thing because it is fun. Even if I don't do well, it was still fun. How long has it been since you've shot for fun? "For fun" doesn't mean you just blaze away as fast as you can, nor does it mean you don't care about the results--but before the tone starts your run, do you smile because you know in the next second or so, you get to really have some fun? Or are you grimly intent on not making any mistakes? Which mindset will help you shoot better? If you aren't having fun, why do this sport? Why not something else? Plenty of other shooting things that aren't sports that'll give you firearms training of different types. Are you having fun? Personally, I find that if I remind myself of that as I step up to the start position, I do much better. I relax, and just shoot. Not think about winning, not thinking about all the things I can do wrong---I just shoot because I enjoy it. I do my best because I enjoy it. This sport is a BLAST. Are you still having fun?

The GP Sectional really had some devious evil stages, didn't it? That activated Texas Star through a barrel got a number of people. Don't feel too bad---lots of people got slower times than you did on that stage. Of course, the fact that we were standing in a foot of water at the time didn't help either.

CHA-LEE said: Which one of those things contradicts all of the others? Quick comment from someone who doesn't necessarily know that much: If you were having misses (and D hits) then your times weren't on a par with the top dogs---the timer may have said so, but if you weren't getting the hits, then you weren't going the right speed. I can run through a course and fire all of my shots as fast as a GM--but if I don't hit anything (and at that speed *I* certainly wouldn't be hitting anything) then I'm not staying with the top dogs. I've noticed that in several of your posts, you keep saying that your speed was up there with the fastest--right after you talk about bad hits. Sounds like you are focusing on the wrong thing! Especially since you say in your above post that backing off the speed a little improved the hits significantly, and didn't really hurt your stage times. Feel free to ignore a comment from a lowly B-class, but if you aren't getting good hits (worse yet, getting mikes) at your current speed, then your skill level isn't ready for that speed yet. It'll come--but it isn't there yet. Celebrating a speed that you aren't ready for is possibly counter-productive. On that second day---weren't your actual HFs much higher?

Ben, Waxman: How do you load the 147 gr black bullets? Drazy sent me a hundred or so gratis when I ordered some airsoft targets, and I've been meaning to try them out--and everyone keeps saying that Solo1000 works really well. What's your recipe?

If the ruling is NO 3rd party magazines, the rule will also need to apply to every other model of gun used in PD and not just for CZ shooters. Hmmm...if so, that's going to hurt folks that bought up those cheap KHI mags. Nope. FAQ #18 says: ---------- 18) What provisions of this interpretation apply to magazines? May I modify my magazines? ANSWER: In general, NO. All existing rules and rulings remain in effect for magazines. While there are no specified limits on magazine length, an existing ruling requires that the gun must fit in the box with a magazine inserted, and that all magazines (whether OEM or aftermarket) must be “dimensionally the same as the original magazine for that model of gun”. Adding aftermarket base pads, adding or removing material from base pads or adding grip-tape would all be considered external modifications and are not allowed. Springs and followers, for purposes of this ruling, would be considered “internal parts” and may be modified or replaced without restrictions. ----------- The KHI mags are aftermarket, and made specifically to the same dimensions as the OEM mags. As such, they are fine. Far as I know, there has been not been a ruling disallowing all 3rd party mags---merely the ones that aren't the same size. I'm thinking that the original response from J.A. was paraphrased. (Was it, pbosik?) The original FAQ allowed aftermarket mags. It would be strange for J.A. to suddenly change that completely.

Well--I have two out of three. Started with the 19, then went to a 34 for competition. Probably won't get a 17. No, you'll probably get a 26. And then Glocks in other calibers, just to see what they feel like...

...and as a lefty, I'm thinking the opposite is true. The extended slide lock lever is handy if you are using the index finger on it, and the extended magazine release tends to scrape up your hand, depending on your hand size. If you are left-handed, you don't need to worry about accidently hitting the slide lock level. I can see why the opposite would be true for a right-handed person. Thomas H.

I'm curious about this--you've seen a Glock 9mm blow cases four times with (presumably) minor loads? Wow. When you say "blow cases" what exactly do you mean? What happened? Were they all reloads? Same person? New/old glocks? I'd really like to know more details, if you have the time. T.

I agree with you and shred up to a point---where I agree is that telling someone to "watch the 180" does not magically change a 180 trap to "okay, now it's just fine." On the other hand, having a COF such that there is never any chance that a shooter has potential to make a mistake seems---difficult. How's this for a distinction: in a given stage, a target is placed such that you don't have any choice but to try to take it near or at the 180. No matter what the safety officer, RO, match director, and your mom say, it is still a 180 trap. Contrast this with a situation in which a target or fault line or wall is placed such that during movement or engaging, one of the obvious choices of movement/engagement would cause the shooter to come near/break the 180--and the RO/safety officer reminds the shooter to be careful at this point. Is this a 180 trap? I don't think so. It is freestyle, so the shooter has the choice of how they are going to manage the stage. Being reminded at that point to be careful of the 180 can help some people (particularly newbies) to remember to make safe choices regarding how they are going to handle the stage. I was going to include specific examples, but then it occurred to me that you guys have much more experience at this than I do, so it was probably unnecessary. I should also say that this sort of thing makes much more sense at the local level, as opposed to a major match. At the club level, with new shooters and not-so-new-but-maybe-clueless (me!) it seems to me that the occasional comment from the safety officer will help new and old shooters alike to keep safety in mind. Note: I haven't been shooting USPSA for very long, so what do I know? Thomas H.

Replying to someone else's comment, "theknightoflight" said: Hmm. Let's look at your original post: You said (emphasis mine.): Then in the same post said (emphasis mine.): The issue of "180 traps" is indeed something worth looking at, and discussing. Indeed, if the designer of a stage deliberately creates a situation in which a shooter is almost forced to do something potentially dangerous, then we have a serious problem. However, your first post didn't exactly come out that way. You first post said that in your new club, the stage designer created a 180 trap that would cause shooters "to break a rule and get them kicked out of a match" which to you, seemed "like unsportsmanlike conduct." This is not merely controversial verbiage, this was a case where you effectively accused a stage designer in your new club of unsportsmanlike conduct. (Without, I'll note, actually discussing it with the stage designer at the time.) You later said similar things about the designer of a pistol stage. A stage in which (as many people pointed out) there were a number of different ways to shoot the stage---if the shooter broke the 180, then it was their own responsibility, and had nothing to do with the stage design. I submit that discussions of 180 traps, problems, and stage design are important, useful, and help in the creation of better, safer stages. At the same time, I suggest that in the future, being "controversial" to start discussion by accusing stage designers of unsportsmanlike conduct is perhaps not the best way to do so, particularly when the stages posted do not support your contention that they contained "180 traps." And if they had actually contained 180 traps, wouldn't have it made more sense to also discuss this with the match director, safety officer, and stage designers at the time? Thomas H.

I wouldn't worry about it---nor would I call it a "180 trap" there, either. There were plenty of ways to shoot your stage without coming close to the 180. If people chose to do it that way, it was their choice. As such, it was their responsibility to watch out for the 180 line. It was good that you warned people to be careful about the 180 (part of your job as the stage designer), and it is normal for people to make comments---quite frankly, when people stop making comments is when you have to be worried. The stage was just fine. T.

Hmm. This is phrased interestingly. It rather assumes that 1) the stage included a 180 trap, and 2) that the stage designer was "intentionally trying to get them to break a rule and get them kicked out of a match". I don't think either one of those assumptions was actually true for the stage you referenced. As such, your questions regarding this stage aren't really that valid. In that particular stage, it was fairly simple to shoot it effectively and safely. Matter of fact, almost everyone did. The person that didn't got DQed for doing something that would have gotten him DQed at any time (after all, we tend to frown on turning around and shooting behind us). I will say, however, that if a stage is designed to attempt to weed out competitors, then yes, that would be unsportsmanlike, and not something anyone would want. T.

Cautious at...? Shooting? What does trust have to do with shooting correctly? Either you do break the 180, or you don't. Trust has nothing to do with it. Cautious at commenting? I'd say you can comment all you like---after all, if you are comfortable commenting to other people here, one would expect you should be equally comfortable commenting to the stage designers in a similar fashion. I looked at those stages pretty carefully, and while there were some possible 180 problems for people who overran themselves (on the rifle stage), in no case were there 180 "traps"---it seems to me that a "trap" is something that is deliberately designed to catch someone and DQ them. Before the rifle stage, the designer (and the safety officer) specifically mentioned that people needed to be careful regarding the 180 line in the beginning section. This doesn't change the fact that it was entirely possible to shoot that section safely. In the pistol stage, it was possible to move forward and engage the initial targets on the left (and some people did). People who moved backwards chose to do so, as one of the available options--which rather negates the possibility of "trap." In a similar fashion, the pistol stage (after moving forward) gave a multitude of choices for freestyle engagement--and indeed, in the video your choice of movement and target acquisition had you moving very close to the 180 line. On the other hand (I was at that match) many other people engaged each target quickly with no 180 problems at all. Again, given the many possible choices of move-and-engage, the stage had no "traps." What it really comes down to is simply that when attempting a stage, shooters need to be aware of the 180 line---that is their responsibility. If they go beyond it, they are done. The shooter is the one with the gun--it isn't like it points itself. What was the problem again? T.