Steven Cline

For those so inclined, if this topic hasn't become boring. How would your answers change if you were shooting PP at 25 yards from 1 - 5 and 3 - 6, but only min. safe distance from 5 and 6?

Oh, yes sir. This stage will be on Bay 8, baby. I considered steel for the Top L and R arrays, but as you correctly identified bay depth becomes a factor. It also shortens the distance from the top and bottom of the "I"-- but that's maybe not a bad thing.

An answer right at the question! Thanks for sharing your findings!

Ladies and Gentlemen, Me and a new bottle of 1792 Ridgemont Reserve sat down tonight and together with your responses came up with a stage. I will have the SIF and overhead completed tomorrow... who wants to see it?

Well... YOU GO BOY!!! Yer longer than what I expected. But honest answers are are what I asked for. Much appreciated.

Anwers: HF hmmm, fault lines on flat ground, 5' wide on the narrow Metric, wide open... for now (Muahahahahahahahahaha

You, sir, are ahead of me. I didn't want to discuss the savings gained by shootng the three target array while backing to 2, turn while reloading and shooting the postion 3 targets at distance from 2 (if possible), then take the targets up the center and out to 5 and 6. I love this sport. But not yet. Let's please stay focused on just the shot at distance or run form 4 evaluation. Thanks!

Excellent reply, thank you. For you, any non-stoopid distance for Lim/Open is shot from 1 and 3. Indulge me. If I made 2 - 4 about 30 yards and a short move from 4-5 and 5-6 (say 2 steps 4-5 and 4 steps 5-6) would that change your mind? Thanks.

No sir, you don't have to be at 5 and 6. You could choose to shoot them from out at 1 and 3. At what distances would you choose to go to 5/6 or shoot 'em from 1/3?

Thank you, sir. For you after 20 yards you begin to re-evaluate the distance. Cool. And no, the walls would keep you from cutting the corner. 90 deg turn eithe direction.

Thank you. Can you clarify for me. You are generally figuring 4-5 5-6 is calculated at .2 seconds per step. If it were 4 or 5 steps (.8 - 1 second) 4-5 and say 10 - 12 steps 5-6 (2 - 2.4 seconds) for a total of 2.8 - 3.2 seconds total time movement... how far would 1 - 5 / 3 - 6 to make it not worth steps? 25 yards? 30 yards? Split that up and you get to spend 1.4 - 1.6 seconds more on accuracy at distance over the time it would take to get the same hits at the closer position. Basically you get .1 second more pers shot. If you'd be splittin' at .2 you could take .3... At what distance does .3 not get you a 90% chance at an A?? Is that the question? As Juan observed the Pro/Rev/SS guys have to figure the cost of a stationary or near stationary reload. But, Limited/Open guys wouldn't.

Yes you correctly devined the walls, but not so hard of a lean. At 20 yards you start to question the time to make good hits over the time to cover the distance. Thank you for sharing. Level III has the 32 rnd cap... at Level II and I no cap is specified in the rules. 1.2.1.3. Every so often I throw a longer than usual COF at shooters.

Before I post the question, I fully understand that the answers will be different per shooter, but that's what I am looking for anyways. How you would answer. Also, physcial moving speed might play, but that's for individuals to consider and factor into their answer, I'm looking for that as well. Have you ever calculated how much faster you can shoot the closer you get the a target (or visa versa)? If I presented you this shooting challenge (and didn't follow the CRO rule of no more than 10' between shooting postions): Presume you start at postion 1. Presume vision barriers which prevent engaging targets top L and R from nowhere but 1 and 5 for top L; 3 and 6 for top R. The middle targets can only be engaged through ports in walls. You will have to run up the center of the "I" to at least position 4. 1) How far would postion 1 - 5 have to be before you would not engage the top left targets from 1 but instead move from 4 to 5 to shoot them? 2) Now consider the move from 4 to 5 to 6, how far would 1 - 5 and 3 - 6 be before you'd say that the move from 4 to 5 then to 6 would have to be before it washes out for you? 3) Finally, how far would the targets at 3 have to be before you'd condsider moving towards 3 and away from 2 requiring a back track. These questions are based on the premise that with distance comes slower shooting to ensure hits and always the risk of less points per shot. Closer targets can be shot faster with less risk of lost points. It's all about efficiency and balanced risk.

+1 you're supporting your shooting arm by supporting the shoulder joint. Not legal. I've gotta disagree. If you interpret 10.2.8.2 to include indirect support of the shooting arm, it can't be touching any part of the shooter's body or equipment. In that case, almost everyone shooting weak hand will get a proceedural. The common strong hand across the chest supports the chest, which supports the shoulder, which supports the arm. The OP says it's to steady his head. It looks legal to me. Well stated, he's not supporting the arm so he's not supporting the arm. An arm is not a shoulder, or it would be called an arm, or maybe the arm should eb called a shoulder. Elbow isn't mentioned, is the elbow and arm or the arm an elbow, the writst is not the arm, it's the place between the arm and the hand and specifically mentioned but the elbow is not... Does "from" mean to include or starting below? I' not even certain it meets the definition of support- it wouldn't bear any weight as pictured. eta: Read all the posts... my oh my. Why do I think this thread should have been left dead. Maybe the real solution- going back to our practical roots and all- is to stipulate that when firing one-handed the unused hand and arm must hang limply down from the shoulder towards the ground. This would more directly similate the intention, if that is indeed the intention, of shooting with an injured and unusable arm. Putting the other hand in the pocket, across chest, grabbing the shirt or belt would all be means to increase stability contrary to the intention, if that is indeed the intention, of mandating one-handed shooting. We could penalize the shooter when the RO sees what he believes is muscular contraction in the unused arm... Sorry, I'm not calling support until I see the other hand grab the arm below the shoulder or is otherwise placed below the arm to support it.

That works. I've done it. It's also a pain in the ass. What I'm finding more and more is a better solution is to just spray paint the hits before the match and check for new hits after each run. If found, score appropriately and paint the new ones. When I first saw this approach I thought "No way will this work", but my mind was changed after seeing how effective it was. Esplain how that works, holmes? Use a different color so the new hole has a fresh blue plastic edge showing through? Yeah, even plain ol' white paint works great. And I'm not talking about painting the entire barrel before the match; just the existing hits. Any new hits are obvious if the RO is checking. Cool, thanks.

That works. I've done it. It's also a pain in the ass. What I'm finding more and more is a better solution is to just spray paint the hits before the match and check for new hits after each run. If found, score appropriately and paint the new ones. When I first saw this approach I thought "No way will this work", but my mind was changed after seeing how effective it was. Esplain how that works, holmes? Use a different color so the new hole has a fresh blue plastic edge showing through?

I think your right if the barrels were soft cover. I hadn't delved into that rule very deep. But then one might argue that the barrels must not be soft cover because of the target array. Also, that pesky rule 4.1.4.1... 4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered hard cover. When possible hard cover should not be simulated but constructed using impenetrable materials (see Rule 2.1.3). The barrels are cover provide to hide all or portion of a target so are considered hard cover.

And, 4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered hard cover. When possible hard cover should not be simulated but constructed using impenetrable materials (see Rule 2.1.3). I find it interesting that the steel was clearly designated hardcover... but the barrels weren't. What fun!

As an RO if I DO NOT see or hear something which indicates the shot passed through the barrel WHEN SHOT, the shot is presumed to have NOT passed through the barrel. If I saw or heard something indicating a shot into the barrel, I look for the evidence on the target of a shot into/through the barrel. If I see evidence of a shot into/through the barrel and then shot does not count. I communicate to the shooter this as well- "Hey, Kevin, I heard a round strike the barrel. This bullet hole is oblong and lacks a grease ring. I have to call it a miss." The lesson I take out of this is to use blue masking tape on our barrels before the match so there are no previous holes and leave the tape there with instructions at the shooters meeting to look for holes and cover any new holes with the tape so that a new hole through the barrel is clearly identified. I think you got the hose on this one, or maybe the RO poorly communicated what he heard and saw. Good lesson for us all.

I too have seen shooters run their open guns with only plugs. In fact, plugs have adequate noise reduction reduction. In fact, they often reduce more noise than muffs. Humbly submitted: http://www.chuckhawks.com/hearing_protection.htm However, If he only had the plugs in a portion of the way to add a little more to the muffs... If he shot one or two shots, winced and stopped- a reshoot. His body language tells me the protection is not adequate.

An aside, but slightly related: At a bigger than usual match locally I was shooting for some bragging rights. On the classifier stage a younger man who had not run the timer yet, volunteered. He gave the proper commands, started the timer and I burned down the first string... fast and all As... then I head the timer go beep again. He pressed the start button again. It was a Pocket Pro II so it was gone. I rather testily asked a certified RO to take over the timer. I realized on the next stage this was a learning opportunity for him and a growth opportunity for me. So I had him run almost all shooters on the next stage. "Just don't push the start button but once," I advised him. I coached him through a few of the tougher scoring calls. He did well and I hope he picked up confidence running the timer and that I made up for my icy request he be replaced on the previous stage.

Yep, compile a list of specific things and have a conversation. Try to help him see how his actions are hurting the club.

1- No 2- Yes

Nik, I've addressed that, the TARGET in your stage did not move, the prop moved. 2 M 1 FTS. I have applied the rules earlier that I believe support my position. Look at post #54. Let's look at the rules: The completion of their designed movement -- If a target can be reactivated as many times as a competitor wants to reactivate it, I would argue that it never completes its designed movement, it merely pauses that motion, until reactivated..... This is different from a swinger, a drop turner, a clamshell, or bear trap, which can not be reactivated.... Therefore, miss and FTE penalties apply..... Pretty sure that DNROI will see it that way..... I agree with this. Apparently we need the DNROI or BOD to clarrify. But why do we need a "show me that in the rules" when we have a brain that tells us a target which can be made shootable at the shooters discretion hasn't truly disappeared (no that's not in the rules; it's common sense). The target(s) are different from the swinger and drop turner, therefor we can't apply rules written for drop-turners or swingers (that's not in the rules either; it's common sense). Whether I pull on a rope and make a target visible bcause I raise a port covering, lower hard cover, or raise the target, it's really the same; an obsecured target is made visible and can be made visible again as many times as I want... UNLIKE the swinger or drop-turner. Well, wait, can I run out a swinger and push it into swinging again and return to the shooting area and engage it???? No? Show me that in the rule book. The closest thing is 10.6.2 Other persons may be expelled from the range for conduct which a Range Officer deems to be unacceptable. Examples of unacceptable conduct include, but are not limited to, failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official, interference with the operation of a course of fire and/or a competitors attempt thereof, and any other behaviour likely to bring the sport into disrepute. I would call it interference with the operation of a course of fire. The swinger is designed to challenge the shooter to get difficult hits fast or easy hit slowly or no hits at all if his skill isn't up to par and once it stops moving you've lost your chance to shoot it. "Show me that in the rule book." Sigh. This isn't directed anyone in particular- just the mindset. If we insist on being obtuse, difficult, unreasonable, argumentative, semantical... instead of reasonable, then we're in for a long hard tiring road. Some 350 people heard Porter tell us in 2011 the targets were not dissappearing since we could always raise the door and shoot the targets. Some 350 people heard Porter tell us in 2010 targets were not dissapearing since we controlled when the ports closed. Almost 350 accepted these reasonable explanations. Why do we do this to ourselves? Oh, I forgot- Because it's fun, entertaining and might just identify a problem that needs fixing. Disregard the previous.

Thank you