Neil Beverley
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Neil Beverley
-
-
For IPSC and USPSA the minimum PF for shotgun is 520.
For testing/calibration of Poppers and plates the test cartridge specification is as below:
Test Cartridge Specification:
For Birdshot Stages
Birdshot – no. 7 or 7 ½ or local equivalent.
Power factor – 520 or less
(e.g. A cartridge of 28gr (1 ounce) shot weight at 1180 fps)
From this you can see that you should be OK with the cartridges you have bought.
Personally I would always shoot a slightly heavier load because I believe it gives an advantage.
My cartridge of choice is: 32 grammes (1 1/8 ounce) No. 5 at 1375 fps. The velocity is the manufacturer's quoted figure. In reality I've found that a lot of SG ammo seems to chrono lower than the manufacturer's claims.
I find the heavier shot offers me a target solution at greater distances which can be a tactical advantage in a competition and up close the targets are always slamming down.
-
Question I've heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life. Is this true? :
Answer: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that's it..don't waste them on exercise. Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live longer; that's like saying you can extend the life of your car by driving it faster. Want to live longer? Take a nap.
Question: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
Answer: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat?
Hay and corn. And what are these? Vegetables. So a steak is nothing more than an efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef is also a good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable). And a pork chop can give you 100% of your recommended daily
allowance of vegetable products.
Question: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?
Answer: No, not at all. Wine is made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that means they take the water out of the fruity bit so you get even more of the goodness that way. Beer is also made out of grain. Bottoms up!
Question: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?
Answer: Well, if you have a body and you have body fat, your ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is two to one, etc.
Question: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise program?
Answer: Can't think of a single one, sorry. My philosophy is No Pain...Good
Question: Aren't fried foods bad for you?
Answer: YOU'RE NOT LISTENING!!!. Foods are fried these days in vegetable oil. In fact, they're permeated in it. How could getting more vegetables be bad
for you?
Question: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?
Answer: Definitely not! When you exercise a muscle, it gets bigger You should only be doing sit-ups if you want a bigger stomach.
Question: Is chocolate bad for me?
Answer: Are you crazy? HELLO ...... Cocoa beans ... another vegetable!!! It's the best feel-good food around!
Question: Is swimming good for your figure?
Answer: If swimming is good for your figure, explain whales to me.
Well, I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had about food and diets and remember:
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Chardonnay in one hand - strawberries in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming - "WOO---HOO! What a Ride!"
-
FYI, I've (arguably) been the biggest non-Filipino supporter of the PPSA for over 10 years and, without going into nuts 'n' bolts detail, my support has taken a variety of shapes and forms, and it has benefitted competitors and range officials alike.
I can absolutely vouch for Vince's unwavering support and promotion of the PPSA.
It became obvious to me quite early on in my aquaintance with Vince that he felt a particular loyalty and affiliation in that direction.
-
Happy birthday to both of you.
-
And, as I said, the upper part of the shield is not meant to be declared hard-cover.
Your new post arrived just as I was typing this one!
Hmmm! I'm going to have think some more on this. Theoretically, I guess, what you're saying isn't specifically prevented by the rules because the match organiser "declares" objects "soft cover" or hard cover". On the other hand a metal plate, deflector or not, is de facto impenetrable.
-
I think the square shaped posts that are presented at 45 degrees to the shooter (as per my earlier drawing) may well be the solution?
Certainly with regards to shotgun, the round posts have stood up to a hammering over some 5 or 6 years with birdshot and buckshot, and often up close.
Luca, I'm sorry but the rules are explicit.
9.1.6 Unless specifically described as "soft cover" (see Rule 4.1.5.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable "hard cover". If a:
9.1.6.2 Bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to hit or strike down a metal target, this will be treated as range equipment failure (see Section.4.6). The competitor will be required to reshoot the course of fire, after it has been restored.
-
The only experiance that I have with a "random" Start stage was not very good. Picture this, 4 ports with one each hearts, diamonds, clubs, spades. A deck of cards on the table which was centered on the wall about 15 feet away. Which ever card you drew was the port you started out on. We were the second squad through. shuffled the cards after every shooter. Half way through the match, some squads were placing the card of the window that they WANTED to shoot on top. And yes I got a window in the middle of the array!
Ivan
Ivan
The problem with stages like this, even if they are fun, is that they bring an element of chance into the results that the competitor can't control. In the example you describe some competitors end up starting at the middle window which can be an immediate disadvantage.
-
I don't think it matters one way or the other: if a hit on the deflector takes the plate down, it does so for anyone who shoots it. It simply becomes an extra inch of plate or so.
I don't know...the game isn't to shoot the deflector...it is to shoot the plate. Hard cover hits shouldn't count?
In pistol, we don't count hits unless they have a partial bullet hit.
We could have a Minor vs Major issue here (and plates are there to test power factor, right?).
In shotgun, we could have an issues with shot size, etc.
Sure, an arguement can be made for "picking the right equipment", but we want to measure hitting the palte, right?
(Me...firmly in the camp that only hits on the target should count
)Flex
I'm happy with both your solution and Luca's.
For Shotgun we simply don't have a problem with the targets without any reflector. We haven't been experiencing splashback with birdshot or buckshot. In the UK we don't shoot slugs on metal targets so it's never been an issue for us. The spread of the pattern renders any strikes on the posts as irrelevant, some of the pattern hits nigh on for certain.
I've been thinking for a while that the solution may be to fit a diamond shaped front post instead of the round posts. It will acjiece the same as the deflector plates. Please see below . I don't how difficult it will be to cut the receiving holes to be square instead of round.
-
... If someone from the Board (Bill ?) ...
Just to clarify, I'm not on the USPSA Board of Directors. I'm one of the EzWinScore beta testers (though my role sometimes expands beyond just testing), and I'm also the last ditch "can't get anyone else" "Rob just got run over by a reindeer" (its getting close to that time of year) guy to call on to maintain uspsa.org. So I was naturally interested in making sure we had good usable .pdfs of the rulebooks this go-around. But BOD? Nope; Area 6 has Charles for the next 4 years for that.
Bill
My apologies. I added your name because of your recent excellent work on the PDF versions of the USPSA rule books. I should have checked.
-
I think I'll take that on. If you wouldn't mind sending me a copy of the original?
Thanks, Neil.
Bruce (area1@uspsa.org)
Done.
-
During the final stages of producing the rule books we spent quite a lot of time moving rules where we could, and only if sensible, so as to minimise the number of occurrences of "Not applicable".
If possible we moved rules that only related to one or two out of the three disciplines to the end of a section or primary rule. Where we were able to accomplish this then we haven't printed a "Not applicable" rule because there is no break in the continuity of the numbering. The only "Not applicables" are to avoid a break in a sequence.
After a huge amount of time and effort we managed to end up with just 3 unavoidable "Not applicables" for Handgun, 10 for Rifle and 14 for Shotgun. Of course there are many more but they simply aren't printed. This partly explains why there have been some of the adjustments we see today.
Now that we have knocked this aspect of the 3 sets of rules into shape it should help minimise the impact of future changes.
I've already posted this once before, a few weeks ago but I think it's worth repeating.
I've prepared a document, on a single page, which identifies any and all rules (IPSC) that have a rule difference in one or more of the three disciplines. The format is easily understood.
Download the document from HERE
This only deals with IPSC rules. If someone from the Board (Bill ?)wants to update the document in line with the US changes then I would be happy to make the original available. Actually Mike V., John A. and Arnie have all been sent, or had access to, the document.
-
It does show how old the photos are as in the one of you and the G3 you dont have grey hair !
Mike
You can be so cruel!
-
Luca
I should have asked - Did you still use 10mm plate?
-
Luca
Many thanks for posting the pictues. I note you've followed my original design more closely that the targets used at the ESC.
The angled "ramp" at the front is a good addition and gets over my fears of a bullet strike on the posts. With that configuration I would guess that any rounds hitting the deflector either still strike the plate above or the ground below.
Vince has received his sample and is going to try it out next weekend.
-
It seemed like a good enough reason, and inspired by stirring memories in another thread ..........
Besides, why not? They were happy days!
And I know the 4th one is out of sequence but the topic is simply nostalgia.
-
We used to run a suprise shotgun side match, on the sporting clays trail in the woods.
The first one was a few hundred yrds. Nobody died, but we learned to make them a little shorter.
In my early days I often shot some fairly extreme courses of fire but those days are long gone in the UK.
I've shot while climbing a waterfall and I've shot stages in streams. We once had a surprise stage over about 600 yards an this included scramble nets, a "Burma" rope bridge, 3 tunnels in the stream, some mini water falls and generally rough terrain. More than once I've had to pour water out of the barrel before carrying on. And NO! I hadn't dropped the gun.
It was all a long time ago but the memories linger on!
I would add that I wouldn't permit such stages now for IPSC, either as a Course Reviewer or as an RM.
-
Every stage was a surprise stage. No walkthroughs. Very little by way of briefings.
The only problem is that they're not surprise courses to the guys who actually design and/or build them. So, unless your setup crew aren't competitors, they either don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labours or they have a huge advantage if they do shoot them.
This is why they're fun at low level matches like the one you described, but they're open to abuse at major matches.
There were usually just 2 or 3 guys who built the match and they didn't shoot it. They got their kicks out of being devious.
A shotgun venue I used to shoot at used to regularly put on a surprise stage to follow the course of a steep sided gully so not visible other than from on the course. The range owner would run the RO for the stage as competitor No. 1 and then the RO would take over and this worked fairly well.
-
Inspired by a discussion in the rules section I thought I would relate a little story about a very selective invitation only match from days gone by in the UK.
Each year a certain club would put on a "special". Only about 30 shooters ever got to shoot the match per year. The basic rules were no wimps or whiners. No cheating b*stards. Only turn up if you expect to help. Conceal carry only. Real guns only. Men were men and sheep were grateful. I'm sure you get the picture.
Every stage was a surprise stage. No walkthroughs. Very little by way of briefings.
One year I recall there was a stage that was set up which only included No Shoot targets. Not a single scoring target. At that time they were coloured camouflage targets, the squared off variety that preceeded the Metric Target. Out of 28 competitors only 2 entered the range and (correctly) didn't fire a shot. Everyone else drilled at least one target.
A lot of red faces as a result.
-
There was a "Surprise" stage in the Europeans a few years ago and by the end of the first day there were maps being passed around detailing where the targets were and the layout generally of the stage.
The stage had to be withdrawn from the match. What a shame! What a waste!
Surprise stages used to be fun when they remain fair for all but the cheaters now deny that opportunity at most matches.
-
Another from Sri Lanka.
-
Shred
Whatever the details it's a great picture although the odd shaped rock in the foreground took a while to sink in.
-
Nice one!
-
sgrc1
I have always been disappointed by Fabarms in general and unless there has been some significant advancement in the last couple of years I couldn't recommend them for competition. There is nobody in the UK using them for competition although we have seen one or two newbies start out with them. They have always been replaced with something else.
Try to stick with Remington, Benelli, Browning or Winchester. Some Mossbergs, or at least (in my experience) Mossberg pump guns, are OK as well but not as favoured today as they used to be a few years back.
-
(yes, I know the horizon isn't straight. Both me and it were washing up and down at the time)
But...but...at this lighting condition my cam defaults to very slow shutter speeds. How do you still get it to be this detailed? Fast shutter, higher ISO and meter on the brightest spot?
In my case I'm an enthusiastic amateur so the really good guys will tell you the proper "tricks".
I set my camera to manual. Then because you taking a landscape picture the setting you need to worry about least is the aperture because everything in the distance will be in focus anyway so set up the camera to give yourself a reasonable shutter speed. Blur in pictures like this is often camera movement rather than focus. Note that in shred's photograph the water close up is blurred but despite the effect of movement on shred and the camera the distance is sharp.
With these considerations in mind find the true readings for the light conditions then overide them by opening the aperture 1 f-stop to "burn" the image.
I've usually found that this works towards making a good picture.
However, in the end, one of the best pieces of advice I was ever given was to take lots of pictures of the same thing if it's important enough. Experiment with the settings as you go. I only show the one good shot and not the 10 disasters! I once took around 20 frames of a rock trying to capture a wave crashing over it because I couldn't predict the exact moment or wave effect. I got a couple of OK shots and one that I was really pleased with. I was in Sri Lanka on holiday and the cost of the film I used was a lot less than a return trip to try the shot again because I hadn't got it.
Another good sentiment from someone I Know:
"I've never regretted any picture I have taken, but I have regretted some pictures I haven't taken."
)
Holstered gun...during fall
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
You won't find this in the rule book but a test I will often apply when considering the rights and wrongs of a scenario (rule) is to go one step further. So ..........
How would you feel if someone with a loaded but holstered gun took the gun and holster off the belt and then walked around with it all day at the back of the range? The holstered and loaded gun being carried horizontally.
If you wouldn't feel comfortable with this, and I suggest you shouldn't, then you must support the rule as written because it deals with a simliar possibility. You could end up sweeping another person with a loaded gun albeit that it is holstered.
On the grounds of our multiple redundancy safety measures why would we want to ever allow it to happen?