Neil Beverley
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Neil Beverley
-
-
Troy/Kevin
Rule 9.5.5 does seem to contradict US 6.1.1. It strikes me that for US 6.1.1 to be correct there should have been a US 9.5.5 with an exception included but has it reads 9.5.5 is pretty clear.
-
Hey Vince, I really think you ought to try a Glock. I think you'd like them.
-
That's another good advantage of my separating plates design. Twist, any twist, is nigh on impossible.
Vince should receive the sample target hopefully tomorrow and I'm looking forward to his comments.
-
I would also ask how can it ever be fair when a squad arrives for a briefing and is given (say) a timed 10 minutes to view a stage but others competitors have has several minutes on top of this time to plan the stage.
Consider the impact of that extra time on a Long Course worth (say) 140 points.
I know for a certainty that I would have liked some extra time on some stages I've shot because I hadn't got a stage completely clear in my mind. Actually it can be much worse on a shotgun stage because of the extra time it takes to plan reloads. Perhaps as many as 19 reloads versus a couple on a handgun stage.
I also get p*ssed at matches where you are given the same time for a Long Course as a Short Course and irrespective of the squad sizes at the match. But at the end of the day I want consistency for all shooters more than anything.
-
It's a wonderful place full of really cool people. Take care of them and they'll take care of you.
Dalmas
Nice sentiments. Well put!
-
As we've got Pepper Poppers, if the plates get universally adopted can we change the name to Beverley's Bashers?
I'd prefer Neil's Knockers, but that name might be rejected by the IPSC Cheeky Sods Committee
"Neil's Knockers"! Now that's got a nice ring to it.
-
I really don't see this as a "screw the shooter" rule. Quite the opposite. I'd rather protect 90 than give an advantage to 10.
If some competitors get to wander around stages for some considerable time and others don't we are permitting unfair competition.
I confess to being a little amazed about how often I see people helping one or two people in a match because they want to be "fair". Fairness is something we are tasked with applying to ALL.
-
Luca
I think some photo's would be a good idea because I suspect you have adopted a slightly different arrangement on the base plate. Certainly the ones used at the ESC match were different but the heavy square block at the front on those worried me on 2 counts. One being possible ricochets and the other being that the base could take quite a hit and cause enough movement to disturb the shoot plate.
As you've stated the plates stay remarkably flat and they have completely outperformed any previously used targets of the same, or even thicker, construction. We used to use a lot of construction steel joists, originally in an "I" beam design. We would cut off one end to leave us with a plate on a base. I've got an example of one which I use in teaching to show the power of a shotgun. The metal has torn on both sides where the strike base meets the base. I might just photograph it and post it somewhere on the forum, it's an interesting artefact.
My concern, both for handgun and rifle, is still what effect there will be for a hit on a post. I'm really pleased that you've not experienced ricochet but perhaps your base is slightly different. Perhaps some of you engineers can calculate the result of hits in this area?
What I can tell you is that for shotgun we have seen a dramatic reduction in splash-back ricochets. I've eaten more than my fair share of lead coming back up range seeking me out like a guided missile. I can't remember the last time I got hit by splash-back off one of these plates.
Vince, I'll send you a target for your evaluation if you are seriously considering them for handgun then we could talk about the design considerations in Bali.
As we've got Pepper Poppers, if the plates get universally adopted can we change the name to Beverley's Bashers?
-
Um guys,
What exactly is Neil's design? Perhaps you could share it with the rest of us?
I have previously posted a topic on the design HERE
-
We nominate 5 matches at the start of the season to count as UK championship rounds. Best 4 matches to count so if you shoot all 5 you can drop the worst result. We average the percentages of the 4 matches to creat an annual championship winner.
Because this is the UK Championships we do in fact exclude any overseas visitors if they have won a match or if they have won any stages so that the championships results only compare the true performance of UK shooters against each other.
This very subject has been under discussion this weekend because Kurt Miller from the US won Standard Division in one of the championship matches, the British Open.
The UK champion would change depending on whether Kurt is included or not. There is one happy sole over here and an unhappy one at the moment.
Otherwise, for the match itself, it works as Vince described it above.
-
Are you using these for HG as well? Are there any ricochet issues?
Neil,
it's been since ESC 2003 that in Uboldo's range (the one where I train) the plates done according to your design are in use.
They've been shot with everything ranging from lead to plated and FMJ bullets, in all possible divisions.
On this range there is an average of 4 league match per year, plus range members training weekly.
Up to now there was no ricochet/shrapnel issue that I know of.
I'm delighted to hear that, Luca.
I would suspect that you now have no problems with plates. If you hit them they fall and if they're still standing you missed them?
-
Vince,
I tend to agree with you when it comes to poppers, but for plates (until the day we started to use Neil's design)
Luca
Are you using these for HG as well? Are there any ricochet issues?
-
I can add to Vince's detailed reply that there is also a training presentation being developed in Power Point and it just needs time to review it, tidy it up (if necessary) and release it.
The full credit for the work on this to date lies with Ivan Ketler who writes on these forums.
The delay is absolutely mine, as it falls on a committe that I chair to review it for IPSC. Unfortunately I've been struggling to set enough time aside to do his work justice and at the moment I've got other tasks to do before this one.
-
This is a true story. Not quite the same but relevant nonetheless. What makes me a little more upset is that the RO in question took his Level I Seminar with me.
On the plus side I don't think he will do it again. I wasn't too gentle with him!
The RO in question adopted the same attitude of helping a newbie. In this case it was a Short Course and the shooter had pulled a shot to leave a plate standing. In the smoke and dust the miss had gone unnoticed.
Instead of "If you are finished, unload and show clear", I heard, with much emphasis "If you are SURE you are finished, unload and show clear".
Now it took a while for the emphasis and meaning to sink in but eventually the shooter reacted and shot the target.
I wasn't officiating but I was still the ROs mentor and so I asked him to review the timer to see the effect of his interference.
The results:
Short Course Stage 8 consisting of 8 targets.
8 shots with 7 hits in 6.4 seconds for a HF of 3.91 ([35-10] / 6.4)
9 shots with 8 hits in 12.2 seconds for a HF of 3.28 (40 / 12.2)
And he thought he was helping!
Sometimes if you want to help, don't help!
-
I'll add my welcome as well.
Did you try the recent Level III Shotgun match in Argentina.
Any feedback from other shooters? I think this was probably Argentina's first Level III shotgun event.
-
HAPPY BIRTHDAY ERIC
-
I should add, because someone is bound to ask, why aren't the targets included in the Handgun rule book.
The answer is here in this thread. There wasn't support for adding an additional target type without a significant identified need.
It was different for SG & R.
For SG we wanted a cheap disposable target, bearing in mind how quickly we go through targets when shooting slugs or buckshot. Then consider the damage cause by the wads. Add in patching time during a match and it's a useful option to simply replace the target each and every time.
I have already stated the reasons for Rifle in my previous post.
-
What about using the A4/3 rifle targets for pistol included in any stage along with the Classic/Metric? How do rules and shooters feel about that?
Can I chip in here with a bit of information about the targets to which Deadbuff is referring as I'm fairly sure there will be some people who aren't altogether familiar with the target.
The first to say is that the correct names are the A4/A and the A3/B targets. They started out as simply being the A4 and A3 targets but as these are intended to equate to standard paper sizes the specifications were changed to provide for ANSI A and B sizes as well in the 2004 rules.
I have just written the explanation below for another forum and I've pasted it almost as it was to save me some time so a little information is repeated.
They were primarily added for shotgun to provide for a disposable target because of the destructible nature of shotgun cartridges. Tim Andersen the IPSC Rifle Committee Chairman saw them as being a useful option for rifle as well, not least of all because the smaller targets can pose a more difficult challenge without having to resort to metal. It was noted that not all ranges would accept metal targets and these smaller targets also allow more targets per bay.
The A3/B target is based on the IPSC Metric target. Indeed if you look at one superimposed over a Metric target you will see how close it is to a partial Metric target. The A zone is exactly the same but adjusted slightly downwards to centre the A Zone on the new target so that it doesn't create any positioning issues. In reality the corners would very marginally clip into the D zone of a Metric target but so minimally as to not warrant representing that on the target, working on the KISS principle. The A4/A target is, with a little poetic licence on convenient measurements, a 2/3 reprensentation of the A3/B target. This can be used to simulate distance and follows the concept of the mini poppers.
Originally the targets were simply A3 and A4 but this gave a problem in the US and so the A3/B and A4/A targets were created so they can be universally adopted. The A zone size remains exactly the same. The 5mm border remains exactly the same. The paper size changes between A3 and ANSI B result in a changing C zone size but nevertheless an international option for a cheap disposable (even per shooter) target because it can be copied on most quality black and white printer/cpoiers that can print to a tight margin, and only at a few cents each.
Diagrams are available in the 2004 Shotgun and Rifle rules books as appendices B5 and B6.
-
And, Flex nailed my thoughts perfectly. "Specifically ordered" say the RO has to "specifically" say Load, not imply it.
Luca
It is absolutely NOT necessary to have to say "load". The authority to have a loaded gun comes from the rules.
As a wildly extreme example if we were to say "Apples and Bananas" instead in 8.3.1 and then change the rule to read that on the command "Apples and Bananas" the competitor can load if required and make ready, then this would absolutely conform to 10.5.13. As I said earlier 10.5.13 does not specifically say that the word "load" HAS to be uttered.
You're focusing too much on the comfortable word "load". "Make ready" can also be interpreted as the authority being given by the RO.
But like I said in my reply to Flex I don't mind making the statements clearer.
And then we as a committe will end up being accused of changing loads of rules!
-
I think we are all on the same page...with the same goal.
However...10.5.13 says...specifically ordered... Thrust and intent don't even come close to trumping those words.
Change one...better change them both. (8.3.1 & 10.5.13)
Flex
I actually don't have a problem with tweaking 10.5.13 for clarity but as I have tried to get across in my earlier post I really don't see a contradiction even at present.
However, clearer is better.
-
I really don't see a problem here. There are certain assumptions that are reasonable to make.
Rule 10.5.13 doesn't point to a DQ because a competitor hasn't received a command "to load". It only says when specifically ordered to by the RO. Assumptions have always been made that during a C of F the competitor can possess a loaded firearm. Besides "Make Ready" doesn't say you can't load. It's just that up to now we have added "Load" as well.
However, please consider a HG stage at present that starts unloaded. If we really want to be pedantic: The competitor is given the LAMR command. He then immmediately fails to carry out the direct command of an RO by failing to comply with "load". He then stands around for awhile before getting the start. He then loads and now isn't strictly under the direct command of the RO to load. He broke off or "ignored" that sequence. If I really stretch the point what if he runs the gun dry during a stage where is the direct command to load (reload).
But commonsense prevails and a number of assumptions are made about acceptable practice within a COF.
I'm comfortable that "Make Ready" is sufficient authority to avoid conflict with 10.5.13.
-
Also from the forum, Myro Lopez, who happens to be Range Master for the shotgun match...
We definitely buy Myro drinks! Lots of drinks!
-
Yes, air-soft is the only game in town in Japan. But you can do a lot with it within its confines--the major of which, of course, is lack of recoil.
However, it's better than just dry-shooting and offers the plus of being able to set up stages inside the family home--without earning a visit from the local SWAT team
I understand some U.S. instructors, such as Karl Rehn of KR Training are recognizing the value of air-sfot as part of training
Air-soft certainly allows a new slant on running the Tueller Drill.
Rainman
You may be interested to learn that there is an active competition circuit in the UK as well. It has become quite popular.
-
Phil Dunlop and Angus from this forum are both going. There will definitely be enough of us to have an evening of it.
I understand that with one of the main sponsors being a brewer there's going to be some free beer (I think) at times. On those occasions I'm buying!
In Celebration of the Sunset
in The Gallery
Posted
What will you do with the chance you are getting? What will you feel when the sun is setting? Will you be satisfied with the way that you have spent this God-sent day?
Patience Strong