Neil Beverley
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Neil Beverley
-
-
Phil
In the UK we insist on all would-be competition shooters taking a 2 day training course which emphasises safety. We insist on this even for those who have been shooting a while. If they are experienced a good instructor simply changes the emphasis of the course but the net result is that each person must satisfy the instructor that they are "competition safe".
The course lasts a minimum of 14 hours and includes 1.5 - 2 hours in the classroom as an introduction to the sport. Max ratios on the course: 12 students per instructor but if over 6 students the insructor must have an assistant, usually a trainee instructor. i.e. max ratio 6 students to 1 instructor or instructors assistant. All live firing must be supervised on a one to one basis.
The instructor can choose to fail a student OR issue a certificate that they have successfully attended the course OR issue the certificate AND a competition pass certificate as well. The difference being that some students may not have done anything wrong but are considered to lack the experience or ability to safely conduct themselves through a match.
Some years ago we only had pass or fail which could create dilemmas for students who hadn't actually cocked up but were a bit shaky. The safe thing to do was to fail them but this was discouraging. With the current format they get a certificate to take home and then they are advised to practice some more at their home clubs and when they feel ready again they simply submit themselves for a short re-test. Both the course and the re-tests include a markmanship test which has to be passed which was requested/required by the police/military over here.
In the early nineties we started to issue Competition Licences to prove that a competitor was up to a competition standard and in which disciplines. Two DQs for safety reasons in any 12 months results in the licence being suspended until a re-test can be arranged with an appointed instructor. This aspect has had a real interesting affect and really focuses the attention of the infrequent (very) offenders.
The bottom line is that without a competition licence you can't enter a match and this gives a reassuring minimum standard of safety for everyone who takes part. The authorities love the system and often quote the UKPSA way of doing things which has given us some respectability in a generally less favoursed type of shooting.
I'll see if I can dig out some notes later this week and will forward them to you including the shooting test/re-test.
-
Kurt,
BTW, we're talking 3.XX seconds for: BANG...RELOAD 4...BANG... Correct?
Does Mike45 pull 4 (or at least more than one at a time) for his technique?
If folks are interested, I'd like to put up a "How to Reload Your Shotgun" FAQ. I'd like to put pictures and captions up for at least *NOT* Taran's, Benny Cooley's, Shawn Carlock's and any other major techniques I'm ignorant of.
Would people be able to help me out with pictures?
Eric
I recently created some some video clips that originally shot back in 1991. My technique is very different to that used by Kurt/Mike but I've still got a run
of "beep, load 10, shoot 1 in about 8.3" I think it was. I've got some other clips I could send as well if you are interested. They would need a Broadband connection though. Alternatively I would be happy to send you a CD.
There is also a run of "beep, load 10 shoot 10 in a fraction over 10 seconds" and also 10 rounds "dumped" (not aimed) in about 1.8 seconds.
You are welcome to any of them if they are of any interest.
I won't be able to send them before Wednesday night (UK time) because I'm away attending an exhibition in Birmingham at the moment.
Please advise.
-
If this deserves its own thread, a moderator will break it out. Is it right to stop a competitor if you as RO believe he is breaking a safety rule? Oh man, it's not only right, the RO is obligated to stop the shooter immediately. If the RO made a bad call and there is no grounds for a DQ, the competitor gets a reshoot. Safety must come first, always.
Is it wrong to continue a DQ if there is no basis. Absolutely, and that's why we have common sense, and if that fails, arbitration. I have been stopped when there were no grounds to be stopped. Once for a range failure that wasn't, and once for a squib that wasn't a squib. Yeah, it sucks to have the RO put the brakes on you in the middle of a killer run. But the officials are only looking out for the shooter and the rest of the folks. When an RO blows it we just file it in the stuff happens drawer and carry on.
Ron
No disagreement here! ROs have to make split second decisions with good intententions. Sometimes it goes wrong. Better live cowards than dead heroes.
-
Nik/Ron
I think the rule you have in mind is as below:
10.4.1 A shot, which travels over a backstop, a berm or in any other direction, specified in the written stage briefing by the match organizers as being unsafe. Note that a competitor who legitimately fires a shot at a target, which then travels in an unsafe direction, will not be disqualified, but the provisions of Section 2.3 may apply.My emphasis added.
-
The sport needs, nay - depends, on people like you.
It is nice to see that you analyse the plusses and minuses after the event. We never stop learning, or rather, we should never stop learning.
-
I'd forgotten to look at the definition. Damm!
If I now put my best Devil's Advocate hat on ...................... (and Vince is reaaaalllly going to hate me now) .................
"Replenishment or the insertion of" isn't an either/or choice. In fact it could be argued that "insertion" conditions "replenishment". In which case it could be argued, by reference to the glossary term, that the reloading is limited to the act of insertion. And that certainly is not what is intended. I hope some common senses would prevail as well but ....... who knows?
The situation is worse for SG and I'm certainly going to have to look at changing the glossary term. For SG a competitor will often load more than one round at a time, e.g. 6 rounds, therefore 6 insertions. Actually for SG the word "insertion" gets in the way of "replenishment". For SG I think the solution will be to delete "or the insertion".
But then that will bring me back to: "When does the act of replenishment start and end?
There's a hole in my bucket (etc) .............................. (for those of you old enough and sad enough to remember the song.
-
On Friday my IT Department Manager was advising not to install just yet. Apparently they have messed with the access rights to some ports (or some other technical change affecting some ports).
Some programs, and in my case AutoCAD LT is one of them, cease to function properly after the installation. I'm also being told that some major computer companies such as HP (I think) have told their staff not to install the update until the company has checked it out more thoroughly. They expect to have to tweak the software for themselves to avoid some foreseen problems. I'll see if I can get a link to the reports on this. It will have to be Tuesday because we have an official holiday in the UK on Monday.
Another bit of information, and in support of the info above is that BT (British Telecom), who have a tie in with Yahoo to provide an Internet/email package are advising not to install the XP upgrade until customers first install a "fix" to avoid the issues that will be created. Please see below:
Some BT Yahoo! Internet software components are based on features of the Windows XP operating system. Therefore, we are asking BT Yahoo! Internet software customers with XP operating systems to install a critical update BEFORE installing Microsoft’s XP Service Pack 2. Starting August 16th we are providing customers with the critical update automatically. -
Spook
Many congratulations!
-
Neil, so how did the arbitration end?
The appeal was denied and the DQ upheld.
Under the rules in force at the time of the incident the only rule that could be applied to the situation was:
Unsafe Gun Handling - Any discharge prior to commencement or while loading, reloading or during remedial action in the case of a malfunction.
The Committee determined that there was no definition of reloading. They did not consider it their remit to make such a definition. They decided that they should only consider whether the actions of the competitor on that day, at that time, was to be treated as "reloading".
They decided that there were some unique characteristics to be considered. This wasn't a planned reload but an unexpected reload. Additionally this additional, unplanned reload occurred on the last target array of the stage. If the target hadn't have been missed there would have been no reload and significantly the gun would have stayed in the shoulder until the end of the stage.
From the description of the competitor's actions as given by the RO the Committee was satisfied that the competitor was in the process of returning the gun to the shoulder to shoot the last target. THe gun had just been rolled over following the insertion of the round and occurred as the competitor adjusted the position of his hands.
The logic that the Committee applied to reach their decision was based on the particular sequence of events. The competitor only broke the gun away from the shoulder to reload otherwise the targets would have all been shot in one smooth (shouldered) sequence. Therefore on this occasion they decided that the reload (the reload process) consisted of breaking stance, adding a round and returning back to the shooting stance. The whole of this process was considered to constitute a reload and therefore the DQ was upheld in accordance with the rule.
Now there may be some of you that don't agree with the decision. And there will be some of you that do. The fact remains that the Arbitration Committee made a decision and that decision was final. Another day, a different committee, different circumstances and there could be a different decision. I'm still considering whether the Rules Committee has to address the issue or not.
On a closing note: The competitor afterwards agreed that he had messed up but had been looking for a way out of the DQ. He thought it was a good call by the RO and hadn't really expected to win the arbitation but thought he had an outside chance by exploiting the issue of when the reload was actually at its end.
Everyone shook hands and walked away at the end of the day with no hard feelings. There were no murmurs from anyone that the decision had been harsh. Instead the weight of opinion was that proper justice had prevailed.
-
Sky
I know it's a grey area which is why I've raised it and indeed some of my rhetoric on the subject is deliberately from a role as devil's advocate.
I agree we musn't penalise someone based on assumptions of what the competitor did or didn't intend to do. And I agree we need to consider possible explortation by an unscrupulous competitor.
-
Neil,
if the competitor was standing still, he didn't need to raise the SG at eye level to shoot the last plate, thus he could (legally) claim he was done with reloading and he was engaging the plate.
I know it sounds tricky, but I guess according to the existing rules he could do it, and the DQ should have been revoked.
If I remeber correctly, a similar issue has already been debated on these forums.
Sky
While technically he didn't need to raise the gun it is an absolute certainty that he was going to had he not been stopped. No doubt whatsoever.
-
With a SG the reload/load process starts and stops when you insert a cart into the mag and remove your hand to go for the next. Again I can hold a cart as I hold a mag and not reload.
Dead Buff raises a further interesting concept. If a competitor is in the process of loading 6 cartridges are they performing 6 reloads or just 1? For shotgun perhaps the wording needs to be changed from "reloading" to "reloading process" or "reloading sequence" or ???
Say, for example, an "unplanned" shot is fired after the 3rd cartridge of what was intended to be a 6 round reload. The "free hand" wasn't in contact with the 4th cartridge. Does this constitute an AD during a reload? How do you know/prove that the 4th round was to be loaded?
The incident that comes to mind was roughly as follows:
The competitor was shooting the last target array of 4 metal targets. The gun only had 4 rounds left in it. The competitor missed on the 2nd shot but shot the 3rd and 4th plates OK. The gun was dropped to waist level which was the competitors normal reloading technique (let's ignore the tactical issues of the reload, this is what actually happened) a single round was reloaded and as the gun was rotated in readiness to mount the gun, and while still at waist level, the gun was fired, perfectly down range but certainly unexpectedly.
The competitor was DQed but appealed to an Arbitration Committee claiming the reload was finished. The RO argued it wasn't finished and that the competitor was still completing the reloading process, the gun was still at waist level.
Over to you for now. I'll tell you the result of the arbitration later.
-
I honestly wasn't fishing for this but curiously Sky adopts a different concept for this to the concept for the draw which he wrote as:
I still think the draw movement ends with the presentation of the gun onto the target.Actually I think my question is probably more relevant to shotgun.
Consider someone who drops the gun to waist level to reload. They make this movement before actually reloading a single round. Having loaded the last round they intended they then return to "presentation of the gun onto a target". If the only reason they have broken the gun away from target presentation when should the reload start and end?
I ask this because it came up in an arbitration 2 or 3 years back. A DQ was involved.
-
As an extension to the thread which discusses when does the draw end (which can be found HERE I have an additional query.
When does the reload start and end? (With apologies to Vince who is probably crying in his beer)
-
I still think the draw movement ends with the presentation of the gun onto the target.
Sky
This can't work. There are some stages that require a draw, then (say) open a door then say move a couple of steps before there is a requirement to present to a target. Your idea would extend the draw to 3 or 4 seconds.
It could work on static starts but we would then need additional wording to cover the scenario I have described above and that gets clumsy.
BTW, Neil,the max 45° muzzle upwards is not a regional rule, it's a rule (that incidentally applies to almost all the ranges here in Italy), enforced by the MDs RMs to avoid bullets escaping the backstops/berms.
Agreed. But this has become a de facto rule for the Italian Region under 3.3.1.
This discussion raises a similar issue of when does a reload start and end. I think I'll start another thread for that.
-
At the risk of sounding picky (but I think it is important) there have now been 2 mentions of "finger on the trigger". There is no such rule. The rule relates to "finger inside the trigger guard".
It would be possible to have to latter without infringing the former, but that is not the rule and the difference is significant.
Vince has specifically asked that myself and Tim Andersen refrain from commenting on our thoughts about the final rule, if any, at the present time to avoid undue influence etc., etc., For now it will be interesting to see what other thoughts there may be on the matter.
-
Actually I think both Vince and Ron are right. And that's the problem. There is scope for the Range Nazi to create his own interpretation of things and then beat the competitors with all sorts of "fun" (not) concepts. And laid back Harry can let it all slide.
The sport deserves consistency. The competitors deserve consistency. Rules, and good training programs, strive to give that consistency.
-
Having done a very quick count I make it 38 Regions (countries).
Amazingly we even have 24 competitors from the UK. Not bad considering we have a ban!
ROs from 16 Regions and again I'm proud that the UK has managed 4 officials. (Well actually I'm proud of 3 of them!)
-
It has been written here that it would be difficult to properly gauge a 1 metre circle around the competitor.
Is it any more difficult than gauging the 1 metre circle in 10.5.6? Especially considering the wording as being a 1 metre radius. 1 metre from the centre of the feet (how do you pinpoint the centre or 1 metre from the external point of the feet? The latter would, in fact, create a series of 1 metre circles overlapping around the competitor.
Rule 5.2.7.3 discusses 1 metre - see above.
Rule 10.5.3.2 discusses 1 metre - see above, and the competitor could also be moving about a bit as well.
Rule 9.1.1 discusses 1 metre - see above.
Rule 10.5.2 discusses breaking the 90 degree median intercept (commonly referred to as the 180).
Skywalker advises that they have a Regional safety rule of 45 degrees above ground level.
There are several rules that discuss "finger in the trigger guard".
Rule 10.2.2 depends on the ROs judgement as to what constitutes a significant advantage.
I need not go on.
The point I'm trying to make is that it is well established that some decisions have to be left to the RO to call it as best they can, from their perspective, and under the given circumstances at the time.
I have heard from a couple of people that the 3 metre limit for an AD is at least measurable because of the point of impact and is therefore more accurate. However, the feet move and again it has to be relied upon for the RO to call it at the time.
Can we really always be sure that the RO has called breaking the 90 correctly? We certainly can't prove it afterwards.
Can we really always be sure that the RO has properly determined "finger in the trigger guard"? We certainly can't prove it afterwards.
Why are there now some some claims that a 1 metre rule wouldn't be accurate enough but with no reference to all the other similar rules that we have all got used to?
Are you all sure the "finger in the trigger guard" is more accurate?
I'm not trying to state here what the rule, if we adopt one, should be. I'm merely trying to point out that we shouldn't be for or against a particular proposal simply because we don't carry a tape measure (actually I do but that's another story).
What is an absolute fact is that in this sport as in very many others there is often a judgement call. We call our officials ROs, in other sports they may be known as Referees. In football, soccer, cricket, boxing, gymnastics etc., etc. we rely on the call of the officials. They are given the rules as best they can be stated. They then apply them as best they can and sometimes it has to be a split second decision.
I'm not about to intentionally DQ someone for being for being half a millimetre or 1/64 inch over the 1 metre or the same measurement inside the trigger guard. If I'm certain (as I can be) that there has been an infringement I'll take action otherwise I won't.
Whatever the outcome on this matter it will end up as an ROs decision. Even a general reference to "Unsafe Gun Handling" is an ROs decision. Such is the requirement of the sport. We all need to accept it.
I would finally add that I frequently hear calls that we should abandon half the rule book and leave it all to common sense decisions by the officials. Without the rule book we could see some officials deciding that 1 metre is a limit to be used and others 2 metres. While there is still a judgement to be made we need to set the judgement criteria otherwise from club to club, from State to State from Region to Region there would be no consistency. Instead: chaos!
-
Vince,
Do you have any information on the final number of competitors per Region?
Also the range crew by Region?
-
Double wow!
My thoughts go out to all caught up in this!
-
I went for a Sony (DCR TRV33E) (min DV) last year and I am very pleased with it.
One of the things that I thought would be really useful was a camera that could also take digital stills but as a separate function to the video. There weren't so many to choose from. The Sony that I ended up with takes stills and saves them separately to a Sony memory stick. In practice this has proved to be a great asset and I've used it a lot. I only have to take a single compact camera for virtually all occasions. The only downside is that the stills are only 1 megapixels.
If there was an alternative available now, and if I was still looking, then I would pay the extra and go for 2 or 3 megapixels.
-
Happy birthday, Flex. Have a good one.
-
Give BC my love, but tell him that's there's another proposal to eliminate Modified Division from IPSC but, when you tell him, make sure you're at a safe distance ........... I think Pluto should do it
Sounds like a job for Spence. I'm not brave enough.
Holster Qualification
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
Phil
I've just sent you a copy of the UKPSA's shooting test which includes the markmanship test. I have never been overly bothered by latter but the police and military range authorities needed something measurable. Personally I give more sway to safe misses than dangerous hits.
In reality we made the markmanship test VERY easy to pass and we left the final decision about the ability of the students up to the Instructor who would also take into account attitude as well.
The important thing for the UKPSA was to ensure that everyone who was allowed to shoot a Level II match or above had attained a minimum safety standard. Each person entering a competition has been tested by a competent person. The thought of just allowing anyone to turn up and shoot who could have little or no experience would worry me a lot. The potential litigation issues could be very awkward otherwise.