Neil Beverley
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Neil Beverley
-
-
In texas our perfect double's alway's count 5 points.
Benny,
Nice one! However, that's mighty generous. I would award the perfect double minus 5 points.
Al, just remember that under the new rules, they can ONLY get two!!!Brian,
And you're being too tough! They can only get a maximum of 2 hits. It's not compulsory to score only 2 hits, you could score just one!!!
Good to hear that the shooter knew when to shut up. Was the "FO" said somewhat in good humor? If a shooter that I didn't know, or who was really pissed off, used that kind of attitude, and then pushed it even just a little further, he might not be finishing the rest of the day. I think there are alot of shooters who will push for "The Perfect Double" but they need to know when to give it up as well.TriggerT,
Actually the competitor in question was nearly always borderline. I've significantly abbreviated the full exchange of words. If I'm honest I believe the final words spoken by the CRO were "I am the CRO. 1 Charlie, 1 Mike. Now F*ck off." Under the full circumstances it was a reasonable close to the arguments and the competitor knew he was trying it on but didn't know this particular CRO.
The "Unsportsmanlike Behaviour" rule could have been written with this guy in mind and was ofted muted but never used. Despite all the very many comments we see written in these forums I believe there is a very marked reluctance to DQ competitors under this rule, even the ones that deserve it. In 17 years of ROing I have never seen it used. Ever!
Troy,
"Obnovious" is one of the kinder words that could be used.
-
Inspired by a line from "Cops have a sense of humour" in the Humour forum I remembered an exchange I witnessed at a UK handgun match.
This kinda drops into the "US versus THEM" category. But with a twist.
To set the scene a little take one really obnoxious competitor (truly he was, always), at best gamey but would err towards blatant cheating given the chance. Add a member of the range crew, experienced but not well known, tough but fair.
Range crew: "1 Charlie, 1 Mike"
Obnoxious competitor: "There are 2 shots through that hole"
Range crew: "You pulled the shot. I saw it go high left. I saw it impact in the berm over there (indicating)"
Obnoxious competitor: "Rubbish! I couldn't possibly miss at this distance. There are definitely 2 through there"
Range crew: "No way! But if it makes you feel better I'll examine the hole again. Nope! Definitely only one. I'm certain."
Obnoxious competitor: "I'm telling you there are two through there. The gun hardly moved. Besides, the benefit of doubt goes to the shooter."
Range crew: "Sorry, but I call it as a Mike!"
Obnoxious competitor: "F*ck off! I tell you there are 2 through there. You don't know what you're doing!"
Range crew: "John, I say it's a Mike but do you want a final decision by the CRO?"
Obnoxious (now snarling) competitor: "Yeah! Definitely!"
Range crew: "I am the CRO. 1 Charlie, 1 Mike."
Obnoxious (but knows when to give up) competitor: "Oh OK then. I had to try."
He smiled, signed the score sheet and moved on to be obnovious to someone else.
I witnessed the whole exchange. You had to be there to fully appreciate it. The CRO was totally professional and but nevertheless baited a hook, cast it out and caught his fish.
-
In my 16 years of shooting 1100s and 1187s I've never been bothered to stake the latch. The trigger assembly adequately holds it in place. Actually my competition 1187 started out (from new) as being staked but came adrift.
I like being able to easily remove it for inspection and I always check the tip end for any signs of fracture prior to a match - I've had 2 shear off during the 16 years.
-
Vince, Neil,
anybody volunteering to post pictures of a FFPP with details of the hinge/no-hinge area?
It would be most useful to have a reference for future build-up.
Neil, I guess the hinge area is quite similar to your design of steel plates and stands for shotgun, that we used for ESC 2003, isn't it?
Sky
That's spooky! As you were adding your post I had just decided to drag out my original post on the separating plates but because it's not a rules issue I've recreated it in the IPSC or USPSA Discussions forum.
You can access the post by clicking HERE
Vince's popper design and my plate design are working on some similar principles but my plates fall/fly backwards. The main things that are resolved are reliability and minimal splashback.
The FFPP we use in the UK do not sit in a channel as shown by Vince but I really like his design. The UK poppers have a custom hinge arrangement which doesn't seem to foul up.
-
I'm going to resurrect an old post from the 3 Gun Forums because perhaps it doesn't always get the same readership there as here.
In the USPSA/IPSC rules Forum there has been a discussion about the value of Forward Falling Pepper Poppers. There are invaluable for 2 reasons: reliability and lack of richochets.
This thread re-introduces a target design which we have been using very successfully in matches in the UK for some 7 years now. They were also used at the European Shotgun Championships last year in Italy.
They are primarily designed for use with shotguns for both birdshot and buck. I've pasted my original post almost in it's entirety. I've recently seen a slight variation to my original design which I believe should be an improvement and I'll try to explain this in another post when I have a bit more time.
The targets are very easy to reset and consistent every time. Reset time is very fast.
The spacing between other targets and in particular the relationship with penalty targets is very precise.
They always fall when properly hit and there is no doubt that they have fallen, no turning sideways.
They still work well at longer distances.
They are suitable for birdshot and buckshot.
IPSC rules for SG permit any size of plate between a minimum of 15cms x 15cms (5.9 x 5.9 inches) and a maximum of 45cms x 30cms (17.7 x 11.8 inches). Recommended sizes are 15cms x 15cms, 20cms x 15cms and 25cms x 20cms. In the UK we mostly use 20 x 15 (say 8 x 6 ins) and some 25cms x 20cms (10 x 8 ins).
Please note that the standard base of 15 x 15 cms (6 x 6 inches) has been thoroughly tested and works easily up to the 25 x 20 cms target. The base will probably work with larger sizes as well but we haven’t tried it.
If you use rectangular targets they will sit in the base just as easily horizontally as well as vertically. Providing you maintain consistency in a match this adds to the versatility of the target.
If you paint one side red and leave the other side natural colour then at club level and for practice days you have interchangeable shoot and penalty targets to be used to suit. This adds to the flexibility of the target use.
“Splashback” is minimal and the range crew in particular are grateful for this. I’m no engineer but I’m sure that this is as a result of the forward angle of the plates and possibly because when they are hit they travel backwards along with the shot and the shot isn’t reflected back up range.
After repeated use you will find that lead fouling starts to build up in the locating slots but this is easily cleaned out with a screwdriver or similar tool.
Over the years that we have been using them I haven’t noticed any significant warping of the plates. The surfaces remain nicely flat.
These images show 4 holes in the corners so they can be nailed to timber supports, benches beams, etc. The holes are 7mm in diameter (I would suggest 0.3 in equivalent) and we’ve found that they can be staked into position into the ground using 15cm / 6 in nails or similar pegs. They usually stay firm in place for up to say 70-80 competitors. The bases have also seen short spikes (2) welded to the base to they can be hammered into the ground or longer single spikes to raise the height to suit. All methods work well but for storage the targets as pictured take up very little room.
With an early prototype I tried simply welding the front posts in place but it soon became clear that they weren’t going to last long so I had the posts set into the base and then welded and there hasn’t been a single front post dislodged in 6 years of use. It should go without saying that all welding is kept away from the locating slot.
I chose to use a round front post as being the most suitable but others have tried using a blade angled up from front to back at about 45 degrees. This design was only welded in place and didn’t catch on. I also decided to use 2 front posts whereas 1 would probably do. I reckoned that 2 would be more reliable and I was able to move them to the sides rather than a single post in the centre. I figured that most shots are aimed at the centre so up close the posts don’t get hit much anyway and at distance there is only a small surface area on the posts and the shot pattern has spread out significantly.
Square front posts could be used but only if set at an angle of 45 degrees, so from the front a diamond shape is presented. A flat square post parallel to the target creates an opportunity for more splashback as the post stays firmly in place and will reflect the shot. They would also create greater resistance to impact which is more likely to disturb the base. However, if set at 45 degrees my logic tells me that the shot will “slip” past and onto the target instead, Finally this also avoids too much surface contact and possible resistance as the target “twists” out of the slot when shot.
On this subject I noticed during the prototype testing that the front lower edge of the strike plate was slightly snagging on the front posts when falling so I added a small radius to the edge and the strike plates now exit smoothly every time. Make sure you add this radius to the top and bottom and the side as well if you are likely to use them horizontally. Honestly guys, it’s not worth skipping this in the manufacturing process – it really does make a difference.
On the first batch that I had produced I chose to only use a back retaining lug 5mm (0.2 ins) high. I suspect, but haven’t proved, that this could be a little higher. If made a little higher it may give a better still retention but if too high may start to snag the target as it falls.
What we have noticed is that the only wear on the targets is on this back lug and the older ones have been burred over quite a lot. Some are becoming a bit of a problem for resetting now but after 6 years heavy usage I’m not too unhappy. They just need some maintenance on these lugs and they should be good for another 5 or so years. If I personally had some more produced I would discuss with the engineering company either using a harder material to resist this burring or I’ve also considered fitting a threaded bolt and then using a large nut which could be replaced when it starts to get worn. Either way I’m sure that this is a very minor issue that hasn’t really been too much trouble and can be fixed anyway.
If the plates are set fairly close to where they are likely to be shot from they will fly backwards a short distance. To avoid them tumbling into another target and accidentally knocking it over it is possible to drill a hole in the strike plate and bolt on a length of suitable chain which is then staked to the ground or otherwise fixed in place. This limits how far the plate travels and avoids all problems as described above. We have found that this is best fixed to the low outside edge of the plates.
Heavier (thicker) plates could be used if the locating gap is adjusted accordingly and the targets wouldn’t travel so far but may become harder to knock over at distance. Based on my experiences to date I reckon that the 10mm (0.39 ins) steel that I chose has been close to ideal.
Kurtm has suggested that these targets might also work for rifle and handgun and my only concerns would be the front posts. I’m happy to let some other brave sole take up the challenge.
A detailed drawing can be found in the IPSC 2004 Shotgun rule book – Appendix C3. It’s also in the 2003 rule book under a different appendix number. I have the original drawing as an AutoCAD .dwg drawing if anyone wants it and lets me have their email address and I’ll happily forward it on. Don’t expect a brilliant technical drawing, I’m an enthusiastic amateur rather than an engineer and the success of the target has been more luck than sound technical knowledge!
-
I will add to the discussions about FFPP to say we use them quite a lot in the UK as well. I wish they were all FF.
I can confirm that the reliability is superb and I echo Vince's comments that the reliability factor far outweighs the "recognize power" issue.
The splashback issue is also a significant consideration and I've eaten my fair share over the years so anything that avoids it is another big plus in my book.
From our experiences both Vince and I would prefer to only permit FFPP but being realistic we had to settle for adding in a recommendation to this effect only.
-
At local (read club level) matches we don't officially appoint a range master. The MD acts as the "de facto" RM, hence my advice to contact the MD.
Nik
A minor technical point - Match organizers must officially appoint someone to act in the capacity of RM because there are a number of rules that specifically require a decision by the RM.
Appendix A1 Item 04 states that a Range Master (actual or designated) is mandatory at ALL match levels.
However, the Rules Committee was mindful of the difficulties and practicalities at smaller matches and so made a provision for this as below.
Rule 7.3.1 was added to the 2004 rules:
7.3.1 Match organizers must, prior to commencement of a match, appoint a Match Director and a Range Master to carry out the duties detailed in these rules. The nominated Range Master should preferably be the most competent and experienced certified Range Official present (also see Rule 7.1.5). For Level I and II matches a single person may be appointed to be both the Match Director and the Range Master.
The current practice you describe of the MD acting as RM is perfectly acceptable under the 2004 rules but I thought it might be interesting to add to this thread the actual rules that deal with it.
Please note that the MD is not always going to be "the most competent and experienced certified Range Official present ". The MD doesn't even need to be qualified as an RO (it is better if they are qualified, IMHO) and this is why over the past few years more and more match rule decision making has shifted solely to the RM.
-
1. competitor left, match organizers lost score sheet for regular stage -> zero stage?
No Sir, unless there was only an original (i.e. no competitor copy). If the Match Organisers lose an original, the first thing to do is ask to see the competitor's copy. Only if both scoresheets are lost would there be a problem.
This is because, well, (Darth kicking himself and screaming "How the #&%#$ hell did we miss this???"), we don't actually have a rule to deal with "both scoresheets lost". I've yet to see this happen but, dammit, I guess we must consider the (remote) possibility. Neil? What sayeth thou?:
(Draft) Rule 9.7.7: In the event that an original scoresheet is lost, the competitor's duplicate copy will be used. If the competitor's copy is also lost or deemed by the Range Master to be insufficiently legible, the competitor will be required to reshoot the course of fire. If the Range Master deems that a reshoot is not possible for any reason, the competitor will incur a zero time and score for the affected course of fire.
POSTSCRIPT: Before someone yells at me, hurts my feelings, and says "How come if Stats and the competitor lose the same scoresheet, the competitor is the only guy who might suffer with a zero for stage?", consider a World Shoot. Each competitor only needs to worry about 35 scoresheets passed directly to him. Stats needs to worry about 28,000 scoresheets, delivered to them by The Relay Team (at a club match, the numbers might be 6 and 240, but you catch my drift, yes?).
Vince/All
My recollection of why we introduced this rule was to tackle competitors who deliberately avoided the Chrono. I thought at least one specific incident was quoted.
I'm not too fired up about penalising competitors who innocently miss being chronoed. I supported 5.6.3.10 when it was first discussed and I support it now but I have to say that if anything I would now be in favour of softening it a little so that if a competitor was called away urgently and providing the RM was properly advised then I would waive the absoluteness of the rule.
I agree that we should refer to the competitors duplicate chrono sheet (if one exists) if the original is lost but surely we can do that anyway?
I would prefer us to proceed as follows:
If scheduled for chrono and no show then 5.6.3.10 unless there is an EXCEPTIONAL reason.
If original sheet is lost then use competitors copy if one exists.
If no original and no duplicate then chrono again if poss.
If not poss then use competitors declared factor.
If competitor isn't scheduled to be chronoed for some reason then use their declared factor.
To summarise: Lets come down hard on those that deliberately avoid the chrono otherwise use all reasonable endeavours to establish a chrono result if possible otherwise go with the competitors declaration.
Or have I missed something?
-
To summarize:
1. competitor left, match organizers lost score sheet for regular stage -> zero stage?
2. competitor left, match organizers lost score sheet for chrono stage -> no-score match?
"Competitor left early" is not an uncommon scenario here in the US with competitors shooting only 1 day of a multi-day match (in fact, most major matches here seem to have finally gotten the message and now offer this format). There is sometimes no way the stats crew can have all scores entered when a competitor leaves. One stage zeroed he can probably grudgingly accept, but travel there for no score because someone lost his chrono record? Pretty nasty...
--Detlef
Detlef
If the organizers lose a sheet for the chrono it is not the same thing. The rule reads:
5.6.3.10 The scores of a competitor who, for any reason, fails to present his firearm for testing at the designated time and location and/or who fails to provide sample rounds for testing whenever requested by a match official, will be removed from the match results.
-
Garfield,
I was there. I was immensely proud to be there.
Still got the T-shirt.From Day 1 I was on the Range Crew Planning Team (basically it became our NROI committee) which in reality meant I was around for 18 months of planning prior to the event.
We had a design team who put together some 50+ stages which had to be whittled down to a manageable match. My committee had to help select the final stages based on what we felt we could deliver. We allocated them to the 5 range areas to achieve balanced shooting days. We allocated the crew (155 + stats).
For the match itself I was also there from day 1 (14 days in total) to help build it and then run it. My main personal achievement during the build was the "Lock Gates" stage. This was one of the biggies. We used a 20 yard skip (open container) which was then lined with a cheap pond liner. We pumped it full of water and floated a real boat on it. That was where the competitor started - seated in the boat. We guild scaffold platforms around the skip. The boat was chained to the sides to prevent it from capsizing but boy did it rock. Having engaged the targets from the boat, exit to shoot all remaining targets.
Mr role during the match was mainly firefighting with some QM thrown in. I had 10 "spare" range crew working for me each day and I had a fairly free hand where to employ them, as required. We covered sickness, running delays, crew shortages from arbitations etc., etc., I also ran the armoury. My day started at 07.00 each morning and I was lucky to finish by 23.00.
By the end of the fortnight I was on my knees but I wouldn't have missed it for the world. I took my gun, I had hoped to shoot the match. Not a chance. I never even fired a shot.
Dave Arnold was assistant RM and he was a great plasure to work with.
From the US there were 49 shooters including Brian Enos, Matt Burkett, Jerry Barnhart, Todd Jarrett, Doug Koenig, Rob Leatham, Matt McClean, Mike Voigt, Merle Edington. All names available if anyone is really interested, there are probably noteable names I should have included but haven't, my apologies for these omissions. Garfield, 18 shooters from Belgium.
It was one hell of a match and at the time it set new standards for World Shoots.
-
In the early days in the UK nearly everyone would cup their hand over the ejection port to catch the round. On my basic course that was THE technique that I was taught had to be used.
I wasn't aware of any problems with .45 or 9mm but we started to receive reports of the problem with .38 super and techniques were modified. I know of 3 or 4 specific incidents where the round went off resulting in shrapnel being embedded in the hand which was cupped over the port.
It is clear that this has now become an unacceptable practice and I agree with Vince and others that we can't leave it to chance. I have no hesitation in supporting any new rule that protects shooters from a very real risk of injury.
-
Eric
With respect, I don't agree with your logic for a number of reasons. If I may ...............
If your gun is struggling to achieve sub 0.25 second splits then there is something else wrong with it and it's not because of a weak magazine spring. Even set up with a light spring I don't have a problem achieving splits of 0.17 - 0.18 with the best being arond 0.15, both for an 1100 and an 1187.
Even if a weak does cause slow recycling it occurs on a very seldom basis because statistically the gun will be frequently loaded with more than 1 round in the tube thereby increasing the spring tension.
I truly don't believe in a typical match there are a significant number of targets than can be shot with sub 0.25 second splits anyway.
Bearing the above statements in mind and the importance of loading on a stage I believe you are focussing on the wrong issue. Speed of reloads is VERY important. Consider the math. Is a 10% improvement on shooting splits of say 0.25 seconds more important versus a 10% improvement on loading splits of say 0.8 seconds. Yes, there is more shooting than loading but I reckon that there are less opportunities for sub 0.25 seconds shooting splits versus the typical number of rounds to be loaded per match.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Actually it's things like this that make the whole damn sport so interesting and of course it's all a freestyle choice. I'm sure others with have different views as well. Personal style comes into play as well.
-
There's a problem with the perfect answer to this in that springs can vary considerably. I was asked the same question in the UK and gave a perfectly correct but absolutely useless answer: "cut your spring just enough, and not too much".
I was pressed to give an answer with regards to the length of the overhang but I feel this can be misleading. I can say that 7.5 inches does sound too long (by quite a bit). I will offer a couple of suggestions.
1. Take the gun to your club, or better, to a match, and find someone with a similar gun set up. Then by feel trim back your spring until yours is no lighter than than the lightest reliable gun. I've actually tried this with my own matching guns and have set one up until I suspected one of them was just turning unreliable. Then the second one is left slightly heavier. Use a spring gauge if you want to be more precise.
2. Buy 2 identical replacement springs. Progressively cut one until it fails (just fails to feed; occassional problem only). Take the second spring and cut it to leave it a little longer than the first. Test to check OK.
3. Buy a slightly longer mag tube extension than you need or are allowed. Slip in a 2 - 3 inch long piece of 3/4 inch water pipe and a follower or a washer. Fit the spring. If the spring is too heavy then reduce the length of the water pipe thus lightening the spring tenssion but without having to cut the spring. If you cut too much off the pipe it's easy enough and cheap enough to start again. Infinitely variable. You could even take some pre cut lengths to the range, say 1", 2", 3" and 4" and quickly test them all.
I run my gun (1187) spring fairly light and it surprises many people how light it is. I have excellent reliability. No EZ loader, just a standard button but the port has been significantly rounded. Also on the 1187 I cut back the foreend and reverse the angle of the foreend at the rear so it flows away from the loading port. It doesn't have any bearing on reliability but it does get it out of the way for loading.
It is reckoned that with this configuration I'm loading fairly fast at about 4 rounds in 2.5 - 3 seconds, say 0.6 (on a really good day) to 0.75 splits.
-
Nik
Please note that the rule below:
10.3.2 When a match disqualification is issued, the Range Officer must record the reasons for the disqualification, and the time and date of the incident, on the competitor's score sheet, and the Range Master must be notified as soon as possible.
Rule 7.1.5 says the same thing.
All match disqualifications and appeals to arbitration must be brought to his attention. The Range Master is usually appointed by and works with the Match Director
While there is no requirement for an RO to inform the MD, it is polite if possible. However, as the RM I would take this on myself to keep the MD up to date. Once the RO has told me they should feel that they have satisfied their responsibility.
As for the phone thing ............ words fail me!
-
Jim
There are many things on which we do agree. This is an area where we don't see eye to eye.
We have already seen, recently, discussions where people have different views on what is safe and what is not.
By having a policy where it is left to discretion we end up with:
- Tough RO, soft competitor. RO calls it unsafe, competitor appeals. Now is the Arbitration Committee going to be tough or soft?
- Next day, same match, same stage, but now a soft RO - different call. 3rd party arbitration from tough (other) competior, different arbitration committee, different result
It's a mess and with inconsistent results. Without a detailed rule book we start to arbitrarily affect the result of a match and worse - safety matters, based on differing opinions.
You and I may have a great deal of common sense, and many others, but certainly not all. I suspect you and I would be a bit tougher than many others. I prefer our stance. I worry about the stance of others.
- Tough RO, soft competitor. RO calls it unsafe, competitor appeals. Now is the Arbitration Committee going to be tough or soft?
-
I think it's a good time to borrow some text that is buried at the bottom of one of Jim Normans's posts:
True story, I had a DOD Security guy come to a match with his Glock. He was borrowing a holster for the match and also needed a Safety Check. Since it was raining we decided to do the initial verbal part in the sign-up trailer and also to declare the trailer table as a Safe Table for the sole purpose of confirming that his borrowed holster would work. Imagine my surprize when I racked the slide back on his G17 and a round popped out. At that point I also ejected the fully loaded magazine. A valid case in point why you always treat every gun as loaded. NEVER ASSUME! -
Nik
Your posts on this subject have been excellent. And that's not intended to take anything away from anyone else.
This thread has always intended to get the subject on the table, and actively discussed. What people do with the information is going to be largely up to them.
I believe everyone should set their own safety standards (outside the rule book). Set them high and be proud of them.
Nobody ever got killed because someone was too safe!
Nik has also raised an interesting topic with regards to carrying guns in houses. I teach, particularly for long guns and as a general rule, muzzle down if downstairs and muzzle up if upstairs. But more importantly, as Nik has very aptly pointed out, be aware. In an apartment it's a toughie.
I have seen some folk, who are usually very safety conscious, point guns at doors and at windows, with either the curtains or blinds closed, and totally unthinking about the possible activity behind. They can't see a problem so one doesn't exist. Ostriches! In some ways a little similar to the other dicussions here about guns in bags, but arguable worse because the guns are actually being handled.
I know! Multiple redundancy and I agree with the concept. I also agree with the "More Safe / Less Safe concept" . I just prefer "More Safe" every time.
-
That's why I asked before if you or anyone else actually seen an AD out of a bag. If so, then we have a precedent and may want to come up with a new safety rule. If not - then in this particular case we might just choose to trust in each other's honesty and common sense.
And of course, nothing stands in your, mine, or anyone else's way to be as polite to each other as we'd like to be. 
I have twice witnesed guns being taken out of a bag and found to be loaded when they weren't meant to be. I'm aware of a couple of futher similar incidents.
These were simply stupid mistakes but nevertheless the result is the same a loaded gun.
This SIGNIFICANTLY narrows the redundancy envelope again.
I was taught, very early one, that in accidental shootings there is usually an empty gun involved because if you knew it to be loaded you wouldn't point it at someone and certainly wouldn't pull the trigger.
Guns grow bullets!
Empty guns kill people!
This thread isn't really about (certainly not anymore) whether or not it's OK to pointed a cleared gun at someone, I don't think anyone is in favour of that. This thread is now really about whether it's OK to point a gun at someone when it's in a bag or case.
I think it has proved to be a very interesting and useful discussion.
-
Vince,
do you have any statistics on how many times it has happened that anyone actually fired the gun while (un)holstering ?
I know of 2 occasions but not at IPSC matches, instead at other action shooting events. One was with a seated shooter on the draw. The bullet travelled down the entire length of his leg, entered his thigh and ended up by his ankle bone.
The other was a police officer at one of their sporting events and he shot himself in the butt as he holstered. Now get this. He was holstering a loaded gun for safety reasons while he moved to his next shooting position on a stage.
Both guys made good recoveries.
-
Happy birthday from me too.
-
I had some experience with the SPAS 12 back in the late 80s. There was one guy who was very much a top shooter and he had done a lot of work on his gun to achieve reliability. He was also a big, strong guy. Most people couldn't get on with them.
A couple of other points. They are very heavy. There is very little felt recoil. The pump action was virtually never used, as intel6 said - a lot of friction. Could come in handy in the case of a malfunction. There are 2 safeties. The one on the right of the trigger guard we used to call the full safety. It had to be turned through 180 degrees to work. There was an easier safety on the left which we used to call the combat safety. We used to only insist on this second safety being on at the start but would ask the full safety to be applied at the end of a C of F.
A word of warning - I'm aware of 3 different guns, and have stood next to 2 of them, which fired when the safety was disengaged. Definitely safety related NOT finger on the trigger. We were able to replicate the fault. Unfortunately for the life of me I can't recall which of the 2 safeties caused the problem, it's going back 15 or more years.
As previously said, consider these as a novelty gun but not for serious competition use.
Hope this helps.
-
It was a trick question.
Think about how you carry your UNLOADED gun when it is cased. Would you carry it the same way if you knew it was loaded? Should there be a difference?
wide45,
Yes! You're right it was a trick question and my apologies for that but my intentions were sincere. You other comments have hit the nail on the head.
Having said that there have been no bad or wasted comments in this discussion.
The main conversation has now shifted to the other thread that has always (in my mind) been linked to this one. Click HERE to go to that thread.
-
Gun Geek, Gary, Jim, All
I think just about all the comments made in this thread have been valid and useful (except possibly some of mine.
).I don't think it's remotely feasible to create a rule to carry handguns in range bags muzzle down. It is possible for long guns, but I was asked not to.
Damm! Even that's illogical. Not that I was asked not to but that I would prefer it if we did for long guns but wouldn't expect it for handguns.
-
Thank you all for your responses.
Actually I’ve had this theoretical discussion before but usually with both the thread concepts linked together from the start. I’ve been curious to see if the responses changed by breaking up the discussion.
It’s not leading to any proposals to change the rules or any sinister motive. I was just curious as to how experienced and knowledgeable shooters from this forum would view the scenarios. It’s been a bit of a pet subject for me over the years and I see it as an anomaly with contradictory logic being applied.
Previously I have asked other shooters if they are happy with other shooters carrying shotguns and rifles around horizontally in a case or slip. Mostly they are.
In the discussions I have found:
- If a gun is not bagged or cased they are almost always very strongly against having a gun pointed at them, even if proven unloaded. They support the reasons stated above by a number of you i.e. treat the gun as if loaded.
- They automatically assume the gun in the case/slip to be unloaded.
- Because they assume the gun to be unloaded, actually few of them are concerned about having a gun that is case or slip pointed at them.
- None of them would be tolerant of having a known loaded gun, in a case or slip, pointed at them deliberately.
I find this attitude very contradictory. Indeed if the gun is out of the case you can usually see if the bolt is open or closed, you can see the chamber flag (if fitted) and for some guns you can see if the mag is attached or not. There is more information.
In a case the bolt could be closed on a loaded chamber, the magazine could be filled and fitted, the safety could be off. Who knows for certain? I've witnessed 2 guns taken out of cases that have been loaded. I would suspect that others here have as well.
I even find myself more accepting of having a handgun pointed at me if in a glove or case than a long gun in a slip or case. And that’s illogical as well.
Any further thoughts?
- If a gun is not bagged or cased they are almost always very strongly against having a gun pointed at them, even if proven unloaded. They support the reasons stated above by a number of you i.e. treat the gun as if loaded.
And of course, nothing stands in your, mine, or anyone else's way to be as polite to each other as we'd like to be. 
Legal Targets...
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
Vince has already pointed out that the rule book lists the approved targets. For SG & R this includes clays. You can even have penalty clays if you can persuade the course reviewer that they are justified.
The crux of the question from Dead Buff relates to target presentation.
IPSC shooting is a particular flavour. It is not Skeet or any other form of clay shooting. It is not Bianchi. It is not Steel Challenge. It is not a skittle shoot. It is not IDPA. It is unashamedly IPSC.
There are many contraptions that can add fun to shooting. There are many ways to test a shooter's ability. But does a Texas Star belong at a Skeet match? Or at a Bianchi match? Or at an IDPA match? And if not, why not? Would it not still be fun to shoot?
Guys, I'm not against any contraption. I'm not against any target presentation. Hell, I've tried many flavours of these over my years of shooting. However, at the end of the day, when I shoot an IPSC match I expect a certain flavour, IPSC flavour.
Do I think the Texas Star belongs in IPSC? No! Irrespective of how much fun it is or how challenging it. To get to the original question: Do I think that a scoring clay set in the middle of a penalty target is OK in IPSC. Nope! I cannot think of a single justification for such an arrangement in IPSC.
Set up another match, not an IPSC match, include the TEXAS Star, include a clay/penalty target combo, include upside down targets. In fact include as many variants as possible and time permitting I'll be there. I'd love to be there. It would be a great fun shooting match. It just wouldn't be an IPSC match.
I think this is basically what Vince is saying as well. IPSC has already drifted from it's original concepts. The drift has to stop somewhere or IPSC shooting ceases to exist. It becomes something else. Personally I want to try to preserve IPSC in some sort of recognizable form for the next generation of shooters because it offers something unique.
Perhaps there's scope for another shooting association which focuses on testing shooting skills in as many fun ways as possible. The Anything Goes Association. This deserves its own platform but let's not hijack IPSC to provide that platform. Please remember that it's a slippery slope and always harder going back.
Sh*t, I feel old sometimes. But I can also think of older dinosaurs than me. And besides, it doesn't make me a bad person!!!!