Neil Beverley
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Neil Beverley
-
-
So …………
The clear consensus is that it is not acceptable to ever have a loaded gun in a slip or case while on a range (or anywhere else for that matter?). To quote a couple of view points which I agree with:
Dajarrel: I don't like the idea of a hypothetical loaded gun on the range- bagged or not.Jim: The safety on or off makes no difference. Why is the competitor carrying his SG in this manner and as already been asked, why would we consider this different from a loaded pistol in a case ……
Then there seems to be a consensus, in the main, in this thread that we should treat all firearms as if they are loaded.
Jeff and Jim state the case best of all:
1) All guns are loaded!!!2) Do not point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy!!!
Good sound practice. I concur, completely.
To summarise:
1. It is not acceptable to point a loaded gun at someone (even if it is in a slip or case)
2. Treat all guns as if they are loaded
Very interesting!
The practice in reality is somewhat in conflict with the combined conclusions above. There are some people, some entire Regions, who frequently carry long guns horizontally in cases, and I daren’t even further discuss the generally accepted practices for handguns when in cases or gloves or range bags.
It’s quite contradictory to the feelings in the combined threads.
How many people routinely point a gun, that should be treated as if loaded, at something they aren't willing to destroy, while carrying it around in a case, slip, glove or range bag?
Just a thought!
-
As an spin off from the "To DQ one, both, or none, Another brainteaser" thread I'll pose another scenario based on a conversation I recently heard.
If a gun is cleared and checked by an RO and the hammer has been dropped to further prove that the gun is empty, why is it considered unsafe to point an empty and theoretically safe gun at someone else? Why does it matter? Is it really so unsafe?
I know my thoughts on this.
-
One of the reasons for the change of naming convention was because it had been a significant effort to align HG, SG and R rules. However, HG was at the time on the 14th ed., SG would have been 3rd or 4th ed. depending on where you started counting from and rifle the same depending on whether the set of rules that was trialed in the early 90s was included or not.
Having got the rules aligned it made sense to start afresh with the edition references.
It was decided that using a date in the final name was by far the clearest and uniform solution. After kicking around a variety of ideas mostly initiated by Vince the final accepted version which was unanimiously accepted was a variant put forward by Mike Voigt.
The official IPSC naming convention is slightly different to the final result for the USPSA rule books but the concept is the same. IPSC below:
HANDGUN COMPETITION RULES
JANUARY 2004 EDITION
I was interrupted after I started this and I now see Vince has also replied but what the heck .....
-
A hypothetical question.
What is your opinion on someone having a loaded shotgun in either a soft case, or a hard case, and carrying the case around horizontally at a match. The justification for such action being that the gun is safe inside the case, the trigger is inaccessible, it cannot fire.
And would it make a difference if the safety catch is on or off?
-
Chamber flags are worthless, IMHO. I was at a rifle match a few months ago, and some %$#@ %@ who had a flag in his gun, while showing his rifle to another person, proceeded to point it at the 6 people who were down range. The ^%$@ idiot and the RO both said that it, "wasn't a big deal, because there was a flag in the rifle and it was empty."
I've had too many "empty" firearms pointed at me in the brief 9 years that I have been shooting.Chamber flags provide a real additional safety measure.
They are not a substitute for basic sound gun handling. It sounds from what you described that in an IPSC match the actions of the competitor would have (should have) led to a DQ.
It should be noted that for the original issue being discussed in this thread the use of a chamber flag, at least of the type that is inserted into the chamber, the problem would have been discovered on the line before the competitor left with the gun.
You've made me think of a pet peeve that I might launch in a separate thread a bit later.
-
Hi All
The link to to other topic results in 6 pages of stuff to read through so I'm copying 2 of my posts to here as well for convenience.
(1) The rule does not say one round per target.Depending on distance, the pattern spread is likely to be between 4-20 inches. It is therefore absolutely possible to deliberately aim to shoot 2 targets with one round. Some competitors choose spreader chokes or spreader cartridges to achieve just that.
This conforms to "shoot at each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round ", as opposed to not shooting one or both targets with one round. The targets will have been shot with one round each it just so happens that it's the same round.
Take 00 buck as an example (9 ball) (8.4mm per pellet). Split the pattern between 2 targets so 4 hits (nearly 9 mm) on one and 5 hits on the other (OK, OK. I know it's a convenient example). The competitor has found a way to achieve/exploit this by the way the targets are presented from a given position.
The proof of the pudding that 9.5.6 has been complied with is in the fact that by shooting at the 2 targets with one shot both of them are hit and fall.
The shotgun rule is not written differently and we took great pains to try to make as many rules as possible identical. If you refer back to my earlier posts you will see that I have said that I had to consider whether the wording of the rule would cause any problems for shotgun.
(2) I think you're still focusing on the wording of the rule in one particular way. If you bear with me I'll try a completely different tack.
Task:
To take 2 acorns and smash each of them with a mallet.
Do you take the first acorn and smash it and then take the second acorn and smash it, OR do you take both acorns and put them side by side and hit them once at the same time? Using the latter method have both of them (each of them) been smashed with the mallet?
I think you are conceiving an interpretation that includes an additional "each" as below in red. This isn't a necessary requirement if there is an overlapping, adjacent or close target in shotgun.
A competitor who fails to shoot at each scoring target in a course of fire with at least one round each
-
We at our local club's 3 gun call for chamber flags or mag blocks on long guns before they are declared clear. I think in MOST of the hypothetical cases this would solve the problem.......... except In the case we had of two freinds sharing a Benelli shotgun . Shooter a the borrower ulsc and flags the shotgun , shooter b the owner come to the line to lamr removes the chamber flag releases the bolt and chambers the round that the benelli had hidden on the shell lifter or something. I don't remember the outcome maybe Ima45dv8 will chime in and remind us what really happened.
Chamber flags are now compulsory under the 2004 shotgun and rifle rules.
However, we must bear in mind that flags that pass through the mag well and ejection port satisfy the rule but don't prove the chamber empty. They do prevent the bolt from fully closing. Furthermore we treat a live round in a magazine inserted in the gun or as an integral part of the gun as still being loaded.
Your comments clearly point out good practice and the benefits of using chamber flags.
I had to think twice when the idea was first put to the committee but as time has gone on and with the benefit of actual use I am very much in favour of them. They cost very little and aren't a problem in use.
-
- Neil, I didn't mean that your opinion wasn't important, just that it didn't change the overwhelming conclusion drawn by those that have taken the time to post on this thread. (so far)
- Neil and Vince, if the vast majority find this rule unneeded...how is that a reflection upon either of you? As Vince pointed out, this rule has been on the books since the beginning (where I come from there is a bridge that connects my town with the one across the river...the speed limit on that bridge is "as fast as a horse can trot"...we don't need to keep something around when it no longer matters). You didn't write this rule. Even if you did...there is no need to attach your ego to it.
No one writing rules is a God. Mistakes will be made. Opinions will vary. Rules will become outdated.
When a shooter gives feedback on a rule, that doesn't mean they are calling any single person an a-hole. They are showing displeasure with the rule. What should they do? Should they just keep quite because somebody's feelings might get hurt?
Now, how you respond to the feedback...that is up to you to choose.
Flex,
Rest easy. I didn't take the slightest offence at your comment. Hence my smilie. I understood the context in which you made the point.
I’ll state my own position again. I will never be offended simply because somebody disagrees with me or with a rule that I support. Even if it is my absolute No. 1 pet rule.
I will, and do, and have, listened to any constructive remarks, comments, disagreements or criticisms. I would be a fool not to.
I will absolutely continue to be offended if those remarks are made as personal attacks or derogatory criticisms. Anyone in my shoes would take the same view, whether or not involved on a rules committee. The content isn’t the issue only the method.
Occasionally here, and all too often elsewhere, the comments fall into the second category rather than the first.
-
Neil, if I disagree with you, with that affect our reputation as being mutual "Yes" men? And can we still hold hands and take long walks on the beach??
I still love you sweetie!
I just re-read the original. The first competitor "racked his gun" I have taken this to mean that he has placed the gun on a gun rack and has then walked away. Neither the first competitor nor the RO have personally handed the gun to the second competitor. A time duration between the first competitor shooting and the second competitor shooting is not specified.
I have therefore been assuming that there is a break between the two them shooting in which case my take on this is: There was no proof that the gun left the previous stage with a live round in the chamber. For that to have occurred it would have missed 2 visual checks AND a hammer down without firing.
With 3 checks in total having failed to discover a live round it would be wrong to assume guilt on the previous competitor at the stage. The round may have been chambered subsequent to leaving the stage. In the absence of irrefutable evidence then I believe it would be wrong to make the asumption that the last competitor is at fault.
If the first competitor simply handed his gun to the second competitor and the second competitor immediately went to the line then I would agree with you.
-
I suggest you PM Skywalker to make sure he picks up on this post.
Even though it pains me to say it
he's a really nice guy and a generous host. I'm sure he will be able to give you the best advice. -
Hi Phil
I'm aware you will be going and I'm looking forward to meeting you. A beer or two will be in order I think?
I going to be there for about 12 days in total.
-
It seems to me that there are still people tring to convince us that we should allow equipment to be moved at a MG match. Both Vince and I responded on the first day that this was raised that we could see absolute sense in a change of the rule for MG matches.
I also accept that there are some saying that there should be no restriction at single gun matches. This is the point that Vince and I are disagreeing with.
The IPSC Shotgun Committee had one voting member against the rule as it is.
I truly don't have a problem with the thrust of this discussion and I'm certain it will be raised within the committee at some future time. Overall, discussions like this are very useful. I am only unhappy and get upset by the manner in which some people put their points.
Whether or not I'm a complete an utter moron is beside the point but I don't want to be called one on this forum (I know! I know! I've exagerated it a bit
).In the main, the vast majority of the time, the discussions on these forums are as BE would like them to be. It's his house and his house rules and rules that I wholeheartedly support. I for one am eternally grateful for what he has established here. Unlike some other places.
-
I agree with the others. No DQ. However, I could understand an RO's initial reaction to be to call a DQ but once the dust has settled I would hope that the DQ would be withdrawn.
I would add that had it been a live round I would have to DQ the competitor on the line, ultimately it is his responsibility, and while I would want to have words with the other competitor and the RO I wouldn't take any further action against them.
It would go in my book though.
-
Beauty sleep? It'll take more than sleep!!!
Vince has again proved I'm "almost redundant".
Without actually seeing the target array (the spacing), and without knowing where the cometitor was standing, it's impossible to properly determine what the call could have/should have been, but the principles oulined by Vince and supported by Troy are correct.
Vince very correctly states that an RO should be taking in more than just a narrow focus on the competitor. An experienced RO is usually able to tell where the gun was pointed and even small adjustments to the point of aim can be noticed. I can mostly tell which target is being engaged and usually how.
Personally I don't like stages that finish with anything other than an indisputable set of targets except in exceptional circumstances.
-
I wasn't able to determine if Neil took a position or not. But, it matters little.
Hey Flex,
It matters to me!
-
Both Vince and I have said we can see the sense in a waiver of the rule for Multi Gun Matches. There is a special need.
3 gun (or 2 gun) Tournaments are different. They consist of separate single gun matches pooled together to create Tournament results.
As single gun matches they are governed by the approved single gun rules and I support the existing rules. There is no special need to change the rule.
I have an opinion and I respect the opinion of others but please never forget that the rules were voted on in a democratic process. If at some future occasion there is a vote to change the existing rule then so be it. However, as Vince has pointed out this isn't something we just invented for 2004. It has been around for some time now and it simply hasn't attracted much attention.
Guys, we're not the enemy here. And are we not entitled to an opinion as well? Even if it's different?
-
Apparently common sense has been successfully squeezed out of our sport by gratuitous rule-making. rule-changing, and complication-inserting. I'd blame the Euro contingent, but it would be redundant.I think the distinctions are somewhat ... silly. And they seem to only matter to people on the other side of the water.
Rhino
I have to say I'm a little surprised at your two separate comments from threads in the USPSA/IPSC Rules forum. Usually I've seen your comments as being more measured and reasonable, and certainly often amusing.
For the record the IPSC Shotgun Committee, of which I was the Chairman, consisted of just 3 members, nobody else was daft enough to want to give up their life for 15 months. One committee member was from the US, one from the Philippines and the "Euro contingent" consisted of me.
I note an inbalance in so many of the discussions on these forums.
- It is a fact that there are many rules that have been improved.
- There are rules that have been fixed because there was previously a problem.
- Some old rules have been deleted.
- Some necessary new rules added.
- The handgun, shotgun and rifle rules have been aligned as much as possible to make them more consistent.
- IPSC has created IPSC tournament rules which didn't exist before. (even if you don't like them, some do and there was nothing there before)
I do not hear anyone arguing why certain rules are better because of the recent changes and yet the overwhelming consencus is that there has been substantial improvements.
On the other hand we see heated debate and some personal criticism about a VERY small percentage of the rules.
Why so some people spend so much time looking for what they don't like but don't spend the same amount of time on what they do like?
I joined this forum to listen to, and canvas for, ideas. I joined the USPSA for the same reason. I corresponded with a number of people around the world on a one to one basis to seek feedback. I put my life on hold, as most of the committee members did, as we strived to achieve an end result. My family life suffered, my work suffered, my shooting (ability) suffered. It has cost me personally several hundred dollars (US) in actual money spent.
On the plus side I have met or otherwise got to know some very nice people whom I have grown to like and respect immensely. In the main it has been a privilege and a pleasure despite the pain.
Vince and I had some fairly heated debates on what we thought to be right. We both won and lost some but we never lost respect. We still don't always agree but we both still absolutely try to do what we think is best for the sport AND NOT what is best for us as individuals. If you find Vince and I agreeing on a point on these forums it is not because we blindly follow each other, ask the other committee members, nobody would ever accuse us of that.
IPSC shooting has a particular flavour. It is not UIT. It is not 3 position rifle. It is not IDPA. It is not PP1, or PP2. It is not some hotchpot of things that can be done with a firearm. IPSC shooting is, unashamedly, IPSC shooting. You don't take a cricket ball to a baseball match. There are a number of nuances in the rules that result in IPSC being IPSC. There are a lot of things that are fun to shoot and I too would enjoy them. There a lot of things that can be done with targetry and within a C of F that are also fun but many of these things are not IPSC.
My HUGE fear for the sport is that without defining rules IPSC will lose it's identity. If the rules are too loose then we will see all sorts of interpretations creep in. In the US, in Europe, in Australasia, in Africa. East coat. West coast. Soon there would be no "IPSC" shooting as such. We would end up with a mongrel sport. No consistency. No definable sport. The International Hotchpot Shooting Confederation. It wouldn't happen this year or next, but gradually over the years and then we could see ourselves sitting in bars talking about the good old days when we used to shoot IPSC. I've personally witnessed some of this drift. Other stuff is still fun but I rather like and prefer IPSC and it's provided an excellent challenge for very many people. I'd like it still to be around in 10 years time. My 2 cents worth of perspective on the possible future if it slips too far.
I will continue to fight for good rules. I will continue to listen to sound and measured arguments. I will continue to be receptive to reasonable constructive criticism. It all goes with the (unpaid) job.
"Blame"? "Euro contingent"? Do either of these terms really belong in the BE Forums in the context used.
And I'm going to totally ignore that fact that Vince is an Australian living in Hong Kong.
- It is a fact that there are many rules that have been improved.
-
My apologies if I'm reading this wrongly but I think there is a misconception about the ease, or rather the difficulty, of running an IPSC style Tournament. It is virtually as easy as running 2 separate handgun matches, anywhere, any time. I'll try to give an easy example.
Club A puts on a 4 stage Handgun match on the first Saturday in the month. It is scored and final results produced. There can be/will be a match winner.
Club B puts on a 4 stage Shotgun match on the second Saturday in the month. It is scored and final results produced. There can be/will be a match winner.
The Tournament consists of the these 2 matches. A total of 8 stages. Tournament results are calculated by adding the percentage from match A (treat the percentage figures as points) to the percentage from match B for each competitor. e.g Competitor XYZ gets 83.92 % in match A and 78.31% in match B. His Tournament result is simply the sum of 83.92 + 78.3, i.e. 162.23 tournament points.
The Tournament result could be calculated in the evening or even on the following Monday. It doesn't need special software. It doesn't need a change to EZWin. Excel would help but how long would it take to add 2 numbers together for 50 competitors manually? The tournament results are very easy to create.
The example given above could easily be Saturday at one club and Sunday at another. Or Saturday at both clubs if they are fairly close with the competitors shooting a morning at one and an afternoon at the other.
A single club can put together a Tournament like the one above by running the handgun stages one weekend and themselves running the shotgun stages a week, or 2 weeks later.
In reality the Tournament results should be fairly easily available in a very short amount of extra time on the last day of the last match.
I've used handgun and shotgun in my example above but it could easily be shotgun and rifle, or handgun and rifle, or all 3.
The Tournament rules are available on both the IPSC and the USPSA websites. Only 2 1/2 pages of rules/notes + 2 tables. Easy stuff guys, have a look.
Any queries will be happily answered by myself or Vince.
-
Don't we even have it in the rules that Standard Exercises are not permitted in Level 4 & 5 matches?
Detlef
You are correct as far as the 14th Edition rules are concerned. However, Mike Voigt and the other guys from the US in particular, requested that Standards be once again permitted at all match levels and this was subsequently agreed by the IPSC Committee. This applies to the 2004 rules.
2004 6.1.2 Standard Exercise – A course of fire consisting of more than one separately timed component strings. Scores, with any penalties deducted, are accumulated on completion of the course of fire to produce the final stage results. Standard Exercises must only be scored using Virginia Count or Fixed Time. The course of fire for each component string may require a specific shooting position, procedure and/or one or more mandatory reloads. Only one Standard Exercise of a maximum of 24 rounds is allowed in IPSC sanctioned Level IV or higher matches.
-
Amazingly Vince's memory banks failed on this occasion so I had to do the leg work.
There is an outstanding proposal for an interpretation to allow a Tournament to be created by 2 matches nominating different divisions but it's still on the table:
1.4 Examples of recognized IPSC Tournaments and their component matches are:
1.4.5 An IPSC discipline specific tournament (e.g. Handgun only), with two or more component matches, each requiring compliance with a single recognised division (e.g. Standard Division Handgun match + Production Division Handgun match).
Vince wrote the proposed change (above) and I supported it. It hasn't progressed any further at this stage but at least I'm not going mad and have started imagining things.
-
Brian
An interesting post.
I will add to your posed suggestions that the same concept can be employed to build a "Tournament". Please note in this context "Tournament" refers to separate single gun matches.
On this basis one club could host the handgun match and another, say, a shotgun match. Even add in a third for a rifle match. Bolt them together and you achieve a Tournament. They do not even need to be held on the same weekend.
I'm hoping Vince will chip in with his memory banks to save me doing the research, but I believe it is also possible to create a Tournament from 2 separate handgun matches. What I can't remember is whether these can be constructed from different divisions but I seem to recall this is possible. For example a revolver (only) match at one club + an Open Division (only) match at another. Vince?
This in turns builds a bigger shooting "event" but takes some of the pressure off the smaller clubs who can then put on smaller elements of the overall event.
-
I tried to use the double points for disapearing targets (flipped Clay/charcoal)
in the Mississippi 3-gun but our Fine scoring program no matter how we tried to go around it would not take it. (something else to fix in EZWinscore? or a new program?)
But that same reason you stated was the very reason I wanted to double the points
of those targets, to make the shooters shoot at them for the stage points.
Sam
The short term solution is to "trick" EZWinscore by treating any target that you want to score double as 2 targets. If hit score both, if missed treat both as missed.
You would need to post a clear explanation of this for all competitors to read, and on the relevant stage itself would be good, and also where the scores are posted.
You also need to decide whether you convert the single hit into two on the stage by the RO or whether the stats officer deals with it.
I know it's not ideal but it does work and the stage scores/factors end up as accurately representing the intention. What it does do is buy time while the necessary changes within EZWin can be sorted out.
with time and effort all this will get straightend up let's not get impatientA voice of reason. Amen!
-
Neil, you bring up a great point. Where are all the shotgun speed shoots that require 9 or fewer rounds? Not in the U.S. that's for sure. Six poppers with three flipped clays would be cool and the clays would be worth engaging.
Erik
For shotgun the rules state a max of 8 rounds for a short course. This is based on Standard Division being set at 9 rounds in the gun so a short course leaves you with a spare round. If 9 rounds then many a short course could end up as being vitually Virginia Count because it's not worth reloading and re-engaging if there is an unexpected miss, the HF means it would often be better to take the miss.
1.2.1.1 “Short Courses” must not require more than 8 rounds to complete and no more than 2 shooting locations.
and
1.2.1.4 The recommended balance for an IPSC match is a ratio of 3 Short Courses to 2 Medium Courses to 1 Long Course.
As I understand it there haven't been many (any?) USPSA stand alone shotgun matches. In light of this the shotgun stages being set up tend to be only a high round count. However, elsewhere, where shotgun matches have regularly been run as stand alone matches there is a balance of stages roughly in line with 1.2.1.4. I know there are stand alone SG matches in the US outside of the USPSA and some of those seem to have Short Courses.
The British Open last month had one stage with just 2 targets and with an unloaded start. On it's own as a stage not much but across a balanced match of 15 stages it sat well enough. The match was around 170 rounds overall.
I've just started to review a Level III Hungarian shotgun match with 20 stages and 229 rounds (107 rounds of slug). That match has around 9 or 10 Short Courses.
It would seem from your comment that you would welcome some (more) Short Courses?
Kurt Miller has shot 2 different matches in Europe and I think he would agree that some of the short stages have still prresented a good challenge. Fast and furious. On the other hand I willingly admit that I've shot some stages that have been as boring as hell and just padding for lazy match organisers. That's the way it goes sometimes.
-
This is why the times are set short, no one should be able to get all the shots off and get all A's in the allowed time.
Sorry, Jim, but I slightly disagree.
I believe if the time is set right it should be just achievable for a very small handful of competitors, perhaps 5% of the competitors and not more than say 10%, i.e. GMs and maybe a couple of M Grades.
On the other hand I would agree that is is better for all to fail than for too many competitors to achieve the max points. It certainly should be set tight and deciding on the correct time can be quite tough for some, particularly if the stage is designed by a lower graded competitor. They tend to be too generous with the time they alot.
).
Why is it unsafe to point an empty gun at someone?
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
So …………
There seems to be a consensus, in the main, that we should treat all firearms as if they are loaded.
Jeff and Jim state the case best of all:
Good sound practice. I concur, completely.
Moving on ……..
We also state in this thread that a loaded gun in a gun slip or case is unacceptable.
To summarise:
1. Treat all guns as if they are loaded
2. It is not acceptable to point a loaded gun at someone (even if it is in a slip or case)
Very interesting!
The practice in reality is somewhat in conflict with the combined conclusions above. There are some people, some entire Regions, who frequently carry long guns horizontally in cases, and I daren’t even further discuss the generally accepted practices for handguns when in cases or gloves or range bags.
It’s quite contradictory to the feelings in the combined threads.
How many people routinely point a gun, that should be treated as if loaded, at something they aren't willing to destroy, while carrying it around in a case, slip, glove or range bag?
Just a thought!