[British Open]

Results as requested:

Standard Division (Top 10)

1 100.00 780.9568 37 Miller, Kurt

2 94.56 738.4506 10 Beverley, Neil

3 94.20 735.6681 21 Darby, Mike

4 77.60 605.9839 31 Granycome, George

5 76.87 600.3493 23 Sell, Adrian

6 76.82 599.8959 36 Sulivan, Barry

7 76.49 597.3666 11 Smith, Geoff

8 75.58 590.2407 43 Smith, Neil

9 74.10 578.6590 44 Holloway, Jon

10 71.52 558.5487 22 Butler, Steve

Modified Division (Top 10)

1 100.00 812.5935 9 Harris, James

2 85.38 693.8121 53 Lutley, Colin

3 85.13 691.7485 52 Alden, Colin

4 85.10 691.5179 13 Clegg, Dave

5 82.95 674.0240 3 Schwier, Peter

6 80.49 654.0423 59 Scarlett, Michael

7 78.63 638.9428 4 Dowding, Dave

8 78.15 635.0503 27 Ferris, Ian

9 75.90 616.7654 16 Richards, Ian

10 75.81 616.0137 19 Duffy, Vanessa

Open Division (less than 10 competitors)

1 100.00 876.3292 14 Ingram, Richard

[USPSA Shotgun & Rifle Rules]

We've used chamber flags for 5 or 6 matches now and it's no big deal at all and it does add an additional tier of safety.

We're using a variety of flags or other breach safe devices. Personally I've chosen to cut a frisbee (or similar) to a suitable shape. The outer rim has a good radius of curve and can be cut long enough to ensure that it "wedges" nicely in place in a 12ga. I found that some other flags fell out unless the bolt was lowered onto them. Finally with the frisbee I trimmed the plastic to leave a piece about 1 - 1.5 inches long from the flat top to achieve the external "flag". Much easier to do than explain.

It works a treat and I get 4 flags from 1 frisbee. I'll try to post a picture later just in case anyone is interested.

The shop bought flags aren't an expensive item.

In a discussion many months ago (October?) this whole subject was discussed at length. For the record the devices for rifles which pass up through the magazine port and out through the ejection port and then clip/lock togetherare considered acceptable because they prevent the bolt from locking fully closed.

[Can't Do]

If you think you can, ........................ you can!

If you think you can't, ....................... you're right!

[USPSA Shotgun & Rifle Rules]

kimel

The reason I'm a little uneasy about these being the absolute final polished rules is because the "final" in the name comes (I think) from IPSC rather than USPSA and this happened once with the handgun rules.

I don't think it's a big deal and I'm not expecting any further significant changes, if indeed any at all, but I didn't want to post here that the final version was ready only to crash and burn when someone who REALLY knows steps in to make a statement on behalf of the USPSA Board.

Nevertheless it's good to see them up and about!

[ROTATIVE MAGAZINE (Open Division)]

Here's another image:

This one had 3 tubes. I am unaware if they have now created a 4 tube system.

[ROTATIVE MAGAZINE (Open Division)]

For those of you who are struggling with the translation try:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

This basic web based software will roughly translate the Italian on the web site to English.

There are other similar translation packages available.

[Da System]

Note that apart from the official IPSC Executive Council, President Nick Alexakos appointed an additional unofficial group of advisors called the IPSC President's Council, and this is currently comprised of:

Tim Andersen (Denmark)

Neil Beverley (UK)

Bob Chittleborough (UK)

Chepit Dulay (Philippines) 

Victor Ferrero (Ecuador)

Luiz Frota (Brazil)

Peter Glenn (Australia)

Alain Joly (France)

Michael Voigt (USA)

Either Nick and Vince don't love me anymore, I've been sacked and I've got my life back ; or

I've become so insignificant that I'm no longer needed and I've got my life back ; or

Vince simply forgot about me and I've still got to slog away , I haven't got my life back , but worse, nobody cares!

On the assumption that I haven't been sacked I belong somewhere in this list.

[USPSA Shotgun & Rifle Rules]

I've just noticed that the USPSA versions of the Shotgun and Rifle rules are posted on the USPSA website.

I'm not sure if these are the finished versions or interim versions produced for the Nationals.

I can't comment on the changes because I haven't had a chance to read them properly yet.

[ROTATIVE MAGAZINE (Open Division)]

I had a close look at the gun in Italy. It is superbly engineered.

If I recall correctly it held 28 (or perhaps 27) rounds.

Strictly Open Division only for IPSC. I strongly suspect it will be outlawed in the US Divisional rules, even for Open.

It does not fall foul of any other rules.

[British Open Shotgun Championships]

Pictures now posted.

[British Open Shotgun Match - Misc]

Kurt Miller - Stage 5

Yours truly - Stage 5

Kurt - Stage 1

Yours truly - Stage 12

All forum members, from left to right: James, me, Mike, Kurt, Barry, Steve

A very pensive Mike!

[British Open Stage 13]

If you're not a shooter stages like this must look very weird from behind!

First Kurt Miller:

Does my butt look big in this?

Next, Mike Darby:

and yours truly:

This is where I discovered that if I hold my gut in I can still see my feet.

[British Open Stage 14]

Please feel free to suggest alternative captions. Kurt gives us plenty to work with doesn't he?

Kurt Miller (USA): We know it's big. We don't need the RO to point it out to us!

Have you been looking at my butt?

Damm! Where's my handgun gone?

Mike (mike.45) Darby

[British Open Shotgun Championships]

The British Open Shotgun Championships was held over the weekend of 11-13 June in Dorset, England. Each competitor shot the match in 1 day.

Kurt from the US , as in kurtm on this forum kicked *ss and took first place in Standard Division by a margin of over 5% and this against a background of unfamiliar terrain, kit (some borrowed), style etc. and of course against guys with the home advantage (theoretically ).

I'm sure more reports will be added to this topic in due course and I think (hope) Kurt will report the natives as friendly!

I'll try to get some pictures posted in The Gallery in the next couple of days.

Stats:

14 stages

30 rounds slug

33 rounds buckshot

105 rounds birdshot

[Calibrating Metal Targets for Shotgun]

Having noted the interest about calibrating metal targets for handgun matches I thought it may be a good idea to point out in a separate thread that the procedures for shotgun are different.

It should be noted that we only recognize Major PF for SG so metal targets do not need to be included and calibrated to recognize power.

Metal targets are the main target type for shotgun matches, and birdshot is the main ammunition type although we also shoot buck and slug. We must be satisfied that targets will fall when properly hit. We have to consider pattern spread.

For those of you who put on or shoot shotgun matches or stages I would recommend that you read the calibration procedures in the 2004 rule book.

The key points are:

• Test Gun: Maximum barrel length - 66 cms (26 inches).
  
• True cylinder or open choked barrel.
  
• Test Cartridge (birdshot): Birdshot - no. 7 or 7 ½ or local equivalent.
  
• Power factor - 520 or less. (e.g. A cartridge of 28gr (1 ounce) shot weight at 1180 fps = 516PF)
  
• All testing is to be conducted from the closest possible point from where a competitor could shoot at the target and not from where they actually shot
  

Please note that the test cartridge PF is stipulated at below the minimum necessary for score. We are testing that the targets will fall and not testing power.

Also note that we test from the closest possible point using an open choked barrel. Competitors can choose any choke they like and can shoot any cartridge above the minimum that they choose. Understanding the choking and pattern spread is a fundamental part of the sport. Competitors can choose to opt for tighter chokes and heavier cartridges and then shoot further back or at an angle. It's freestyle. The testing is done from the closest point to prove the target can be successfully shot during the C of F after that it's up to the competitor.

[IPSC/USPSA Case Book]

Continuing on from Rob's point. It is critical that all opinions and interpretations are official ones. It has to be a controlled process. There cannot be 2 different definitive reference books.

It mustn't be an automatic process that any arbitration decision is automatically included. I've known more than one strange arbitration decision.

The rules committee is the appropriate body to ultimitely discuss and determine the correct calls. The decisions must be based on what the rules say rather than what people want them to say. For the case book to work properly the examples must be solid and correct decisions. The trick is going to be in creating clear explanations and interpretations that don't end up rewriting the rules.

[Can you bring a stool to a stage?]

I guess Yoda didn't get the (intended) irony of my post which was partly posted in jest. On reflection, Vince would understand it more. Sorry.

[Chronograph & PF]

POSTSCRIPT: Here's a slightly reworded version of Yoda's proposal:

Draft text: The values used for bullet weight and velocity must be rounded up to 1 decimal place, except in respect of equipment used which only displays whole numbers, in which case face values will be used. The resultant power factor is then rounded up to a whole number (no decimals).

My instinct is to truncate but I can live with rounding and would be happy enough to support Vince's revised wording of Yoda's proposal but changed so that the final result is rounded rather than rounded up. (Edited)

Kimel makes a good point about 5.6.5.1.

[Can you bring a stool to a stage?]

I argued vigorously against it, but the other rules guys stole my lunch and beat me with my banana

Hey Vince

Don't you go including me in "the other rules guys" on this one! I'm not in favour or at least I'm very much against it for Level II matches.

In the UK we go through a formal course review process for Level II matches and treat them the same as we would a Level III match except for state differences for Level III in accordance with the book.

How come if you and I were both against we still lost?

Perhaps it had something to do with the 6000+ other emails that we had to deal with?

[IPSC/USPSA Case Book]

Hi All

Thanks for the input and in particular thanks to Tman33_99. I'll add this as a discussion point for the committee and the concept follows some similar thoughts that I have but with a different flavour.

I have a couple of observations generally about the seminars:

• We only have 2 days so we have to carefully allot the time available.
  
• There isn't enough time currently allotted to the exams to debate the answers properly. The exams are superb for teaching if used for that instead of just for testing.
  
• The current "Ask IROA" section is useful but needs to be updated and expanded.
  

On this last point it may be that we can combine it with the idea suggested here. In any case we should be able to increase the amount of "useful" take home reference material.

I will be most definitely listening and watching on these forums for any and all ideas so please feel free to post your thoughts openly for discussion or alternatively you can always PM or email me. I have already "stolen" a number of ideas for the committee to discuss.

Many thanks.

[Rem 1100 20ga Youth Model]

UPDATE

A little birdie tells me, subject to confirmation later today:

I believe that for the 3 Gun Nationals the "20 gauge makes major" rule will be in effect. However, for the new Tournament and Shotgun rules, USPSA will have the 520 for major power factor.

[Chronograph & PF]

Sky

You misunderstand me if you think I mistunderstand shred.

I agree completely that there should be a definitive method of calculating and I'm not even against your proposals for weights and velocities.

The only point of my last post was that I don't support a final rounding on the PF, whether to an integer or to n decimal places. I think the PF result should be truncated to the integer at the final stage.

[Chronograph & PF]

I deleted a lot of text from my priginal post because I thought I was perhaps being too tough but I now see that others are of the same mind.

If you don't make factor, you don't make factor. If the PF being achieved is so tight that it needs to survive by being rounded up then the rounds are being built to too tight a margin.

Once we agree the procedures and measuring criteria I believe we should then truncate the final result to the integer so that 124.99 is regarded as 124.

We can't set a viable number of decimal places in the final result to avoid a PF that doesn't make it being rounded up so as to make it.

12.9, 124.99, 124.999, 124.9999 are all under PF but get rounded so as to make it. So does 124.5 for that matter. At some point, whether 1 decimal place, or 2 or 4, or 10, rounding can end up meaning someone who hasn't made it being treated as if they have. However, truncating the result leaves no ambiguity in the final result.

In the earlier stages there can be some variance but if the criteria is clearly stated then it will be fair for all and consistency is the main thing to strive for.

[Chronograph & PF]

My main concern is that we mustn't fail someone because of the maths (I know you lot spell it math but I'm English and math just doesn't seem right ). I have checked shred's figures but then I have no reason to doubt him and if we do indeed create a possible anomaly because of the number of decimal places then we must fix it.

I'm not sure that I would like us to round to the nearest integer and would prefer to see PF calculated to 1 or 2 decimal places. On the other hand I'm not overly fired up by this either so will happily go with the flow.

["the Last Samurai"]

I watched the movie last night and, whilst I enjoyed it, I would rate it behind Shogun. Another favourite East-West clash movie is "The Red Sun" which starred Charles Bronson and Toshiro Mifune (not to mention Ursula Andress).

"Red Sun", now there's a blast from the past. I loved it and saw it a couple of times.

I never really enjoyed "Shogun" the movie but then I had read the book 4 times and I don't think the movie did it justice. I recall when I had just finished the book the first time I felt a tranquility which I hadn't expereienced before.

Perhaps I should read it again.

I enjoyed "The Last Samurai" but I tried to watch it just as a movie rather than as anything much deeper.