Neil Beverley
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Neil Beverley
-
-
Jim
You state you have a message from Vince. The text as quoted doesn't say "because he noted ......" it says "I also noted" . This supports my previous comments to you that this has never been the primary reason for the change from the Handgun Committee.
You keep on making statements about what our reasoning was when I have repeatedly told you that this was not my reasoning. Now, you either know what I'm thinking better than I do or you're accusing me of lying, or both.
You state: "the rule is still bogus since the line of reasoning used causes arrays like this one that has been in the course book for years, to be disallowed."
I don't believe the rule is bogus and you keep on incorrectly stating to all and sundry what our line of reasoning was. Neither of these elements disallow the C of F you refer to, that's an exaggeration, presumably for effect. However, I accept that the rule may change the scoring result but only if there are 3 or more penalty target hits.
Yes, a few voices have said that they would push next time for the NS hits to be allowed to match the scored hits on an adjacent single target, but that fails to address this situation, as does cutting a target into halves when placed between two targets.We have addressed the situation by creating the rule as it is today. We think it's better. You don't. Such is life.
You and the proponents of this rule may not want to admit it, but it, just like the upside-down target rule this is a bad rule.There you go again, deciding for me what I'm thinking.
It had no reason to exist, but now it does, so many of you are spinning up reasons that it isn't that bad. If as you all said, it had no effect, we didn't need it and if it has an effect it should have been studied to make sure that the effect was not negative.I have given you a solid reason why I back the rule and it is based upon my beliefs in the principals of practical shooting, therefore I truly believe there is a reason for it to exist.
I have been consistent in my statements about this fact but now you launch a claim about "spinning up reasons".
I haven't said "it had no effect", please don't invent statements. You inaccurately accused me of making certain statements in the USPSA forums as well.
I have considered the effects. I happen to think the effect more accurately reflects our practical origins. Therefore, IMO, the effect is positive and not negative. You are entitled to believe, in your opinion, that the effect is negative.
"Well it has an effect," Yep! "
"it was not studied" Yes it was!
"and the effect is negative," No it isn't, IMO.
"well wait 2-4 years". Exaggerating again. Where did the 4 years come from. I have previously advised that the next primary session on the rules will be next year for implementation Jan 2006, 19 months for IPSC.
Jim, you've turned this into a personal crusade and then virtually turned it into a vendetta against the committee members simply because we've had the audacity to write a rule that you don't like. You talk about the "unwashed". Assuming this to mean the vast majority of regular shooters I think you'll find that, overall, they're fairly happy. Perhaps they don't like everything. Who does? We will never get a total unanimous agreement.
However, the result of the poll (a very biased poll at that) conducted amongst the "unwashed" on these forums was significantly in the majority to stay with the rule. How dare they!
Can we please drop this subject it's achieving worse than nothing. It's time to move on.
-
Not good but I'm pleased no-one was hurt.
I'm not convinced this is the result of a 20 ga cartridge with a 12 ga cartridge behind it. In such a case the detonation would usually result in damage at the breach end. This doesn't look like a breach blockage but a blockage towards the end of the barrel.
Nor does it look like the result of a plug (e.g. mud plug) inserted from the end of the barrel, that tends to result in a peeled banana effect from the end of the barrel backwards.
The picture isn't clear enough to tell, but the barrel doesn't look heavily choked, nor is it obvious that it was fitted with screw in chokes but the damaged area would be consistent with a significate blockage a couple of inches back from the leading edge of a choke.
It's certainly an unusual one.
With regards to the problem of possibly mixing 20 ga and 12 ga cartridges I recommend (teach it on courses as good practice) and encourage any family or club where this could occur to choose a cartridge colour for the 20 ga that is completely unique to any 12 ga cartridges. For example choose a yellow cartridge for 20 ga (assuming they function OK) and then never permit yellow 12 gauge in the same household or club. Not essential but it adds another element of safety.
Also when I teach basic courses I will usually remove a barrel and then demonstrate how easily the 20 ga cartridge drops in place and follow it up with a 12 ga to prove it will fully chamber. A demonstration speaks much louder than words. Most students are gob smacked. They haven't even considered it as a potential danger.
-
I've only had a chance for a quick look through so far but I noted that MG 2.1.3 has left out buckshot. The rule talks about "defined as" and so it could be construed that by not including buckshot it isn't permitted.
I agree with Vince that "abandoned" is not the best word to use. It jumped out at me as I looked through the rules.
How about requesting/using/requiring gun pits or bunkers for the "grounded"guns? If small bunkers could be built at appropriate points on a stage using sandbags (or something else suitable) it would significantly increase safety and perhaps even make course design that much easier.
-
Please note, sarcasm/humor mode has been switched on
But now you'd only have 20 points at least from the NS. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
Sorry, but I can't help it. This is exactly the type of stage and array that is now or will shortly be outlawed. Why? No one has yet given a valid reason. other than "We USUALLY only count 2 hits. And yes there is a move afoot to mitigate the rule slightly so that if the covered target requires additional rounds then you get that many NS hits, but that wouldn't apply here unless it was worded covered target or targetS. Stil it is another example of an unneeded rule.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled forum.
Jim
Jim
Elsewhere you have stated that you are going to avoid discussing this issue in a public arena again but here you are.
You falsely state that you haven't been given a valid reason.
You have been given a valid reason but you just don't like it. I can accept that you don't like the rule, we all have some rules we don't particularly like, but please reflect the position fairly.
You conducted a very heavily loaded poll on this subject on these forums but still lost the vote.
Isn't it time to deal with it and move on?
-
I owe ya a pint (or many)....
Brian (or is it Brain now),
Many sounds good!
Many is my favourite number!
-
I've pulled out a copy of RB11 1993 and the rule as posted above by Vince is the same.
RB7 from 1986 states:
"When the course of fire stipulates strong or weak arm incapacity and the competitor faults this condition he shall receive a procedural error for each shot so fired."
-
Brian
Neil, either I am losing my vision, OR maybe this is the problem I am having...... is the SHOTGUN rule written differently than the PISTOL rule on this point (remember, we have not yet seen our long gun rules)? I'm looking in both my 14th and 15th ed rule books, and it sure says 'at least one round' in both of them.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.
I have tried to only focus on the shotgun side of things in my replies but I really don't think that there would be very many competitors at all who, with a handgun or rifle, would spend time trying to get 2 targets with Vince's magical bullet. However, shotgun is very different.
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
Brian, I hope this helps explain my approach to the rule.
Flex
IMHO the C of F at the ESC was poor design because it was nigh on impossible to maintain an equitable challenge throughout the entire match. A very many poppers can move, lean or shift after a number of shots particularly on some surfaces. If there is a chance this can happen thereby giving different opportunities from one competitor to the next then the stage is arbitrary and unfair.
However, I'm happy to concede that IF built correctly then there could be a place for such opportunies on a shotgun stage. My gripe (and dislike) is because many of the 2 targets with one shot are created by accident in the build process. The quality of the build is all important. If consistency is in doubt, leave it out.
-
Neil/Troy/Vince, I am just not getting this. While I understand and agree with 9.1.5.4, I don't know how 9.5.6 (9.5.9 14th) could be any clearer...... 'with at least ONE round'. Not one half round.... not one quarter round.... at least ONE round. It seems like these rules are in conflict with each other.
Brian,
I'll again restrict my perspective to the shotgun point of view.
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 cartidges 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.
-
A number of you have discussed an appeal brought by a third party and about somebody coughing up the appropriate money but please note 11.4.1 below which provides for the RM to invoke an arbitration for no fee and he could do this if he also felt the time was incorrectl.
He can't take the decision by himself but he can employ good men and true to come to a committee decision as per the rule book.
11.4.1 Amount – For Level III or higher matches, the appeal fee to enable an appellant to appeal to arbitration will be US$100.00 or the equivalent of the maximum individual match entry fee (whichever is lower), in local currency. The appeal fee for other matches may be set by the Match Organizers, but must not exceed US$100 or equivalent in local currency. An appeal brought by the Range Master in respect of a match issue will not incur a fee.
-
I specifically had to consider whether these rules caused a problem for SG as it is common enough for 2 targets to fall with one hit.
As shotgunners will often look for the opportunity to go for it then it was my opinion that I didn't need to look for a change to the rule.
If the competitor goes for a pair of targets he has still fired a shot at each target. The rule does not state one shot per target.
On the other hand I personally don't like stages where this can happen and I think it's generally as a result of poor stage design which is exploited rather than by any cleverness on behalf of the designer.
There was one such stage in the Europeans SG Championships and I predicted it would be a mess and, IMHO, it was.
-
Please see below:
9.10.2 If, in the opinion of an Arbitration Committee, the time credited to a competitor for a course of fire is deemed to be unrealistic, the competitor will be required to reshoot the course of fire (see Rule 9.7.4).
-
Brian
In my case it could have been very costly because if I hadn't shot it again then the RO would have had no option but to score the target as a miss.
With the smoke it was a very close thing indeed that I saw it in time and if I'd ended up with a miss penalty I would have been a very unhappy bunny.
-
Not quite sure how you can engage two targets with one shot....
Unless you're using a shotgun!
-
I have personally experienced this and it's a nightmare. I was the shooter (at a shotgun match).
It was a low aperture with 4 metal targets to be shot. The RO was blind to the targets but a friend in the same squad (a qualified RM but not officiating on the day) could see the targets. I was convinced I had 4 good hits but just as I'm about to move on I noticed one standing target. I shot it again but it disturbed my thought plan because I'm thinking that the target was definitely gone, I knew I'd hit it square (and close) so how could it still be there. Mike told me later he saw it bounce back up.
I discovered later on that there had been a number of problems on the stage with targets of the same design bouncing back up.
The big problem is the disturbance factor to the shooter and technically it's range equipment failure even if the RO could call the targets as hit.
As an RO, if I saw the competitor react to the bouncing target or even shoot it again I'd order a re-shoot. If they had a blinding run and seemed unperturbed I would offer a reshoot. Then the problem needs to be fixed, and fast.
In my case the targets were all at ground level and the simple solution would have been to dump some earth or sand over the base to stop the metal on metal bounce. Sadly this wasn't a good match.
-
I agree with Vince's post and it's all sound sense.
The only thing I do in addition is to tilt the display of the timer towards me in time for the last shot. I don't have any problem seeing "through" and round the timer to do the normal stuff but I can nearly always register the time of the last shot within my sphere of vision. Even if I only get the first digit (or digits) or the decimal digits it's a very useful check when calling out to the scorer after the Unload, Show Clear. This verifies that the time being recorded is most likely to be the same as the last shot fired.
Unfortunately I've seen it go wrong when the RO hasn't done this and who, as soon as the competitor had finished, put the timer behind his back. The time was wrong by around 7-8 seconds but the RO wouldn't have it. I suspect a shot had been picked up from the adjacent bay.
If you're recall 20.nn but you're looking at 27.nn on the display then there's something wrong and in these cases a review of the timer can confirm the time you saw. It is likely that there will be a split of 7 seconds as well to further confirm the error.
-
In the UK we sometimes award a small plaque or maybe a certificate for Best RO which is always received with pride. The voting is conducted fairly informally.
We had a very well respected RM in the UK, Barry Cousins, who we sadly lost to the big C and a perpetral trophy, the Barry Cousins Memorial Trophy, was established in his honour which was awarded annually at the British Open (handgun) for the best RO. Bearing in mind the origins of the trophy and the man that inspired it, it was always a special moment at the prize giving and very popular with the crew and competitors alike. They understood the meaning behind it.
As an aside, Barry's wife insisted on hosting our NROI Exec committee meetings at her home for several years after we lost him because she knew that's what he would have wanted. She always cooked a fantastic lunch of almost unbelievable proportions which certainly slowed down the business in the afternoons.
Barry Cousins, RIP.
-
RE: IPSC Shotgun & Rifle
I've got some good news and some bad news.
First the good news. There is no reference to 2m high walls in the SG & Rifle rules, it simply reads "Not applicable"
Now the bad news. You will never be asked to draw a 40 - 46 inch shotgun, loaded or otherwise, from a briefcase.
Aaagh, shucks! You guys have all the fun.Or is that such bad news?
And before someone jumps down my throat about the above they are are not intended to be really serious contributions to this debate. I'm just trying to bring a little joy and happiness into the world.
-
Troy/BigDave/All
There's been some interesting discussion generally on this subject and I thought that I would let you know that I intend to forward the entire discussion to IROA for consideration (I sit on the committee as well as the other hats I wear).
I agree with Troy that BigDave has made some good points and "The Red Book and You" is a good idea (read "The Rule Book and You").
Actually while I note that this is suggested for use with the membership it's not beyond feasibility to produce one for ROs as well. Almost "The Rule Book and Them"
. We're part of the way there with the RO's Creed and Vince's Dos and Don'ts but perhaps this could be expanded. -
I think you've called it pretty well right, including why you shouldn't work and why you should. It's the same here (UK) as well.
I seem to recall a few years back that I acted as RM at 13 out of 13 shotgun matches. And I was teaching seminars. And Basic Safety courses. And competing. etc., etc.,
"'er indoors" doesn't understand things too well when it's like that!
-
And, someone should ask Troy about the class he taught in MN (when he was in Instructor training) and how he walked on water and how one of the female students was less than impressed with Troy's aversion to chilly weather.
Arnie
Let's cut out the middle man. There is no point in troubling Troy for his distorted view of things. I'm sure you can embellish the story much better for our amusement. Go on. Tell all.
-
IPSCDRL
I'm not a fan of Cooper Tunnels and I can't say that I've met any fans. It strikes me that they are often added as a gimmick because match designers are striving to find something different but in reality they create more moans than cheers.
I had dumped them completely from the IPSC Shotgun rules for a few years but they were brought back for 2004 so the the 3 IPSC disciplines would be in alignment.
Other than not liking them generally my main gripe is when they are included purely as a physical obstacle to pass through with no shooting involved during the process. You then require competitors to undertake movement while risking penalties and with no points to be gained. A non shooting problem with penalties! Ugggh!
If you feel you want to include one at least try to incorporate some shooting from the tunnel so there is a scoring purpose to the thing.
Just my humble (but strongly felt) opinion.
Coincidentally I've just reviewed a shotgun C of F for a UK match which was going to include a CT. The course description only stated that competitors had to pass through it during the C of F. So potentially Mr Gamey would expedite the stage by shooting all the targets and then saunter through the tunnel before the ULSC with no time penalty. Just something else to think about and fix.
I recommended (in this order of preference):
1. Bin it; or
2. Add/move a couple of targets that can only be seen/shot from within the tunnel; or
3. Physically build barriers to prevent competitors running around it so they have to go through it; and/or
4. Write the briefing so there is no doubt that the CT has to be travelled through before the last target is shot.
As an aside I seem to recall an interesting discussion a few months back about a gamey abuse of a CT and it would be worth searching for it to draw upon the opinions in that thread.
-
Whoops! I posted duff information about my loading/shooting times and I want to set the record straight.
Actually my best time to load 6 shoot 6 was slightly better at 6.31 but my best load 6 shoot 1 was 4.68 and while I can boast a few runs at around 4.7 in the main I was only achieving around 5.1 to 5.2 but still with my total total times under 7.0 and often at around 6.5. (When I was working the numbers around in my head I thought I was shooting a bit slow but the numbers make more sense now at about 4 shots a second)
I've always reckoned that on a good day I could load at 0.6 seconds per round but I truly believe John Beazely (UK) is slightly faster and I suspect that when he's cooking he loads at splits of around 0.5. One day I'm going to have to time him.
On my one practice day last year before ESC I was still able to get sub 7.0.
-
Neil,
That's what I was getting at by saying the pad changed it into a different monster. The kickeez pad changed the felt recoil from the quick snap into a nice even push that now feels very similar to the gas guns.
I have no idea if any of the other aftermarket pads work but the sorbothane based kickeez really did change the feel of the gun.
Thanks. Comments noted. I would certainly like to try one with a kickeez pad. I'll keep an eye out.
I've still got the reloading issue to resolve but I suspect that I need to do some smithing to solve the problem.
-
double down
Mine only has the standard recoil pad but it's not just about it kicking harder. Hell, I started out as a pump gunner so why should I care?
It's more that I could sense the action being snappier versus the smoother gas operation of the Remy and it never felt that it "flowed" as well.
NEW USPSA multi-gun rules
in Multi-Gun, Rifle & Shotgun Match Announcements
Posted
Hi Bruce
"Abandoned" propbably is the best word to describe the action but it doesn't read well.
There certainly aren't many one word alternatives. The only one I came up with that sounded a possible was "relinquished".