Neil Beverley
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Neil Beverley
-
-
I ask for Vince's indulgence while I slightly borrow, or rather expand, his thread.
In my previous posting I supported Vince's "Debugging of Stages". OK! I called it something different but we're singing the same song. It's just that in the UK, and probably generally in Europe, "Risk Assessments" has become a bit of a buzz phrase at the moment.
I would like to expand on this by adding "Risk Management".
Again Vince and I are singing the same song.
The "Risk Assessment" is that a particular prop could break. The "Risk Management" is that you have spares available.
There is another aspect of "Risk Management" and I will give a very simple example of this.
On a range which has a common firing line of (say) 4 stages one of these stages involves movement from right to left, parallel to the shooting line. A stage such as this is better placed on the left hand side of the range. Competitors shouldn't, and aren't very likely to break the 90 degree mark but if they did it would most likely be to the LH side. If the stage is located on the right of the range then there is more of a risk than if on the right. If located on the LH side then an infringement should only affect the LH berm. Target placement would also play a role in the "risk". I believe this to be a very simple illustration of a "Risk Management" consideration.
Again I would ask for any thoughts, examples or contributions on this aspect of "Stage debugging" or "Risk Management".
Thanks.
-
Hi All
Excellent thread, Vince.
Can I add to Vince's plea to add additional ideas to this thread.
I have recently been tasked to rewrite the RO, CRO and RM seminars on behalf of IPSC and IROA.
In the last few years I have been placing a bigger emphasis on what Vince nicely refers to as debugging a stage. It's not just good practice it's essential.
I delivered a Level II course this weekend and I present this under a slightly different heading but support Vince's intent 100%. I refer to this under the currently topical heading of "Risk Assessment".
Is there a risk from the safety angles?
Is there a risk of a shoot-through?
Is there a risk that a prop might fail?
Is there a risk of a competitor trap?
etc., etc.,
When I rewrite the seminars this is a subject that I believe can and should be expanded on. Therefore as requested please keep your ideas flowing so that all can be considered for inclusion. Thanks.
-
Can I just point out that while it may not be totally relevant in this particular case the new IPSC SG rules, which are about to be adopted by the USPSA with minimal changes, declare a minimum PF of 520.
Cartridges are available for the 20 gauge which make factor but it almost certainly reduces choice.
For calibration purposes this is the PF that is to be used and is written up as 520 or just under.
A couple of people have tried 20 gauge over here in the UK but none have gone that way for matches.
We have 6 really active ladies shooting the comp circuit and all have gone for 12 gauge. Helen is 5 feet nothing and I would guess 5/6 are in the range of 120 - 140 lbs.
They all shoot 1187s because of the softer recoil. If they wanted to change anything it would be to reduce the weight but they still are up there on the longer field stages of up to 28 rounds.
-
In the UK all Level II matches have to be approved by a UKPSA Course Reviewer.
If they don't get approved the UKPSA will not recognise them as a Level II matches and they are dropped from the UKPSA league results.
This works really well and in reality we hardly relax the rule at all.
-
As the original question referred to 3 Gun matches I thought I would return to the issue of slings.
Kelly and George may be pleased to learn that I support their views but while I was Chairman of the IPSC Shotgun Rules Committee, and obviously had a significant influence, I only had a say in the rifle rules.
For IPSC Shotgun I adopted a different approach to IPSC Rifle, i.e.
SG 5.2.8 Equipment that is only used when fitted to the shotgun (except chokes, ammunition, speed loaders and ammunition carriers) and is to be used at any time during the match must be fitted to the shotgun prior to the start of the match and for the duration of the match.Also
5.2.1 Carry and Storage5.2.1.1 Slung from the shoulder with the shotgun reasonably vertical (a temporary sling fitted solely between stages for the purpose of carrying the shotgun is exempt from Rule 5.2.8)
As I understand it the USPSA will be adopting the IPSC Shotgun and Rifle rules with a minimal number of changes. I am not aware of any other changes being planned on the subject of bipods and slings other than the one I posted earlier for rifle.
-
What is the definition of "carry condition" ?
Singlestack
Sorry I can't help you on this one. I wasn't party to the rule creation. I just knew it existed.
-
It's 'orrible!
Lifelike but 'orrible!
Freddie himself would recoil in horror.
-
Erik
I don't know of anyone on any rules committee who wants to ban camo guns (or gun slips).
The old IPSC SG rules used to tackle the subject of black clothing by stating:
any clothing, or combination of clothing, which has a paramilitary style is considered inappropriate at IPSC Shotgun competitionsThere was an exception clause for genuine LEOs.
Black combat trousers with black combat top was a no no but black combat trousers with a pretty pink floral top - no problem (I'm for Kurt modelling the latest fashion statement)
The whole subject is a very carefully considered debate. None of us personally have an objection to the clothing. We are being forced to contemplate the realities of the world we live in.
We have no desire for the wannabes but don't want to discriminate against LEOs and the military.
The final revision to the IPSC rules was considered a reasonable compromise:
5.3.1 The use of camouflage or other similar types of military or police garments is discouraged. The exception is competitors who are law enforcement or military personnel. The Match Director will be the final authority in respect of what garments competitors are allowed to wear.The extra authority afforded to the MD gives greater scope to react to circumstances. Give me a gentleman in a camo jacket over the pr*ck in a T shirt that says something like "All xyz are mother f*ckers and deserve to die".
Kurt in a pretty pink top! Now there's a thought. Mike! Where's Mike when I need him.
-
IPSC also allows bipods to be used in Open but not in Standard.
Please note the 2004 US rule below:
US 8.2.4 Bi-pods must be folded, slings must be in the carry condition (not looped around elbows, etc) at the start of every string or stage unless otherwise specified in the match description.
-
Erik/Kurt
You're absolutely correct that's it's not the clothing but instead it's the people wearing it.
However, the big problem that we have to consider is the perception of the great many ill informed people who may view our sport.
There are so many out there just waiting to find an excuse to have a go at us.
If I wear a cammo jacket I'm still the same person but to an outsider the perception may change.
Some countries have bigger political problems than the rest. Some States have bigger political problems than the rest.
The bottom line is that given a choice between wearing pink and yellow stripes and still being able to pull a trigger versus sitting around in a bar reminiscing about the good old days of shooting matches while wearing emminently practical Gore Tex camo clothing ..................
Pink! Pink? Hmmmm! Maybe I should think on this some more.
-
Hi Guys
I've just come back from Las Vegas and yes, strange but true, Vince has been behaving himself. Certainly lustful thoughts, she was rather cute, (it seems we have similar taste in the women we find attractive) but that's as far as it goes.
That was up to Wednesday night but from Thursday onwards is for Vince to confess or another to squeal on him.
-
I've been thinking about this some more and simply adding the points scored in multi gun stages still creates a disparity but this is easily solved if the multi gun stages are also treated as a separate match and then treat the percentage gained in this "match" as points and add it to the points from the separate HG, SG & R "matches".
In this way no one segment of the match overshadows any other with regards to score. All scores are weighted to the gun type ands so no advantages if someone is brilliant in the highest scoring component of the Tournament.
OK it may be a bit of a pain to write the scoring program but I can see how it could be done in something like Excel.
-
Flex
I'm not sure that there is a perfect solution for multi gun stages. My reply didn't attempt to address these, rather I was acknowledging Rhino's solution as being a good solution for single gun stages in a combined tournament.
IPSC doesn't permit multi gun stages. For Tournaments the 3 disciplines are treated as separate matches and then calculated for tournament score as per my posting. This could be, for example, a 9 stage Tournament consisting of 3 matches of 3 stages. The number of points per match don't have to balance although we have suggested guidelines.
For this type of Tournament the IPSC (and Rhino's) scoring system is very fair to all but I fully accept it doesn't solve the balance in multi gun stages.
Rhino's suggestion in his last post has merit. It does balance the results as best as possible as far as I can see.
The scoring program would need some work though.
-
Rhino
Your method of calculating Tournament scores is exactly what the IPSC rules committee came up with otherwise a disparity arises on available points per HG, SG or R. While it's a good idea to try to balance the points within reasonable tolerances it's not always possible. We did the math and were able to prove that unless identical the gun type with the highest points available always favoured the competitors who were better with that gun type over the others.
The new IPSC Tournament Rules read:
3.1 Each component match must be scored separately and independently of any other component match.3.2 Tournament results will be calculated, by tournament division, by treating the actual unadjusted match percentile attained by each competitor in each component match as tournament points, calculated to four decimal places, as illustrated in the following example:
3.2.1:
Competitor registered in Tournament Open Division
Component Match/Division Percentile Attained Tournament Points
Handgun – Open 79.4562% 79.4562
Shotgun – Open 82.8473% 82.8473
Rifle – Open Semi-Automatic 45.1097% 45.1097
Total Tournament Points: 207.4132
3.2.2: The "percentile attained" in the above example means: “the percentile attained by each competitor against all other competitors in the component match and division, including competitors who are not registered for the tournament".
-
DJPolo
Tom has offered a good option and the IPSC Shotgun rules specifically allow you to nominate the best 2 hits to count per target. You can also specifically nominate an ammunition type to provide for this, e.g Only permit 00 Buck as suggested by Tom.
If you check out the IPSC rules you will see that there are some fairly new paper targets that can be copied onto either ANSI A or ANSI B paper. This deals with patching difficulties.
Returning to Tom's comments I am heartened to learn that someone else is using penalty targets to make it interesting with calling the pattern spread. All too often penalty targets are placed to far away to offer any real challenge.
A combination of distance and penalty targets reduces the average number of hits per target for patching.
The net result using buckshot is usually 10 points per single shot on paper targets.
-
Phil
Well done! A pony = £20
There's also a monkey = £500
"tom" can be taken to mean a prostitute or lady of dubious morals. I've not heard it linked to Tom Hanks before
mpolans
Yep! porkies = eyes
-
Wakal wrote:
Good. I like logical rules, which is why I enjoy IPSC so muchAnd just to recap ......... detachable mags are ONLY permitted in Open Division in IPSC Shotgun.
Perhaps your post was meant to read the USPSA version of IPSC Shotgun.
I'm not aware of any USPSA changes to the US division rules for 2004, but someone else might?
-
I've done a fair bit of skiing and some of the balance excercises have been useful when adapted to shooting but mostly I've learnt a lot about teaching from some of the instructors that I've been fortunate to ski with. They were (are) at the top of the tree, including National team coaches, and some of the stuff I've picked up has been invaluable for teaching.
Certainly in the early years it helped me re-shape my courses.
-
i have heard that there is a shotgun trainng class coming up near Huntsville that's guaranteed to make you shoot better than Be... Hi..!
Can anyone give info as to location and date?
Welcome!
I think this is the course you're looking for (Click here).
-
Hi Mike
IPSC Limited has been renamed IPSC Standard and yes, I intend to stay with this division for the foreseable future. I truly believe that this division is much more about the ability of the shooter rather than the gun and in particular gun capacity.
Sure there is some difference from gun to gun but that is a matter of choice. Standard Division is a great leveller especially now with the revised rules.
-
Hi Myro
I'm hoping to be there but I won't be able to confirm for a few weeks yet. It just got easier now that I see you've gone back to running the SG match first. I may not be able to stay until the end of the week.
Having said that it could be fun to shoot a HG match once again if something could be done about kit. Graham or Steve may be able to help me out.
I'll obviously keep in touch.
-
Right now on a few special occasions double points (and double Penalties) can be assigned to metal targets, depending on stage design.
Within the IPSC rules this option is only permitted for Shotgun and Rifle but not for Handgun.
It is also permissable for frangible targets.
Max per match is restricted to no more than 10% of the total targets in the match.
-
In reply to the various comments on this I would say that for IPSC there is no doubt that the use of detachable magazines automatically means Open Division.
I haven't yet seen if there will be any changes for the USPSA Divisions but in any case for Standard Division, and therefore I believe you should also take this as Limited Division, speedloaders are not permitted. Again they are fine for USPSA in Open. There has been a debate in another thread with the consensus that detachable magazines are regarded and treated as speedloaders. You can follow the discussions by clicking HERE
-
I think we ought to consider a degree of relativity here.
If a guy comes tenth out of eleven it's not much to shout about and shouldn't get a trophy.
If a guy comes tenth out of a thousand then it is something to shout about. Not because he's the ninth loser, because 9 people beat him, but because he beat the other 990.
This logic applies for any class or division.
A sliding scale can be useful. I'm not proposing that the numbers below are right I'm simply suggesting an approach. Say:
5 entries - Award something for 1st
10 entries - Awards for 1 & 2
20 entries - Awards for 1 - 3
30 entries - Awards for 1 - 4
etc.
You can play with the numbers yourselves but like I said I believe it's about relativity.
Some may prefer to only award 1st - 3rd for 100 entries. Personally I think that's a bit mean. To take an extreme, "winner take all" out of 1000 entries is a bit harsh on the guy that came second.
Debugging A Stage
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
Vince
A good deal which I graciously accept with thanks!
Besides it's a win win situation. While I'm buying you your rum & coke it would be rude not to have one myself.