Nik Habicht

In my case 5-6 years of carrying a heavy should bag in my previous occupation left me with back, shoulder and neck issues, that I've worked pretty hard to eradicate and don't want back. So a backpack distributes the load better.....

Honestly -- Maxpedition Falcon III would hold everything I need. I'm still using the slightly smaller Falcon II. A friend of mine carries one of their Versipacks as a range bag -- he may have another bag with supplies in the car. The only other thing I bring to the range and leave in the car is a Sears toolbag with spare parts and Glock-wrenching tools, in case I need to replace something. Lower Front pouch holds Glasses; the upper holds some medications, a CED 7000 and molded ear plugs. The full size compartment behind that holds knee pads at the bottom, a mag gauge stuffed in on the side, and hearing protection on top. The full size compartment closest to my back holds 5-6 boxes of ammo, a mag loading tool, a pouch with six mags, and a pair of individually sleeved guns. Once the guns come out and the mags move to the belt, there's plenty of room to stuff water bottles and lunch in there.... Some versions of the Falcon II are on closeout for less than $100; the Falcon III looks to have picked up a couple of inches in size in each dimension....

I don't judge the quality of a stage by its round count..... Is it safe? Is it fun? Does it challenge my shooting? Does it challenge my skill set? Are there options in position or target engagement order? Do those option have tradeoffs, i.e. I can take a harder shot at this target from here, and those from there, and it'll let me eliminate a position versus just charging through each position? Are there interesting and challenging individual positions with options for engaging on the way in, or while working your way out? Say yes to most of that list and I don't care if it's a 16 round or 32 round stage..... Heck, set up the occasional 8 round stage that's challenging and I'm there. Think four poppers -- and two of them activate differently or identically timed movers -- that gets to be a challenge, in the sense of "can you shoot all the steel and then get the paper before the out and back and the Maxtrap only leave you with upper A/B zones?

That was a quick potential resolution. Or do you have a better idea?

Note that the rule starts by telling us what kind of targets it's concerned with -- paper that was either not properly patched, or paper that lost pasters, possibly from the blast of a comp or muzzle on a close paper target. Then in the middle of the rule we have a sentence that clarifies very specifically the circumstances under which a reshoot must be ordered. Then we get to the fun part that for the purposes of this rule, and for the purposes of determining whether an accurate score can be determined, we are to consider B and C hits to be the same. That implies a certain level of interest in avoiding a reshoot where possible. Why? Cause reshoot bad..... On the other hand 8.6.4 says the following: Clearly when invoking 8.6.4 you're not going to stop the competitor right there, because if you would that would be a mandatory reshoot. You're going to make the judgment at the end of the stage -- and at that point you have situation that's directly addressed by another rule. You don't have inadvertent RO contact. Last but not least, shooters can expect to encounter targets on a stage -- both metal and paper. They're not an external influence, no matter how much you may want to argue that..... An unpatched target is part of the stage -- and I've explained more than once that it might be unpatched, or that it might have already been shot by the competitor.... External influence = something from outside the stage, i.e. persons suddenly appearing on top of a berm; a gust of wind sending a tent from the vendor's area floating into the middle of the stage, etc....... But don't take my word for it -- feel free to check with any of the RMIs, or DNROI...... And from a competitive standpoint -- have fewer expectations. When you don't expect to see perfect targets, you're likely going to find it easier to just shoot them and move on..... I don't agree whatsoever on a single point in your assessment. Your position depends on an arbitrary decree that nothing in the stage can be considered external to the shooter under any circumstance. Even if that is what all the RMIs think, I still disagree. I'm most concerned with every shooter having as fair and equitable run at each stage as possible. I don't expect DNROI to agree with me considering I read what Troy thinks about poppers not falling and it made me want to gouge my own eyes out with a potato peeler. Somehow I'm not surprised by your reaction, Jake..... Typically though -- I see this happen at Level 1 matches, where different folks are taking turns running shooters/recoding hits and times on the nook/pasting targets. At level 2 and above -- I'd guess it happens, though I'm not certain it happens in appreciable quantity on stages with dedicated and competent staff..... All that said, I'd love to see a different proposal for resolving the issue with a couple of caveats: I'd still want to be able to set targets in such a manner that they can be engaged from multiple positions -- and the new proposal would need to be able to deal with not reshooting a competitor who engages a target from position 1, then freezes when he sees it has holes in it at position 2.... And I'd need the proposal to refrain from enabling an at will reshoot. You're a bright guy and have clearly thought about it -- got a proposal in mind that will accomplish that? Put it together, and lets talk to our Ads about getting it in front of the BOD...... Final note -- Stoeger converted me to his point of view on poppers not falling with his podcast rant. No -- that doesn't mean I won't be enforcing the rules as they're currently taught by NROI; only that I agree with his position, and would probably support a rule change, depending on the specifics.....

Broader thinking here: Reshoot bad; ideally to be avoided. There are only a limited number of circumstances in which a reshoot is required and none of those situations include unpatched targets. On the other hand we have a rule that specifically covers how to deal with unpatched targets. And one of the principles the RMIs pound into our heads is to first look to see if we have a rule that specifically covers the situation at hand, and only if we don't to branch out. Here's what the rule says: Note that the rule starts by telling us what kind of targets it's concerned with -- paper that was either not properly patched, or paper that lost pasters, possibly from the blast of a comp or muzzle on a close paper target. Then in the middle of the rule we have a sentence that clarifies very specifically the circumstances under which a reshoot must be ordered. Then we get to the fun part that for the purposes of this rule, and for the purposes of determining whether an accurate score can be determined, we are to consider B and C hits to be the same. That implies a certain level of interest in avoiding a reshoot where possible. Why? Cause reshoot bad..... On the other hand 8.6.4 says the following: Clearly when invoking 8.6.4 you're not going to stop the competitor right there, because if you would that would be a mandatory reshoot. You're going to make the judgment at the end of the stage -- and at that point you have situation that's directly addressed by another rule. You don't have inadvertent RO contact. Last but not least, shooters can expect to encounter targets on a stage -- both metal and paper. They're not an external influence, no matter how much you may want to argue that..... An unpatched target is part of the stage -- and I've explained more than once that it might be unpatched, or that it might have already been shot by the competitor.... External influence = something from outside the stage, i.e. persons suddenly appearing on top of a berm; a gust of wind sending a tent from the vendor's area floating into the middle of the stage, etc....... But don't take my word for it -- feel free to check with any of the RMIs, or DNROI...... And from a competitive standpoint -- have fewer expectations. When you don't expect to see perfect targets, you're likely going to find it easier to just shoot them and move on.....

9.1.4 looks to be only applicable to addressing this after the completion of the course of fire, as you said. If I were litigating on behalf of the shooter in question, I might point to 8.6.4 to say that a target that was clearly unpasted could be considered an external influence that interfered with the competitor as grounds for a reshoot. 8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. That would be a fine argument, and I considered that rule as well as Section 4.6. However while 4.6 specifically mentions unrestored moving and metal targets, and specifically orders a reshoot if a mover or metal target is not reset, if also specifically omits unrestored paper targets. The rule book does specifically address unrestored paper targets in 9.1.4 -- and that's how the material is taught in the RO courses.... So could 8.6.4 be applicable here? 9.1.4 addresses unrestored paper targets during scoring. The way 8.6.4 reads to me, if I saw the shooter get distracted by something outside of his control (which I think an unpatched target could qualify) I could offer the competitor a reshoot before scoring, thus 9.1.4 would not apply. Short answer -- no, an unrestored target is not considered to be an external influence. What if this competitor is reengaging a target he already shot at? If you grant him the reshoot -- are you not also affecting all the other shooters in his division? Holes in cardboard don't keep the competitor from firing two rounds at it. That's different from REF, where if a popper wasn't reset, it's not available to be shot. And therein lies the difference..... I get that you'd feel bad for not having correctly supervised and confirmed the rest of the stage -- but the competitor can continue, and then, after the stage is over, you can determine whether an accurate score can be obtained.

Really? Does your answer change if it was a wall with a port in it? I see stuff like this and wonder why the barricade was able to move at all? REF, repair the stage, fix the deficit in initial construction, reshoot.... I made other posts that would answer your question if you looked.EvenThough ports aren't typically incorporated into a low barricade, Do you really think I would not reshoot a guy who knocked one down and shot everything instead of visiting ports like everybody else had to? Come on.... Me think that? Of course not -- but I wanted you to expand on and clarify your answer a little, because it's a pretty good one.... ....even though we may differ slightly on our approach....

9.1.4 looks to be only applicable to addressing this after the completion of the course of fire, as you said. If I were litigating on behalf of the shooter in question, I might point to 8.6.4 to say that a target that was clearly unpasted could be considered an external influence that interfered with the competitor as grounds for a reshoot. 8.6.4 In the event that inadvertent contact from the Range Officer or another external influence has interfered with the competitor during a course of fire, the Range Officer may offer the competitor a reshoot of the course of fire. That would be a fine argument, and I considered that rule as well as Section 4.6. However while 4.6 specifically mentions unrestored moving and metal targets, and specifically orders a reshoot if a mover or metal target is not reset, if also specifically omits unrestored paper targets. The rule book does specifically address unrestored paper targets in 9.1.4 -- and that's how the material is taught in the RO courses.... Edited to Add: Jake -- I share your concern, and I'm really not happy when I see unrestored targets, whether I'm a competitor or a member of the match staff. I'm probably less happy if I see it as a member of the match staff though -- because that means that I or one of my colleagues made an error and potentially affected a match result. That said -- I've seen plenty of competitors engage a target from one position, because they could see it, and then reengage the same target later in the course of fire, from where they planned to engage it in the first place -- so sometimes the target was restored and the competitor just managed to shoot it twice from different positions. If a reshoot were mandatory here, then gamers could force a redo of a bad run, on those stages offering more than one view....

that's what people argue, but the rules very specifically state otherwise. that's why when I see unpasted holes I just keep shooting. I agree it would be disconcerting on a stage where a target is available from multiple positions. bottom line is that it's a good idea for an RO team to have a routine to check every target before the next shooter gets make ready. at a major, it's pretty easy to do. less so at a local match with embedded RO's. Which rule states specifically otherwise? 9.1.4 -- which specifically references unrestored targets and provides the guidance necessary to score them. If the RO can determine an accurate score -- no reshoot. This point is emphasized by the direction that for purposes of determining an accurate score, B and C zone hits shall be considered to be one and the same.

We're expected to know when a shooter hit a plate stand, according to the rulebook....... So it's a little more grey than you'd like to believe..... I must have missed that one. Where is it? (I searched the book for "stand" and couldn't find anything relating to watching the plate stand for hits.) Actually, this is covered by painting the steel. If there's a distinct steel hit, it'll show up, right there on the plate. I don't think we're actually supposed to be watching the steel for hits while the shooter is shooting. Scored at the target, as usual. See rule 4.3.1.5 -- kind of difficult to call REF if you didn't see it. You argue for only scoring what you see on the target..... Consider this: Competitor fires only one round at a target. You're certain because it's a target off by itself, perhaps engaged on the move, and the competitor kept going. There was no opportunity to shoot the target from anywhere else, that the competitor fired rounds from. Competitor is shooting a 9mm. During scoring you find 2 .45 caliber holes, and one 9mm hole in the target. How do you score that? You see a competitor fire at targets that are visible through a port 5 yards away -- you see the competitor pull a round into the wood, to the left side of the port. When you go to score the targets that were centered in the window, the left target has two holes in it. Does the competitor get credit for both, or only one? Same scenario as above, except the shooter blows past the target and never engages it, yet during scoring there are two 9mm holes in it. Does the competitor get credit, 2 mikes and an FTE, or a reshoot? Scoring shots at the line and hits on the targets works well for Virginia and Fixed Time courses of fire. Comstock sometimes requires something more -- you need to pay attention to what's going on to know where to look and what else to consider..... Edited to add: Steel is also not required to be painted at all match levels, so that also presents a challenge....

We're expected to know when a shooter hit a plate stand, according to the rulebook....... So it's a little more grey than you'd like to believe.....

A good RO should never make any call they are not certain on. As a CRO I wouldn't even bother the RM if one of my RO's wasn't certain about something he 'thought' he saw Right -- ideally that's how it works. But some ROs and some CROs are new to their roles or new to major matches, and are working hard to get gooder at that. But if the shooter doesn't like the RO's call, and doesn't like the CRO's review, he might appeal to an RM -- once it reaches me, I'll talk to whoever was running the timer and the CRO at minimum from the stage staff. I may chat with any other ROs assigned to the stage to see if they can contribute..... I've worked as RM at a couple of sectionals and other than being notified of reshoots, I had to make maybe 4 calls for other things between the two matches. Plan the match, be there during the construction, walk the stages with the staff and decide all the potential calls on each stage ahead of time, tweak the WSB and you may not have much to do once the first shot is fired, other than periodic calibration calls...... I love having dedicated volunteers on staff that are proactive, and know how to make the correct call, and when to hand it off to the RM.

Really? Does your answer change if it was a wall with a port in it? I see stuff like this and wonder why the barricade was able to move at all? REF, repair the stage, fix the deficit in initial construction, reshoot....

If I were the RM, and the RO who made the call was in a position to see the target/impact, nd the RO was certain that the competitor drilled an Alpha, then started his transition to the next target and missed wide left or right with his next round at the target in question, I'd uphold that scoring call...... But typically I'd need some detail such as the possibility above, or the shooter was hitting the ground next to the target for both rounds fired or something like that. You talk to your people; if they're not certain in what they saw you overturn the call..... If you do it well, then generally everyone gets on board with the final decision.... Which is not the same thing as suggesting that it was a decision arrived at by consensus....

Okay, then you're wrong. I shoot both types in the same match. You think you do, but according to the rules you don't....... Semantics, I know....... You also shoot a different match (actually two different matches) than Open, Limited, Revolver, etc. shooters.....

Yep, a reshoot could be a possibility in that scenario......

And t make it even more clear -- I wasn't talking about an unloading goof where the gun goes bang as part of showing clear. I was thinking more of a situation where a competitor hears and decides to ignore the "Stop" command..... If you clear the malfunction after that fact and resume shooting, that's not cool....

On the first part -- shooter stops himself -- that's not going to be a DQ absent an ignored "Stop" command from the RO or some other safety rule violation. Now, if the RO stops the shooter and issues "Unload and show clear" and the gun goes bang -- then I'm with you on the DQ. Actually you can fire up until receiving, " if clear hammer down and holster" Not if I say "Stop! Unload and show clear." That COULD be a DQ under 10.6.1. I've never needed to make that call, even on competitors who didn't react to the first "Stop" command, but I can envision circumstances where that could occur..... And re reading my earlier post -- I'd probably change "then I'm with you on the DQ" to "then I'm possibly with you on the DQ." English -- difficult!

On the first part -- shooter stops himself -- that's not going to be a DQ absent an ignored "Stop" command from the RO or some other safety rule violation. Now, if the RO stops the shooter and issues "Unload and show clear" and the gun goes bang -- then I'm with you on the DQ.

Ken, despite what you say -- time to read the forum rules. There's a lot of places on the internet where you can survey folks as to their political views, but this isn't one of them. CLOSED!

I'm pretty sure they were legal in the early oughts too -- slide rackers only that is..... We had a shooter in NEPA who had a detonation in his Limited gun, and added a slide racker for safety shortly thereafter.....

If you need a tight fit, have Bar-Sto fit a barrel to the gun. The two I've owned were tack drivers.....

Sure! I used to worry about my guys getting resupplied now I worry about walking and stuff! I went out grocery shopping tonight and the meds made me into free entertainment for a few cashiers. But Mrs Sarge wasn't so happy.. Bonus! Free entertainment is a nice side benefit.....

This! It's all the rigidity of a race holster with the security advantages of kydex......