ivanhu

For me the closest range where I could check the Lim-10 box on my scorecard would take approx 12 hours of travel there and the same back. That's apparently a bit longer than just three picoseconds...

I'm willing to be convinced. Please explain why it's absolutely necessary to take a sight picture (i.e. by actually aiming at targets) instead of just pointing your gun towards the ground in front of you, in order to check your sights? Well, depending on the current angle the sun is above the horizon, there might be cases when the brightness of the dot could be more easily fine tuned, were it done on the target and not on the ground. It also might depend on the current terrain, too. Not that important, I agree, and it doesn't happen too frequently when it would have had even this small importance. But let me turn it back: what says against the sight picture? That "wasting the time" is again not that convincing - the longest sight picture I've ever seen lasted perhaps five-ten seconds. When it was not a rule but a policy of some MDs, I always wondered why they prohibit it, and was unable to find it out. Please understand, I don't really care, but IMHO, here we have a rule that could be deleted without any harm.

I don't think my logic or words would suggest your logic. For clarity, here're my statements naked: a. We allow the shooters to practise the stage (during the walk-through). b. We don't allow the shooters to take sight pictures in order to prohibit practising. Therefore, we don't allow something that already has happened. Now your hyperbole statements naked: a. We allow the shooters to handle their guns unattended in the SA. b. We should allow them to handle their guns unattended during the walk-through. The two logics have nothing to do with each other. In short, My logic was: We cannot prohibit something that actually has happened. Your logic was: We should extend one of the permissions to another situation. Wait with those anti-sarcasm pills, Vince, you should find another example, this one didn't work.

Apparently, just don't come and tell me that it's prohibited because we don't want the shooters to practise the stage - they practise it during the walk-throughs, that sight picture is rather just the part of the ceremony. This reasoning therefore is just not good enough. Yet, it's the rule, and I don't really care much about the rationale behind it, I'll enforce it without reasoning... But indeed, why was it banned? Inquiring minds want to know...

James, following that train of thought, we should ban the walk-through either. After all, if we're back to the roots of the sport, it's very unlikely that the thugs will allow the law abiding citizen (the intended victim) to practise and to find out the best possible solution to neutralize them... But even if we abstract of those roots, I feel something wrong with the logic to provide ample time for the shooters to evaluate (and practise!) the COF, then prevent them to take sight pictures because we want them to be tested on the unpractised stage... This argument therefore doesn't sound too convincing for me. Being a standard shooter myself, I don't really care, be it on one way or the other. I just don't know why was it necessary - and I, the RO, has already enough things to take care of, ain't need no more (IMHO unnecessary) bans to deal with....

I'm pretty sure we've got rules to deal with the situation if anything happens... Oh, if the shooter shoots himself, then yes, sweeping has occurred, and that's a DQ. But, for whatever reason, I'd prefer to prevent that... If he shoots and the bullet strikes a rock and the ricochet leaves the range, well, I wasn't sure we'd have any rule to DQ the shooter. Remember the case of that mortal double ricochet, do you? Yet, if someone stands still, then it's very unlikely that he'll shoot accidentally (unless a bee stings him, for example). But of course, the very purpose of the safety precautions is to lessen the possibility of something going wrong as much as possible. Yup, I also never understood why some match organizers ban that, but now it seems their lobby won...

Thank you all, I also think that it's not a DQ, but I wasn't (still am not) sure whether it's unsafe. After all, having the finger is is unsafe if at the same time, any other activity takes place. If the shooter just stands still, in itself it perhaps is not unsafe. And why would the shooter do that? Well, some shooters lower the gun after finishing the course, and some just waits 'til the RO asks "if you are finished". I've just wondered what if he forgets to remove his finger.

In Sweden, during the Europeans, there was a stage with no safety angles at all. It was a surprise stage - the shooter entered into a building, and the door was closed behind him automatically. It was all dark, and the organizers provided a torch. Finally it was deleted, because the shooters told to each other where the targets are, but I shoot it on the first or second day, and it was fun. From the RO's point of view however, that must have been a nightmare. Troy wrote: But there are other applications of the narrower safety angles. I know a range of that there are houses on the left side, some 6-7 hundred meters away. They have a side berm on the left, but it's only 2.5 meters high. Therefore, when they hold an IPSC match, the safety angle to the left is designated by the flag placed at the very beginning of the side berm. They always try to concentrate the targets to the right, and also try to keep the shooter as close to the left berm as possible - you're right, fixing the course design may help a lot. Yet, our country is small, approx as "big" as Florida - therefore we have to deal with what we have, and cannot close a range just because there are houses nearby. Too bad already that they (the house owners) will sooner or later whining and demanding the close. Also, there are some tricks that the stage designer should know when desining stages for the ranges without side berms. These are important in order to lessen the possibility of the broken safety angles and therefore the DQs. Besides, it's not "adjusting" the rules. It's apparently an issue that should be addressed in the next revision, but as it is now, it's fully within the rules to declare narrower safe angles IMHO. That's all I state.

Well, during the debate about the safety angles, a question has occurred to me. Situation: the shooter is on the line, shooting at the targets. At one point he lowers his gun, with the finger still in, and stands still. He is not clearing a malfunction, therefore 10.5.8 doesn't apply. He is not during loading, unloading or reloading, therefore 10.5.9 doesn't apply. He is not during movement, therefore 10.5.10 doesn't apply. He just stands still, with the lowered gun, finger in. But indeed, is it unsafe? Is it a DQable offence? Whaddy think?

Smoke 'em up, cowboy! Ready? Steady! <beep> If finished, show clear! Slide forward, dry fire, holster. Score and patch. Or am I missed something?

Troy, we won't ever agree in that. My point is, the rule book doesn't specify the unsafe muzzle angle. Therefore, it's up to the match organizer to specify it if he so wishes. It's not a "local rule" that supersedes the IPSC rules, because there's no IPSC rule to be superseded. In most cases it's not necessary, because the match organizers are contented with the 10.5.2 - it's enough if only pointing the muzzle rearwards is the DQable offence, therefore no need to specifically declare the safe direction. In fact, the 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 could also be interpreted as a rule that specifically allows me to take precautions when necessary - even by restricting or determining the safe angles of fire. When the safety angles are narrowed, the stage is indeed built accordingly. Kinda like the rule book nowhere specifies who is entitled to shoot an IPSC match. It only declares that in some cases who is NOT entitled to shoot. Therefore, IMHO I'm free to organize an invitational match, where I only invite a "specific set of the potential competitors", using my own method for the selection. If you agree that I do not need to follow 3.3.1 for doing so, then I guess I am free to make decisions in any other issues the rule book doesn't specifically disposes of. And I guess you must agree - many organizers specify that "only the first # of applications will be accepted", and so on - therefore, many local organizers do specify a policy, or rule if you wish, which is not in the rule book. Nope, the unsafe muzzle angle is not spelled out there. All it says is that breaking the 90 degree (pointing the gun rearwards) is a DQ. It does not mean that one cannot be DQed for breaking any other angle. It only says that if someone breaks the 90 degree, then it's a DQ. Kinda like 10.5.4 - it declares that holstering/reholstering a gun within the the confines of a tunnel is a DQ - but it doesn't mean that holstering/reholstering in any other case cannot be a DQ. Sorry, I meant 10.5.1, which says "the firearm must be pointed in a safe direction". Since the rule book is silent about what the safe direction was, then it must be declared. 10.5.2 nowhere mentions what the safe direction was. It only deals with pointing the gun rearwards. Absolutely. But 3.3.1 says Any voluntarily adopted rules that are not in compliance with these rules must not be applied to IPSC matches without the express consent of the Regional Directorate and the IPSC Executive Council. Not in compliance is the keyword here - since the rule book refers to a notion (safe direction), but then fails to declare that notion, then - in the lack of the prescribed meaning - it must be defined locally. By my interpretation it is not "not in compliance" until 11.8.3 happens. And, as I said, 2.1.1 (Safety considerations in the <snip> stated requirements for any course of fire are the responsibility of the host organization subject to the approval of the Range Master) IMHO specifically allows me, the match organizer, to include the definition of the safe direction (which indeed is a safety consideration) into the "stated requirements for any COF", subject to the approval of the RM only.

Troy, for reference, please also check 8.4.1 and 8.4.2 - it talks about "safe direction". The rule book is silent about what the safe direction was. Were I, the match official, declare what the safe direction was, then I can legally DQ those shooters who let their gun point outside of that safe direction under 10.3.1 (...commits a safety infraction...). You cannot use the 10.5.x for prove your point - the 10.5 starts "examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:". Apparently, if the match officials declare an action - any action! - to be unsafe gun handling, the competitors must obey, or else they'll be DQed. Having the 10.5.2 in the rule book means only that breaking the 90 degrees is always considered to be safety infraction, but it doesn't mean that the match officials has no right to declare narrower angles. In other words, 10.5.2 defines the common criteria of the most allowed muzzle direction, but it isn't the only possible angle. Please also understand, I do not encourage this kind of stage construction, however here in Hungary we also have a military range where we can shoot IPSC. There are no backstops - after all, the downrange area is closed and deserted up to three-four miles. We built several side berms to separate the close stages, because it's much safer this way of course. But the total range is over four miles wide, so I could imagine a multi-staged match there without side berms easily. There are matches here in Europe when it happens quite frequently. I agree that it's very dangerous, and it's just waiting for an accident to happen, but this is not the only possible cause why the match official wants to declare the narrower safe direction. For example, on a police range, the neighbour stages are separated by concrete walls. Your bullet won't ever penetrate that six inches of concrete - yet, the owner of the range doesn't really like the idea that the shooters would hit these walls. The solution is again to declare the safe direction to be narrower.

Be positive, please. If such equipment would exist, it might record the words easily. In fact, there are answering machines w/o tapes that store the voice messages (and the welcome message) in a kind of static (but erasable) memory, and not on tapes. Lynn, The question is - what would be the benefit over the current policy? I fail to see any.

Hi Denise, As I see, it's not the ROs job to check the gun of the competitor - it's the job of the competitor himself. That's because: 1. It is the shooter who ultimately and exclusively responsible for his gun. The new rules even emphasize this fact when changed the range command to "If clear"; I'll have hard times practicing it until I'll learn it fully... 2. The RO is not supposed to spot out each such occurrance, and it's not enough if we're fair, we also must seem to be fair. 3. There are shooters who actually prefer to start with empty chamber, mag inserted. For example, since this is the duty carry state of the handfun for the Hungarian police, therefore they prefer to start that way. And this policy is not new, IMHO that is the way the RO's were taught for years. As for the supposed controversity - I can easily check whether all objects are on the place they should be placed, whether the body position of the shooter is as it should be, but I simply cannot check his gun whether it's properly loaded, unless I ask him to let me inspect it. I mean, while I can check whether the shooter has assumed the correct starting position in a blink of eye without any physical contact, I cannot do the same with the gun.

OK, lemme throw my 0.2 worth in. As an RO, if the shooter's hand is not on the gun, and he stays still for a while (but not in the correct position), I simply tell him what the correct position was. As a shooter, I'd expect the same. And no, it won't break my concentration, and it won't break the concentration of the experienced shooter either. If I'd feel that it did, then - since I'm still in the "make ready" state - I'd restart my preparation, but this time would finish in the correct position. IMHO, the experienced shooter would do the same. Someone suggested that the RO should reissue the "make ready" command. IMHO, it isn't necessary, the shooter is after the make ready command already, he is free to make ready, as a matter of fact, he is expected to make ready, so reissuing the command is just pointless.

Apparently. But if the last command was "cross your arms above your chest and move to the next position", then the shooter on my stage better crosses his arms and moves, then remains still with crossed arms until I issue the next command (and it'll be Load and make ready), or else I even may DQ him. Please understand - last time I've officiated or shoot a standard was minimum five years before; I mostly talk about the stages shoot on hot range manner (twin stages in the same bay). Also, I'm glad with the 6.1.1, which won't be effect in the States, therefore the only way of shooting more than one string without interim scoring is the case when the strings are built in separately, not even a single target is shared. In this case, shooting the two strings is like shooting the twin stages on hot range manner in the same bay. This is the ground I'm setting my statements on. Well, suppose there are five yards between the shooting positions of the consequent strings. The shooter finishes the first string, and the RO commands "reload if necessary and holster". The shooter obeys. The RO commands "Move to the next position". The shooter obeys, but after the first step, he'll draw and start to check his gun. You just said that it's perfectly legal, no RO action is required, the shooter owns the license (permission) to handle his gun. Do I understand your words well?

But we have stages on the same bay that we shoot on the "hot range manner". This fact is announced in the stage briefing, and some of the ROs usually ask whether everybody in the squad has enough magazines to complete these stages. These are either two short courses, or maybe a short course and a medium. After finishing both, they're scored and patched together. Well, Neil pointed out that if we can build each string separately, then these strings are not different than the abovementioned "hot range stages". The rule wants us to score the strings separately, therefore this rule might be changed in the future saying that "scoring after each string is not required if the exact hits of the run remains identifiable. E.g., if the first string uses different targets than the second, for example, then it's possible to score both strings only after the second string has been finished. You Jim sometimes fight 'til your last breathe for more saftey when in fact there's no risk, and then you'd let go a case when the risk is higher... The last thing I'm going to see on my stage is someone shooting his own leg, and IMHO, prevention is better than punishment. And if even the cost is low, basically nothing but a few words, I'm willing to pay that price. Are you going to say that the stage designers are all stupid, impotent people, unintelligent and unflexible enough not being able to adapt the new rules? Why don't you surmise that the stage builders will recognize the possible pitfall and will build the stages to avoid them?

Tis great if you leave off this part! Nay, I'd prefer if the shooters could know in advance what they expect. Less confusion, more safety. So I vote for this requirement.

Again an interesting difference between us. Suppose I'm the shooter. You say: "reload if necessary and check your gun". I obey. You say: "cross your arms above your chest and move to the next position". I obey. Then, I'll stand there, with crossed arms, until I get the permission to do anything else. After a few seconds I'd look back to you for sure, but would stand still until you give me the permission to continue. Were I the RO, I don't want anybody to walk on the range with a holstered loaded gun, waving his hands near that gun - therefore I will order them to cross arms before move. I also don't want anybody to put his hand upon the loaded, holstered gun... Maybe you don't issue that "cross your arms" part? Besides - suppose the next string says the gun must lay on the table. After arriving to the table, you must order the shooter to put the gun on the table - otherwise he doesn't handle the gun - the loaded gun - on your direct command. But if you agree here, then you also may realize that you'll handle these cases differently - why my way is the very same in each and every case. Consistency also means less error prone IMHO... This later issue fits on the cases when - illegally by the recent IPSC rules, but legally by the US rules - the shooter shoots from the same position, without scoring the targets in between the strings. They, you most likely will issue the "reload if necessary, and prepare the next string" command, or something of that kind? As for minimizing the gun handling, I understand your arguments, and I have no counter arguments - it means more risk for sure. I just think that this falls into the "acceptable risk" category, which of course again comes from the personal differences. As I said already - there's no "better" or "worse" way - I can tell you why I do it this way, and I understand why you do it that way. All we must ensure is that we must be consistent on our stage from the very first shooter up to the last. And I guess we all follow this requirement...

Which of course is illegal by the new IPSC rules, see 6.1.1... Besides, we actually DO issue range commands between the strings (the absolute theoretical minimum is the start signal). The only that these commands are not "official" in the sense that the rule book doesn't cover the issue otherwise than that the competitors must follow the reasonable directions of the range official (see 10.6.1). However, as I see, the discussion was shifted towards the hot range issue, be it more strings with separate targets or more stages in the same bay. Well, as long as I have to change position between strings, or have to reholster the gun between strings, how do you want to restart me on the second string? You just give me the signal? Were you try to issue any command (including the signal), I'd keep refusing to react until I'd have time to check my gun and be mentally prepared... As for the sight picture - the loaded sight picture is now illegal, but what if the shooter HAS unloaded the gun before taking the sight picture, and then reloads it again? What your call would be, and what rule supports it?

Yup, I've heard the same command chain several times. I could be argued when the reloading should take place - after the previous run, or before the next one. I prefer my method - reloading takes place before the next run. I must provide preparation time to the shooter anyhow - so why take extra measures at the end of the previous run, when the shooter will have ample time to do the same before the next? Besides, IMHO it is more in favour of the shooter - even the unexperienced one will be able to stick to his rituale better, as he'll hear the same command, and he'll do almost the same - (re)load his gun, and prepare. It doesn't mean that the other method is bad, I just prefer my way better.

Jim, I'm glad to announce that the Order of the Universe is returned to normal. I disagree. IMHO, it's not the stage that should be well balanced - it's the match. A good match contains several kind of stages. There'd be stages that those guys will like who just love to stand without moving and pulling the trigger as fast as they could (clear, close targets). There'd be stages that those guys will like who just love to make up tricky, long, difficult shots. There'd be stages that give advantage to the guys with more powerful weapons. There'd be stages that give advantage to those guys who can shoot during movement. And so on. However, increasing the round count alone won't do much good. Rather, it'll give advantage to the guys with better athletic skills - whatever you do, as long as you add some movement, the faster guys gain advantage over the elder, slower ones. As long as you add low ports, the same happens. Therefore, I don't think that the 3-2-1 rule would be that bad. It lessens the advantage that some non-shooting-related skills would otherwise provide. I don't say that you must use this recommendation exactly as it's written - but if you have a long course with 30 rounds (which most likely means advantage for the athletes), then you also should have 2 stages with 15 rounds each, and three stages with almost 10 rounds each. These later will put the emphasis on speed, and the two mid stages should put the emphasis on accuracy (and the tricks like shooting while moving, shooting at moving targets, etc.) . While it is possible that one will have 2-3-1 or 2-2-2, but then that extra middle course should have only 10-11 minimum rounds, or that extra long course should have only 18-20 rounds minimum to complete. Having a match with six stages where the minimum rounds are 9+15+15+28+30+29 will mean a greater advantage to the shooters with better athletic skills only IMHO.

Absolutely. That's the good reason why IPSC adopted the same technique - this is perhaps the only way to provide that the stages will be the very same every time and everywhere. Well, as long as you don't think that your stage will be "gamed", it's not that bad. I mean, if you don't think that the "should be followed" way exists, that is. If you have a strong concept/idea in what way it should be shot, then you'll need more time and props, agreed. Jim, don't you think we should be scared - we again agree... Well, it really depends. E.g., if you have several ports, but several targets are visible from more than just one port, then it'll qualify. But if you build a stage where only one solution exists, then it won't really qualify. The only question is, is the stage designer brave enough to let the shooters to find several different solutions. Even better if there are different solutions for the differently skilled shooters. (e.g. the slow fat but accurate guy like me might pick up longer distances and/or more difficult shots, the quick young boy might run closer and therefore have close clear target shots.)

Well, strictly speaking, it is mandatory to score between the strings, regardless whether the involved targets are the same or different. Apparently, recording the time and leaving the targets unchanged until scoring at the end is indeed considered to be "scored separately", which IMHO is the intent of the rule, but it actually says "scores and penalties are recorded following completion of each string". But of course, were the strings use different targets, noone would protest ever, even if the match wouldn't follow strictly the 6.1.1 rule. I therefore think that the Rules Committee should investigate this rule, too. (An added sentence would perhaps do: scoring more strings only at the completion of the last of that session on the multi-string stage is allowed as long as the results of the separate strings could be preserved up to and identified during the scoring phase. - This wording is perhaps the most flexible one, it allows me to score e.g. two strings, reload the competitor, and shoot and score two more strings on a four-string stage). What you describe is basically the "hot range" issue, but that's not the "hot range stages", rather "hot range strings". The same two commands I've suggested above could also work for these cases, too. The Rules Committee also must make a decision: when the reloading part should take place? Right after finishing the previous string, of right before starting the next one? (The third option might also be the any of the two, as the briefing specifies, if the new range commands will be added accordingly.) I agree, it's not just a USPSA issue, IPSC also should address it - first by modifying the involved 6.1.1 rule, and second by adding the new commands that serves well both the separated strings and the separated hot range stages.

Well, several years before that might be true, but I've learnt that today USPSA stages are pretty much alike the "Rest-of-the-World" stages. I've seen but one USPSA match in Barry, IL (Pan-American Champ), and seeing only the stages, none could tell which part of the world he was. As a matter of fact, while several USPSA classifier stages use the good old "from this box shoot these targets, from that box shoot those targets", which is pretty much different of those that we're used to here, but the IPSC classifier stages adopted the very same technique - and for a good reason, too. So I'd say that seeing the stages, USPSA and "The Rest" is not different at all.