moverfive

Wow, that thread is a great real example of what I was trying to say. I think this discussion is a GREAT one to have (hence the reason I am being so vocal) because the lessons learned from a situation like this one could be the difference in someone being a VERY GOOD RO as opposed to an average or even a poor one. And as to the primary point in this latest example where the RM reversed the call before talking to all necessary folks - how can a RM who didn't actually witness the action reverse the RO's call without talking to the actual witnesses, much less the RO himself???? Maybe his decision would not have changed after talking to everyone, but he evidently hadn't compared all of the facts/evidence therefore didn't make an informed decision. And that is all I have been saying - for people that are quick to make the call after only reading a one-sided recollection of an event, these are the same type of people that will reverse a RO's call without actually talking to the RO. Because what may be obvious to one person may not be the full story, or even what actually transpired in the first place. And as I also have said, if at any point the RO thought an unsafe action occured, the shooter should be stopped, not DQ'ed at that point, but stopped. THEN analyze the situation and make the appropriate call.

Exactly..... .....but was that the gun used in this example? This is a classic case of what folks on a arbritration will face. There aren't enough details from the original post to be able to make a final decision. And my whole point here is that sometimes when you dig deeper, the obvious answer sometimes becomes a very wrong answer. My favorite example of this point happened with Frank Garcia some years back. On this particular stage you were required to engage a minimum amount of targets from each box. Frank flew through this one particular box while firing the minimum number of rounds to satisfy the engagement rule and then proceeded to the next box where he was able to finish shooting the remaining targets. The RO gave him one FTE procedural for his actions in that box he flew through (and threatened to give two procedurals). The case ultimately went to arbritration - and if you actually saw Frank, which I did, read his statement to the arbritration committee, and actually talked with the folks around that also saw it........you would have been baffled as to why the RO gave him a procedural. But because the folks on the arbritration committee applied the intent of the FTE rule AND dug out all of the pertinent details of the situation - they ruled that Frank 'didn't make a legitimate attempt to put one round on one target.' Simply put, you can fire all of the rounds you want from a location, but if those rounds aren't legitimate attempts to hit a required target(s), you haven't satisfied the COF. And the reason I am harping on this subject is that this is what makes a good RO from a bad one - someone who not only can spout rules from the rulebook, but also knows the intent of those rules and is therefore able to ask and get all necessary details in the face of something that might normally appear to be an open-and-shut case.

I still say there are some questions and details that would need to be verified before a final call could be made.....in the end this may be the poster child of when to DQ someone. But for a gun to go off before the shooter is able to grab the gun....how does someone who has yet to have the gun in his hand disengage the safety AND pull the trigger? This is why I think more details are needed.......how do we know that the gun wasn't broken? This is just a good case of where people who didn't witness the event would need to ask several questions and verify details before making a final decision. But firing a shot that was unintended is NOT automatically grounds for a DQ. A very simple example of this point: a shooter is standing in a box engaging targets. He is transitioning from a target just engaged to the next target to be engaged. Just prior to getting on the next target, the gun goes bang when the shooter didn't intend for it to go bang and thus sending a bullet three feet to the left of the target.....the round hits the berm at the height of the target, he wasn't moving, none of the things that are usually attributed to an AD. The round just went off sooner than the shooter would have wanted and without flinching, the shooter continued to engage the remaining intended targets. This whole point is another reason that RO's need to closely watch the gun and the shooter. What if a gun goes bang while the shooter is reloading......the gun goes bang the instant the mag is seated with the bullet hitting safely into the berm, both the shooter and the RO are startled. What is the correct call? Most of you would immediately say to DQ the shooter. But I haven't provided enough details to make that call. What is the critical question that needs to be answered? Where was his finger? If the finger was outside the trigger and yet the gun goes bang......you have a broken gun. If the RO wasn't watching, he might have missed this critical detail and thus would make the wrong call......just like the example that started this thread, I can see where there is a lot of missing details here that could make this a DQ or not.

An interesting thread. Looks like there's still not much agreement on what the correct call is/was in the case of Kat's cake pan episode. I have my own idea on this that I will reserve for now. Actually, I see a lot of agreement here - just not all of the information is known, everyone is therefore having to make up their own assumptions, and thus everyone is coming to varied conculsions. But if you look at the underlying opinions, everyone is saying the same thing - you would DQ when you have unsafe gunhandling. But what exactly is unsafe gunhanding? The simple point is that an AD, as described by Outerlimits above, is not grounds for a DQ in itself. You can have an AD while actively engaging targets and under 99% of those circumstances, there are no legitimate grounds for a DQ. And in most cases, especially in the examples in these two threads, the action must be seen in order to make the final determination......and since it appears that only the author in both of these examples was the only true witness, it is near impossible for any non-witness to make a call, again why the varied opinions. The point in both examples: If I am picking up a gun, the gun goes off, and the bullet hits a target that would NORMALLY be engaged from that location (key point).....regardless of how the bullet got to the target (i.e. through a table), the DQ must then be on the basis of how did the shooter look? This is why some teach newer shooters that if you have an AD, ACT LIKE YOU MEANT TO DO IT. As long as you control the gun, keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, and you aren't falling all over yourself - the grounds for a DQ are VERY thin and if DQ'ed, you have a good chance for reinstatement, as appears to have been the case in Kathy's example. BUT, having said that, if Kathy thought for an instant that the shooter was unsafe, then she would have been correct to stop him, sit back and review the situation, and then make the appropriate call. Worse case scenario, the shooter just goes again.....best case scenario, you stopped what could have been a unsafe situation.

Dealt with this so many times with my guys....in my case, I had several stellar E-5's and they all reached that level very fast because they were very good. But that 'stellar rise' severely slowed them in obtaining E-6 because of their LOW points in the seniority section of the calculation - several even had NAM's and etc., but still fell short. And especially in a tight rating, the point threshhold gets even more tough.....as you evidently know too well. However, everyone of them did eventually made chief. It just took a little longer than they would have wanted......as also appears to be in your case. Hopefully your chief is advising you properly. Because the Master Chief I worked with, who I believe sat on some chief selection boards, always told those E-5's that this was the critical time for them to make Chief. Those boards want to see jobs and other extra-curricular type functions that are outside of your rating - anything and everything you can do. As this Master Chief always said, the selection process is so tight that they typically have to fall back on things done in the junior ranks because just about all E-6's will pile up the 'look at me' bullet points just prior to going up for Chief....but not all can show a similar history throughout their career, hence why it is so important to also have this stuff at the E-5 level.

Let me throw a twist to what several have already said - you want to be able to talk and work with the actual person that will build your gun and will actually work on it later. I would even "interview" them before you gave them your business. If you will notice, several people are not only commenting on Bob's work but commenting on him personally. But the one area not commented on yet is his style.....not all guns are alike (granted the difference might be negligible to some), but there are reasons for these differences. So talk to these guys and make sure what you like is what they will and will NOT do to your gun. When all is said and done, as one of my earlier gunsmiths told me, you are almost married to that guy as long as you shooting their gun. Now while CNC machines and higher quality parts have eliminate a majority of the reasons for these monogamous relationships, the point is still valid today - you are going to have to be able to work with and enjoy working with your gunsmith in order to get all the little things done that you want and have them done the way you want.

Well, thank you.... .....as you can see, accidents do happen! :-)

Well, thank you very much. And I see you liked the movie Tin Cup too! I loved that scene in that movie where they were all sitting around talking about Don Johnson's character and everyone chimed in, "Oh yeah, don't forget dogs!" Cannot say I hate old people or dogs......but I have been known to say something about bratty kids, but then again, who hasn't. Again, I really appreciate the kind words and will see what I can do to improve my image so we can get some better endorsements.

Well thank you.....

I think John hit the nail perfectly on the head. When you look at the grand scheme of things, true sandbaggers are a very small group. And unless you know the person and their shooting history, just looking at the results of a major match might make you think someone is sandbagger, when that person really isn't. For example, B-class is probably most ripe with these situations. When you pool together the best of this class at a major match, you will typically see a B-class shooter WAY above shooters he shouldn't be - that is based on the fact he is in B-class. The first thing people say when they see that is to call them a "Sandbagger!" And as for my own situation, I sucked at stand-and-shoots (and still do), which is what most classifiers are, but I think I have above average speed. So needless to say, every single classification I received, through A-class, came from a major match because of crappy classifier skills. In fact, I got A-class by shooting 83% at the '93 nationals.....but only got 4th B!!!! So while that performance would hint at me being a sandbagger, I can promise everyone, I wanted to move up in class and never intentionally tanked any stage or match at any time. I was just improving faster than the system could catch me and it all culminated at the nationals that year. My point here - I don't think sandbagging is a big problem in our sport as some would make it out to be. I think the problem is that the skills required to do well in classifiers are totally different than what it takes to do well in a match (the things John pointed out)....and thus the people that appear to be sandbagging are just merely advancing in their skills faster than the system can classify them.

Hey!? me - High Lady Open Nice to meet so many more BErs! Great match and soooo much fun!!! Thanks to everyone!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ......and she won it with most talked about flaming gun!

Merle Eddington was the one that used the weak hand mag release......at least at one time he did.

It wasn't too long ago that single-stack open guns were quite common, and of course single-stack limited guns prior to Limited-10. Back then folks would complain about the advantage the hi-caps had over everybody, blah, blah. What many folks don't remember is that a single-stack gun won the first limited nationals, and I think the first two. And this was when hi-caps were widespread and very much in use. For some reason Barnhart and Leatham just chose to shoot single stacks. Also, some places like Hawaii can only have 10-round magazines. Yet several of us made M and GM in open and limited there. Granted, the more the gun will hold the better, but my point here is that the capacity of your magazines is not holding you back in either classifiers or matches......especially at the C class level.

now let's work on the match win. myself included lynn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, quit running past targets......myself included!

Perhaps that's the problem. You must learn to "see fast" and to control the gun tensionless at speed. Shooting multiple shots fast pushes our limits and exposes problems and errors we can "get away" with in slow fire. The key is to identify and correct those errors through analisis. Always analize from experience, not preconception. Good luck. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So true - but another thing I think needs to be added: are you truly seeing your front sight/dot as you increase your speed? If you are, then you aren't shooting too fast....you just cannot hit very well at that speed. My point and as he stated above, as you increase your speed to the maximum level that your particular eye-hand coordination will allow, your accuracy will slip UNTIL you learn that particular speed. And this is where you burn mounds of ammo and local match time in order to master that speed. And to some degree, this is almost like relearning aspects of the sport. For some, they start off running and gunning hard......so they are learning the game AND their appropriate timing initially. This is how many good shooters rocket up the classification scale so fast. Others may start off shooting slow in order to be able to hit everthing - even though they probably could be shooting and moving much faster. So once they learn the game, they still haven't learned to shoot at their appropriate speed. And this is where their frustration kicks in - the know they can shoot faster, but when they try, they don't score well and quickly return to slower shooting......whereas, if they would stick with it a little longer, the pieces will begin to fall in place for them. But the bottom line is - if you are truly seeing your front sight/dot, keep pushing and soon your hits will start to group back where you expect them to be......but you will be doing it much faster.

Unless someone has a different opinion...... ......I think Area 2 has a good representative in Chris. So even though some may not have been able to vote, I don't think the end result turned out too bad for guys.

Get a dremel with a cutting wheel......and cut a slice so that you can use a flathead screw driver.

One way is to note that the whole purpose of this discussion is to identify what things we'll modify if and when we get a waiver, so... at some level one could draw the inference that we think we'll get one this time, too. As I said earlier - is changing our current rules something we, USPSA members, want to do? For example, I personally don't think IPSC holster/mag positions for standard is something we want to implement for Limited, I know I don't want that change. Also, IPSC doesn't appear to have a Limited-10 division. Is this a divsion we want eliminated? What about this trial period with the Single Stack division. Will this be allowed under IPSC. I don't think we need 25 divisions here, but these very specific divisions encourage membership, allows shooters to shoot competitively while using existing equipment, and potentially allows equipment from other disciplines to shoot with us. If we adopt the IPSC rulebook solely, what is that going to do to these divisions? If we did solely adopt the IPSC rule book, I personally think we will begin to have "renegade" clubs shooting their own rules to allow these "former" divisions/legal equipment to keep the competition separate and equal - all to keep participation at their clubs. Is that possibility something we want? The other item I think needs to be pointed out - I believe we are the largest IPSC affiliate. Shouldn't that carry a little weight, especially if there is a REAL threat that we might break that affiliation? Also, USPSA doesn't even have 14,000 members. We are very small as compared to the number of potential shooters we could have. Do we want to make a move that threatens that small number - especially when we are seeing good results from these newer divisions. So again, I think we need to ask ourselves - do WE want to change our rules and if so, will those changes be what IPSC currently has or is proposing. If the answer to any of those is "No," then we should not change anything for the sole purpose of confirming to IPSC and we should continue to demand waivers every cycle.

As others have said, I don't see anything 'objective' in the IPSC rulebook. But the only thing I keep saying about potential rule book changes and trying to take this sport in different directions - do not take the sport and fun out of the game. Most people shoot IPSC for the fun aspect as opposed to "practical" aspect. And I think more folks enjoy shooting the type of stages you typically find at state championships much more than the short, low round count stages like a classifier and at higher level matches. Meaning, as Wally Arida (of the now defunct GunGames magazine) used to say - if you leave my match wanting to shoot more, I didn't do my job. My point is - for any rule changes and/or changes to drive the direction of the sport, I hope our directors understand and keep in mind WHY many shooters shoot IPSC and WHY many shooters shoot disciplines like IDPA. Each are very different and therefore the reasons to shoot IPSC need to be protected.

It's not Practical. Name a defensive besides sub-9mm cals, 9mm, 38 special, and some real oddball loads where the PF of load that you would actually use for defense is that low. Even 125gr. 357 mag is around 168PF IIRC. 160 is just a wussy, girly man load. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Although said you are now sold on this power factor level, I still want to reiterate - most shooters are not going to shoot at that 160 pf level if they don't have to. I always thought lowering the power factor from 175 was one of the better things USPSA has done from both a safety and an equipment preservation perspective. But most shooters today want to run their guns around the 170pf level - and not just to ensure they are above the minimum, but because the guns run better at that level. That is why I think lowering the pf level to 160 will not cause most shooters to change their current load. And why I don't see where something like this will have any negatives......only positives if it allows ammo to be more readily available.

IPSC is amenable to doing so, I believe. I don't think anyone has their heart set on 160. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just an FYI... Lowering the PF to 160 for open was proposed by USA at the Philippine World Shoot General Assembly in 1999. It was voted for and the rest of the world is now using 160 except the country that proposed it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was unaware of who proposed it, but even if it was MV, it was a bad idea then and still is today. (sorry Mike) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can you explain why that is a bad idea. Just want to make sure I understand this one. Again again, under IPSC Open is a mininum of 160pf and Non-Open is basically 170pf. Is that right? If so, why is a 160pf a bad idea? For me and most Open shooters, we are going to run above 160pf (actually 170pf) in order to ACTUALLY use all of those wonderful holes and fancy comps on our guns.

I wish I could get back that way sometime soon......especially since I have gotten heavily into diving since I left there - part of the reason I quit shooting for some time. Good hearing from you. I have definitely missed you guys!!!!

Badkarma????? I thought your nickname was Mickey? Why aren't you using that nickname anymore? :-) Do you even remember me?

I have to call out Shannon's "limping butt" statement. After he caught that bleeder, it was quite obvious he was going to need a stitch or two to properly seal him up. Now up to that point, I thought he was having a pretty good match. So I was beginning to feel bad for him as we didn't think he would be able to continue to move like he had been (and he had been shooting some good times). But when the buzzer went on he next stage (Stage 8 with like a 20 yard long run in it), he ran a sub-20 second stage. And at that point, most of the pity from the squad ended. So while he may have limped IN BETWEEN stages, he definitely didn't limp during them. He was definitely impressive to watch. So again, don't believe that limping butt stuff. Enjoyed shooting with you Shannon......

As with anything, there is no one correct way. Yes, the majority do find that four fingers underneath the trigger guard is the best grip for them. However, for some of us, that isn't the case. I get a much stronger grip when I can get my three bottom fingers wrapped around the gun - when I put all four fingers underneath the trigger guard, my little finger get put into an almost useless spot. Thus my grip strength has been reduced by 1/3. The point being - when you give new shooters advice, show them all methods and tell them the pro's and con's for each.....but don't tell them that is the "only" and "right" way. Let them understand the different methods so they can determine which is best for them. Because in my case, putting all four fingers underneath the trigger guard is not the best grip for me.....and nor is it the best grip for a lot of folks. And since some people are impressed by names being thrown around - how does that current World Champ hold his gun? And even if Barnhart has second thoughts today of his grip, it doesn't appear that it caused him too many problems in the past.