Gary Stevens

I load numerous 38 specials on my 650 for cowboy use and have no problems. Be sure you are using the white spacer that goes in the drop tube funnel which aligns the cases as they fall.

I want to say somewhere around 91-92, but that is just a guess. It is a fresh memory because after the video came out, which I never saw by the way, I received a call from Sedro about the alleged conduct. I adamantly denied it, since I always ran the Super Squad and called all the targets, this is something I would have remembered. I was told that Barnhart had also been questioned about it and was very irate that someone would have accused him of such conduct. As I remember it the producer of the tape made the comment. In any respect, it never happened. I do think I saw someone who looked like Barnhart on the grassy knoll though.

Should is a suggestion, Shall is mandatory. It is not required to apply the safety after the start signal.

Folks, I ran that stage at the Nationals. Neither Jerry Barnhart or anyone else shot targets in the back. The targets could be engaged at extreme angles, but none were available to be shot in the back. There was an allegation, on the tape to that effect, but it was not true. I suggest if you don't believe me, you send Jerry Barnhart an e-mail and ask him. I can garuntee you that he will tell you the same thing. You can take this one to the bank.

If the safety was not engaged? Where is that listed at other than in the holster?

Currently in the USA the minimum PF for rifle is 160.

Bruce, does that qualify you as a "USPSA muckey muck" since you replied? Gary Stevens

I don't know any "USPSA mucky mucks". Gary Stevens

The new Area 5 web page is up and running. While we are still expanding and moving things around, it is open for business. Please go to the page and make use of it. We have a forum section that you can use if you wish. Your comments are appreciated.

Well guys I tell you what. I am going to "strongly encourage" everyone that I deal with in Area 5 to consider/adapt revolver neutral courses. Realising that some matches are well underway in their planning, I might not be totally successful. I don't believe in micro-managing, but eventually shooters vote with their money and their feet, so MD's should be mindful of that. I remember a time when 6 shots was the norm, and we still didn't have but a small handful of revolver shooters come to play, usually less than 5 or 6 at a national event. Where those 145 ICORE shooters were then, I don't know. I am a person who is willing to experiment to see if something will work. We'll see.

I had the good fourtune to shoot in the squad behind Mr. IPSC G34 at the FGN. As if it was not hot enough, I I had to watch this young man come very close to giveing old dad here a good butt whooping, score wise that is, in Production. This worried me as I was wearing clothes that were older than he was. The saying that old age and treachery will overcome youth and exuberance came close to not being true. I sure hope he never finds out who untied his shoes prior to that big field course:) This young man will be around to make most of our lives a little harder for a long time. Oh well, I can always go back to Open and get whooped there.

I know this is not in the rule book, but when I run a shooter I try to keep one eye on the timer to observe the last shot fired time so I know it registered. I do this by positioning the timer almost in my line of sight as the shooter shoots the last shot. It gives me a good view of the gun and a quick glance at the timer seems reasonable.

Why can't you fly now? I have been reading on the SASS web page about how their folk have been flying just in the last couple of weeks with 2 pistols, a rifle and a shotgun with no problems at all. Have you not been able to fly somewhere with your guns?

I love the smell of ideas in the morning. It smells like victory! As to the web site, it has been under active re-design for several months now. I could not kick it off until 1-1-03 though. Eric Knee is graciously helping me with this project between his real job demands. We hope to have something up in a few days. Be forwarned it will be a work in progress for a while as the individual sections develop their links and we get the bugs out.

I'm still waiting for the problem to be identified. There is more to a classification than the classifiers, there is the real world experience of shooting in a match. I will agree that the difference is minimal and perhaps it should be re-evaluated and combined into a single classification. Having said that, the only real problem I have heard identified is a few people being one class down from their high classification. This may or may not be a legitimate concern as I don't know how big the perceived problem is. If the problem individuals shoot enough the system will eventually catch up to them and their classification will be adjusted. The speed of the adjustment could be as short as one month or it could be longer depending on a long list of variables. I still maintain that shooting a gun with 20 + 1rounds in it is different than shooting a gun with 10 + 1 rounds in it. Of course that is just me:)

Chuck the point you seem to be missing is that no one is forced in anyway to shoot an extra classifier, or to obtain an extra classification. They do this of their own free will. As to being taxed twice, we already have that now, it is called the estate tax or more accurately the death tax. You are taxed when you earn it, then you are taxed again when you die. Yes I realize that most of us are exempt because our estates are not worth that much, but the double tax does exist and I'm sure that is not the only example. Unlike choosing to shoot an extra classifier, we don't get to choose whether to die or not. If L-10 is your thing, don't waste the buck and a half for the Limited classifier. Problem solved.

Chuck I tried to follow your posting, but I may have went astray. I'm sure you will put me on the beaten path again though:) OK where to start. You say there is no reason for two classifications, maybe so. However I notice you are in two different classes. Yes only by 4 percent, but still they are at this time different based on your shooting. Also classifiers are only one part of the equation. There are also tournament level matches that are more expanded and demanding than a stand and shoot classifer. As to the money grab by USPSA, I don't buy into that theory. Does USPSA make any money from the classification system? Yes. It is the third largest line item in the budget revenue. However I don't think USPSA extorted any money from you or anyone else. If you choose to shoot L-10 then you pay for 4 classifiers to get your card. I think that is about 6 dollars in activity fees. After that you make all decisions about what you shoot and how much money you pay. I have paid for four classifiers in L-10 and it hasn't cost me one red cent after that. I am at somewhat of a loss about the alleged money grab. As to the L-10 you are probably correct in your assessment. However I know there was also discussion about how to bring the single stack shooters back into the game and L-10 was the way to do it. I don't think it was all one sided toward the plus or minus 10 round shooters.

The suggestions are good. It is the action that can sometimes be bad. I think it is called "Unintended Consequences". Whatever is done, if anything, needs to be carefully thought out and approached from all angles. If you don't you sometimes wind up with a camel when you intended to design a horse.

Taking the example you have given the shooters in question are M or A class that may be causing the problem. The M cannot at present be lower than A class in L-10 and the A cannot be lower than B in L-10. Neither of these shooters is in competition with the new shooter you speak of unless they are also an A or B class shooter. If they are an A or B class shooter they are not severely impacted. I think L-10 was intended way back when to be a single stack division. Due to circumstances of not being clearly spelled out we have what we have now. And as you know once things get established they are hard to change, sometimes rightfully so. Hence we have held a very tight reign on Production to keep it as pure as possible. Yes there are probably individuals that slip things through, but still it is being held as tight on modifications as possible. Things have a way of evening out given time.

On this subject I must take a different course. While it is true that for many the same classification between Limited and L-10 will be the same it is not a universal truth. If you think there is no difference between them then I urge you to only load 10 rounds from now on in your gun when you shoot Limited. There also is the factor that due to diminished eye sight, or other physical factors, one can have a higher classification in Open than when shooting an iron sighted gun with lesser capacity. Bumping these people up to an aritifically high classification does not seem fair to me. I understand the possible reduction in administrative effort by simply assigning a universal classification based on your highest class, but I am not an advocate of a one size fits all process. We are not all equal when it comes to shooting ability. The classification system when used in conjunction with tournament scores has worked pretty well considering all the variables. I am sure as all the divisions progress what bugs there are will be worked out. Let's not make things worse than they are.

Hi Bill, I'll be at the Buckeye Blast for sure. We want to try and make that a premier shoot. I also want to talk to you and anyone else about doing something in WVA. Too many good folk up there to let it go to waste. See you at the Buckey.

Well it looks like we are off to a good start. As to the classifiers you are dead on correct. I do know that a new classifier book has been underway for a while now. One of the best ways to get a new classifier book is to draw up and submit proposed courses for classification. Understanding what a classifier is intended to do, and making a course that reasonably does that within the current rules, is not all that hard. The difficulty of setting it up, as you indicated, is also an area to consider. If each one of us drew one course and sent it in for consideration our new book would be out pretty soon. I'm going to accept the challenge, how about the rest of you? As to membership, this is an area that is constantly in discussion. One of the reasons the Production Division was started was in the hope of drawing new members. We are working with gun companies to include our USPSA materials in with the products they sell as a means to gather members. I am going to clubs that shoot other formats and attempting to draw them into our fold. We have one such club in this situation in Wilmington, Ohio that I have recruited. I'll think bout your incentive program for membership growth and see what I can come up with. As to the Glock only Area, well let's just say I consider the source:) Thanks for the comments.

As the new Area 5 Director I am entirely open to new ideas for our sport. This is not to say I will always agree with you, but I want to hear from you. I am very interested in Area 5 comments, but if you have a good idea and you don't live in Area 5 let me hear it anyway. There you go, don't say no one ever asked what I thought.

Sorry about the tripple. That is the problem with IPSC, it is either shoot, load, or paste targets:) When the darn thing appears to not be working I keep hitting the submit button.

Thanks Kyle, I look forward to checking in from time to time, probably daily.