BayouSlide

Tempting, very tempting. Ought to be just about enough shooting for a weekend...at least I have six mag pouches Curtis

Actually that would be Robert Heinlein. Ouch, right you are, Duane If it's any excuse, I used to be much brighter, but the years have taken their toll Curtis

To cadge a riff from Jeff Cooper, "A polite forum is a useful forum." My sincere compliments to all involved. Keep up the amazing work in preserving a sense of decorum and sanity in a least one small corner of the Internet. Curtis

2005 at age 52

Looks like you're absolutely right on this. I would have been inclined to think otherwise because the competitor was not in the process of engaging targets, but here it is in black and white. Obviously had not really focused on this rule. "10.5.8 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard while clearing a malfunction where the competitor clearly moves the handgun away from aiming at targets." Thanks for bringing it up! Curtis

Remember, that car stage with all the "Muzzle" warnings was at the Gator Classic, which is a Level II match. I agree with watching everyone like a hawk to keep things safe, and the CRO on that stage was certainly doing so. Whether he was too liberal with the "Muzzle" warnings is not for me to judge. He was doing his best to run a safe stage and he did so. Might I run a similar stage differently? Perhaps, but I also would do whatever I could to make sure things were safe, based on the competitors actions and the stage. On these sorts of stages it may be more productive to caution the squad as a whole in the briefing of the potential DQ trap. Curtis Edited: to add another thought

This is a very good point, and one I had not thought of. Those advocating all the RO warning chatter should think carefully about Joe's point before they say anything more. I think what fascinates me about match officiating is how what may seem apparent and absolutely correct on one hand, can have unintended consequences on another. Let me tell y'all a little story about my first and only match DQ. Happened at the second to last stage of my very first match. Was manuvering my way along some targets along the side berm when I went to slide lock. When I shifted the gun in my hand for the reload I was really close to the 180, apparently, and the RO yelled "Muzzle!" I was double-plugged so I didn't know what he was saying to me. I was having neck problems that day: couldn't turn my neck more than a few degrees either way. By now you guessed. Without realizing it, I turned my whole body around to see what the RO wanted...and managed to point my Glock 19, locked back and empty mag in place, right at the RO and the peanut gallery, which parted like I was Moses and they were the Red Sea Unintended consequences indeed. Curtis

Nik, if that's what you think, I still don't believe you've got my point...but probably because I'm not expressing myself very well. I don't believe in making decisions of any sort by poll numbers, least of all match officiating. I respect the job too much for that. But I was interesting in re-examining my personal views on this issue with an eye towards improving my abilities as an RO. It doesn't really matter where the numbers fall, although that's always interesting in a horse race sort of way. What I find useful are insights and observations on this issue offered by you and the other people who have posted in this thread. I've old enough to have passed through that stage in life where I think I know all the answers. And I'm always eager to learn something from better minds than my own. I truly appreciate your observations here and recognize their value. Curtis

You're right: that one always concerns me, especially because it's only apparent from limited viewing angles that their finger is truly outside the guard and it's often impossible to keep that perfect viewing angle during the ebb and flow of the stage. Worth a warning, or a post-run discussion, for sure. You wish they would go with the crowd and keep that finger planted on the side of the slide. Curtis

I've used that same stage as an example in talking to people about this issue. The "Muzzle!" warning startled me because I knew I had an adequate safety margin, and hesitated, wondering what was going on until I regained my concentration. Admittedly, it doesn't take much to break my concentration when I'm shooting. And I agree with you completely: it absolutely depends. The skill level of the shooter can also shift the balance in that decision one way or the other. I'm more concerned with a new shooter moving too quickly towards 120 degrees than somebody with solid skills pushing 165. But I'll continue to watch them both like a hawk Curtis

Does that really matter? In other words, what does shooter preference have to do with serving as an R.O.? I tend not to use warnings, but have, in instances where they were warranted. Shooter preference, identity or experience level of the shooter had nothing to do with it; rather it was situation driven..... Nik I feel you're misinterpreting my point. I'm not advocating removing any RO discretion. I'm simply curious. Since issuing warnings is an option for the RO, but not a requirement, I think understanding how shooters feel on this issue is important. You are doing your job as an RO no matter which side of this equation you fall on, whether you give warnings or not. The rule book is clear on this. And if the rule book says I have to option to do something, but am not required to do so, I have a choice to make and I'm comfortable with questioning my initial thinking on this, which is to not disturb seasoned competitors with warnings. Why not try to understand how the competitor feels on this issue? As the NROI states in the RO creed: "It is my duty to assist all competitors in their attempts to accomplish their goals" and "I shall exercise due consideration for the personal emotions of any competitor, and shall act in a manner so as not to embarrass or disturb the competitor any more than is absolutely necessary." Safety is served by either a warning or by "Stop". One has far greater consequences to the shooter, but if most shooters would rather not be warned (I'm definitely in that category) then that has to be taken into consideration in deciding how best to handle this, in general terms. Curtis

In hindsight, maybe I should have added that as a poll choice to make the poll a little more precise. But I can't imagine any RO having second thoughts about offering safety warnings to a new shooter at a Level I. I'm more interested in determining whether experienced shooters would rather receive such warnings. Curtis

I was the RO running the shooter in that video: it was another RO behind the line who yelled "Muzzle"...it rattled me, too. I had my eyes right on the gun during the reload and didn't see any problem—well within the safety margins in my judgement so I wondered what was going on as well. But as the rule states, any RO assigned to the squad is permitted to offer warnings if they so choose: I'm in total agreement on that and have no problem with the other RO doing so. Safety is rule number one: I'd rather have someone err on the side of safety and risk the occasional problem with a shooter's run than risk even a small chance of somebody getting hurt. After all, it's just a game. I can't imagine anything worse than somebody getting hurt on my watch. But I was interested in opinions from a wide array of competitors, especially experienced ones, to see whether they feel such warnings are useful or merely distracting. I'm always willing to reconsider my predilection to avoid such warnings, except with newbies. Curtis

Per 8.6.1, "No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot." These are an option that some ROs will use and others choose not to. My question to the Benoverse: would you rather hear a warning...or play your game, with only the word "Stop" if you break the envelope. A friend and I have been discussing this recently and I'd like to hear a wider range of opinions. As a seasoned competitor, I find such warnings very distracting because I immediately shift my concentration to "Why did he say that: I know I have at least five degrees of safety margin here?" and away from the task at hand. As an RO, I would give safety warnings to a new competitor for their first couple of matches (Level I only) to help them straighten out bad or risky habits. After that, all you would hear from me during a run if you cross the line is "Stop". Instead of warnings, what I prefer is quietly taking the shooter aside for a moment after their run and asking if they aware they were very close to crossing the line during such-and-such. If they weren't aware, then it's something for them to think about, maybe re-examine their technique. If they were purposefully pushing the envelope to 179 degrees, that's a chancy move but within their rights until they actually cross that line. Either way it's their choice, and I haven't interfered with their game. Curtis Edited: added a poll

Thanks Curtis. I did send you a PM on BS re: "muzzle." Ref 8.6.1 That said, I do appreciate it. It might be an uncommon thought process as Lloyd and Chuck both thought I was crazy for saying I'd rather just hear stop than a boisterous warning. I know it's an RO option, and various RO are of different minds about it. Personally I would only choose to do so for a new shooter, someone at their first match or with only a match or two under their belt. And only at a Level I. The first time somebody shouted "Muzzle!" at me, during my first Gator Classic, I got so rattled I almost dropped the gun. I couldn't figure what was going on because I knew I had a sufficient safety margin on the 180...totally broke my concentration. What I prefer doing, after the shooter's run, is quietly taking him aside and asking if they aware they were very close to the line during so-and-so: if they weren't aware, then it's something for them to think about, maybe examine their technique. If they were purposefully pushing the envelope to 179 degrees, that's a chancy move but within their rights until they actually cross the line. As I understand it, such warnings are allowed but not encouraged by NROI. FWIW, I got the same "Muzzle" warning on the same stage and it distracted me as well. Hell, your "Muzzle!" warning distracted me! I was running you and the warning came from another RO on the squad watching behind me. Curtis Edited: to add another thought or two.

One thing I wondered about as I watched your stronghand/weak hand is that you didn't seem to anchor your other hand/arm when you shot. Just a question of preference? Many seem to feel it helps to make a fist and anchor your "unused" arm to the chest. Curtis

I'll take credit for the scoring brain fade, but certainly not the "muzzle" warning. As we discussed, if you make a mistake, the only thing an experienced competitor like yourself would hear from me between the beep and "If you are finished, unload and show clear" is "Stop" if you violate the 180 or finger on the trigger when not engaging targets. Anything else is distracting for the shooter. You shot a fine match. Curtis

I must be missing something here. 10.5.6 states "While facing downrange, allowing the muzzle of a loaded handgun to point uprange beyond a radius of 3 feet from a competitor’s feet while drawing or re-holstering." I understood that rule to cover the fact that, when facing downrange, due to the cant of the holster and the draw stroke the gun may be pointing slightly uprange as it is pulled from the holster. I don't see how it applies to this discussion on the 180, which is a different set of issues. Curtis

As a fellow animal lover who's heart breaks at the sight of such lost or unloved creatures, I respect and admire what you're doing—and deeply sympathize with your loss. If you haven't read it yet, I'd like to recommend a book for you, "Merle's Door: Lessons from a Freethinking Dog" by Ted Kerasote. I'll bet it will mean a lot to you. Curtis

Having the RO stand on the 180 also sounds like an RO who is trying to do a good job in making sure the 180 is respected, from a vantage that will provide the best indication if this rule is broken. It isn't the ROs job to find any and every opportunity to yell "gotcha"...it is his or her job to make sure in every instance that essential safety rules are respected and applied correctly. Curtis

Nothing illegal about it, but like taking a sight picture with a loaded gun, it makes some ROs nervous. As long as it is pointed downrange, it doesn't make me nervous...but if it goes bang during the procedure, the resulting DQ will make the competitor very unhappy. Curtis

With decent ammo, the stock barrel is already capable of that. Aftermarket barrels don't offer much of an advantage in our game IMO and increase the risk of occasional ammo-related feed problems with their tighter chambers. Curtis Edited: 'cause I hate typos!

Unfortunately you will not be legal for Production with a caliber change to 9mm with your Glock 22. You could shoot it in the original configuration however. Curtis Edited to add: in re-reading your post, I am a little confused. Are you saying your local club is OK with such a caliber change? If so, they are in violation of USPSA rules if they are running a sanctioned match. From the NROI Interpretation for the Production Division Equipment Rules (Appendix D4) June 25, 2009 21.4 After-market slides and barrels – provided they are the same length, contour and caliber as original factory standard..... BARRELS: Current rules remain in effect - you may replace the barrel with an OEM or aftermarket barrel which is of the same length, contour and caliber as the original barrel for that model of gun.

My experience is different from Nik's on the 10-rounders. I have used six of these for practice nearly twice a week for the last few years. I actually used to use them in matches, until I had occasional problems with them. I change springs yearly (I've never changed springs in my hi-caps) and I've gotten them fairly reliable by swapping some of the followers, but I have and continue to have numerous failures to feed in practice, especially when the gun is dirty. In my experience they are, at best, OK if you have to use them, but certainly no where near as reliable as the metal-lined hi-caps. YMMV. Curtis

Ditto. You saved me some typing. Your numbers are exactly the same as mine. When I tried running lower PF numbers, the gun felt sluggish. Curtis