Multi String Range Commands

[DarthMuffin]

I use "If finished, make ready for your next string". Everyone knows what "Make Ready" means and it covers either gun on safe and holstered, or in whatever position (i.e. table start) the stage requires.

Edited August 3, 2010 by DarthMuffin

[rgkeller]

Because it's issued on completion of a string, not in the middle of shooting the course of fire, or during the initial "make ready" sequence. That would be coaching. It's used in place of "make ready", which is basically telling the competitor to load, prep, do whatever. You don't like "reload if necessary/required"? Do what some of the other people here have suggested and use "prepare for the next string" or something similar.

The point is, you must use some sort of interim command to facilitate allowing the competitor to prepare for the next string in a course where the gun remains loaded. 8.3.6.1 gives the RO permission to do that, and specifically allows you to say "reload as...".

Troy

And the reason that we cannot make that command standard by rule is ...?

Different RO's are giving different commands, some of which are more helpful to the shooter than others.

[George Jones]

And the reason that we cannot make that command standard by rule is ...?

Different RO's are giving different commands, some of which are more helpful to the shooter than others.

There is potential for quite a number of different scenarios in current and future classifiers/standards. Some rules are purposely left flexible so that the rules do not unnecessarily restrict a stage. In this case, by allowing some leeway in the specific command, the RO can adapt as necessary for the conditions for that stage at the time (now and in the future).

As to some of the examples mentioned above... some of those do fall under the definition of coaching. If a range command provides a shooter with information which can improve his score, it's coaching.

[sperman]

As to some of the examples mentioned above... some of those do fall under the definition of coaching. If a range command provides a shooter with information which can improve his score, it's coaching.

Is reminding the shooter of what is required for each string considered coaching?

[sperman]

Once "Make Ready" has been given, the competitor is free to handle their gun at any time during the course of fire. That should not be a concern, although many competitors do ask before checking their gun.

Is it legal to unload my gun and dry fire between strings?

[George Jones]

As to some of the examples mentioned above... some of those do fall under the definition of coaching. If a range command provides a shooter with information which can improve his score, it's coaching.

Is reminding the shooter of what is required for each string considered coaching?

Although I try to avoid it, I don't have a big problem with it. It is simply a repetition of stage information which all shooters have already received. Not all stage sting procedures "flow" the same and shooters can get confused. But, if you do it voluntarily (not by shooter request), you need to do it with every shooter.

Again, that's completely different from "assisting" the shooter by telling him something concerning his handgun preparation or conduct during the stage.

[George Jones]

Once "Make Ready" has been given, the competitor is free to handle their gun at any time during the course of fire. That should not be a concern, although many competitors do ask before checking their gun.

Is it legal to unload my gun and dry fire between strings?

You are under the direct supervision of the RO and you have received the MR command, therefore it is not illegal for you to do that.

As to range etiquette, I would suggest that the additional time taken would not be welcome by all. Barring a malfunction, I don't think the sights or trigger have changed much between strings have they?

[Carmoney]

This is just another example of why the mult-string stages are generally a bad idea. Even at National and Area matches, it has become routine for the ROs to give a mini-walk-through to each shooter between strings. Example: "OK, this time you're gonna engage each target with two shots freestyle, then reload and shoot them each one time strong hand only." Rarely are these instructions repeated absolutely verbatim for everybody, and obviously it favors those who are competent with English.

I realize the ROs are only trying to help keep people from being penalized by forgetting the instructions from string to string. And let's face it -- well-intentioned ROs are going to do this, regardless of what the book says.

The better practice would be to get rid of multi-start stages. It would also eliminate the perils of re-holstering loaded guns, carrying live guns across from one start position to another, forgetting to unlock the holster, etc., etc., etc.

[Carmoney]

Not to mention the fact that multi-string stages are usually where the bottle-necks occur.

[Nik Habicht]

And the reason that we cannot make that command standard by rule is ...?

Different RO's are giving different commands, some of which are more helpful to the shooter than others.

This is just another example of why the mult-string stages are generally a bad idea. Even at National and Area matches, it has become routine for the ROs to give a mini-walk-through to each shooter between strings. Example: "OK, this time you're gonna engage each target with two shots freestyle, then reload and shoot them each one time strong hand only." Rarely are these instructions repeated absolutely verbatim for everybody, and obviously it favors those who are competent with English.

I think that's where the RM comes in....

If I were to be the CRO for such a stage, I'd want to review the range commands we'd be using with the RM beforehand. I'd then print the text we agreed on, mount it on a small clipboard, clip the timer to the board, and thus create a neat small package for the RO running shooters to carry/hang onto. Voila, consistency for every shooter, as well as approved language, that won't be coaching for anyone....

[Nik Habicht]

Not to mention the fact that multi-string stages are usually where the bottle-necks occur.

That really comes down to stage design -- of the multi string stage, the stages leading up to it, and the stages that it feeds. Badly done -- bottleneck. Well done -- you never notice...

[mactiger]

Not to mention the fact that multi-string stages are usually where the bottle-necks occur.

That really comes down to stage design -- of the multi string stage, the stages leading up to it, and the stages that it feeds. Badly done -- bottleneck. Well done -- you never notice...

Exactly. Another example where course design, setup, and operation are key. Not making the rule book fatter and more restrictive.

If you think that the interim command should be coded in, take a look at the multiple responses on this topic, all from a very small percentage of USPSA shooters/RO's. Hell, most of the time the range commands themselves aren't issued correctly. How could we expect everybody to use the same interim command when they only have to do it on occasion? It would never happen. The rule is fine as is, and it gives an example. IMO, any command that allows the competitor to prepare properly for the next string is fine.

Troy

[coldchar]

I have to respectfully disagree with the statement that any command that helps the shooter prepare for the next string is ok and that the example is ok.

If anyone has ever shot a police qualifier match, one of the principal points is management of the ammunition when moving from one string to another. I can personally testify this adds an important challenge to the qualifier and is not as easy as it sounds.

By reminding the shooter it may be necessary to reload, this challenge of managing your ammunition is removed and, I submit, is coaching.

Jim

[George Jones]

By reminding the shooter it may be necessary to reload, this challenge of managing your ammunition is removed and, I submit, is coaching.

Jim

The next time I'm running shooters on a standards, go ahead and give me a procedural for coaching.

Let the chips fall where they may.

[boz1911]

I use the "reload if necessary and holster a safe, hot weapon" command. I don't feel like that's coaching at all, since I use it with every shooter.

I also have no issues when a shooter asks me the procedure with a particular string, I'll gladly go over it with him/her.

This is a USPSA event , not a police qualifier anyway.

As far as sight pictures, I do like to take one myself, just to stay in the same routine every time. I don't like it, but with multi-strings, this sight picture is generally with a loaded gun.

[Nik Habicht]

If anyone has ever shot a police qualifier match, one of the principal points is management of the ammunition when moving from one string to another. I can personally testify this adds an important challenge to the qualifier and is not as easy as it sounds.

By reminding the shooter it may be necessary to reload, this challenge of managing your ammunition is removed and, I submit, is coaching.

Jim

This isn't a police qualifier match. We're talking USPSA rules here --- and a number of folks who have experience writing and interpreting the rules have chimed with what's appropriate under those rules.

From a simple club match administration standpoint -- if everyone shooting the match had a ton of experience, I might not want interim range commands either. But we are also dealing with brand new shooters -- everyone shoots their first standards at some point -- and without a doubt most of those will need assistance.....

Then you've got plain obstinate shooters like me --- who'll ask permission to move from point A to point B, who might ask for clarification of the next string, who would say "No" at "Are you ready" if not informed....

You need something. I'm not sure that "reload if necessary and holster" is all that bad of a command. This ain't the police academy, it ain't a defensive pistol shooting course, a polite society match; it's a USPSA match....

[George Jones]

a safe, hot weapon"

Why is it that when I hear that particular terminology it's like someone is screeching chalk on a blackboard?

Those terms are nowhere in the rulebook, are contradictory, and, as I mention in RO classes, we use firearms and handguns in our game. We do not use weapons.

It's just me.

[ima45dv8]

a safe, hot weapon"

Why is it that when I hear that particular terminology it's like someone is screeching chalk on a blackboard?

That's screeching noise is just your tinnitus acting up, George.

Those terms are nowhere in the rulebook, are contradictory, and, as I mention in RO classes, we use firearms and handguns in our game. We do not use weapons.

It's just me.

We use firearms and handguns, too.

weapon -- noun: any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting

We're fighting the clock and hunting points.

[mactiger]

It's just George. (Do you like yellow or white chalk, George?)

I've heard some er, wordy, interim commands, but the longest I ever heard was at a match in Texas. I can't remember it all right now, but it was highly descriptive. "reload and holster" would have done it, but noooooo.....

Some of the interim commands are just personal preference. It's funny how we let that creep into our jobs as RO's, but it's human nature.

As for coaching, I truly don't consider the interim command, "reload if required and holster" to be coaching. It's merely a variation on the Make Ready command issued at the beginning of the course, (which tells the competitor he can load his gun and take sight pictures, etc.) and it's done "off the clock" so to speak. It would be coaching to remind someone to reload while he was shooting, and it's considered coaching/assistance to tell someone they forgot to insert a magazine during the load process. We are issuing commands, supervising the competitor, not coaching them. As long as that is done consistently, it's all good. If, after receiving the interim "reload..." command, the competitor chooses not to, even though he needs to, well, we don't tell him again.

Consider the case where a competitor is not in the correct start position--the RO must tell him to get into the correct position, or he can't proceed with the range commands. Is that coaching? Would it be better to just let the competitor stay as he is and then ding him with a procedural? I dont' think so.

Troy

[Lee King]

The problem I see is there is no defined "end of string" as there is with the end of a COF. Lets say a shooter shoots a string, stops, is standing there reloading, raises his gun and fires another shot. Perhaps he realized he only shot 5 shots in a 6 shot string. Lets say the RO assumed he was finished because he stopped and started issuing "interim commands". Does the shooter incur any penalties (other than the obvious waste of time making up the shot?). He was never given the command "IF YOU ARE FINISHED... etc. etc" And because "interim commands" aren't specific, one could argue THOSE commands still never signified the end of string.

With regards to separate COFs back to back hot, again the command to end a COF is clear, but by allowing a shooter to reholster hot you remove the "official" end. Not only that, but introduced a new set of issues for the shooter. For example, if you drop a gun outside of a COF, as long as the shooter doesn't handle the gun and calls an RO to do so, he's ok. But lets say while moving from one COF to another, hot, an RO bumps the shooter and dislodges his gun. DQ?

Additionally, the shooter can no longer take a sight picture etc.

I watched an incident at an area match with back to back hot COFs where a shooter was DQ'd BECAUSE there were no standardized procedures or commands. The shooter finished the first COF. The RO, for whatever reason insisted on telling the shooter each step for handling his gun. The RO started to tell the shooter to holster, then changed his mind to reload for the next COF, then changed his mind again and finally said "holster, we'll get ready over there". You could see the shooter get confused as to what to do, start to get a magazine, put it back, then he just stood there with the gun pointed downrange until the RO said "holster". He did. In the confusion, he never put his safety on. So then the RO said "STOP" and DQ'd him. Before that shooter, the RO was very inconsistent with his commands and procedures. He would tell one shooter to reload for the next COF, then the next, when she started to reload he said "wait.. I didn't tell you to do that".

Clearly with a little common sense this shouldn't happen. But here's a real life case of "it did happen" and at an Area match to boot. For the shooter, while he clearly violated 10.5.11.1 (or did he since he was between COFs?) the lack of standard procedures and commands led him down that path and earned him a DQ (it was also his very last stage of the match).

Edited August 4, 2010 by Lee King

[George Jones]

It is a shame that you sometimes see less than competent ROs at major matches. However, a bad RO is not a good example to use when having these kind of discussions. It doesn't prove much except that this RO should not have been given that job without adult supervision. The fact that a shooter eneded up in a DQ is regretable and falls squarely in the lap of the senior match staff.

As to some of your questions -

The shooter would not be penalized for taking that 6th shot. There is no rule which would apply a penalty here as long as the shooter is still in the correct position.

Since strings are only used in standards, it is not difficult to determine if a shooter is done or not. I would not issue the interim command unless and until I am confident that he is done. If you want to say "If you are finished...." between strings, I see no problem with that.

I am curious as to why you say the shooter cannot take a sight picture.

Moving hot between COFs is something which could be avoided and you have highlighted the reason why it should be avoided. Ultimately, though, it's the shooter's responsibility to control his handgun.

[Lee King]

It is a shame that you sometimes see less than competent ROs at major matches. However, a bad RO is not a good example to use when having these kind of discussions. It doesn't prove much except that this RO should not have been given that job without adult supervision. The fact that a shooter eneded up in a DQ is regretable and falls squarely in the lap of the senior match staff.

In this case, it's more than just the DQ. To me it highlighted a void in rules and procedures. Can the shooter walk over to his bag and retrieve another magazine? We don't allow them to move from the start position, but that's after "Make Ready?" (and it's written in the rulebook) If the answer is "no", what recourse does an RO have? If you say "yes", do we want shooters walking around with a hot gun?

As to some of your questions -

The shooter would not be penalized for taking that 6th shot. There is no rule which would apply a penalty here as long as the shooter is still in the correct position.

Since strings are only used in standards, it is not difficult to determine if a shooter is done or not. I would not issue the interim command unless and until I am confident that he is done. If you want to say "If you are finished...." between strings, I see no problem with that.

I'm not disagreeing common sense tells us when a shooter is finished or not. But without a definition, could a shooter argue for a reshoot on a standards stage they tanked on the basis of improper scoring? "No those shots weren't on that string? How do you KNOW what string they were on?" If an RO makes a call the shot doesn't count or tries to apply a procedural (because he issued some "interim commands"), what recourse does the shooter have?

It just seems something simple as a "If you are finished, make ready next string" or "the act of holstering" or "Are you ready?" defines the end of string and would be consistent.

I am curious as to why you say the shooter cannot take a sight picture.

I was refering to a shooter preparing for the 2nd COF when moving hot from the 1st. I thought the rules specified "unloaded" sight picture, but I can't support that. It does beg the question, do you want a shooter to take a loaded sight picture?

Beyond the sight picture, does it treat the 2nd stage as fairly as the 1st? What command do you start on since they're already hot?

Moving hot between COFs is something which could be avoided and you have highlighted the reason why it should be avoided. Ultimately, though, it's the shooter's responsibility to control his handgun.

I completely agree handling is still the shooter's responsibility. I don't see how the RM could've or should've overturned the DQ. It was a clear violation. Back to back hot stages is becoming common enough (there was even a Frontsight article) it wouldn't be difficult to require ULASC, followed by a Make Ready on the new COF. It is consistent and fair.

I guess the RM could require a specific procedure be followed. But as it is becoming more and more common and there are a lot of grey areas in the rules between COFs it just seems an easy fix to require ULASC before moving to a back to back COF.

[Cy Soto]

I thought the rules specified "unloaded" sight picture, but I can't support that. It does beg the question, do you want a shooter to take a loaded sight picture?

This was discussed here a while back and both George Jones and Troy McManus chimed in:

______________________________________________________________________________________

George

Loading/reloading/unloading are shooter actions, not a gun condition. Each of them require several steps to complete. If there is an interuption between any of those steps, the shooter is no longer "in the act of...". The finger may once again be in the trigger guard until such time as the next step of L/R/U process begins.

In other words, after the mag has been inserted in the gun and the weak-hand removed, the finger may be in the trigger guard (assuming no other finger restriction) until such time as the slide is racked, prior to which the finger must once again be out. This applies similarly to reloading and unloading.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Troy

I'll second what George said, and add this:

There is nothing in USPSA rules that prohibits taking a loaded sight picture. While the rulebook does specify a definition for a loaded gun, loading one and having a loaded gun are two different things. Having your finger in the trigger guard while in the act of loading, i.e., inserting a magazine, racking the slide, etc., is a DQ for unsafe gun handling. However, taking a loaded sight picture is not against the rules, and having your finger in the trigger guard while doing so isn't against the rules, either. If the gun goes off, it's a DQ for AD. The practice you describe is not against either SC or USPSA rules as I understand them. All the competitor is doing is taking a loaded sight picture.

Troy

______________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=104013&st=0

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=104188&st=0&p=1185369&hl=%20sight%20%20picture&fromsearch=1entry1185369

[mactiger]

It is a shame that you sometimes see less than competent ROs at major matches. However, a bad RO is not a good example to use when having these kind of discussions. It doesn't prove much except that this RO should not have been given that job without adult supervision. The fact that a shooter eneded up in a DQ is regretable and falls squarely in the lap of the senior match staff.

As to some of your questions -

The shooter would not be penalized for taking that 6th shot. There is no rule which would apply a penalty here as long as the shooter is still in the correct position.

Since strings are only used in standards, it is not difficult to determine if a shooter is done or not. I would not issue the interim command unless and until I am confident that he is done. If you want to say "If you are finished...." between strings, I see no problem with that.

I am curious as to why you say the shooter cannot take a sight picture.

Moving hot between COFs is something which could be avoided and you have highlighted the reason why it should be avoided. Ultimately, though, it's the shooter's responsibility to control his handgun.

I agree with George, but I want to add one thing: moving hot between two stages in one bay is a common practice. Whether you like it or not depends on personal preferences, but it can, and has been, done safely many many times--and a sight picture is allowed; no issues there. Lee is correct in stating that you are still "in" the COF while doing so. However, <thread drift alert> and I think it was discussed here at some point, I'd be hard pressed to DQ a competitor if the RO was the one who knocked his gun loose. It could happen, I guess, but again, that runs into George's comments about competent range staff. Lee, I think a lot of what you were stating came about as the result of very poor officiating.

Troy

[Lee King]

I thought the rules specified "unloaded" sight picture, but I can't support that. It does beg the question, do you want a shooter to take a loaded sight picture?

This was discussed here a while back and both George Jones and Troy McManus chimed in:

______________________________________________________________________________________

George

Loading/reloading/unloading are shooter actions, not a gun condition. Each of them require several steps to complete. If there is an interuption between any of those steps, the shooter is no longer "in the act of...". The finger may once again be in the trigger guard until such time as the next step of L/R/U process begins.

In other words, after the mag has been inserted in the gun and the weak-hand removed, the finger may be in the trigger guard (assuming no other finger restriction) until such time as the slide is racked, prior to which the finger must once again be out. This applies similarly to reloading and unloading.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Troy

I'll second what George said, and add this:

There is nothing in USPSA rules that prohibits taking a loaded sight picture. While the rulebook does specify a definition for a loaded gun, loading one and having a loaded gun are two different things. Having your finger in the trigger guard while in the act of loading, i.e., inserting a magazine, racking the slide, etc., is a DQ for unsafe gun handling. However, taking a loaded sight picture is not against the rules, and having your finger in the trigger guard while doing so isn't against the rules, either. If the gun goes off, it's a DQ for AD. The practice you describe is not against either SC or USPSA rules as I understand them. All the competitor is doing is taking a loaded sight picture.

Troy

______________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=104013&st=0

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=104188&st=0&p=1185369&hl=%20sight%20%20picture&fromsearch=1entry1185369

I thought the rulebook used the word "unloaded" but I was mistaken. But if you are moving hot from a previous stage, you will still be hot to take a sight picture. While not against the rules, it is outside of a lot of people's normal make ready routine. I could see someone taking a sight picture and dropping the hammer. Yes they would be DQ'd and deservedly so. My point being, that you are already loaded changes the circumstances of this COF from any other. I'm splitting hairs on whether this is "fair" or not. We as shooters should be able to roll with it. BUT.. I'm just illustrating how requiring ULASC puts it back to "same" from the previous COF.