Front Sight

[Bwana Six-Gun]

Just got my issue of Front Sight today and there are two good articles about wheel-gunners. One by Julie Golob and the other by Robin Taylor. Both are well worth the time to read. Makes me wish I could have made the nationals, (as usual).

[MrClean]

Dang'd ol' Top Feeders....

[BritinUSA]

+1

Both articles were excellent, I had no idea of the controversy that had occurred at the US Nationals last year. The whole Front Sight was great, with 21 pages devoted to Nationals (this is how it should be).

Edited January 20, 2011 by BritinUSA

[gr7070]

I've checked their website. It doesn't appear the new issue (these articles specifically) is available online. Can anyone please correct me if I'm wrong?

[BritinUSA]

They are not online. I think they usually only post a few key articles from each edition. I suspect that many of the USPSA staff are at the Shot Show at the moment, perhaps it will be rectified on their return.

[cliffwalsh]

The article by Robin had a lot of bad facts about the controversy. I think Dave knew the target was an alpha mike. He did not ask for an overlay. The RO's on the stage took it upon themselves to find the hit that was not there. I looked at the target and have no doubt it was a miss. The RO's called it 2 alpha after a few minutes overlay work. Next, Jerry asked for the target to be pulled. The article makes it sound like the squad got together and made a decision. It was Jerry who asked for the target to be pulled. I have never had one of my own targets pulled and would have never had another shooter's target pulled. Now I will. The range master came over and scored it alpha mike fairly quickly but the Dave and the RO's had already signed the score sheet. The article says the RM called a reshoot. Not True. The RM gave Dave 3 choices; keep the score as is, amend the score sheet to alpha mike on that target, or reshoot. Dave said. "I don't want the miss so I'll reshoot." The reshoot went badly for Dave as the article says.

[BritinUSA]

I thought that once the score-sheet had been signed then any contention would have to be resolved with a reshoot, I thought it was mandatory.

[cliffwalsh]

The RM said he could amend the score sheet if the shooter agreed.

I am not even a RO so I am just going by what I heard and saw myself.

[NewColonial]

Dang, I'm apparently one of the many whose FS magazine did not get mailed this time. I sure hope the rectify that soon.

The statement "Mailing date for the make-up magazines is as yet unknown." is not very useful from a customer service viewpoint.

[BritinUSA]

I got mine on the 14th.

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: I don't have mine yet either. I think my postman(actually a nice lady) reads it before I do I can't complain since she drops bullets off at the door Thanks, Eric

[professor]

The RM said he could amend the score sheet if the shooter agreed.

I am not even a RO so I am just going by what I heard and saw myself.

Although I haven't read the discussion yet, and wasn't there, this appears to be the applicable rule, with my highlighting of the 'mutual consent' phrase.

9.7.4 A score sheet signed by both a competitor and a Range Officer is conclusive

evidence that the course of fire has been completed, and that the

time, scores and penalties recorded on the score sheet, are accurate and

uncontested. The signed score sheet is deemed to be a definitive document

and, with the exception of the mutual consent of the competitor

and the signatory Range Officer, or due to an arbitration decision, the

score sheet will only be changed to correct arithmetical errors or to add

procedural penalties under Rule 8.6.2.

Note: It requires the mutual consent of the competitor and the RO who signed the score sheet, not the RM.

Note 2: The scoring could be modified as the result of an arbitration decision, which starts with an appeal to the RO.

The target was pulled, and there were plenty of witnesses, so an an appeal and arbitration request could have been made.

What is the usual state of affairs is a competitor questioning the scoring, which is then referred to the CRO, then to the RM, as per the following rules.

9.6.4 Any challenge to a score or penalty must be appealed to the Range

Officer by the competitor (or his delegate) prior to the subject target

being painted, patched, or reset, failing which such challenges will not

be accepted.

9.6.5 In the event that the Range Officer upholds the original score or penalty

and the competitor is dissatisfied, he may appeal to the Chief Range

Officer and then to the Range Master for a ruling.

9.6.6 The Range Master’s ruling will be final. No further appeals are allowed

with respect to the scoring decision.

9.6.7 During a scoring challenge, the subject target(s) must not be patched,

taped or otherwise interfered with until the matter has been settled. The

Range Officer may remove a disputed paper target from the course of

fire for further examination to prevent any delay in the match. Both the

competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate

which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge.

Note, other competitors do not have standing to question a scoring decision under these rules. However, any third party can initiate an appeal and take almost anything to arbitration. And that would apply to this scoring decision.

11.1.2 Access - Appeals may be submitted to arbitration in accordance with

the following rules for any matter except where specifically denied by

another rule...

11.7 Third Party Appeals

11.7.1 Appeals may also be submitted by other persons on a “third party

appeal” basis. In such cases, all provisions of this Chapter will otherwise

remain in force.

It appears that Jerry did make a third party appeal to the scoring by the RO crew, which then led to the RM getting called. It's not clear when the target was pulled, or who authorized that it be pulled. However, it appears that these actions taken were as authorized by rule 11.1.3 and 11.1.5.

11.1.3 Appeals – the Range Officer makes decisions initially. If the appellant

disagrees with a decision, the Chief Range Officer for the stage or area

in question should be asked to rule. If a disagreement still exists, the

Range Master must be asked to rule.

11.1.5 Retain Evidence – An appellant is required to inform the Range Master

of his wish to present his appeal to the Arbitration Committee and may

request that the officials retain any and all relevant documentary or

other evidence pending the hearing. Photos, audio and/or video recordings

will not be accepted as evidence.

When the Range Master was called, he apparently ruled "Alpha-Mike". That should have been the end of it, as per 9.6.6 above.

I couldn't find anything in the rules that would allow the RM to offer a reshoot as an option in this situation.

{Moderators might want to spin this off as another thread, as it certainly gets away from discussing the Front Site revolver stories.}

[Corey]

got my front sight yesterday and read this article. very interesting indeed

[Carmoney]

Cliff is exactly correct in his memory of the event. It was Jerry who called for the target to be pulled, and under the crazy circumstances he was perfectly correct to do so. Nobody else on the squad got involved, other than the typical behind-the-lines discussion amongst ourselves. Everyone on the squad remained calm and cordial, including Jerry and Dave.

If you weren't right there in the middle of the situation, it would be hard to know exactly what happened.

I do want to publicly thank Robin Taylor for the very nice coverage of the Revolver Nationals. It's great to see a full piece on our match. From talking to Robin, I know he has competed with a revolver himself in the past, so he knows the drill. Julie G.'s article was great as well!

[Bwana Six-Gun]

The article by Robin had a lot of bad facts about the controversy. I think Dave knew the target was an alpha mike. He did not ask for an overlay. The RO's on the stage took it upon themselves to find the hit that was not there. I looked at the target and have no doubt it was a miss. The RO's called it 2 alpha after a few minutes overlay work. Next, Jerry asked for the target to be pulled. The article makes it sound like the squad got together and made a decision. It was Jerry who asked for the target to be pulled. I have never had one of my own targets pulled and would have never had another shooter's target pulled. Now I will. The range master came over and scored it alpha mike fairly quickly but the Dave and the RO's had already signed the score sheet. The article says the RM called a reshoot. Not True. The RM gave Dave 3 choices; keep the score as is, amend the score sheet to alpha mike on that target, or reshoot. Dave said. "I don't want the miss so I'll reshoot." The reshoot went badly for Dave as the article says.

Sounds to me like Dave had the opportunity to take some free points but was a "Stand Up Guy" and did not want what he didn't earn and took the re-shoot with the ensuing consequences. I would say that is typical of all self-respecting wheel-gunners. I hope that I will have the stones to do that if it ever comes around. Hat's Off to Dave.

[cliffwalsh]

Sounds to me like Dave had the opportunity to take some free points but was a "Stand Up Guy" and did not want what he didn't earn and took the re-shoot with the ensuing consequences. I would say that is typical of all self-respecting wheel-gunners. I hope that I will have the stones to do that if it ever comes around. Hat's Off to Dave.

If Dave knew he had a miss, and I think he did, the right thing to do would be to amend the score sheet to show the miss. He chose the reshoot and try to take some free points. While perfectly within the rules, he did so to erase a miss he had earned. What if he would have reshot and burned down the stage and won the match by a few points? Would you still take your hat off??

[Revopop]

I thought Julie's article raised some very good points, while most of them are nothing new to us, it's nice that those points are being raised to the USPSA members who don't necessarily read this revolver forum.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Revopop

[glockwerkes]

I'm still waiting for my new issue of Front Sight, so I can figure out what everyone is talking about.

[Turboprop]

Sounds to me like Dave had the opportunity to take some free points but was a "Stand Up Guy" and did not want what he didn't earn and took the re-shoot with the ensuing consequences. I would say that is typical of all self-respecting wheel-gunners. I hope that I will have the stones to do that if it ever comes around. Hat's Off to Dave.

If Dave knew he had a miss, and I think he did, the right thing to do would be to amend the score sheet to show the miss. He chose the reshoot and try to take some free points. While perfectly within the rules, he did so to erase a miss he had earned. What if he would have reshot and burned down the stage and won the match by a few points? Would you still take your hat off??

I always thought it was the RO's job to do the scoring not the competitors. I'm sure that anyone who has been shooting USPSA for any length of time has benefited from a questionable call and has been burned by a few as well. If two RO's check a target and call it a double that should be the end of it. Maybe we should introduce video review to solve these issues.

[pskys2]

Life Member, Revolver Competitor and a magAzine with !2! Revolver Stories. Yea haven't got one yet either. I'm sure with those credos and a last name with a "W" I'm one of the 1200 who didn't get mailed out.

Oh Well hope they catch up before summer.

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: I got mine yesterday. The articles are very well written. I for one would not want to see the single stack and revolver shot at the same match unless they are both shot at the same nationals as the other divisions. I still think it is odd that the single stack nationals are by themselves? I have not been around long enough to know why this is still going on this way since it is shot under the USPSA banner? If I get a spot for the nationals this year I will be trying my hand at Revolver Division Thanks, Eric

[pskys2]

Got mine on Monday!

Wow, 2 Articles Dedicated to Revolver.

Sam the dream has now found some new personalities to help along a seperate, or semi-seperate, Revolver Nationals.

I like the idea of either a Back to Back, doubt if that will happen though, or maybe a Single Stack/Revolver Nationals.

That idea would lend itself to splitting up the Nationals Formats into 3-2 Division Contests. I doubt if it would take any more effort

than the existing formats. But may meet with some resistance from the hardcore Single Stack competitors.

One of the reasons Sam started pushing the Memphis Match was to show the true desire of Revolver Competitors for a National Event.

So if you like the ideas, let USPSA know and head to Memphis in November to support it.

[Carmoney]

I for one would not like the USPSA Revolver Nationals to be run on the same stages as the Single Stack Nationals. The idea of dumbing the stages down to low round count leaves me cold. I've shot the Single Stack Classic for a number of years, and I do enjoy the match mostly as a change of pace. But the stages are not Nationals-quality USPSA stages, in my opinion. (Of course, the same thing could be said of most of the stuff we've seen in Vegas the past couple years). The idea that we are looking for 6-round-neutral stages is completely wrong--that bunch already left and formed ICORE. Give us plenty of big-running 32-round field courses, with lots of free-style options!

I would also prefer that our division's National Championship not be run by a few people as a for-profit venture.

Maybe we really do need to push for the Memphis match to become the officially sanctioned USPSA National Revolver Championship. In order to attract the guys from other divisions, there would need to be a real prize table with a bunch of guns. No more "charity" for Stanley.

[Matt Griffin]

I for one would not like the USPSA Revolver Nationals to be run on the same stages as the Single Stack Nationals. The idea of dumbing the stages down to low round count leaves me cold. I've shot the Single Stack Classic for a number of years, and I do enjoy the match mostly as a change of pace. But the stages are not Nationals-quality USPSA stages, in my opinion. (Of course, the same thing could be said of most of the stuff we've seen in Vegas the past couple years). The idea that we are looking for 6-round-neutral stages is completely wrong--that bunch already left and formed ICORE. Give us plenty of big-running 32-round field courses, with lots of free-style options!

I would also prefer that our division's National Championship not be run by a few people as a for-profit venture.

Maybe we really do need to push for the Memphis match to become the officially sanctioned USPSA National Revolver Championship. In order to attract the guys from other divisions, there would need to be a real prize table with a bunch of guns. No more "charity" for Stanley.

I would point out that the prize table at Memphis is the equal of the prize table at Nationals for the revolver crowd, And that's without any participation by USPSA at all.

H.

[Carmoney]

Matt, the quality of the Revolver prize table at Nationals has varied pretty substantially over the years. I'll grant you, the 2010 Nats prize table pretty much sucked. But there have been years when they threw out half a dozen guns and several other nice "bigger" prizes. Not sure why there has been such a variation.

The point I'm trying to make is that a good prize table would provide an extra incentive to the better shooters from the other divisions to switch over and participate in a stand-alone Revo Nationals. It would also be important to truly promote the match across the USPSA membership, not just here in our little corner of the BE universe.

Since Julie G. seems to have taken an interest in wheelgunning, and since S&W's interest in competition shooting seems to have been re-invigorated lately, I hope that will eventually translate into meaningful match sponsorship from S&W in the one division where they truly dominate the market share.