Long Course Question

[Dwight Springthorpe]

Recently at a level 1, local USPSA pistol match, there was a course that consisted of a multi-port barricade (9 possible openings); 4 paper targets; 2 plate racks of 6 plates each and a 5 plate Texas star with one plate marked as a no-shoot for a total of 24 rounds. The barricade was approximately 4' wide and 4' tall. The COF said that each paper target and each plate rack must be taken from a different port on the barricade, the Texas star did not have to be shot through a port. The ports on the barricade were are different heights and could not be shot from a single stance.

My question is does this satisfy 1.2.1.3 "... must not require more than 8 scoring hit from any single location or view,..." Does a different shooting stance create a different view?

The discussions varied from "#@# NO!" to "Absolutely". Several participates are RO's, so this leads to the question being posted here.

Thanks for your input.

Dwight

[George Jones]

You don't even need to go that far.

This is an illegal course of fire. Even a Level I match is not permitted to specify target engagement in a long course. If you can seeit, you can shoot it.

A short course or medium course can specify where/when certain targets can be engaged (Rule 1.1.5.1), but not a body position/stance.

[Joe4d]

1.2.1.3 says must not REQUIRE

[Joe4d]

1.2.1.3 says must not REQUIRE it doesnt say must not allow more than 8 shots. If I can see 23 of the 24 shots from one place it is perfectly ok to shoot that way as long as the WSB or the construction doesnt require it and I have to move for the 24th shot. If the targets can be seen from different areas of the cof then all is good you have met 1.2.1.3,, saying that though that rule doesnt have anything to do with why the stage is illegal, The stage is illegal because you are specifying shooting points for certain targets. This violates 1.1.5, and the level one exemption doesnt cover long courses. Coulda been a fun stage with lots of choices if the designer had just scattered a few no shoots down range to make it hard or nearly impossible to shoot different targets from different points then just had a shoot em as you see em WSB.

[Dwight Springthorpe]

The course was a lot of fun. There were no shots blocking the 4 paper doing just what you suggested.

To ask my question a little better,

If it was a medium course, "does having two ports on the same barricade, create two shooting locations?"

Dwight

[Nik Habicht]

The course was a lot of fun. There were no shots blocking the 4 paper doing just what you suggested.

To ask my question a little better,

If it was a medium course, "does having two ports on the same barricade, create two shooting locations?"

Dwight

Yes. Much like two sides of a barricade are two shooting locations, especially if there are other vision barriers, making it difficult to shoot all the targets from a single side...

[Thomas H]

The course was a lot of fun. There were no shots blocking the 4 paper doing just what you suggested.

To ask my question a little better,

If it was a medium course, "does having two ports on the same barricade, create two shooting locations?"

Dwight

Yes. Much like two sides of a barricade are two shooting locations, especially if there are other vision barriers, making it difficult to shoot all the targets from a single side...

Not according to Amidon, it isn't. We went round and round with JA last year for the GP Sectional (plus Area 3 the previous year, if I recall correctly) on this topic. Effectively, Amidon kept telling us that if you don't have to move, it isn't two shooting locations. (Move your feet, that is.) If you have to take a sidestep, then it is fine, so two sides of a wall equates to two shooting locations. But two sides of a barricade doesn't.

We couldn't get a stage or two approved for our Sectional (and like I said, I _think_ we had a similar argument the previous year for an Area 3 stage, but don't quote me on that one) until we changed the barricades to walls, and required people to actually take a step. The two different views were not sufficient, even though there were visions barriers in place so that people _had_ to use both sides of the barricade.

I'm not saying I agree with this---I'm just saying to get your stages approved for a larger match, two sides of a barricade = two shooting positions just won't work.

[ima45dv8]

That seems odd.

Even if someone were to argue that two sides of a barricade don't meet the standard of two separate and distinct shooting locations (because you didn't have to move your feet), that seems to ignore that both 1.2.1.2 and 1.2.1.3 use the language, "...location or view... [emphasis added]

The opposing sides of a barricade, or in the example given, different ports in a wall/barricade, sure sound like different views to me.

[Skydiver]

Yes that is odd.

In the glossary in the current rule book:

View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A visual vantage point available at a location (e.g. one of the ports, one side of a barricade etc.).

.

I base this on the thread above where the other side of the barricade doesn't count as as another view in:

any single location or view

and in the recent clarifications in the last two Front Sights talking about requiring belt loops:

must be either securely fixed at the waist, or secured with a minimum of three belt loops

[Thomas H]

.

I base this on the thread above where the other side of the barricade doesn't count as as another view in:

any single location or view

and in the recent clarifications in the last two Front Sights talking about requiring belt loops:

must be either securely fixed at the waist, or secured with a minimum of three belt loops

I note that when they say "securely fixed at the waist" Amidon has said in the past that it means the inner belt (or something similar) is actually sewn onto the pant. (This is as opposed to merely being snugly fitted.)

And again---I'm not saying I agreed with Amidon regarding whether or not the two sides of the barricade are considered sufficiently different for the purposes of the rule. I'm just saying what he kept telling us when we tried to get a stage approved.

[Flexmoney]

And again---I'm not saying I agreed with Amidon regarding whether or not the two sides of the barricade are considered sufficiently different for the purposes of the rule. I'm just saying what he kept telling us when we tried to get a stage approved.

Weird. It's been pretty well documented that two sides of a barricade is two different views. I know some of the RMI's on here have said as much. (IIRC)

Oh, well...the RMI's don't always agree either.

[aztecdriver]

And again---I'm not saying I agreed with Amidon regarding whether or not the two sides of the barricade are considered sufficiently different for the purposes of the rule. I'm just saying what he kept telling us when we tried to get a stage approved.

Weird. It's been pretty well documented that two sides of a barricade is two different views. I know some of the RMI's on here have said as much. (IIRC)

Oh, well...the RMI's don't always agree either.

Think about the view NOT changing around a barricade. If I don't lean around a barricade, I can't VIEW any targets. I still don't move my feet. Dunno.

[JakeMartens]

And again---I'm not saying I agreed with Amidon regarding whether or not the two sides of the barricade are considered sufficiently different for the purposes of the rule. I'm just saying what he kept telling us when we tried to get a stage approved.

Weird. It's been pretty well documented that two sides of a barricade is two different views. I know some of the RMI's on here have said as much. (IIRC)

Oh, well...the RMI's don't always agree either.

Nope

And JA's approval of one stage set up one way at match can then be shot down at a different one set up same way.