Reload without allowing muzzle over the berm

[remoandiris]

How many of you shoot at outdoor clubs that forbid the muzzle from pointing over the berm? I'm talking about finger outside of the trigger guard and putting a mag in while you're looking at the magwell. Of course the muzzle can't point over the berm when actively shooting.

If you shoot in a quarry with 200 ft berms, you probably don't worry about it.

[Sarge]

Where I shoot it is not a problem to point over the berm. Just don't let one go!

It's pretty damn hard to reload without doing it.

[waktasz]

I fear the gun club I'm a member of (which hosts USPSA and IDPA matches) will soon have this requirement somehow weaseled into their range rules for all activities.

[No.343]

That's interesting. I used to shoot a little high power rifle and even in that game a lot of guys can't get in position without pointing their muzzle over the backstop.

[Chills1994]

how are the revolver guys going to dump the empties out of their cylinders?

[Skydiver]

For a USPSA match, the club cannot forbid pointing over the berm unless they get a dispensation from the USPSA president allowing them to impose this "local rule" (See USPSA rule 3.3).

A few years ago, some local clubs tried to get the no muzzle over the berm approved and failed. So MD's have just added as part of their shooter's meeting something like "although, we can't forbid you from pointing the muzzle over the berm, be aware that there are homes, schools, and businesses surrounding the range." Sometimes there's a reminder that a shot fired over the berm is a DQ (10.4.1), and shooters can be held personally liable for the results of their action.

[remoandiris]

For a USPSA match, the club cannot forbid pointing over the berm unless they get a dispensation from the USPSA president allowing them to impose this "local rule" (See USPSA rule 3.3).

That may be USPSA's view, but you know what the club will say? Take your USPSA match elsewhere, we won't accept the liability.

And I don't see Voigt or anyone else denying the dispensation if the alternative is losing a host range

[remoandiris]

how are the revolver guys going to dump the empties out of their cylinders?

An exception to the rule. Can't pop one off with the cylinder open, so it is safe for revolvers to reload their usual way.

Edited December 2, 2011 by remoandiris

[Chills1994]

similarly then, the semi-auto shooters could go to slide lock, (a PITA) for each reload.

I guess that club:

A. doesn't need the money generated by USPSA matches

B. fears getting sued by suburban encroachment

C. must have a lot of well heeled trap or skeet shooters who like to poo poo all things pistol

D. all of the above

Edited December 2, 2011 by Chills1994

[remoandiris]

I guess that club:

A. doesn't need the money generated by USPSA matches

B. fears getting sued by suburban encroachment

You may or may not be right on A and B. The $3K - $4K annually from A wouldn't come close to covering the liability of B.

[twodownzero]

I fear the gun club I'm a member of (which hosts USPSA and IDPA matches) will soon have this requirement somehow weaseled into their range rules for all activities.

Not if they want to host USPSA matches.

For a USPSA match, the club cannot forbid pointing over the berm unless they get a dispensation from the USPSA president allowing them to impose this "local rule" (See USPSA rule 3.3).

That may be USPSA's view, but you know what the club will say? Take your USPSA match elsewhere, we won't accept the liability.

And I don't see Voigt or anyone else denying the dispensation if the alternative is losing a host range

The USPSA already has a history of denying these requests. In fact, when I saw this title, I thought immediately, "oh, please, not this again..."

And I highly, highly doubt the club will say that anyway. My club just spent a ton of money to build berms to host USPSA matches, and the overwhelming majority of the club supported it at the meetings. If the officers had resisted, we'd replace them--I'm confident of it.

I really wish people would stop thinking that the national organization is powerless, or that the USPSA brand isn't worth anything. It definitely is worth something and it'd be a huge loss for a club to no longer be able to use it.

I'm not convinced that the Steel Challenge brand is really worth that much. But USPSA has done an excellent job policing their brand through the NROI programming and having section coordinators police clubs who try to enact "local rules."

[Skydiver]

I don't shoot IDPA, but my understanding of the "Muzzle Safe Point" rule is that in addition to the minimum 2 points required (presumably in the x,y axis) a CoF could include additional points in the z-axis. Make those z-axis points be along the top of the berm, and you can effectively disallow pointing the muzzle over the berm.

[waktasz]

I fear the gun club I'm a member of (which hosts USPSA and IDPA matches) will soon have this requirement somehow weaseled into their range rules for all activities.

Not if they want to host USPSA matches.

That's what I'm worried about. Bye bye to one of the only clubs that isn't in the middle of no where.

[sperman]

There have been a few threads on this.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=107878&st=50&p=1227587&hl=berm&fromsearch=1entry1227587

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=114463&st=0&p=1298843&hl=berm&fromsearch=1entry1298843

[remoandiris]

it'd be a huge loss for a club to no longer be able to use it.

It depends on the club. If annual dues are $100 and 90% of the club's members do NOT shoot USPSA, there is NO huge loss to the club if the small minority leave.

[remoandiris]

There have been a few threads on this.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=107878&st=50&p=1227587&hl=berm&fromsearch=1entry1227587

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=114463&st=0&p=1298843&hl=berm&fromsearch=1entry1298843

Appreciate it.

[Jaxshooter]

Dont ever think a club is dependent on income from USPSA matches to survive. I belonged to a club that threw out ALL action shooting matches except IDPA. They figured out that they made more money on daily fee shooters on the weekend than the income from USPSA, ICORE and 3 Gun. The reason IDPA was allowed to stay is because they sold out to the club and let them keep all of the revenue from the IDPA matches. IDPA matches we also over early due to 60-80 round matches.

[Skydiver]

it'd be a huge loss for a club to no longer be able to use it.

It depends on the club. If annual dues are $100 and 90% of the club's members do NOT shoot USPSA, there is NO huge loss to the club if the small minority leave.

I don't quite get the math for that... if there are M members in a club, then the annual income for the club is at least $100 x M.

Now if about U USPSA shooters show up regularly for each monthly match, the club hosts the minimum 8 matches a year, and charges $15 per shooter, then the additional income for the club is $15 x 8 x U = $120 x U. This brings the total annual income to $100 x M + $120 x U.

Even if U is dramatically smaller than M, $100 x M + $120 x U is still greater than $100 x M.

[Jaxshooter]

They get more money from daily fee shooters than they do from the USPSA matches. If the club keeps all of the income from the matches they still have expenses involved. If they keep all the money they have to purchase targets, pasters,target sticks, steel and reactive targets along with maintenance of all equipment.So if you look at the bottom line there is very very little left of the $15.00 match fee.

Daily fee shooters are charged $20.00 to 25.00 per day and the club has no expense involved. The daily fee shooters also purchase ammo, targets, refreshments etc. from the club.

Speaking from experience having run the matches for several years you are doing a great job if you generate enough income to cover your expenses and have a little money left over every year to upgrade you equipment.

[remoandiris]

it'd be a huge loss for a club to no longer be able to use it.

It depends on the club. If annual dues are $100 and 90% of the club's members do NOT shoot USPSA, there is NO huge loss to the club if the small minority leave.

I don't quite get the math for that... if there are M members in a club, then the annual income for the club is at least $100 x M.

Now if about U USPSA shooters show up regularly for each monthly match, the club hosts the minimum 8 matches a year, and charges $15 per shooter, then the additional income for the club is $15 x 8 x U = $120 x U. This brings the total annual income to $100 x M + $120 x U.

Even if U is dramatically smaller than M, $100 x M + $120 x U is still greater than $100 x M.

At my club, USPSA brings in about 3% as much as annual dues. 3% is a VERY weak negotiating position...and it kinda blows.

Edited December 2, 2011 by remoandiris

[MarkCO]

...having section coordinators police clubs who try to enact "local rules."

And how is this done? I've looked and I don't see much "power" granted to the SC in the rules. In fact I have been told several times over the years by various club officials that the SC has no power at all. The contention is that once they get the SC to sign their initial affiliation, they can ignore anything and eveything the SC says. I'm not sure I have ever heard of a case whe the SC "policed" anything. In two cases I am aware of related to such an issue, USPSA basically said that the SC had no power. The only two who could do anything was the club president (actually, the officially recognized club representative) and Amidon.

[Chills1994]

I've had a couple of shooters raise a stink here and there and try to threaten me and the club with, "I'm telling the SC on you."

Which seems like so much of throwing the baby out with the bath water if they really want to keep a local USPSA club going that they could actually drive to.

In each case, I skipped the SC and the AD and went right to Amidon.

The first of such events when I talked to Amidon on the phone, you could hear him scratching his head in the background and then he goes, "Sounds like that guy wants to close down your club...I don't know why he would want to do that???"

Which had me doing this too:

What people have to realize is that at least where I am at, it's a new club, and I'm a new M.D...at an IL DNR run facility. If people try to go over my head to somebody higher up the food chain at the DNR, say like "to make sure I run a tight USPSA ship out there", I DO hear about it later.

Anywhoo...getting back on topic, yeah, the money a USPSA club brings into a range is pretty much chump change. Maybe enough to cover the additional liability insurance premiums for holding the matches.

One club/range I am a member of makes you join if you want to shoot any more than 3 (IDPA, USPSA, Steel plate) matches there. So at least the range hooks USPSA'ers/IDPA'ers/Steel'ers into joining if they want to shoot more matches there. And we vote!

Edited December 3, 2011 by Chills1994

[twodownzero]

I fear the gun club I'm a member of (which hosts USPSA and IDPA matches) will soon have this requirement somehow weaseled into their range rules for all activities.

Not if they want to host USPSA matches.

That's what I'm worried about. Bye bye to one of the only clubs that isn't in the middle of no where.

That doesn't bother me. If a club doesn't want to follow the rules, we don't need that club.

it'd be a huge loss for a club to no longer be able to use it.

It depends on the club. If annual dues are $100 and 90% of the club's members do NOT shoot USPSA, there is NO huge loss to the club if the small minority leave.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way for a number of reasons. The first is that the revenue from USPSA matches is not the only benefit of hosting matches. Matches make more people aware that the club exists, sanctioning bodies encourage more skilled shooters to become qualified range operators (NRA, USPSA, IDPA, etc.) etc. The revenue from monthly matches definitely doesn't represent the entirety of the value of allowing/ho.ding USPSA matches at your facility.

Just having your name on the USPSA website as an affiliated club has a "value." It might be hard to measure or determine who joins your club because they saw that, but I think we can all agree that it's a value adder.

My club is just now starting to host matches but there's no doubt in my mind that even the fudds know that bringing in a strong USPSA program is a good thing for the club in general.

Also, if we just explain to people why we cannot tolerate local rules and why our game has uniform rules that are respected throughout the U.S. and with minimal modification, the same rules are used throughout the world, it really goes a long way. Those who don't know about our game need to know that it's much bigger than the local level.

Edited December 3, 2011 by twodownzero

[West Texas Granny]

No problems with pistols as the ranges are 4200-4500 meters deep.

[ima45dv8]

I think you're looking at it the wrong way for a number of reasons. The first is that the revenue from USPSA matches is not the only benefit of hosting matches. Matches make more people aware that the club exists, sanctioning bodies encourage more skilled shooters to become qualified range operators (NRA, USPSA, IDPA, etc.) etc. The revenue from monthly matches definitely doesn't represent the entirety of the value of allowing/ho.ding USPSA matches at your facility.

Just having your name on the USPSA website as an affiliated club has a "value." It might be hard to measure or determine who joins your club because they saw that, but I think we can all agree that it's a value adder.

My club is just now starting to host matches but there's no doubt in my mind that even the fudds know that bringing in a strong USPSA program is a good thing for the club in general.

Also, if we just explain to people why we cannot tolerate local rules and why our game has uniform rules that are respected throughout the U.S. and with minimal modification, the same rules are used throughout the world, it really goes a long way. Those who don't know about our game need to know that it's much bigger than the local level.

Good post.

I'm fortunate to be in an area that has a strong USPSA/IPSC background and a good relationship with local club management (several). It wasn't always that way. The relationships were earned through the hard work of folks who were involved long before me. People had to make concerted efforts to get USPSA-friendly members elected to the BoD's of some local ranges. But in the end it has worked out pretty well.

I'm a Life Member and have the up most respect for what USPSA is doing to promote practical shooting. If a given range has an issue with our rules it is a matter to be handled on an individual basis, and with soft hands. Marching in and loudly declaring USPSA's sovereignty over local issues at a range might be warranted by our charter, but a gentler approach will often gain better results.