Reload without allowing muzzle over the berm

[Skydiver]

I'd also be curious what is the point of having a stage designed such that the poppers have to be hit or hammered multiple times to knock them down.

Said another way....maybe this isn't so much a hardware issue....but rather a software issue....change the location or placement of poppers in a stage and that cancels out the urge to fire two or more hits on them.

I think the driving steel issue has to do with the .5 seconds or less gained by forcing the popper down vs. allowing gravity to do the job.

When the difference between first and second is less than 1 second, driving steel could be the difference.

As I recall, some people believe that driving down steel in the classifier Hillbilton Drill is a winning strategy. Hence there used to be a question whether it would be fair for a club to run that classifier with forward falling poppers.

[aztecdriver]

1.1.5.1 is the other half of the answer (Level 1 only), and, IMO, the more appropriate rule to cite. No one knows if the rulebook authors thought of using unsafe direction as a means to avoid shooting at a side wall. I believe most people that read 10.4.1 think more of outdoor ranges, especially considering rounds going over berms isn't something that happens indoors. I suppose a backstop could be considered an indoor bullet trap.

As long as you don't make it possible for me to miss a target, that is a legitimate engagement, but then I miss the target 6 inches to the left which has me strike the wall. 10.4.1 does have the exception - Note that a competitor who legitimately fires a shot at a target, which then travels in an unsafe direction, will not be disqualified (the provisions of Section 2.3 may apply).

I disagree with your interpretation, unless we are just not communicating clearly...that never happens. 1.1.5.1 says I can tell you where you can engage a target at a Level I match. Doesn't matter if the target is visible from multiple locations or not, you are only permitted to engage that target from spot "X". If you engage it from anywhere else and you hit the sidewall, that is an AD according to 10.4.1.

I abhor speaking for Ken, because he has a sharp mind and is capable of speaking for himself.

However....

1.1.5.1 says you can tell me from where I engage a target at a Level I match. That's true. What it doesn't say (and isn't allowed to tell me) is what happens to an errant shot. If you specify I have to engage T1 from Box 1, and my shot goes wide and strikes the wall, there's no rule in USPSA to support a penalty or DQ. It's just a bad shot. Not an AD...just a poorly delivered shot. The second sentence in 10.4 1 saves the competitor.

I smell what you're cooking, but, if the WSB says shoot target "X" from spot "Y" only AND the WSB declares the sidewall an unsafe direction (just like over the berm), yet a competitor does it anyway, I see an argument for DQ based on 10.4.1, regardless of the second sentence in 10.4.1. It is definitely a tricky subject.

10.4.1 A shot, which travels over a backstop, a berm or in any other direction, specified in the written stage briefing by the match organizers as being unsafe.

I think target placement would go a long way to determining IF an errant, but legit shot, could hit the sidewall. If it is a legit shot, the target placement probably is to blame. If that is the case, the second part of 10.4.1 would be a definite force.

Note that a competitor who legitimately fires a shot at a target,

which then travels in an unsafe direction, will not be disqualified (the

provisions of Section 2.3 may apply).

Mark, Don't abhor all that much - that was exactly what I was going to follow with. And I agree... and only meant to say that, given any 1.1.5.1 notations about engagement placement in level 1s, if all is said and followed and I still miss - the course is to blame and the DQ goes out the window... Above anything else, you can not force me NOT to miss. I'm good at it...

[Lange22250]

Here's a perspective from a club director.

It's our job to reduce the liability to the club. A rule prohibiting muzzles above the berm reduces the possibility of a round leaving the range. End of story.

At our club the current rules don't include a prohibition on muzzles over the berm but the new version out this year will and will be applied to all activities. A few of the matches held at the club have already incorporated it into there rules without a lot of problems.

The vast majority of the 4700 plus members of our club don't compete and don't care about any matches other than the fact that they take up range space, so would probably be happy to see them go away. Our club, and all other clubs which are 501©(7)'s are organized to benifit members and members only.

The vast majority of our income is from member dues and initiation fees. All of the different matches combined bring in less than 3 percent of the clubs income and is always spent on materials and supplies for the match, it never goes into the general club funds.

I hit as many matches as I can of every type as often as I can and would regret the loss of any of them, BUT it should be clearly understood that organizations need range space and for the most part the club dose not need the organization or the match. That's just the way it is. We currently have matches regularly scheduled for 7 of the 8 weekend days every month. If one went away it would probably be replaced without a problem.

I don't have a problem keeping my muzzle down. I am also not one of the best shooters, perhaps that's why. If the rule is as evenly applied as possible than the playing field is level again so I don't see it as an issue of competitiveness. If USPSA will not accept the situation and give a local variance than the losers are the local USPSA members and possibly the national organization because the matches can continue without it with a different name but almost identical rules.

I understand the argument that enforcement can and will probably be arbitrary. That's life. Minimize it as much as possible and move on.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Lange22250

[Sarge]

Here's a perspective from a club director.

It's our job to reduce the liability to the club. A rule prohibiting muzzles above the berm reduces the possibility of a round leaving the range. End of story.

At our club the current rules don't include a prohibition on muzzles over the berm but the new version out this year will and will be applied to all activities. A few of the matches held at the club have already incorporated it into there rules without a lot of problems.

The vast majority of the 4700 plus members of our club don't compete and don't care about any matches other than the fact that they take up range space, so would probably be happy to see them go away. Our club, and all other clubs which are 501©(7)'s are organized to benifit members and members only.

The vast majority of our income is from member dues and initiation fees. All of the different matches combined bring in less than 3 percent of the clubs income and is always spent on materials and supplies for the match, it never goes into the general club funds.

I hit as many matches as I can of every type as often as I can and would regret the loss of any of them, BUT it should be clearly understood that organizations need range space and for the most part the club dose not need the organization or the match. That's just the way it is. We currently have matches regularly scheduled for 7 of the 8 weekend days every month. If one went away it would probably be replaced without a problem.

I don't have a problem keeping my muzzle down. I am also not one of the best shooters, perhaps that's why. If the rule is as evenly applied as possible than the playing field is level again so I don't see it as an issue of competitiveness. If USPSA will not accept the situation and give a local variance than the losers are the local USPSA members and possible the national organization because the matches can continue without it with a different name but almost identical rules.

I understand the argument that enforcement can and will probably be arbitrary. That's life. Minimize it as much as possible and move on.

Here is a perspective from another club BOD vp and avid USPSA shooter. Sounds like you could not care less if USPSA went away. So let it go away and run your outlaw match any way you want, just don't use the letters U S P S A in the description.

Our club also makes nearly all our money from dues, etc. The difference? We want competitions at our club and we respect the right of those organizations to implement their rules. USPSA rules work pretty well judging from the safety record we hold.

You seem to think that USPSA shooters could adapt to not reloading with their muzzles over the berm. A true competitor would not shoot at your club because he is not going to try to eradicate years of practice and muscle memory to satisfy club rules.

You can't have it both ways and neither can USPSA.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Sarge

[Chills1994]

I'd also be curious what is the point of having a stage designed such that the poppers have to be hit or hammered multiple times to knock them down.

Said another way....maybe this isn't so much a hardware issue....but rather a software issue....change the location or placement of poppers in a stage and that cancels out the urge to fire two or more hits on them.

I think the driving steel issue has to do with the .5 seconds or less gained by forcing the popper down vs. allowing gravity to do the job.

When the difference between first and second is less than 1 second, driving steel could be the difference.

As I recall, some people believe that driving down steel in the classifier Hillbilton Drill is a winning strategy. Hence there used to be a question whether it would be fair for a club to run that classifier with forward falling poppers.

Me? Personally? I don't like stages where poppers are lined up one behind the other. But that is just me.

[remoandiris]

If the rule is as evenly applied as possible than the playing field is level again so I don't see it as an issue of competitiveness. If USPSA will not accept the situation and give a local variance than the losers are the local USPSA members and possibly the national organization because the matches can continue without it with a different name but almost identical rules.

I understand the argument that enforcement can and will probably be arbitrary. That's life. Minimize it as much as possible and move on.

If USPSA had the rule, then it WOULD be as evenly applied as possible so there is a level playing field across ALL USPSA matches. Until then, it isn't a USPSA match if local rules are applied.

[remoandiris]

I don't like stages where poppers are lined up one behind the other. But that is just me.

If there are several poppers you can see from one shooting position, you don't have to drive one down to get to the next. You simply shoot one then move to another and another then back to the one behind the first you shot, etc.

[Mr. B]

I am a relatively new USPSA shooter, and I suppose I could teach myself to reload a different way. However, I am concerned that by the time I do, some other anti-action shooting rule will be the new subject of debate. The reason? I don't think this rule is meant to solve anything other than to drive away action shooting at that range.

I have shot USPSA, 3Gun, and IDPA at the club being discussed in the OP, and I really like that facility. I have been kicking around the idea of joining that club because of my enjoyment of the various disciplines they host in their action area. But if they have a board of directors who are against action shooting, which appears to be the case as of now, I think I will keep my membership money in my pocket.

I find it ironic that on the same day this topic was being discussed at the OP's range, a number of rounds from the bulls-eye match being held at the same time left their shooting area and flew over our heads. Those rounds were going the direction of the neighborhood I assume the club is trying to protect.

Similarly, at another club I attend for USPSA/IDPA, I find myself constantly ducking as I hear a ricochet fly over my head. Where are these stray bullets coming from? The muzzle-loaders shooting on the rifle range behind us who can't seem to stop bouncing rounds off the deck because their targets are placed far too short of the berm. Yet at all the action shooting events I have attended over the past year, I cannot remember a single incident of a shooter firing over the berm (during a reload or while just moving). In fact, I can't recall a shooter firing a round during a reload at all, over the berm notwithstanding.

I offer the opinion that our action shooters are probably the least likely of any discipline to have rounds leave the range. I feel that action shooters take a lot of unwarranted blame for the negligence of other(much less disciplined)shooters and events located in the same club.

I think the club should take a long and unbiased look at ALL the activities that occur in their facility instead of pointing fingers at the folks with the best trigger discipline. I'd be willing to bet that more problems occur from 'general shooters' with poor trigger discipline and shooters who place their targets too far away from a berm (as in the case with the bulls-eye match at one club and the muzzle-loaders at the other).

[aztecdriver]

Here's a perspective from a club director.

It's our job to reduce the liability to the club. A rule prohibiting muzzles above the berm reduces the possibility of a round leaving the range. End of story. [snip]

So does banning firearms, reduces the liability to 0. Why don't you do that? Why don't you completely ban movement with a loaded firearm... Stand and shoot... should make some of the liability buzzards leave... sure would keep USPSA out. Possibly even IDPA... 3gun gone too? How are you going to implement this rule with just pistols? rifles too? Ever see those pictures of Jerry or Daniel Horner taking off with an AR in their hands - muzzle at the 40 degree mark?

Adding a rule to keep peoples muzzles below the berm will not reduce your liability of a projectile leaving the range - as has been already pointed out, firing into the ground, improperly placed targets, a myriad of bad things. You may reduce the risk by a percentage point or two, but that's not enough to justify the ridiculousness of the rule itself. If people can't be trusted to do what's right with their weapons - which includes not discharging above a berm - then they really shouldn't be shooting - or possessing them - at all - and the club, if it can't deal with a round from one of these supposed shooters, leaveing the range in that it's guaranteed to be hitting someone, you should close it down.

That the best move to save liability you can do - USPSA or any other sport rules be damned.

[ErichF]

What will be next? Pretty much all of the clubs that host USPSA matches I go to in N FL have rules against holster carry and draw. Is that what will be next? Guess I need to start practicing my drills from Low-Ready Oh, and don't forget running with a loaded gun, that will be the next rule as we all tumble down the slippery slope to appease ignorant club leaderships.

What's that phrase about when you point at someone, there's three fingers pointing right back at you?

Welcome to the hand basket, everyone! Guess where we're headed?

[Lange22250]

Here's a perspective from a club director.

It's our job to reduce the liability to the club. A rule prohibiting muzzles above the berm reduces the possibility of a round leaving the range. End of story. [snip]

So does banning firearms, reduces the liability to 0. Why don't you do that? Why don't you completely ban movement with a loaded firearm... Stand and shoot... should make some of the liability buzzards leave... sure would keep USPSA out. Possibly even IDPA... 3gun gone too? How are you going to implement this rule with just pistols? rifles too? Ever see those pictures of Jerry or Daniel Horner taking off with an AR in their hands - muzzle at the 40 degree mark?

Adding a rule to keep peoples muzzles below the berm will not reduce your liability of a projectile leaving the range - as has been already pointed out, firing into the ground, improperly placed targets, a myriad of bad things. You may reduce the risk by a percentage point or two, but that's not enough to justify the ridiculousness of the rule itself. If people can't be trusted to do what's right with their weapons - which includes not discharging above a berm - then they really shouldn't be shooting - or possessing them - at all - and the club, if it can't deal with a round from one of these supposed shooters, leaveing the range in that it's guaranteed to be hitting someone, you should close it down.

That the best move to save liability you can do - USPSA or any other sport rules be damned.

When you find a reasonable way to eliminate all liability let me know. In the mean time we have decided to look for ways to reduce it and continue to enjoy the action shooting sports.

We have 3 outlaw matches which use rifles, 2 of them 3Gun. All have been prohibiting muzzles over the berm without complaint. Speed Steel starts riles from a low ready without issues.

Unless you are talking about a club with a VERY small area, when you start to say the distance a ricochet will travel compared to a shot at a elevated angle and say they are equivalent you loose credibility. In our case a ricochet has little probability of leave the property. The chances of an injury to a person on the property closing down a properly structured club are minimal. Bullet holes in property or persons off the club property have a huge potential to shut it down mainly for political reasons. The pressure to shut down a range which is surrounded by development is enormous and we have already had some tough and expensive (in the low six figure range) fights.

And finally the assumption that everyone showing up to ANY match is a safe, competent shooter is seriously flawed, and even the best can have a bad day. Our club has an average of 50 shooters for the USPSA match every month and a approximately 1.5% DQ rate. Identifying who will have that bad day during registration when you don't know everyone is not possible, and then there are the new guys. When you find someone is unsafe kick them out, but it requires seeing that person in action to make that determination unless you want to kick people out on a gut feeling or appearance.

Again it's about reducing risks. So stage design, range design and improvements, good RO staff, new shooter training and active evaluation of competitors to prevent "That Guy" from showing up to the next match all have a part. As dose reducing the potential for a straight shot over the berm.

I would hate to loose USPSA at our club, but it is only one of many matches and attended by less than a half of a percent of the members of the club. If an accommodation can't be made on USPSA's side to adapt to our circumstances than it is what it is.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Lange22250

[aztecdriver]

Our club has an average of 50 shooters for the USPSA match every month [snip]

No longer --- your match is no longer a USPSA when your above the berm rules go into affect - I kindly ask you stop calling it that, as well as let us know which club this is so I can plan not to visit when I'm traveling the country.

Edited January 2, 2012 by aztecdriver

[rgkeller]

Unless you have a waiver from the USPSA President, you are not holding a USPSA match.

[aztecdriver]

Unless you are talking about a club with a VERY small area, when you start to say the distance a ricochet will travel compared to a shot at a elevated angle and say they are equivalent you loose credibility. In our case a ricochet has little probability of leave the property. The chances of an injury to a person on the property closing down a properly structured club are minimal. Bullet holes in property or persons off the club property have a huge potential to shut it down mainly for political reasons. The pressure to shut down a range which is surrounded by development is enormous and we have already had some tough and expensive (in the low six figure range) fights.

It doesn't.. a 140 gr 30 cal rifle bullet slowed to 1000 fps from 2700 fps as it leaves the range is very much like a stray 9 that got launched directly over the berm. Of course a ricochet pistol rounds is much less than that. I can tell you, though, that it is not the competition people you will have leave the range --- as has already been stated, you had better ban most LEO certification training, and all beginner classes. There's a few more limitations I could think of if your situation is that bad.

Again, if you have already fought these battles and will continue to fight them - then implement the rule, and have at all the outlaw matches you can handle. Just don't advertise them as USPSA sanctioned matches.

[joseywales]

Couple of thoughts on this discussion regarding muzzle must not point over the berm...

#1 - I absolutely HATE that rule. I play (non-USPSA) at a range that has this rule.

The dirt berms are 12ft, with 10ft concrete walls atop them, and that's topped by another 10ft baffle of conveyer belt.

And we still have the "muzzle" rule. It's what the club has to do to survive amid urban sprawl.

#2 - On the range at a USPSA match is the safest shooting environment I've ever been around.

Though safety is paramount at USPSA events, rounds invariable escape the range.

How many of us have been to USPSA events where someone (or several someones) "let one go" during a reload?

And some of those leave the range. It's more than any of us would like.

So what I'm not understanding is the hostility toward range owners and local club boards on this thread.

USPSA matches are conducted as a privilege extended to USPSA by the range owner and/or local club board.

As a guest of the range owner, we (USPSA) must abide by the range rules, or go to another range.

Range owners & local club boards don't need USPSA to survive, much less to thrive.

It's we, USPSA, that needs the range.

[Sarge]

And finally the assumption that everyone showing up to ANY match is a safe, competent shooter is seriously flawed, and even the best can have a bad day. Our club has an average of 50 shooters for the USPSA match every month and a approximately 1.5% DQ rate. Identifying who will have that bad day during registration when you don't know everyone is not possible, and then there are the new guys. When you find someone is unsafe kick them out, but it requires seeing that person in action to make that determination unless you want to kick people out on a gut feeling or appearance.

Again it's about reducing risks. So stage design, range design and improvements, good RO staff, new shooter training and active evaluation of competitors to prevent "That Guy" from showing up to the next match all have a part. As dose reducing the potential for a straight shot over the berm.

I would hate to loose USPSA at our club, but it is only one of many matches and attended by less than a half of a percent of the members of the club. If an accommodation can't be made on USPSA's side to adapt to our circumstances than it is what it is.

I have to admit that this is starting to get under my skin. And it's still only the first day of the year! Do you belong to the same club as WTG?

approximately 1.5% DQ rate- Why are you tracking this so closely? And are they DQing by virtue of violating USPSA rules or by breaking your rules? I think you know what I am getting at here.

You know how many DQ per match? Do you know how many shoot each division off the top of your head? Do you know how many are going to your area match? Nationals? Who made GM? Do you have a hero wall with plaques denoting who was club champion in each Division. Our club has all of that but we have no idea how many shooters DQ and honestly we don't care. Hopefully you have match directors for all of your disciplines including USPSA. Our MD has the power to deal with safety issues. My point is there are other things that clubs need to be aware of and worried about.

When you find someone is unsafe kick them out, Kick them out? WTF? You going to kick a rifle shooter out of your club because he decides to shoot a pistol competition and does something you think is unsafe? but it requires seeing that person in action to make that determination So let me get this straight. Your club has people watching or participating in matches just to see if somebody does something unsafe? Bet I can guess who would be the most unsafe shooter in a USPSA match? It's that board member who shoots once a year in the spring when all the new shooters come out.

unless you want to kick people out on a gut feeling or appearance. What exactly does an unsafe shooter look like? Sounds to me like you think any guy wearing a techwear shirt, a race holster, or cleats and runs real fast with a gun is unsafe. But really, what does an unsafe shooter look like? Tall, short, male, female, black, white, young or old? Sounds to me like your club doesn't have the same values as USPSA does anyway.

Our club BOD does not get involved in the operation of any match in any discipline unless an MD comes to us with a problem.

The closest we have come to kicking somebody out( we prefer to call it revoking their membership privileges)was when a member gave out the gate code and ID badge to a buddy and let him use the range facilities.

[Chills1994]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out which club has 4,700 members.

[JThompson]

I do not support a change in the rules for muzzle, our club is indoors so we are lucky that we can retain any round that might go out at an outdoor club.

What gets me here is the attitude some of you are throwing around here. Basically, the USPSA are guests in our house. If someone does something I don't like in my house I ask them to leave. Some of you act like you should be able to do whatever you want and I'm just an ass for suggested you may not. In this case, If can't accept USPSA rules then I ask them to leave. If it's your house you make the call.

Some of you are coming off like petulant children that are pissed because they can't have it their way. Get over it or find another place to shoot.

And you range owners don't expect USPSA to conform to your rules. You need to go outlaw and not call a match USPSA if you have such rules in place.

USPSA means very little to most clubs when it comes to monetary concerns.

Edited January 2, 2012 by JThompson

[aztecdriver]

I do not support a change in the rules for muzzle, our club is indoors so we are lucky that we can retain any round that might go out at an outdoor club.

What gets me here is the attitude some of you are throwing around here. Basically, the USPSA are guests in our house. I someone does something I don't like in my house I ask them to leave. Some of you act like you should be able to do whatever you want and I'm just a an for suggested you may not. On this case, I can't accept USPSA rules then I ask them to leave. If it's your house you make the call.

Some of you are coming off like petulant children that are pissed because they can't have it their way. Get over it or find another place to shoot.

And you range owners don't expect USPSA to conform to you rules. You need to go outlaw and not call a match USPSA if you have such rules in place.

USPSA means very little to most comes when it comes to monetary concerns.

I want to clarify that I don't have an attitude to a range owner or club, outside of an overarching encroachment of freedoms and litigation concerns that I'll address secondly. USPSA are guests at facilities, this is not in dispute. What I have a problem with is the ever present desire to change what USPSA is to accomplish what some ranges need to deal with - and the expectation that changing the sport is "ok"

It's not a perfect analogy, so if we detach our brains for a second and consider dirt track racing. A host facility claims to be hosting a sanctioned race, but because of the berms they have around one bend, state that you can not "slide" around that curve and you will be disqualified if you do so. You are fundamentally changing the way that race is supposed to be run, the way competitors handle the course, and are telling them to do something thats counter to their training and practice. Doesn't the host facility have a responsibility to be able the handle the race as it's supposed to be run when it asks to host the race? Doesn't the sanctioning body owe its competitors some due diligence to be sure before granting sanction of the race?

It's the same thing here - except those on the club side seem to expect the sanctioning body to change the way ALL competitors do something to accommodate a shortcoming of the facility (that shortcoming is admittedly necessary at some places). Meanwhile, USPSA needs places to hold matches. I understand this as well, and completely understand that matches don't generate all that much income for clubs. I appreciate it, and don't know exactly how much of a pain it really is to be addressed. There are clubs out there that formulate rules just to do so - and expect it to be applied to all disciplines. The muzzle over the berm rule - can be substantiated by looking at the surrounding geography and determine the risk.

My disdain, however, truely is for the causes of these rules. I may have vented it at our club director who posted, but its really intended for our litigious society as a whole. I am also active in General Aviation. I have had several discussions with engineers and folks in those circles. One would have expected that advancing technology would have allowed the concept of the "jetson" type transport to be possible by now. Flight has been around for almost as long as we have had roads, yet, the current state of personal aviation has gone backwards instead of forwards mainly because the owness of risk in this endeavor is never upon those that participate - but those that contribute to it. It became so bad that one of the most prolific purveyors of aircraft stopped building low cost airplanes in 1986 because they were constantly sued for almost always ended up as being pilot errors. With the passage of the GA revitalization act, they started building airplanes again in the mid 1990s -but with using designs that havn't changed since the '30s, because they can't assume the risk of engineering those designs... and those airplanes cost more than 300k. One of those engineers told me once that fully 1/2 of the price of the plane is used to defer legal costs. Supporting businesses are at the same risk, and I won't even get into the regulations that are involved.

When freedoms and individual responsibility are removed in order to remove risk to kill the very things we enjoy, whether it be the sport of USPSA, or our ranges, or airplanes, airports, or whathaveyou, I get extremely frustrated. Maybe it's the appearance of the boards decisions, in the vacuum of this forum, but it has the feel of cowtowing to those very same forces that take those freedoms away. And it frustrates me. I appreciate every club, every board member, even those that make decisions I don't agree with, USPSA board members, match directors, etc. So please don't take my pointed comments as directed at you the individual, but the problem in general.

[Lange22250]

And finally the assumption that everyone showing up to ANY match is a safe, competent shooter is seriously flawed, and even the best can have a bad day. Our club has an average of 50 shooters for the USPSA match every month and a approximately 1.5% DQ rate. Identifying who will have that bad day during registration when you don't know everyone is not possible, and then there are the new guys. When you find someone is unsafe kick them out, but it requires seeing that person in action to make that determination unless you want to kick people out on a gut feeling or appearance.

Again it's about reducing risks. So stage design, range design and improvements, good RO staff, new shooter training and active evaluation of competitors to prevent "That Guy" from showing up to the next match all have a part. As dose reducing the potential for a straight shot over the berm.

I would hate to loose USPSA at our club, but it is only one of many matches and attended by less than a half of a percent of the members of the club. If an accommodation can't be made on USPSA's side to adapt to our circumstances than it is what it is.

I have to admit that this is starting to get under my skin. And it's still only the first day of the year! Do you belong to the same club as WTG?

approximately 1.5% DQ rate- Why are you tracking this so closely? And are they DQing by virtue of violating USPSA rules or by breaking your rules? I think you know what I am getting at here.

You know how many DQ per match? Do you know how many shoot each division off the top of your head? Do you know how many are going to your area match? Nationals? Who made GM? Do you have a hero wall with plaques denoting who was club champion in each Division. Our club has all of that but we have no idea how many shooters DQ and honestly we don't care. Hopefully you have match directors for all of your disciplines including USPSA. Our MD has the power to deal with safety issues. My point is there are other things that clubs need to be aware of and worried about.

When you find someone is unsafe kick them out, Kick them out? WTF? You going to kick a rifle shooter out of your club because he decides to shoot a pistol competition and does something you think is unsafe? but it requires seeing that person in action to make that determination So let me get this straight. Your club has people watching or participating in matches just to see if somebody does something unsafe? Bet I can guess who would be the most unsafe shooter in a USPSA match? It's that board member who shoots once a year in the spring when all the new shooters come out.

unless you want to kick people out on a gut feeling or appearance. What exactly does an unsafe shooter look like? Sounds to me like you think any guy wearing a techwear shirt, a race holster, or cleats and runs real fast with a gun is unsafe. But really, what does an unsafe shooter look like? Tall, short, male, female, black, white, young or old? Sounds to me like your club doesn't have the same values as USPSA does anyway.

Our club BOD does not get involved in the operation of any match in any discipline unless an MD comes to us with a problem.

The closest we have come to kicking somebody out( we prefer to call it revoking their membership privileges)was when a member gave out the gate code and ID badge to a buddy and let him use the range facilities.

As a director it is my job to be aware of problems which may affect the club. Looking over score sheets even if I was not at the match to see how many DQ's (in almost all cases an infraction of safety rules and in the case of a USPSA match, USPSA safety rules) there were gives me an idea of what's going on, along with talking to the match directors and competitors. I don't care how many A class production shooters were there in June, I do need to know if patterns of safety problems develop. The MD may be running the match but the welfare of the club overall in the responsibility of the board. Checks and balances.

The fact that an ND over the berm is a DQ gives me no comfort. At that point the bullet has hit what it has hit and the repercussion will fall on the club. I tend to think of the safety rules as layered, the 180 exists to prevent a firearm from pointing up range at the rest of the squad, the finger off the trigger backs that up in case it's broken and so on, backing each other up with the sole exception of bullets leaving the range because the muzzle was not pointed at a berm.

Of course people who are unsafe should be kicked out, either of the matches or the club over all. My experience has been people who have displayed a pattern of unsafe behavior do so because a)they don't think they need to conform to the safety standards or just don't get it and never will. Why should those people remain as a ticking time bomb. The primary person monitoring this should be the match director as they are seeing the behaviors over time but fellow shooters should also be taking it into consideration. If the time and resources are available try to do some remediation great, but it is on the shooter in the end because it was there actions.

unless you want to kick people out on a gut feeling or appearance. - that's a rhetorical statement.

I have to belive that in the early days of USPSA people complained that the range was cold and said they were never going to shoot another match because of it. This is another growing pains issue.

You somehow seem to think I and the rest of the board are anti action shooting and the club is nothing but shot gunners, fudds and paper shooters. That could not be farther from the truth. We host PPC, USPSA, SASS and the other one, IDPA, 2 outlaw 3Gun matches and an action rifle match. The majority of board members are action shooters. But in the end it is my responsibility as a board member to look to the welfare of the club over all, not any one activity, no mater how much I enjoy it.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Lange22250

[remoandiris]

Our club has an average of 50 shooters for the USPSA match every month [snip]

No longer --- your match is no longer a USPSA when your above the berm rules go into affect - I kindly ask you stop calling it that, as well as let us know which club this is so I can plan not to visit when I'm traveling the country.

+1.

[remoandiris]

I don't have a problem keeping my muzzle down. I am also not one of the best shooters, perhaps that's why.

I believe it is easier for a mediocre shooter to support rules like the muzzle/berm than a good shooter.

A good shooter knows they have to shave tenths of seconds off their time to be as fast as possible. A fast reload helps. If a shooter has to do 10 reloads in a match, that 1 second saved can be the difference between first place and fifth place. If there was a faster/better way to do it, the super squads would be the first to do it.

Someone who just competes for fun probably doesn't practice, nor care about where they finish. Hence, they wouldn't care if a rule makes a better shooter less competitive against their peers at section, area or national matches.

I have spoken with many non-competition shooters at my club. On the surface they agree with the rule. Then I ask them to show me how they do a reload. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM points the muzzle over the berm. That is how they were taught. That is how they practice. NONE OF THEM REALIZED they did it. Once I showed them, THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND on the usefulness/effectiveness of the rule.

[SteveU]

Clubs have to determine their risk tolerance vs. their desire to host USPSA events.

If they meet and have identical goals, then a wonderful thing happens and their members can have USPSA events, classifiers, etc.

If don't, no problem. The club will not have USPSA events and the shooters will go where they can shoot USPSA events. Club is 'safer' and their board and lawyers are happy, shooters can find another club. I doubt the number of USPSA shooters will change, they will just relocate.

Either way, problem solved.

No need to fight about it.

Unless you as a shooter feel that you can alleviate the concerns of the BOD of your local club. Which is betwen you and them.

I personally can't remember when in the last 5 years during a USPSA event a shooter pulled the trigger and let a round go over the berm during a reload (at my club). But I'm sure that's just me. Individual clubs, lawyers, and their liability carriers have to determine the best risk for their institution.

Now let's all go shoot.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Steve Umansky

[West Texas Granny]

Get involved.

And, pray tell, how are you involved? There are numerous forum members who have been USPSA members for decades. Forum members who have built stages month after month for years. Forum members who have been Level I MDs for significantly longer than you have been shooting USPSA.

So, how are YOU involved?

Simple. I supported a zoning change that will bring an indoor range to my area and spent time with my local rep to ensure their support since it was in their district. It's opening this summer. I have a standing invitation with every one of my local elected officials and members of the media for a day at the range at my expense. I keep tabs on where development is going in an effort to prevent encroachment upon our local ranges. I talk with the guys on the local SWAT teams and members of our local police and sheriffs departments to encourage their participation. It's slow going but some are showing up and the future looks promising in this endeavor. I'm trying to get those in local government involved by fielding and sponsoring shooters. I spend time with new shooters and try to get them started by encouraging them to come out and shoot our 101 course which is the perfect way to introduce them to completive shooting without worrying about match day stresses or what divisions one shoots. I donate equipment.

So while I may not be involved in the manner you approve of I am involved and I do get results.

So no I don't have a USPSA # or do I. You will never know as I value my privacy and it's simply none of your business anyway.

[Merlin Orr]

I supported a zoning change that will bring an indoor range to my area and spent time with my local rep to ensure their support since it was in their district. It's opening this summer. I have a standing invitation with every one of my local elected officials and members of the media for a day at the range at my expense. I keep tabs on where development is going in an effort to prevent encroachment upon our local ranges. I talk with the guys on the local SWAT teams and members of our local police and sheriffs departments to encourage their participation. It's slow going but some are showing up and the future looks promising in this endeavor. I'm trying to get those in local government involved by fielding and sponsoring shooters. I spend time with new shooters and try to get them started by encouraging them to come out and shoot our 101 course which is the perfect way to introduce them to completive shooting without worrying about match day stresses or what divisions one shoots. I donate equipment.

So while I may not be involved in the manner you approve of I am involved and I do get results.

Sounds lie an excellent model for all of us to work with. I would like to do the same thing here in the Corpus Christi area. Where are you located? I would like to take a look at your club and see how it all fits together....