Reload without allowing muzzle over the berm

[aztecdriver]

The club does have the right to not allow a person or persons on their property. I would hope that would have specific and documented reasons for doing so - especially when hosting USPSA Sanctioned events. If the club were to have a simple, we don't like this guy because he's xxx, so he's banned. I'm assuming it's a safety issue, they're unstable, violent or what have you. It's simple, submit the report when you deny him entry to the property, as quoted in the rules I have provided.

Actually the rules don't require reporting to USPSA if the hosting facility's Board of Directors makes a decision. The requirement exists (rightly) when one person, namely the match director, exercises his discretion. I'm speculating that the requirement exists so that the Area Director, Section Coordinator, or USPSA HQ aren't totally surprised when the member complains.....

I still disagree Nik. It's a USPSA match, published as a sanctioned one. As I said, the host organization is free to deny access to the match from a USPSA member, but they need to take the steps required for the match - otherwise it's not being held under USPSA rules, just as if another local rule was instituted.

Personally, I DO trust most of our fellow club boards... and if they take the step to disallow a person, they mostly have very good reasons - and they fit within the USPSA rulebook. It's prudent on their part of supporting the charter they signed to make a record of disallowing a member access to the match so that in the event they get a report of a club "discriminating" against them, they are sufficiently aware of the circumstances - and avoid unnecessary investigatory efforts.

You know, you're going through a lot of effort to purport that clubs can ban people and not abide by the rulebook, but on the other comments express the idea of "working together" to deal with a solution to encroachment. All I'm saying is that the club board work with and support a national shooting sport organization that is there to HELP them achieve their goals. USPSA can only continue to thrive with their support and USPSA working with them to deal with issues. Taking the position that the club can ban people without helping USPSA know why destroys the concept of cooperation.

Dangerous and disruptive people can bring the sport into ill repute. Club boards taking action to violate the sanctioned matches will do the same.

[mikegot38]

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 as long as I have a vote on the Board of Directors. I am tired of hearing "muzzle" every time I reload!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Skydiver]

Somebody was reviewing video of themselves this past year and made an interesting observation of his style of shooting and movement. He noticed that he was more likely to have the muzzle pointing above the berm while running/moving from position to position as compared to reloading.

[Seeker]

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.

Exactly!!!

[Nik Habicht]

The club does have the right to not allow a person or persons on their property. I would hope that would have specific and documented reasons for doing so - especially when hosting USPSA Sanctioned events. If the club were to have a simple, we don't like this guy because he's xxx, so he's banned. I'm assuming it's a safety issue, they're unstable, violent or what have you. It's simple, submit the report when you deny him entry to the property, as quoted in the rules I have provided.

Actually the rules don't require reporting to USPSA if the hosting facility's Board of Directors makes a decision. The requirement exists (rightly) when one person, namely the match director, exercises his discretion. I'm speculating that the requirement exists so that the Area Director, Section Coordinator, or USPSA HQ aren't totally surprised when the member complains.....

I still disagree Nik. It's a USPSA match, published as a sanctioned one. As I said, the host organization is free to deny access to the match from a USPSA member, but they need to take the steps required for the match - otherwise it's not being held under USPSA rules, just as if another local rule was instituted.

Personally, I DO trust most of our fellow club boards... and if they take the step to disallow a person, they mostly have very good reasons - and they fit within the USPSA rulebook. It's prudent on their part of supporting the charter they signed to make a record of disallowing a member access to the match so that in the event they get a report of a club "discriminating" against them, they are sufficiently aware of the circumstances - and avoid unnecessary investigatory efforts.

You know, you're going through a lot of effort to purport that clubs can ban people and not abide by the rulebook, but on the other comments express the idea of "working together" to deal with a solution to encroachment. All I'm saying is that the club board work with and support a national shooting sport organization that is there to HELP them achieve their goals. USPSA can only continue to thrive with their support and USPSA working with them to deal with issues. Taking the position that the club can ban people without helping USPSA know why destroys the concept of cooperation.

Dangerous and disruptive people can bring the sport into ill repute. Club boards taking action to violate the sanctioned matches will do the same.

The rule refers to a match director's decision, not the decision made by the hosting facility's board of directors.....

None of the members of my club's board of directors have signed the application to affiliate the match -- that was signed by a group of volunteer members of USPSA. The club's BOD is happy to support the sport by allowing us to hold matches, but they are not about to check if their decisions are o.k. with USPSA.....

[remoandiris]

The club's BOD is happy to support the sport by allowing us to hold matches, but they are not about to check if their decisions are o.k. with USPSA.....

Right. And if the club's BOD issues a decision counter to the USPSA rulebook, the USPSA MD has 2 choices; stop holding USPSA matches altogether or hold unsanctioned matches that are USPSA-like.

[Ted Murphy]

I suppose the simple solution is to tell the clubs not to shoot USPSA anymore. It does not seem like the best solution however.

Even if you are absolutely horrified at the prospect of clubs that do not want high muzzle reloads having their say on the issue, there is one fact that you must realize.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY.

This will be a growing concern, and one that keeps coming up like a bad chili dog. If the BOD is proactive in how they run things they need to consider this situation. Now they may well determine that the loss of a few clubs is worth not meddling with the rules, or they may decide to give clubs the ability to require muzzle down reloads. But the BOD really should address this issue.

I run a club that is having some heartburn over this issue. We had a guy put one over the berm during a reload, and this really catalyzed the sport's detractors. It is true that the guy's finger had a lot to do with it, but the no-high-muzzle crew are using this as a stick to beat me with.

This does not have to be an issue based on fact and logic. When you run a club at a range, you are usually responsible to a Board of Directors or other governing body. I do wish that USPSA would discuss this issue so as a MD, I can have a better answer than the one I have right now.

Ted Murphy

[mikegot38]

I suppose the simple solution is to tell the clubs not to shoot USPSA anymore. It does not seem like the best solution however.

Even if you are absolutely horrified at the prospect of clubs that do not want high muzzle reloads having their say on the issue, there is one fact that you must realize.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY.

This will be a growing concern, and one that keeps coming up like a bad chili dog. If the BOD is proactive in how they run things they need to consider this situation. Now they may well determine that the loss of a few clubs is worth not meddling with the rules, or they may decide to give clubs the ability to require muzzle down reloads. But the BOD really should address this issue.

I run a club that is having some heartburn over this issue. We had a guy put one over the berm during a reload, and this really catalyzed the sport's detractors. It is true that the guy's finger had a lot to do with it, but the no-high-muzzle crew are using this as a stick to beat me with.

This does not have to be an issue based on fact and logic. When you run a club at a range, you are usually responsible to a Board of Directors or other governing body. I do wish that USPSA would discuss this issue so as a MD, I can have a better answer than the one I have right now.

Ted Murphy

More heartburn came about after the IDPA Liberty match.

[twodownzero]

We should just make up the rules as we go along, instead of having national rules.

[kpbaer]

Is it really such a big deal To learn to keep you reloads low ? I would rather learn to do that then to lose a good match.I myself at a match was being yelled at about the muzzle.I was able to modify my reloads so it wasn't a issue. SMALL PRICE TO PAY TO CONTINUE HAVING MATCHES

[Nik Habicht]

The club's BOD is happy to support the sport by allowing us to hold matches, but they are not about to check if their decisions are o.k. with USPSA.....

Right. And if the club's BOD issues a decision counter to the USPSA rulebook, the USPSA MD has 2 choices; stop holding USPSA matches altogether or hold unsanctioned matches that are USPSA-like.

They haven't issued a decision yet that runs counter to the rule book.....

They don't have an agreement with USPSA -- I and nine others did when we re-affiliated in 2003; at this point my replacement signs that document each year. The match happens at that club, because I, and now my replacement, petition the club for use of their ranges -- which they grant. That's not an unrestricted grant though -- they do expect us to clean up after ourselves, make sure that the non-club members have left the facility before we go or are registered as a member's guests, that we report on match income and expenses, etc.

Two separate organizations -- the USPSA match that runs according to the rulebook and the hosting club that retains independent property rights.....

[Nik Habicht]

We should just make up the rules as we go along, instead of having national rules.

Honestly, I'm not hearing anyone saying that. I'm hearing that a portion of the folks who are running matches have a problem -- and that they want to involve USPSA in solving that problem.....

[Skydiver]

Is it really such a big deal To learn to keep you reloads low ? I would rather learn to do that then to lose a good match.I myself at a match was being yelled at about the muzzle.I was able to modify my reloads so it wasn't a issue. SMALL PRICE TO PAY TO CONTINUE HAVING MATCHES

Not a big deal if you only ever go to one range and know their berm height. Now start travelling around to different ranges where berm heights vary. One club I go to has a large variety of berm heights from 15 feet at the back of the bay, to only about 5 feet at the front of bay.

Or will there be a USPSA requirement that all berms must be at least 10 feet high? I'm guessing that's an even faster way to make a club go with unsanctioned matches.

For shooters in indoor ranges, presumably the rear backstop is the only "berm". Can the gun point at the side walls (but not break the 180) during a reload or must the muzzle also also by pointed at the backstop during a reload?

And the other part of the issue is, is it just reloads that can't point over the berm, or is it can't point the berm at all times? As noted above, a gun can point over the berm during recoil. Also there are shooters who do the "Charlie's Angel's" point the gun up while moving or setting up at the next position. DQ them for pointing over the berm?

Additionally, do revolver shooters get an exemption during a reload, or do they also have to keep the muzzle below the berm during reloads? If yes, is the logic that it's because it's an empty chamber so it's okay? If that's a case, then a shooter with a semi-auto doing a slide lock reload should be allowed to point over the berm, correct? What about shooter's who's guns do not lock back, but the shooter has been keeping track and knows that his chamber is empty?

[rgkeller]

There are no shortage of arguments for not adressing the problem. Should such arguments carry the day, there are several certain results.

One, the problem will not be solved in a uniform matter for all USPSA shooters.

Two, there will be fewer USPSA matches.

Three, there will be fewer reasons for many shooters to join USPSA.

Four, there will be less revenue flowing to USPSA.

USPSA can ignore the growing issue but USPSA cannot escape the consequences for its inaction.

[Skydiver]

Muzzle over the berm during reload at time marker 1:12 and this place has pretty high berms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ&t=01m12s

[waktasz]

He's one step away from killing a busload of schoolchildren!

[kpbaer]

must remember one bullet over a berm has a good chance of hitting someone. Local Amish girl killed a few days ago in her buggy by a person discharging a muzzleloader into the air over a mile away.We must do what is nessesary to prevent over the berm accidents from happening. If that is a rule change then so be it.

[kpbaer]

in are area there is a housing development behind almost every club.Just keep the muzzel level or down at all times

Is it really such a big deal To learn to keep you reloads low ? I would rather learn to do that then to lose a good match.I myself at a match was being yelled at about the muzzle.I was able to modify my reloads so it wasn't a issue. SMALL PRICE TO PAY TO CONTINUE HAVING MATCHES

Not a big deal if you only ever go to one range and know their berm height. Now start travelling around to different ranges where berm heights vary. One club I go to has a large variety of berm heights from 15 feet at the back of the bay, to only about 5 feet at the front of bay.

Or will there be a USPSA requirement that all berms must be at least 10 feet high? I'm guessing that's an even faster way to make a club go with unsanctioned matches.

For shooters in indoor ranges, presumably the rear backstop is the only "berm". Can the gun point at the side walls (but not break the 180) during a reload or must the muzzle also also by pointed at the backstop during a reload?

And the other part of the issue is, is it just reloads that can't point over the berm, or is it can't point the berm at all times? As noted above, a gun can point over the berm during recoil. Also there are shooters who do the "Charlie's Angel's" point the gun up while moving or setting up at the next position. DQ them for pointing over the berm?

Additionally, do revolver shooters get an exemption during a reload, or do they also have to keep the muzzle below the berm during reloads? If yes, is the logic that it's because it's an empty chamber so it's okay? If that's a case, then a shooter with a semi-auto doing a slide lock reload should be allowed to point over the berm, correct? What about shooter's who's guns do not lock back, but the shooter has been keeping track and knows that his chamber is empty?

[Guest]

"Muzzle over the berm during reload at time marker 1:12 and this place has pretty high berms" Did anyone else feel the need to duck at the 0:08 mark, too! (actually, I am sure that is staged but I think he should have made safe and reholstered instead of sweeping the camera)

Anyway, hard to do fast reloads in every instance without pointing over the berm on occasion. I've been practicing at the range the OP is referring to and last week during a session I paid particular attention to my muzzle. I didn't find it hard to do speedy reloads without pointing over the berm if I did a standing reload or was driving forward, but moving stage left or stage right while reloading was a whole 'nuther matter for me. Complicating this is that the side berms are not as built up and taper to a lower height at the front of the bay, so it also depends on where you are in the bay. Hate to see things go in this direction, and am not sure how this will turn out. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and USPSA will continue on at this club without any drama or whining. I think that is all I have to say about this.

[Skydiver]

must remember one bullet over a berm has a good chance of hitting someone. Local Amish girl killed a few days ago in her buggy by a person discharging a muzzleloader into the air over a mile away.We must do what is nessesary to prevent over the berm accidents from happening. If that is a rule change then so be it.

Does that rule change also include:

- changing 10.5.2 such that the muzzle doesn't go over the berm at any time, not just reloads?

- removing the exception at the tail end of 10.4.1?

- adding a rule against driving down rearward falling steel?

Edited December 24, 2011 by Skydiver

[West Texas Granny]

If USPSA wants to remain steadfast with their rules then they are going to find fewer and fewer places to hold a match. It's the clubs that are having to deal with encroaching development, new rules passed by their local governments and lawsuits not USPSA. The statement about those ranges in the East is so very true. Ranges are closing and those that remain open are saddled with more restrictions. So if USPSA wishes to remain as a going concern they better get with it and develop rules that allow enough flexibility in cases like this otherwise it will cease to exist as a going concern. USPSA needs to wakeup to the realization that they are guests on another persons property and must operate within there rules.

[ima45dv8]

If USPSA wants to remain steadfast with their rules then they are going to find fewer and fewer places to hold a match. It's the clubs that are having to deal with encroaching development, new rules passed by their local governments and lawsuits not USPSA. The statement about those ranges in the East is so very true. Ranges are closing and those that remain open are saddled with more restrictions. So if USPSA wishes to remain as a going concern they better get with it and develop rules that allow enough flexibility in cases like this otherwise it will cease to exist as a going concern. USPSA needs to wakeup to the realization that they are guests on another persons property and must operate within there rules.

USPSA waking up aside, my experience is seeing waaaaaaay many too bullet holes in the roof at indoor ranges where I shoot matches. I can easily envision that many rounds getting 'lost' at outdoor ranges, only with no roof you can't see them. I've been running shooters for over 10 years at locals and many majors (Level II and III matches). The number of shots I've seen fired over a berm is, (maybe) one a year.We consider that unacceptable, but how did all those holes get in the roof? Not from us!

One of our local matches even requires us to report to the MD any shot over the berm, and the time. Someone could catch one from one of us, but the percentage is much higher that it will be from "Joe-I-Wanna-Shoot-My-Guns-On-Saturday" that launches one out.

[rgkeller]

must remember one bullet over a berm has a good chance of hitting someone. Local Amish girl killed a few days ago in her buggy by a person discharging a muzzleloader into the air over a mile away.We must do what is nessesary to prevent over the berm accidents from happening. If that is a rule change then so be it.

Does that rule change also include:

- changing 10.5.2 such that the muzzle doesn't go over the berm at any time, not just reloads?

- removing the exception at the tail end of 10.4.1?

- adding a rule against driving down rearward falling steel?

I have shot at several clubs and in many matches with a "local rule" against multiple shots at steel. They were USPSA matches supposedly. At least USPSA HQ took their money.

[West Texas Granny]

If USPSA wants to remain steadfast with their rules then they are going to find fewer and fewer places to hold a match. It's the clubs that are having to deal with encroaching development, new rules passed by their local governments and lawsuits not USPSA. The statement about those ranges in the East is so very true. Ranges are closing and those that remain open are saddled with more restrictions. So if USPSA wishes to remain as a going concern they better get with it and develop rules that allow enough flexibility in cases like this otherwise it will cease to exist as a going concern. USPSA needs to wakeup to the realization that they are guests on another persons property and must operate within there rules.

USPSA waking up aside, my experience is seeing waaaaaaay many too bullet holes in the roof at indoor ranges where I shoot matches. I can easily envision that many rounds getting 'lost' at outdoor ranges, only with no roof you can't see them. I've been running shooters for over 10 years at locals and many majors (Level II and III matches). The number of shots I've seen fired over a berm is, (maybe) one a year.We consider that unacceptable, but how did all those holes get in the roof? Not from us!

One of our local matches even requires us to report to the MD any shot over the berm, and the time. Someone could catch one from one of us, but the percentage is much higher that it will be from "Joe-I-Wanna-Shoot-My-Guns-On-Saturday" that launches one out.

I know what you are saying but all it takes is just one over the berm shot hitting someone's property or a person that will force a range to be shut down and it doesn't matter who shot that round. Common sense dictates the USPSA would either change a rule or allow flexibility in the rules if a range has such a rule concerning a muzzle pointed over the berm.

Ranges are forced to adapt to an ever changing regulatory environment if they wish to continue to operate and USPSA should recognize that and support them by allowing some flexibility in the rules. If they don't where do we shoot when there is no range. So let's use a little common sense here and adapt.

[remoandiris]

The club's BOD is happy to support the sport by allowing us to hold matches, but they are not about to check if their decisions are o.k. with USPSA.....

Right. And if the club's BOD issues a decision counter to the USPSA rulebook, the USPSA MD has 2 choices; stop holding USPSA matches altogether or hold unsanctioned matches that are USPSA-like.

They haven't issued a decision yet that runs counter to the rule book.....

They don't have an agreement with USPSA -- I and nine others did when we re-affiliated in 2003; at this point my replacement signs that document each year. The match happens at that club, because I, and now my replacement, petition the club for use of their ranges -- which they grant. That's not an unrestricted grant though -- they do expect us to clean up after ourselves, make sure that the non-club members have left the facility before we go or are registered as a member's guests, that we report on match income and expenses, etc.

Two separate organizations -- the USPSA match that runs according to the rulebook and the hosting club that retains independent property rights.....

Once again, if a club wants to throw additional rules on top of USPSA rules, they either need USPSA pres approval or they are NOT USPSA matches. I don't know how to explain it any clearer than what the rulebook already says.

3.3 Applicability of Rules:

USPSA matches are governed by the rules applicable to the discipline. Host organizations

may not enforce local rules except to comply with legislation or legal

precedent in the applicable jurisdiction. Any voluntarily adopted rules that are not

in compliance with these rules must not be applied to USPSA matches without

the express consent of the President of USPSA.