Reload without allowing muzzle over the berm

[Schutzenmeister]

Sorry, but this reads like a faulty analogy to me. Unless you think a round will go off on it's own with no help from the trigger/hammer/firing pin.

Small point, and unfortunately it's on the side of the argument I'd really rather NOT support ...

FACT - I have, once with my own gun, and once with someone else's gun, had the gun go bang during a reload WITHOUT touching the trigger. On my gun, it was a spring that had become worn and the hammer/sear were not setting quite well enough anymore. On the other guy's gun - Well, it was a P.O.S. he bought at a pawn shop that turned out to have a BADLY dammaged sear. (I wound up replacing the hammer and sear for him.)

I have also witnessed (rarely, but nonetheless witnessed) guns discharging on reload - usually from slidelock - with the shooter's trigger finger CLEARLY outside the trigger guard. It CAN happen.

Sorry ...

[remoandiris]

Sorry, but this reads like a faulty analogy to me. Unless you think a round will go off on it's own with no help from the trigger/hammer/firing pin.

Small point, and unfortunately it's on the side of the argument I'd really rather NOT support ...

FACT - I have, once with my own gun, and once with someone else's gun, had the gun go bang during a reload WITHOUT touching the trigger. On my gun, it was a spring that had become worn and the hammer/sear were not setting quite well enough anymore. On the other guy's gun - Well, it was a P.O.S. he bought at a pawn shop that turned out to have a BADLY dammaged sear. (I wound up replacing the hammer and sear for him.)

I have also witnessed (rarely, but nonetheless witnessed) guns discharging on reload - usually from slidelock - with the shooter's trigger finger CLEARLY outside the trigger guard. It CAN happen.

Sorry ...

Right...a fault with the gun. Had nothing to do with the direction it was pointed and everything to do with the gun. Could/would have happened regardless of muzzle direction.

If there is to be "fairness" across USPSA, a rule on reloads (like in IPSC) needs to be established. Otherwise you'll have different ranges with different rules...clearly NOT what USPSA matches are supposed to have.

[aztecdriver]

Sorry, but this reads like a faulty analogy to me. Unless you think a round will go off on it's own with no help from the trigger/hammer/firing pin.

Small point, and unfortunately it's on the side of the argument I'd really rather NOT support ...

FACT - I have, once with my own gun, and once with someone else's gun, had the gun go bang during a reload WITHOUT touching the trigger. On my gun, it was a spring that had become worn and the hammer/sear were not setting quite well enough anymore. On the other guy's gun - Well, it was a P.O.S. he bought at a pawn shop that turned out to have a BADLY dammaged sear. (I wound up replacing the hammer and sear for him.)

I have also witnessed (rarely, but nonetheless witnessed) guns discharging on reload - usually from slidelock - with the shooter's trigger finger CLEARLY outside the trigger guard. It CAN happen.

Sorry ...

Right...a fault with the gun. Had nothing to do with the direction it was pointed and everything to do with the gun. Could/would have happened regardless of muzzle direction.

If there is to be "fairness" across USPSA, a rule on reloads (like in IPSC) needs to be established. Otherwise you'll have different ranges with different rules...clearly NOT what USPSA matches are supposed to have.

So -- to be clear, you think a national rule on keeping the muzzle below the berm on reloads or it's 10.5.xx? I quit - here and now. Will be the last match I work and the last dime I spend on USPSA.

ETA -- I thought about this a minute ago -- why don't we just stop USPSA all together. After all, we're talking about the RESULT of a safety violation causing injury. Actually, two safety violations. 1. Finger in the trigger guard during reload and 2. AD - shot leaving the berm. Well, the way I look at it -- there's also another possibility. 1. Break 180 2. AD - there's a possibility that a competitor or bystander could be injured. The difference is that those people on the range accepted some responsibility by showing up there - but we all know that the courts won't care.

Ah - but what about the malfunctioning guns from above - well, isn't that covered by unsafe equipment rules?

Edited December 29, 2011 by aztecdriver

[jar]

So -- to be clear, you think a national rule on keeping the muzzle below the berm on reloads or it's 10.5.xx? I quit - here and now. Will be the last match I work and the last dime I spend on USPSA.

That would make the 3lb production limit shitstorm look like a Quaker bible study group.

[remoandiris]

So -- to be clear, you think a national rule on keeping the muzzle below the berm on reloads or it's 10.5.xx? I quit - here and now. Will be the last match I work and the last dime I spend on USPSA.

In lieu of "local rules" that some posts imply are already in place, yes. How is a rule all USPSA members know about worse than local rules?

there's a possibility that a competitor or bystander could be injured. The difference is that those people on the range accepted some responsibility by showing up there - but we all know that the courts won't care.

Another part of the problem is some club boards fear a round over the berm during a USPSA reload will hurt another person. That person may not be on the range. Boards' seem to have very little interest in USPSA's safety record, finger rules, RO role, etc. So how does it get fixed/addressed in an equitable manner?

Ah - but what about the malfunctioning guns from above - well, isn't that covered by unsafe equipment rules?

5.1.6.

[remoandiris]

So -- to be clear, you think a national rule on keeping the muzzle below the berm on reloads or it's 10.5.xx? I quit - here and now. Will be the last match I work and the last dime I spend on USPSA.

That would make the 3lb production limit shitstorm look like a Quaker bible study group.

As already posted somewhere else in this thread, IPSC already requires it. I don't shoot IPSC so I have no idea how they enforce it and I am NOT advocating we become IPSC. But it is proof a rule to not point over the berm can be written and enforced.

[waktasz]

No they don't.

[Schutzenmeister]

As already posted somewhere else in this thread, IPSC already requires it. I don't shoot IPSC so I have no idea how they enforce it and I am NOT advocating we become IPSC. But it is proof a rule to not point over the berm can be written and enforced.

It is quite clear you do not shoot IPSC ... IPSC does NOT require reloads be done with the muzzle below the berm. Rather, it ALLOWS local ranges to specify reduced safety angles (to include the vertical) per IPSC 2.1.2.1. Note that they also allow INCREASED safety angles past 90 degrees, if the situation warrants.

Let's not bash them for things which aren't correct ...

[rgkeller]

IMO, there will not and should not be a USPSA rule forbidding pointing a muzzle over the berm or double tapping steel or shooting into side berms.

However, local waivers should not be denied on general principles if the alternative is losing USPSA venues.

Evidently, the issue is up to the USPSA President to decide on a case by case basis.

We may soon see what his inclination is.

[aztecdriver]

So -- to be clear, you think a national rule on keeping the muzzle below the berm on reloads or it's 10.5.xx? I quit - here and now. Will be the last match I work and the last dime I spend on USPSA.

In lieu of "local rules" that some posts imply are already in place, yes. How is a rule all USPSA members know about worse than local rules?

there's a possibility that a competitor or bystander could be injured. The difference is that those people on the range accepted some responsibility by showing up there - but we all know that the courts won't care.

Another part of the problem is some club boards fear a round over the berm during a USPSA reload will hurt another person. That person may not be on the range. Boards' seem to have very little interest in USPSA's safety record, finger rules, RO role, etc. So how does it get fixed/addressed in an equitable manner?

Ah - but what about the malfunctioning guns from above - well, isn't that covered by unsafe equipment rules?

5.1.6.

You are completely missing the point. If shooters can't handle breaking the two rules that sent the round outside the range - they arn't going to be able to handle the third one. It's not going to protect the clubs anymore than the way it's currently setup - and to top it off - enough people are going to bail and run to the clubs that will run THEN outlaw matches with rules they can enjoy. It's simple - it will revert to the way 3-gun and USPSA is handled today - the majority are outlaw matches.

Personally, let them petition for the local rule. And document the need. Arial photographs, documentation from the gov't that is threatening them, etc. I don't have a problem with that, and if they win the local exemption - publish it so I can stay the h*** away, because I don't want to be shooting (as someone said) at a club that has that much risk, and I don't want to be subjected to an RO's visual acuity when it comes to "witnessing" that my muzzle was above the berm when surrounded by obstacles that can obscure said berm and he's just going "you did it". Without video evidence being permitted to arbitrate it - I would rather do without the range or the match, from a visiting perspective. IF a local range picks up a rule like that - I won't be back. If a major match is at a range like that - and it's a rule - I won't risk the match fee. It's a ridiculously imposed standard that can't be fairly adjudicated under current rule.

Edited December 29, 2011 by aztecdriver

[remoandiris]

You are completely missing the point. If shooters can't handle breaking the two rules that sent the round outside the range - they arn't going to be able to handle the third one. It's not going to protect the clubs anymore than the way it's currently setup - and to top it off - enough people are going to bail and run to the clubs that will run THEN outlaw matches with rules they can enjoy. It's simple - it will revert to the way 3-gun and USPSA is handled today - the majority are outlaw matches.

Personally, let them petition for the local rule. And document the need. Arial photographs, documentation from the gov't that is threatening them, etc. I don't have a problem with that, and if they win the local exemption - publish it so I can stay the h*** away, because I don't want to be shooting (as someone said) at a club that has that much risk, and I don't want to be subjected to an RO's visual acuity when it comes to "witnessing" that my muzzle was above the berm when surrounded by obstacles that can obscure said berm and he's just going "you did it". Without video evidence being permitted to arbitrate it - I would rather do without the range or the match, from a visiting perspective. IF a local range picks up a rule like that - I won't be back. If a major match is at a range like that - and it's a rule - I won't risk the match fee. It's a ridiculously imposed standard that can't be fairly adjudicated under current rule.

You are also missing the point. USPSA shooters are NOT the problem. Local club/range board members who don't care about USPSA rules ARE the problem.

2d, clubs are NOT asking for exemptions. They are implementing rules without USPSA consent.

I do NOT want an over-the-berm rule. I do NOT want USPSA matches to end because some temporary board/board member thinks USPSA is too "fast and loose".

I want to shoot my chosen sport within it's published rules.

Edited December 29, 2011 by remoandiris

[remoandiris]

As already posted somewhere else in this thread, IPSC already requires it. I don't shoot IPSC so I have no idea how they enforce it and I am NOT advocating we become IPSC. But it is proof a rule to not point over the berm can be written and enforced.

It is quite clear you do not shoot IPSC ... IPSC does NOT require reloads be done with the muzzle below the berm. Rather, it ALLOWS local ranges to specify reduced safety angles (to include the vertical) per IPSC 2.1.2.1. Note that they also allow INCREASED safety angles past 90 degrees, if the situation warrants.

Let's not bash them for things which aren't correct ...

Like I said, and as you repeated, I don't shoot IPSC. Here is a snip from the post in this thread I was referring to;

"Specifically IPSC rule 10.5.2, which says: "Allowing the muzzle of a firearm to point uprange, or past the default, or specific safe angle of fire during a course of fire, (limited exceptions: see Rules 5.2.7.3 and 10.5.6)."

So is this an actual IPSC rule?

[Skydiver]

As already posted somewhere else in this thread, IPSC already requires it. I don't shoot IPSC so I have no idea how they enforce it and I am NOT advocating we become IPSC. But it is proof a rule to not point over the berm can be written and enforced.

It is quite clear you do not shoot IPSC ... IPSC does NOT require reloads be done with the muzzle below the berm. Rather, it ALLOWS local ranges to specify reduced safety angles (to include the vertical) per IPSC 2.1.2.1. Note that they also allow INCREASED safety angles past 90 degrees, if the situation warrants.

Let's not bash them for things which aren't correct ...

Like I said, and as you repeated, I don't shoot IPSC. Here is a snip from the post in this thread I was referring to;

"Specifically IPSC rule 10.5.2, which says: "Allowing the muzzle of a firearm to point uprange, or past the default, or specific safe angle of fire during a course of fire, (limited exceptions: see Rules 5.2.7.3 and 10.5.6)."

So is this an actual IPSC rule?

It is. You can see for yourself: http://ipsc.org/pdf/RulesHandgun.pdf

[twodownzero]

However, local waivers should not be denied on general principles if the alternative is losing USPSA venues.

Sorry, but I just don't agree.

Any USPSA member should be able to shoot at any USPSA club without concern for "local rules."

This thread is all about creating a problem and rallying around a problem that doesn't exist in order to satisfy a few people who are quite simply not comfortable with our sport.

We should resist efforts to water down our sport to support these people. This isn't what our sport is about.

If a club doesn't want to play by our rules, the we don't need that club.

I'm not saying that we need to be ruthless, but in life, there are some things worth fighting for.

Competitive equity and the basic methods of our sport, including everything that normally goes on between "beep" and "if you are finished" aren't things on which I'm willing to compromise.

We have rules that allow >32 round courses, mandatory reloads, shooting boxes, and all other sorts of things at Level 1. Nowhere does it suggest that this ought to be carte blanche for local rule making.

There is basically one prominent member of this forum, who happens to be a match director, who takes the opposite position. He thinks that we should accommodate every club's demand and be concerned about the risk of losing one club here or there because they don't want to cooperate with the USPSA's rules. I'm sorry that I just have to disagree with that.

You show me a club board of directors that wants the revenue and marketing and other benefits from holding USPSA matches, but doesn't want to allow reloads with the muzzle pointed over the berm, and I'll show you a club that doesn't need to be hosting USPSA matches.

What's next? No comps, they're too loud. No metric targets, they're too ugly. No steel, ricochets might end up in the next county. No moving targets, too dangerous. No holsters, too scary. No camo, people might think we're a militia. And on and on and on.

Some things are best left alone.

[Skydiver]

However, local waivers should not be denied on general principles if the alternative is losing USPSA venues.

Sorry, but I just don't agree.

Any USPSA member should be able to shoot at any USPSA club without concern for "local rules."

This thread is all about creating a problem and rallying around a problem that doesn't exist in order to satisfy a few people who are quite simply not comfortable with our sport.

We should resist efforts to water down our sport to support these people. This isn't what our sport is about.

If a club doesn't want to play by our rules, the we don't need that club.

I'm not saying that we need to be ruthless, but in life, there are some things worth fighting for.

Competitive equity and the basic methods of our sport, including everything that normally goes on between "beep" and "if you are finished" aren't things on which I'm willing to compromise.

We have rules that allow >32 round courses, mandatory reloads, shooting boxes, and all other sorts of things at Level 1. Nowhere does it suggest that this ought to be carte blanche for local rule making.

There is basically one prominent member of this forum, who happens to be a match director, who takes the opposite position. He thinks that we should accommodate every club's demand and be concerned about the risk of losing one club here or there because they don't want to cooperate with the USPSA's rules. I'm sorry that I just have to disagree with that.

You show me a club board of directors that wants the revenue and marketing and other benefits from holding USPSA matches, but doesn't want to allow reloads with the muzzle pointed over the berm, and I'll show you a club that doesn't need to be hosting USPSA matches.

What's next? No comps, they're too loud. No metric targets, they're too ugly. No steel, ricochets might end up in the next county. No moving targets, too dangerous. No holsters, too scary. No camo, people might think we're a militia. And on and on and on.

Some things are best left alone.

How about the typical rule they have at most public ranges "no rapid fire".

[remoandiris]

However, local waivers should not be denied on general principles if the alternative is losing USPSA venues.

You show me a club board of directors that wants the revenue and marketing and other benefits from holding USPSA matches, but doesn't want to allow reloads with the muzzle pointed over the berm, and I'll show you a club that doesn't need to be hosting USPSA matches.

And what of the USPSA members who drive 2+ hrs to the nearest range to shoot the match? Are they just out of luck?

You may also be over emphasizing the revenue/other benefits USPSA brings to a club.

[remoandiris]

How about the typical rule they have at most public ranges "no rapid fire".

Lots of indoor ranges have that rule, too, except during matches.

[jar]

And what of the USPSA members who drive 2+ hrs to the nearest range to shoot the match? Are they just out of luck?

You may also be over emphasizing the revenue/other benefits USPSA brings to a club.

What of the USPSA members who drive even farther to come to the match and then get DQ'd due to a non-USPSA rule? What other rules should we let a club change? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand beyond which it's a non-USPSA match.

If USPSA affiliation brings so little benefit, what's wrong with the club dropping their affiliation?

I attended a match once in another shooting sport at a relatively isolated club. That club had some strange ideas about the rules. Due to this, I, and many other shooters, didn't go back to that match, and it's no longer sanctioned by the national org.

[rgkeller]

So, ranges which have a rule against double tapping steel cannot hold USPSA matches?

And ranges which have a rule against shooting side berms cannot hold USPSA matches?

[jar]

So, ranges which have a rule against double tapping steel cannot hold USPSA matches?

And ranges which have a rule against shooting side berms cannot hold USPSA matches?

Clubs have quite a bit of course design flexibility under USPSA rules.

The double tapping steel issue can by solved by not using rearward forward falling poppers. Clubs can use forward falling poppers and/or plates, or not use steel in their stages.

The side berm issue is covered under 2.1.4:

"Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations other than immediately downrange, organizers and officials must protect or restrict surrounding areas to which competitors, officials or spectators have access. Each competitor must be allowed to solve the competitive problem in his own way and must not be hindered by being forced to act in any manner which might cause unsafe action. Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire."

I regularly shoot matches at an indoor club that only has a bullet trap on the back wall. I've never heard anyone say anything about shooting the side walls. The stages are designed such that it never comes up.

[remoandiris]

What of the USPSA members who drive even farther to come to the match and then get DQ'd due to a non-USPSA rule? What other rules should we let a club change? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand beyond which it's a non-USPSA match.

There should NOT be non-USPSA rules at USPSA matches. If there are, it isn't a USPSA match.

If USPSA affiliation brings so little benefit, what's wrong with the club dropping their affiliation?

Nothing. Except that is a loss for the club members who are also USPSA members.

I attended a match once in another shooting sport at a relatively isolated club. That club had some strange ideas about the rules. Due to this, I, and many other shooters, didn't go back to that match, and it's no longer sanctioned by the national org.

And that is the right thing to do. Don't call it USPSA if it isn't.

[Skydiver]

So, ranges which have a rule against double tapping steel cannot hold USPSA matches?

And ranges which have a rule against shooting side berms cannot hold USPSA matches?

Clubs have quite a bit of course design flexibility under USPSA rules.

The double tapping steel issue can by solved by not using rearward forward falling poppers. Clubs can use forward falling poppers and/or plates, or not use steel in their stages.

The side berm issue is covered under 2.1.4:

"Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations other than immediately downrange, organizers and officials must protect or restrict surrounding areas to which competitors, officials or spectators have access. Each competitor must be allowed to solve the competitive problem in his own way and must not be hindered by being forced to act in any manner which might cause unsafe action. Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an "as and when visible" basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire."

I regularly shoot matches at an indoor club that only has a bullet trap on the back wall. I've never heard anyone say anything about shooting the side walls. The stages are designed such that it never comes up.

Good indoor stage design comes with experience. Until the stage designer builds up enough experience, more often than not, there are targets that are visible from various angle that will result in a bullet going into the sidewall. (Although, as per the USPSA rules, it would be legal to take the shot, I don't want to be "uninvited" from the range.) Often the stage designer ends up taking advantage of the Level I exception that lets the WSB state where and when targets maybe engaged (1.1.5.1) instead of the full freestyle "as and when visible".

[Nik Habicht]

There is basically one prominent member of this forum, who happens to be a match director, who takes the opposite position. He thinks that we should accommodate every club's demand and be concerned about the risk of losing one club here or there because they don't want to cooperate with the USPSA's rules. I'm sorry that I just have to disagree with that.

Tim,

if that's a reference to me -- you flunked reading comprehension.....

I think we should spend time thinking about these situations -- because they're going to come up. I think we should brainstorm to find creative solutions that serve both parties interests -- if possible.

I've never stated that "we should accomodate every club's demand...."

You show me a club board of directors that wants the revenue and marketing and other benefits from holding USPSA matches, but doesn't want to allow reloads with the muzzle pointed over the berm, and I'll show you a club that doesn't need to be hosting USPSA matches.

Revenue? Benefits? Your ignorance of the fiscal reality of USPSA matches is showing again.....

[jar]

Good indoor stage design comes with experience. Until the stage designer builds up enough experience, more often than not, there are targets that are visible from various angle that will result in a bullet going into the sidewall. (Although, as per the USPSA rules, it would be legal to take the shot, I don't want to be "uninvited" from the range.) Often the stage designer ends up taking advantage of the Level I exception that lets the WSB state where and when targets maybe engaged (1.1.5.1) instead of the full freestyle "as and when visible".

Good point, but my original point was primarily that there are ways to deal with the issue without any additional rules. As and when visible is the ideal, box to box is OK in level 1, 'don't shoot the side walls' in an otherwise valid target engagement isn't. Agree 100% on not taking the sidewall shot even when legal though. If I see one, I'm pointing it out to the match staff, especially if I catch it before the first shot is fired when it's easy to fix.

[rgkeller]

Good indoor stage design comes with experience. Until the stage designer builds up enough experience, more often than not, there are targets that are visible from various angle that will result in a bullet going into the sidewall. (Although, as per the USPSA rules, it would be legal to take the shot, I don't want to be "uninvited" from the range.) Often the stage designer ends up taking advantage of the Level I exception that lets the WSB state where and when targets maybe engaged (1.1.5.1) instead of the full freestyle "as and when visible".

Good point, but my original point was primarily that there are ways to deal with the issue without any additional rules. As and when visible is the ideal, box to box is OK in level 1, 'don't shoot the side walls' in an otherwise valid target engagement isn't. Agree 100% on not taking the sidewall shot even when legal though. If I see one, I'm pointing it out to the match staff, especially if I catch it before the first shot is fired when it's easy to fix.

And if the range owner said, "hit the side well and you are out of here" this would not be a USPSA match. Don't send in the classifiers.