Avoiding 180 Problems

[ktm300]

<< It doesn't say that shouldn't be available from angles beyond legal.

So "will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire" says something other that you shouldn't be available from angles beyond safe?

Again, I am just using the very recent training where the NROI instructor spent over an hour on 180 traps. Then at the range going over stages and getting the RM to adjust targets to fit that interpretation.

[Seth]

Your missing my point. A muzzle at 89* from median isn't unsafe just because it's nearly on the line. It's all about how it sets in the bay.

[Sarge]

Huh?

What about shooting from shaky bridges or 6x6 beams or seesaws?

What about uprange starts or starting down range and negotiating the COF while moving uprange?

[alma]

The rule you keep quoting still doesn't say what you want it to. It says targets need to be available from legal angles. It doesn't say that shouldn't be available from angles beyond legal. .

I continue to believe you have the incorrect interpretation.

As visible and when visible have no qualifiers such as "initially" or "at some point."

It's absolute.

[Seth]

<< It doesn't say that shouldn't be available from angles beyond legal.

So "will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire" says something other that you shouldn't be available from angles beyond safe?

Again, I am just using the very recent training where the NROI instructor spent over an hour on 180 traps. Then at the range going over stages and getting the RM to adjust targets to fit that interpretation.

I disagree with that interpretation and have had it explained by similarly qualified folks differently.

A target on the line will NOT cause the competitor to break the rules. If they follow the rules the shot is kosher. The target doesn't make the competitor break the rules if it's inside the 90.

Are we not responsible for our actions?

Edited May 15, 2014 by Seth

[ktm300]

Nothing about a target on the line is illegal, just take it away as the shooter moves down-range where they would engage it past the 180.

While I am on the "line" I can swing past the target and break 180, no issue with 2.1.4 as the target as presented is available at a safe angle.

2.1.4 is saying don't present the target to me while I am in the shooting area and past the safe (breaking 180 is a safety rule) angle to shoot it. If I can shoot it without breaking 180 from where I am standing there is no issue.

[Seth]

Right. Exactly. And my argument is that the target is behind you after the 180 and you should know better than to engage it and the course designer doesn't need to hide it since it's illegal anyway.

[alma]

Nothing about a target on the line is illegal, just take it away as the shooter moves down-range where they would engage it past the 180.

While I am on the "line" I can swing past the target and break 180, no issue with 2.1.4 as the target as presented is available at a safe angle.

2.1.4 is saying don't present the target to me while I am in the shooting area and past the safe (breaking 180 is a safety rule) angle to shoot it. If I can shoot it without breaking 180 from where I am standing there is no issue.

I agreement with this.

Swinging past a target to break the 180 not what I am talking about. It when you have that same target clearly visible at 190 degrees as well. This is in line with the original discussion about running past targets and what the responsibility might be to set up a stage so that targets aren't available once the shooter had advance up range.

A separate topic is setting up a target on the 179 degree line. That is perfectly legal as assuming that is the only place where you can shoot that target.

The question I would ask is could that same target be placed at 170 degrees without changing the stage significantly thus making it less likely that shooters will over swing? Was the target pit on the 179 by the stage designer for the express intent of challenging the shooter to not break the 180? If so then I think we have a problem.

[ktm300]

Right. Exactly. And my argument is that the target is behind you after the 180 and you should know better than to engage it and the course designer doesn't need to hide it since it's illegal anyway.

Your stage at that point doesn't follow the rules. That is your choice.

[alma]

Right. Exactly. And my argument is that the target is behind you after the 180 and you should know better than to engage it and the course designer doesn't need to hide it since it's illegal anyway.

Your stage at that point doesn't follow the rules. That is your choice.

Exactly!

[Graham Smith]

It when you have that same target clearly visible at 190 degrees as well. This is in line with the original discussion about running past targets and what the responsibility might be to set up a stage so that targets aren't available once the shooter had advance up range.

And therein lies one of the big problems we have in this. The rules might be able to be interpreted that way but they aren't clear on that and there's plenty of room to BE clear on that if that was the intent.

By your interpretation, if a target is placed in the clear so that a shooter can clearly see and shoot it from the starting point until they are well past the target then that's illegal. IF that is the rule then it's one that's being broken on a regular basis at major and minor matches.

I don't believe that is the rule, BUT we have always treated it as if it was a "recommendation" for the simple reason that we want to avoid the situation if we can.

<Edited to add picture>

Edited May 15, 2014 by Graham Smith

[BillD]

To quote my CRO instructor. "using no shoots for any reason other than increasing the challenge is a sign of bad stage design."

No way I would take the time to put up a bunch of no shoots when I could stack a few barrels or put up two walls.

That's just one guys opinion, as you said earlier.

[Sarge]

Something that no one's mentioned - there are greater forces at work here than offering "challenging" courses or preparing local shooters for larger matches.

Unnecessarily setting targets in borderline-safe positions is increasingly dangerous and an enormous legal and fiscal liability for local club ranges. One successful lawsuit will end matches and could close a local shooting facility. Unless you shoot within a bank vault, there is the unavoidable possibility of a round going where it shouldn't. Target placement can play a huge role in mitigating that danger or exacerbating it.

I've been a member of a couple local clubs whose ranges were shut down over incidents and liabilities. It DOES happen. The "big boy" game is designing courses that are challenging and fun without endangering shooters, the neighbors or the future of the facility.

Mark

One single AD on a reload can do all of the above as well. So do we eliminate reloads as well?

I understand not letting a target on the 180 line endanger those outside the pit. That just makes sense.

[BillD]

The course designer owes the shooter a safe course that is challenging.

I thing that pretty much puts it in a nutshell. Challenging doesn't have to involve creating "traps".

If you are going to put a target immediately behind a wall that is perpendicular to the 180 then the shooter is going to have to be really careful. But if the same thing can be accomplished with a wall that's canted towards the shooter some then why not do that instead and reduce or remove the issue.

Same reason they don't issue training wheels for racing bikes?

Seriously, what you describe here is not a trap in my opinion. It's a good stiff challenge. Local matches need to have some teeth or you are setting your guys up for failure at their first area match

If placing targets along the 180 suddenly creates a dangerous situation, then you shouldn't have targets at 120 either. The stage needs to fit the bay and be safe. There needs to be a huge margin for mistakes.

I'm not guessing here either or waxing poetic. I ran the Fredericksburg match in Virginia for 2 years plus was on the executive staff of multiple area 8s and va/md sections. I've put 30 or so matches on the ground.

Fredericksburg puts on some great matches but ever notice how each one starts with a stern warning about how many shooters were DQed at the last match for breaking the 180?

It drives me crazy because it's completely unnecessary and has inspired me to take some examples of stages to write an article for Front Site called, the 180 trap. I haven't started writing it yet but I am inspired non the less.

Also, ensure don't get me started on the corner bay declared to have a "floating 180."

No. I never noticed a stern lecture as I no longer run the match nor do I shoot it.

The rule you keep quoting still doesn't say what you want it to. It says targets need to be available from legal angles. It doesn't say that shouldn't be available from angles beyond legal.

Floating 180 aside, the stage designer has 180* of placement to work with. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it illegal. As I've said repeatedly, the margin for safety better be substantially greater than 90* from the backstop.

If placing targets along the 180 suddenly creates a dangerous situation, then you shouldn't have targets at 120 either. The stage needs to fit the bay and be safe. There needs to be a huge margin for mistakes.

I'm not guessing here either or waxing poetic. I ran the Fredericksburg match in Virginia for 2 years plus was on the executive staff of multiple area 8s and va/md sections. I've put 30 or so matches on the ground.

Fredericksburg puts on some great matches but ever notice how each one starts with a stern warning about how many shooters were DQed at the last match for breaking the 180?

It drives me crazy because it's completely unnecessary and has inspired me to take some examples of stages to write an article for Front Site called, the 180 trap. I haven't started writing it yet but I am inspired non the less.

Also, ensure don't get me started on the corner bay declared to have a "floating 180."

I saw an RO almost get his head shot off by peeking around a wall barrier on the 180 line to find the shooter he lost track of at a Fredricksburg Section match once a few years back.

[alma]

Something that no one's mentioned - there are greater forces at work here than offering "challenging" courses or preparing local shooters for larger matches.

Unnecessarily setting targets in borderline-safe positions is increasingly dangerous and an enormous legal and fiscal liability for local club ranges. One successful lawsuit will end matches and could close a local shooting facility. Unless you shoot within a bank vault, there is the unavoidable possibility of a round going where it shouldn't. Target placement can play a huge role in mitigating that danger or exacerbating it.

I've been a member of a couple local clubs whose ranges were shut down over incidents and liabilities. It DOES happen. The "big boy" game is designing courses that are challenging and fun without endangering shooters, the neighbors or the future of the facility.

Mark

One single AD on a reload can do all of the above as well. So do we eliminate reloads as well?

I understand not letting a target on the 180 line endanger those outside the pit. That just makes sense.

Not unless a stage were to require you to reload with your finger on the trigger (obviously something that cannot and would not ever happen). That is, however, effectively what you are doing when you put that target at 179 degrees. Yes it can be shot safely and at speed but if possible leaving the shooters with margin for error is welcome. My point here is that stage design should not try to push the limits of safety for the sake of testing whether the shooters can refrain from getting sent home.

[bikerburgess]

It when you have that same target clearly visible at 190 degrees as well. This is in line with the original discussion about running past targets and what the responsibility might be to set up a stage so that targets aren't available once the shooter had advance up range.

And therein lies one of the big problems we have in this. The rules might be able to be interpreted that way but they aren't clear on that and there's plenty of room to BE clear on that if that was the intent.

By your interpretation, if a target is placed in the clear so that a shooter can clearly see and shoot it from the starting point until they are well past the target then that's illegal. IF that is the rule then it's one that's being broken on a regular basis at major and minor matches.

Protection.JPG

I don't believe that is the rule, BUT we have always treated it as if it was a "recommendation" for the simple reason that we want to avoid the situation if we can.

<Edited to add picture>

The target on the left in the picture is probably the smallest problem I see with not following the rule as I interpret it, in this example it is very easy for the shooter (new or experienced) to know where they are in relation to the target and the 180, the area I see the biggest issue and have had to send people home for, is when a target is available up-range of a port or wall along with several other targets that are down range of that position, the shooter stops and shoots the targets they can see (on a as and when visible basis) normally from down range to up range and as they make the last transition to what appears to be the next target in the array they hear "STOP" and their day is done. I have heard both interpretations of the rule from reputable sources and for the matches I set up I have chosen to follow the stricter version. I don't think I give anything up in making good, challenging, fun stages other than a few extra minutes of setup.

[Graham Smith]

The target on the left in the picture is probably the smallest problem I see with not following the rule as I interpret it, in this example it is very easy for the shooter (new or experienced) to know where they are in relation to the target and the 180, <snip>

And the problem that's created with that interpretation is that the onus is then on the stage designer to determine what a "reasonable person" should or should not be aware of. A rule should not depend on that. Either the example I posted is illegal or it's not. And if it's not then no such rule exists.

[bikerburgess]

The target on the left in the picture is probably the smallest problem I see with not following the rule as I interpret it, in this example it is very easy for the shooter (new or experienced) to know where they are in relation to the target and the 180, <snip>

And the problem that's created with that interpretation is that the onus is then on the stage designer to determine what a "reasonable person" should or should not be aware of. A rule should not depend on that. Either the example I posted is illegal or it's not. And if it's not then no such rule exists.

I agree,

I guess I worded my argument poorly, My interpretation is the example you show is illegal, I believe targets as drawn have made it into higher level matches because it doesn't seam as wrong as in my extreme example, so it doesn't get thought about, and everyone is human.

Mike

[Graham Smith]

My interpretation is the example you show is illegal, I believe targets as drawn have made it into higher level matches because it doesn't seam as wrong as in my extreme example, so it doesn't get thought about, and everyone is human.

Whereas I don't think that T1 is illegal - but we (my club) protect against it anyway (like with T2). I don't have as much expertise as others but there seem to be a goodly number of experienced people here who split down the middle on this. It all comes down to interpretation of the rule(s) and that's never a good thing.

[bikerburgess]

Agreed

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[bikerburgess]

I can see how the rule as written could mean either

If your bay doesn't have a side berm don't put targets where they could be shot in the direction of the non existent backstop, because that would a unsafe angle of fire.

or

don't put targets where the above applies and/or don't put a target where it can be engaged beyond the 180 because that would also be a unsafe angle of fire.

it would be nice to know what the definitive answer is.

[BillD]

If we are gonna play by "big boy" rules, does that mean we will also have a hot range at our matches? After all, we are all big boys, right?

[Graham Smith]

<snip>and/or don't put a target where it can be engaged beyond the 180 because that would also be a unsafe angle of fire.

it would be nice to know what the definitive answer is.

You have it surrounded. IF the rule is intended to mean you have to protect the targets beyond the 180 then we are getting into some really shaky ground.

In this example, T1 is in a position where the shooter would have to be really careful not to go past the 180 when shooting it, but T2 is far enough past the shooting position to be "safe". BUT, once past the wall, the shooter can easily turn and engage both and break the 180 even though it's a clear violation. Do I have to protect against them doing that???

[bikerburgess]

<snip>and/or don't put a target where it can be engaged beyond the 180 because that would also be a unsafe angle of fire.

it would be nice to know what the definitive answer is.

You have it surrounded. IF the rule is intended to mean you have to protect the targets beyond the 180 then we are getting into some really shaky ground.

Protection2.JPG

In this example, T1 is in a position where the shooter would have to be really careful not to go past the 180 when shooting it, but T2 is far enough past the shooting position to be "safe". BUT, once past the wall, the shooter can easily turn and engage both and break the 180 even though it's a clear violation. Do I have to protect against them doing that???

I would say yes, and I do just that.

T2 for instance if the target is relatively close to the shooting area it is easy to turn it so the face it is not visible from the down range location if it is farther away rotating it probably won't work so I would add a stack of barrels to hide it.

T1 has more problems it appears the intent there would be to have the shooter really only use the left(up range ) side of the port to legally engage the target, if that is what the stage design calls for use props to get them there not the threat of a DQ. this is also easy to fix, move the target or hard cover the up-range half of the target and cover half the port, add some barrels ect. just make it so if they shoot the target and hit the scoring face from the location provided they are not breaking the the rules.

[Poppa Bear]

I would move T1 down range a bit so that it matches T2's location. I would rule T2 as well within the rules. The A zone is gone when you get to the 180 so most shooters would have already slammed on the brakes in order to back up if they had failed to engage it.