38supPat Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Ok but why is it ok for a shot to strike within 3m if fired intentionaly, but not otherwise...either its safe to have a bullet land that close or its not...which is it? Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Hi Pat, A discharge under 3 metres is generally considered unsafe, whether it is intentional or otherwise. This is another one of the "lines" we necessarily draw in IPSC to define safe or unsafe behaviour, just like the commonly called "180 degree rule" (it's actually a 90 degree rule!). However if a target is placed at, say, 2 metres, the competitor has no choice but to engage it at that distance. Hence the issue of target placement comes back to course design, which has a significant bearing on whether or not a course of fire is safe. This is why we recommend targets be placed in such a way that they cannot be engaged by a competitor closer than 3 metres. I hope this answers your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Yup, all I'm saying is that if we can have an actual rule outlining distance to steel, why don't we have one for paper, why do we only 'recommend' that they be placed farther than 3m. Cuz' I'll tell you, if its not written in the rule book as "Do not......' then course designers will Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Pat, Your argument makes sense and you've convinced me. I will make a recommendation to address this issue at the next IPSC Assembly in South Africa this year. Thanks for your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 DAMN Pat! More NEW rules! I HATE new rules! I do not mind when we clarify rules butt I wish we could leave the rule book AS IS! P.S. I agree with you too..... I was hopping nobody else would enough to carry it further though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 thread drift deleted (Edited by Ron Ankeny at 3:49 pm on Feb. 27, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Hi guys, How does the following proposal sound?: "2.1.8.4. Paper targets shall not be placed so that a competitor engaging them can fire a shot which may strike the ground within 3 metres." I think this successfully deals with the issues raised by Pat but still allows for paper targets to be placed "up close 'n' personal" at, say, shoulder or eye level *provided* the shots will not strike the ground within 3 metres. What say the assembled masses ? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Vince, After my last post I did some thinking about it and was going to suggest the same thing. What about targets low and behind a wall where a shooter has to reach over the wall? I know shorter shooters hate this type of array but I like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Hi John, I have no problem with targets where you need to lean over a wall to engage them except when the wall has not been braced with industrial strength girders ! On the other hand, those [deleted]ing low "mouse hole" ports should be banished from IPSC because they are grossly unfair to those of us who are horizontally challenged (British translation: Fat Bastards!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Sorry John, I think I missed your point the first time around. Yes, if my proposed rule wording was adopted, targets set low behind a wall would no longer be permissable in IPSC unless they were placed more than 3 metres away from the wall. Anybody like to propose a revised wording ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 I guess I'd ask... is there a specific/known safety issue that this is going to address? Or are we going to make a rule about something because "people don't like it"? If the former, I'd suggest another approach. Require that, if targets are placed in such a way that a shot on target will hit the ground within three meters of the shooter, that the targets *must* be backed up with sandbags, or straw bales, or some other sort of bullet-trapping substance to prevent skip or whatever. If the latter... I'd suggest we don't need a new rule. Course designers already have the ability to choose not to set up stages in that way. Shooters already have the ability to choose not to go to matches that have stages they don't like. Etc. My $.02 Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 YEA!!! I like Bruce's $.02 the best!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Ditto to what Bruce said... course design is difficult enough without adding more rules.... I can't remember a match where I had to engage paper targets within 3 meters that I felt was unsafe (besides getting a little muddy from dirt flying up!) - I think the 3 meter rule is designed more to gauge which ADs are potential safety hazards rather than "safe downrange". Could you imagine ROing a freestyle field course with a 3 meter rule for paper targets in effect? ARRGGHH! What a nightmare! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 bye bye thread drift :-) (Edited by Ron Ankeny at 3:51 pm on Feb. 27, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted February 27, 2002 Author Share Posted February 27, 2002 I locked it, but then changed my mind as it's too much work to copy all the unrelevant posts to a new thread. I wouldn't mind if someone started a new one :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 I think it should be simple NO bullets are allowed to strike within 3m by accident or intent...regardless of walls (most plywood is not bulletproof to the best of my knowledge) Respectfully...If a course designer feels restricted ot too limited by not being able to place targets right at the shooters feet, I suggest they take up lawn bowling or someother pastime, something that requires no thought or concern about safety. I have seen people shot at matches, so you'll have to excuse me if I tend to lean towards safety. Pat (Edited by Pat Harrison at 8:35 pm on Feb. 28, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titandriver Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Pat --- how many people have you seen shot at matches? Care to share the details? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Two, one, in the leg, while I was standing about four feet away, and one I saw a short while after it happened, that one was into his own head. The leg was due to holstering a 1911 with a trigger shoe installed (nobody noticed it prior to the self-ventilation) and a faulty safety just after the load and make ready. Holster was a Safariland 008 (not the fault of the holster) Gun discharged as it was being holstered, safety was loose and slipped off safe and the trigger shoe caught on the trigger block of the holster. .45 lswc entered the top of the thigh, exited just above the knee, re-entered the top of the calf, exited just below the calf muscle, entered the top of the right foot and lodged in the sole of the boot. Surprisingly little damage, mostly superficial. Head shot was during a reload when a gun that was less than perfect (see home gunsmithing) discharged while performing a reload (may or may not have doubled) likely caused by finger on trigger, but sear engagement was blamed if I recall. Bullet entered just below the jaw line and lodged just below the eye (.40 sw) again. ugly wound but little serious damage, mostly reconstructive surgery needed to put face back together.Both were at IPSC matches. And both point to my other idea for rules needed, we should have a tech station prior to commencement of a match (obviously tough at smaller club matches) where the shooters must have their equipment checked to ensure it meets safety, and division rules. They do this at just about every other sport that requires technical equipment eg. auto racing Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titandriver Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Thanks for the reply, I wasn't certain if you were talking about being hit by fragments or actually getting shot. The only person I've ever known that shot themself was Andy Hollars' wife, Sarah, back around '90 if I recall correctly. Pretty much a replay of your first example. Kinda scary out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Hi Pat, While all accidents are serious, the two instances you recounted could not have been prevented by ensuring paper targets are placed further than 3 metres from the competitor, which is the subject of this discussion. DVC, Vince Pinto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Oh I know, that was not an attempt to use them to justify that position. Only that I have seen people put holes in themselves, and basically that s*** can happen, so why temp fate by putting targets in unfavorable positions. But moreso that I have seen injuries and don't want to see anymore, so I may tend to be more cautious. I don't see how limiting target placement is all that big of a deal other than it keeps the bullets away from mobility limbs and fixes a contradictory rule. Pat (Edited by Pat Harrison at 2:38 pm on Mar. 1, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 ...but it sure does get you thinking about safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Pat - What part of the country are you in? And, how long ago did these happen? These are things that (formally or informally) USPSA ought to hear about, when they happen, and if they were recent (last couple of years) I don't recall hearing about 'em. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Never mind.... just looked at your profile, and it says right there where you're from, and answered the rest of my question... bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 I deleted my previous posts because I was (still am) kind of pissed off. I tend to get that way. I am with Pat all the way on this one. I am dismayed, suprised and somewhat discouraged by the thought that most shooters honestly believe that it is safe to discharge a firearm into the ground at ranges closer than 3 meters. You guys must all shoot on ranges made of peat moss and your ground must never freeze. I only have first hand experience of two injuries caused by discharging a handgun at such close distances, neither of which happened at a sanctioned match. I personally shot (in practice) a target from over a wall that was at about 45 degrees to the ground and perhaps 3-4 yards distant. My bullet experienced jacket/core separation and a piece of the jacket about 3/8 inches long and 1/4 inch wide came back, struck me right between the eyes, hit my thick skull and turned, then traveled under the skin and lodged next to my skull. It knocked me on my ass and filled my eyes with blood almost instantly. It hurt like hell. The second instance happened to a friend of mine. He walked up to an injured deer and shot it in the head with a .357 magnum revolver. A subtantial piece of the jacket came back and hit him in the crotch and went deep enough to nick his femoral artery. He was lucky that he didn't bleed to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts