bgary Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Ron -- I am as adamant about safety as you - and, my previous post should NOT be read as an indication that I am cavalier about safety. I posed it as a question: would such a rule (against targets placed in such a way that rounds would not strike the ground within 3 meters) actually solve a problem? In point of fact, where I do most of my shooting, (western Washington) many of the bay floors are soft sand. It is not uncommon to have a stage where there is a low wall, with a couple of targets behind it, either leaning back against a hay bale or backed up by a ditch dug into the sand. We've never had a problem (that I am aware of) with skips or come-backs with this type of thing. On the flip side, there are ranges I've shot at where the back berms are covered with gravel and/or old tires. I have learned to cringe in fear at those places because - even with a well-designed berm, and rounds that go the right directions (straight into the backstop) - there are still enough hard things and angles and shreds of steel belting or whatever in the berm to almost guarantee that stuff will come back. How far away the target is makes no difference - at a level-1 class a couple years back, we set up a sample stage about 20 yards from a berm made up of tires, and five different people got nicked by jacket shards within about 10 minutes... on a bay we'd been using for USPSA stages for years. I'm NOT objecting to safety measures. But, I am making two points. If we make a new rule, we should at least make sure it measurably makes things better than they are now, and second; there's probably not a lot we can do to make the sport *totally* safe as long as we are flinging bits of metal around at high speeds. What we ought to be doing (IMO) is teaching people what to watch out for and how to do things safely, not banning things bit by bit until we are Bullseye. bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Lets see.... we can ban shooting targets closer than 3m... then ban shooting anything thats are not perfectly 90 degrees to a backstop.... keep lowering the power factor.... keep having a resurgence of single stack 1911 shooters..... and most matches never have targets any more beyond 25 yds, much less 50 yds..... yup, it would be Bullseye pretty soon - pretty darn fast Bullseye, but close Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Lol...I think some of this is now out of context. My point is that we have a rule that states its not safe to discharge a round within 3m, unless we are directed to do so. Either it is safe to shoot at our feet or its not. The rule should not allow for interpretation...Eg no bullets may strike within 3m for any reason, and where do you draw the line otherwise. I have gone to matches where the scoring surface of the targets were within 12" of the shooters feet. I have the video somewhere. Oh and I hate it when people say, well we haven't had a problem up til now. I went to a range where they set up an IPSC stage that doglegged to the left down range and they turned the 180 line there to be able to shoot in the small pocket range created as part of the field course...problem was when you go down range, turn left and engage targets on the new 180 line (now creating a 270 degree stage), a miss on the left most target would send a round at the scoring shack (this was a level 3 IPSC match) the match director and designer couldn't see the problem 'cuz nothing had happened yet. As I said before though, this doesn't reall creat a new rule, just clears up a flaw in the old. If you wish and it would be easier, delete the old rule and allow any shot that does not strike the shooter or break the 180 to be a non-DQ offence. If it is safe to shoot near your feet, as they set up at some of the ranges, then we don't need an AD inside 3m rule. All shots are fair. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted March 1, 2002 Share Posted March 1, 2002 Bruce: By no means did I mean to imply that you are not concerned with safety. I know better. What I am upset about is that some folks seem to be willing to just blow Pat off by complaining that we already have enough rules. I suppose the bottom line is pretty simple. Society in general has never been able to protect stupid people from themselves by passing laws and I suppose USPSA is in the same boat. I don't think you could ever come up with a rule book that would prevent poor range design or bring a halt to all idiotic behavior. Not unlike the swing of a pendulum, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, I am an extreme fanatic on safety. On the other hand, some folks seem to be willing to accept about any kind of risk without much thought to their actions. Thank goodness for people like you who manage to maintain a sense of balance and order. If I offended you, I apologize. shooter40: Nah, I said enough already. Besides, I promised Brian I would be civil. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted March 1, 2002 Author Share Posted March 1, 2002 Locked due to TWO drifts! Now you HAVE to start a new thread :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts