Props being too heavy/akward

[HoMiE]

Having worked on this stage, I would say that I heard more talk of how cool it was and when would someone ever get a chance to use the real deal. There was only 3 shooters who were really vocal about it, to the ROs working the stage anyways. I am sure there were probably more who didn't agree but didn't say anything or brought it up to the MD at later point. But 3 out of 300+, that's 1% complaint or unstatisfied shooters. I think you will get some kind of complaining at any big match for what ever the reason. I liked whoever said, "This is a physical sport, if you want to stand and shoot, there's always Bullseye."

Edited July 14, 2008 by HoMiE

[JThompson]

Since the prop was made by the sponsor, I think ya need to man up on this one or take the 2 and move on. We need all the sponsors we can get and alienating them is counter productive to growing our sport. With all the monkey shines I've seen for no good reason... at least this one was putting up some cash.

[Chuck Anderson]

It's an Area Match. It should present a challenge.

As far as the physical aspects of USPSA. It's a physical sport. There's running, and jumping, and it's not easy getting my big butt moving, or stopped. I don't particularly like Cooper Tunnels or low ports because of my size. I've never once complained about them though. It's part of the game. With this stage you had the option. If you wanted to play with the ram, you could. If you didn't want to it might cost you a complete second on the stage. But you'd probably also shoot better.

I think the discussion is that is should represent a shooting challenge.

1.1.8 Scenarios and Stage Props — The use of scenarios and reasonable stage props is encouraged. Care must be exercised, however, to avoid unrealistic non-shooting requirements which detract from the shooting challenge and/or may expose competitors to potentially unsafe conditions.

I can see both sides of this. And, I like distractions from the shooting (funky props and scenarios). After reading the feedback, however, I don't think I'd put this particular prop into a (normal) USPSA match...hindsight being 20/20.

It was a neat idea. Pretty cool. But, being new/different (big thing), and being heavy, and it needing to be "man-handled"...it was certain to cause controversy.

I have always wanted to see a more robust/physical match. Maybe something with special billing as being physical?

I disagree with you on this one. You're hearing a bunch of complaining, but it's all from people who weren't there. I haven't seen anyone on this thread that actually picked the thing up complain. Kevin is the closest, and I don't think he's quite there yet. If a prop is light enough that a 12 year old kid who weighs 80 pounds can use it, I don't really know how much more watered down you want to go.

The point of the prop wasn't to just knock the door down. It was to get the shooter amped up before shooting the stage. Add a little bit of stress. In my mind that is as much a shooting challenge as putting a brick in a mailbox, or pulling your gun out of a BBQ.

I doubt we'll be using this for another USPSA match, only becuase my agency purchased the door to use for our own training. It will most likely be making an appearance in two matches next year. An NRA LE 3Gun and a charity match that is geared in part towards LE.

[shred]

I think we can all agree that there exist props that are too heavy or too awkward and those should be avoided. Where to draw the line is the question. the >5' 76-year old Open-shooting Italian grandma I know loves to try different props, but if they get too unreasonable.. watch out..

IMO 'adding stress' is occasionally used to justify things that really are excess monkey motions and prop tossing. I have no judgement about this particular stage since I wasn't there.

[Al Capizzo]

I wasn't there either, but it sounds like using the prop vs. the procedural was pretty evenly balanced. So I'm not sure this should be an issue in this case. So much of this sort of thing is really a judgement about "to heavy, to far, to low, to high, etc". Have you seen the video's of the European Extreme match Henning just shot? I can imagine the crying some of the shooters I know would be doing with those kind of field courses. But were they good or bad stages? It keeps the game interesting for stage designers as well as shooters.

[Stuck in C]

I'm 50+, overweight and have little upperbody strength. I thought the door breach stage was a hoot, and it turned out to be one of my favorite stages of Area 1. I busted through on the second hit. I saw a number of petite women bust open the door, and a lot of them were laughing at the end of the stage. It may come down to how competitive you are: if the choice is a time penalty to take several hits at the door or 2 procedurals and you want to win, then I can see why you might be angry over the stage. If you're like me and are doing this mostly for fun then this kind of stage is great. I watched 2 1/2 squads on this stage and I've never heard so much cheering on a stage: everytime someone physically challenged attempted the door the gallery cheered and clapped...

[G-ManBart]

It's an Area Match. It should present a challenge.

As far as the physical aspects of USPSA. It's a physical sport. There's running, and jumping, and it's not easy getting my big butt moving, or stopped. I don't particularly like Cooper Tunnels or low ports because of my size. I've never once complained about them though. It's part of the game. With this stage you had the option. If you wanted to play with the ram, you could. If you didn't want to it might cost you a complete second on the stage. But you'd probably also shoot better.

I think the discussion is that is should represent a shooting challenge.

1.1.8 Scenarios and Stage Props — The use of scenarios and reasonable stage props is encouraged. Care must be exercised, however, to avoid unrealistic non-shooting requirements which detract from the shooting challenge and/or may expose competitors to potentially unsafe conditions.

I can see both sides of this. And, I like distractions from the shooting (funky props and scenarios). After reading the feedback, however, I don't think I'd put this particular prop into a (normal) USPSA match...hindsight being 20/20.

It was a neat idea. Pretty cool. But, being new/different (big thing), and being heavy, and it needing to be "man-handled"...it was certain to cause controversy.

I have always wanted to see a more robust/physical match. Maybe something with special billing as being physical?

I disagree with you on this one. You're hearing a bunch of complaining, but it's all from people who weren't there. I haven't seen anyone on this thread that actually picked the thing up complain. Kevin is the closest, and I don't think he's quite there yet. If a prop is light enough that a 12 year old kid who weighs 80 pounds can use it, I don't really know how much more watered down you want to go.

The point of the prop wasn't to just knock the door down. It was to get the shooter amped up before shooting the stage. Add a little bit of stress. In my mind that is as much a shooting challenge as putting a brick in a mailbox, or pulling your gun out of a BBQ.

I doubt we'll be using this for another USPSA match, only becuase my agency purchased the door to use for our own training. It will most likely be making an appearance in two matches next year. An NRA LE 3Gun and a charity match that is geared in part towards LE.

Based on Konkapot's comments it sounds like he was there...fellow LE, good sized guy who's in shape and he said he thought it was a bit too heavy...that's not exactly complaining, but it does say something.

I wasn't at the match, but I have a similar breaching ram in my office...not sure if it's exactly 42lbs (it's in that ballpark), but I wouldn't think of using it as a prop just based on the weight. It's a VERY cool idea, and could be fun, but I'd still worry about someone getting hurt.

[JKSNIPER]

I have to agree with GMANBART here 100% and a well said arguement GMAN!

I have almost 19 years with my departments tactical team and probably have breached more doors than anyone else here.

At one point in my career it seemed like I lived at work because we were in the "Crack days" and serving an average of over 350-400 warrants a year for multiple years.

I am 5-10 and 200 pounds and I am NOT the "breacher" or as we call him the "Ram Man" for our no-knock search warrants.

Theres a reason God made all those humungous SWAT cops entry monkeys...to swing the ram!!!

Guys that have a bad back or some other physical disability should NOT have to take a penalty because they can't swing a ram. I forget who said it but they were correct in reminding everyone that it is not a SWAT tryout but a civilian USPSA match.

Also consider that we have had guys break their hands and wrists ramming doors.

One guy swung the ram with more force than it turned out he needed and his wrist hit the door jamb with enough force to fracture it.

A slight person might overswing the ram trying to put their max effort into it and wind up injuring themselves.

IMHO a modification of this as suggested by GMAN would be ideal.

Make the ram much lighter or offer an alternative that takes about the same amount of time but no penalty to those choosing to not swing the ram.

JK

[HoMiE]

That breaching door with 3-pins in it, I would agree that maybey only 6', 240lb+ swat operators could get through on the first try. But the door only had 1 of the lightest pins they make for it. It was not that hard, it all came down to technique. Hit the strike plate, hit it square, and follow through. You didn't even have to swing the ram if you were not strong enough to. I saw a couple of smaller shooters just pick up ram, hold it (let it hang) at waist level and run at door Happy Gilmore style. Guess what? They broke through the door on first try. Momentum is your friend.

Nobody got hurt during that stage and no one dropped the ram on their toes/feet. Although there may have been a few bruised egos when some of the "big guys" had to hit it more than once. I'm not saying any names.

[Whitefish]

It's an Area Match. It should present a challenge.

As far as the physical aspects of USPSA. It's a physical sport. There's running, and jumping, and it's not easy getting my big butt moving, or stopped. I don't particularly like Cooper Tunnels or low ports because of my size. I've never once complained about them though. It's part of the game. With this stage you had the option. If you wanted to play with the ram, you could. If you didn't want to it might cost you a complete second on the stage. But you'd probably also shoot better.

I think the discussion is that is should represent a shooting challenge.

1.1.8 Scenarios and Stage Props — The use of scenarios and reasonable stage props is encouraged. Care must be exercised, however, to avoid unrealistic non-shooting requirements which detract from the shooting challenge and/or may expose competitors to potentially unsafe conditions.

I can see both sides of this. And, I like distractions from the shooting (funky props and scenarios). After reading the feedback, however, I don't think I'd put this particular prop into a (normal) USPSA match...hindsight being 20/20.

It was a neat idea. Pretty cool. But, being new/different (big thing), and being heavy, and it needing to be "man-handled"...it was certain to cause controversy.

I have always wanted to see a more robust/physical match. Maybe something with special billing as being physical?

I disagree with you on this one. You're hearing a bunch of complaining, but it's all from people who weren't there. I haven't seen anyone on this thread that actually picked the thing up complain. Kevin is the closest, and I don't think he's quite there yet. If a prop is light enough that a 12 year old kid who weighs 80 pounds can use it, I don't really know how much more watered down you want to go.

The point of the prop wasn't to just knock the door down. It was to get the shooter amped up before shooting the stage. Add a little bit of stress. In my mind that is as much a shooting challenge as putting a brick in a mailbox, or pulling your gun out of a BBQ.

I doubt we'll be using this for another USPSA match, only becuase my agency purchased the door to use for our own training. It will most likely be making an appearance in two matches next year. An NRA LE 3Gun and a charity match that is geared in part towards LE.

I wanted to remain on lurker mode on this, but it seems someone who was actually there and took the twenty penalty points ought to weigh in. I watched several squads shoot the stage on Friday and actually stayed late Friday evening to test the ram and the correct method of striking the door. It was not a matter of upper body strength for me, but a matter of my 5' 1" stature that was the deciding factor. I determined that I could not hit the striker plate at the correct level of the middle pin without pulling the ram up to my rib cage and running at the door, a sure way to get hurt if the pin doesn't break. Lower hits on the striker panel invariably caused a two or three try shot at the door and that's exactly what happened when I practiced the method suggested by one of the stage RO's - too low a hit to be effective. I spent a lot of time watching others, learning, and swinging the ram on Friday evening before my squad with two upper echelon female shooters actually ran the stage on Saturday. One was actually asked previously by the RO's to try it out and could not get through with three tries, so both elected to run around and take the penalty, as did I.

As for being vocal, I don't know how much more vocal you wanted two other top female shooters on another squad to be. Both tried to break through the door and both failed, thus being penalized both the time spent and the penalty points - hardly fair. One fell and injured herself running around after trying to break through the door. I saw one of the two "vocalizing" to the RM after she shot the stage and I know the other had a rather animated discussion with Chuck afterward because she saw me on Saturday and told me what was said.

I know how much work and thought went into the match and it was much appreciated. We knew that and were reluctant to say much to those who were putting in the work in the unusual heat and severe conditions. All who put the many hours in should be commended (especially Chuck), but I do not believe this stage, as designed, added to the match and only served to cause controversy. There are many ways to "get into a shooter's head" that don't involve a heavy ram and door. One would think that 40+ yard poppers and fifty yard standards would be entirely sufficient for that purpose (and they were).

[konkapot]

Chuck-It was a great match, and it was a great stage. This is just a discussion...NOT a personal attack, or lack of appreciation for the hard work that goes into a match.

Homie-I'm quoting you here "It was not that hard at all, it ALL (emphasis added) came down to technique." If it was ALL about breaching tool technique...............I dunno, I've checked a couple USPSA rulebooks and I don't see anything about breaching tool technique.

Homie-Quoting you again-"Nobody got hurt"-Well, that's a relief, but hardly a criteria for whether a particular prop belongs at an Area match.

There have been a couple postings about "manning up." That's totally unsat. Just because someone disagrees with you on someting doesn't justify the retort of "man up." I know that this is the internet, and Internet Bravery is all the rage now, but a discussion about a prop should not involve calling out. The discussion is about the appropriateness of the prop....not who's got more Internet Manliness.

Kimel heard some non-positive comments about the ram stage from shooters who had just shot it.

Just because I/a 14 yr old junior/a 88 yr old grandma with no arms or legs/a blind man who walked to school barefoot in the snow cracked that pin successfully has no relevance as to the academic discussion of whether a battering ram was an appropriate prop for an Area match.

This thread is an example of why this forum is going downhill. A d-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-o-n can involve disagreements and differences of opinion. Falling back on "be tougher" or "man up" or even (actually posted in a different thread) "I'll compare my shooting resume to yours anyday" is pathetic. Grown men can agree to disagree.

Again Chuck...GREAT MATCH...and this from a guy who shot like hammered crap.

FY42385

[HoMiE]

There is nothing in the rule book that will tell you how to use a certain 'prop'. That is why I choose to shoot in this sport. There are some physical aspects to it, barriers and obstacles are part of the game.

I already brought up the question, how heavy is too heavy but everyone seems to add their take of whether or not this prop was approiate for an Area match which was not the original topic posted.

I will end with this, You can please some of the people, some of the time, but you can't please all of the people, all of the time. Whoever tries to please everybody pleases nobody.

[Cy Soto]

Since you ask about what weight would be "appropriate", I would have to agree with what G-ManBart suggested up in post No. 6... Maybe a "reduced" weight battering ram such as a 15lb ram or a small sledge hammer (~8lb to 12lb) would continue to add fun to the game and it would still be be challenging without offering unfair advantage to anyone based on their size and not their shooting ability. But like Flex mentioned earlier: hindsight is 20/20. Most people agreed that with or without battery ram, the match was still a fun and challenging one. Let us just learn from this debate and take it into consideration for future matches.

Thank you all that took the time to add your input!

[JThompson]

Chuck-It was a great match, and it was a great stage. This is just a discussion...NOT a personal attack, or lack of appreciation for the hard work that goes into a match.

Homie-I'm quoting you here "It was not that hard at all, it ALL (emphasis added) came down to technique." If it was ALL about breaching tool technique...............I dunno, I've checked a couple USPSA rulebooks and I don't see anything about breaching tool technique.

Homie-Quoting you again-"Nobody got hurt"-Well, that's a relief, but hardly a criteria for whether a particular prop belongs at an Area match.

There have been a couple postings about "manning up." That's totally unsat. Just because someone disagrees with you on someting doesn't justify the retort of "man up." I know that this is the internet, and Internet Bravery is all the rage now, but a discussion about a prop should not involve calling out. The discussion is about the appropriateness of the prop....not who's got more Internet Manliness.

Kimel heard some non-positive comments about the ram stage from shooters who had just shot it.

Just because I/a 14 yr old junior/a 88 yr old grandma with no arms or legs/a blind man who walked to school barefoot in the snow cracked that pin successfully has no relevance as to the academic discussion of whether a battering ram was an appropriate prop for an Area match.

This thread is an example of why this forum is going downhill. A d-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-o-n can involve disagreements and differences of opinion. Falling back on "be tougher" or "man up" or even (actually posted in a different thread) "I'll compare my shooting resume to yours anyday" is pathetic. Grown men can agree to disagree.

Again Chuck...GREAT MATCH...and this from a guy who shot like hammered crap.

FY42385

Nobody was calling anyone out here... you are reading to much into the comment. What I said was we can use all the sponsors we can get. If that means a stage is a little tuff then so be it. Since you can pull a couple procedurals and not lose all that much time on a HHF stage... I say either man up or run around it and take the penalty.

As to the "internet bravery" that's more a "call out" than my opinion... we can agree to disagree here without you saying crap about my character because my opinion differs from yours on an internet forum. I would say the same if we were at the range.

Edited July 15, 2008 by JThompson

[Dustdevil21]

I shot the Match and thought the door was a fun change! I was a little skeptical though when I stepped up after watching a 230lb 6'4" squad mate have to hit it twice. I stepped up, whacked it once and in I went (I'm 5'10" and 185). It all depended on how square you hit it. The ram was little heavy but anything lighter with pins they were using and I don't think you would have been able to get through it in one swing anways.

I am fairly new to the sport, and the movement and props is what I enjoy. I don't like the stationary single target shooting. I would rather keep going through that door than the stage with the two activated swingers starting at the table with the hat in your hands.

Should the ram and door have been used? Maybe not, but I sure enjoyed it, made for an interesting match. But what about those stages shooters game, and will intentionally take the procedurals knowing they can make it up with a low time?

[davidwiz]

Since the prop was made by the sponsor, I think ya need to man up on this one or take the 2 and move on. We need all the sponsors we can get and alienating them is counter productive to growing our sport. With all the monkey shines I've seen for no good reason... at least this one was putting up some cash.

Sponsors don't run USPSA, the shooters do. Sponsors shouldn't be able to dictate how and when a prop on a stage is used. While it is nice to have companies sponsor stages and matches, they are not necessary for USPSA to thrive.

[flyingchange]

As one of the shooters who bounced off the door, I'll chime in with my opinion. I think the prop as used was inappropriate for this match. I am pretty strong for a girl and I had to hit it twice to get through. And yeah, I was rattled enough by it that I ended up with two no-shoots and a miss anyway.... between that and the time it took me to get the door open, I might have been better off just going around. I believe that most of the lady shooters opted to go around. Enough shooters and ROs were concerned about the fact that I was going to try it that I got ALL KINDS of ideas on what the best "technique" was for hitting the door.... and apparently I still didn't do it right. I think we could have still used the prop, but with something that would break easier than those plastic stakes. Maybe keep the stakes on hand for those who want to prove that they can do it.

[TDean]

I thought it was too heavy of a prop as well (6ft/250lb, blue-green eyes, balding).

I got through on the first swing, but as I was going thru, I ricocheted off the heavy door (most doors will get out of my way) and into the door frame. My arm was cut and swelled-up pretty good. Thankfully I didn't drop the damn ram on my foot.

It was fun because now I get to say I've breached a door....but I'd rather not see it again unless it was modified with a lighter ram and a #2 pencil as a shear-dowel.

[JThompson]

I thought it was too heavy of a prop as well (6ft/250lb, blue-green eyes, balding).

I got through on the first swing, but as I was going thru, I ricocheted off the heavy door (most doors will get out of my way) and into the door frame. My arm was cut and swelled-up pretty good. Thankfully I didn't drop the damn ram on my foot.

It was fun because now I get to say I've breached a door....but I'd rather not see it again unless it was modified with a lighter ram and a #2 pencil as a shear-dowel.

Thanks for your input... I'm surprised nobody challenged the stage. It does seem to be at odds with 1.1.2. This stage would certainly seem to be a disadvantage to small guys or woman. I think it goes past the high and low port analogy for big or small people too. I have mixed feelings on something like this.

It was said that a sponsor should not determine the validity of a prop. I would have to agree with that, I think they could have kept most people happy had they lightened the ram and the amount of pressure it took to break the pin. I guess it comes back to what is reasonable for a typical healthy male or female shooter. At least some of the people had a tuff time with the prop and it probably should have been looked at a little harder by the RM (no offense here... hindsight is alway easy) I think you take this going forward and adjust it so there is less controversy in the future. There will always be people that aren't happy about a stage or prop, but this one leans toward an unfair advantage to big guy and or someone with proper training.

[Whitefish]

I thought it was too heavy of a prop as well (6ft/250lb, blue-green eyes, balding).

I got through on the first swing, but as I was going thru, I ricocheted off the heavy door (most doors will get out of my way) and into the door frame. My arm was cut and swelled-up pretty good. Thankfully I didn't drop the damn ram on my foot.

It was fun because now I get to say I've breached a door....but I'd rather not see it again unless it was modified with a lighter ram and a #2 pencil as a shear-dowel.

Thanks for your input... I'm surprised nobody challenged the stage. It does seem to be at odds with 1.1.2. This stage would certainly seem to be a disadvantage to small guys or woman. I think it goes past the high and low port analogy for big or small people too. I have mixed feelings on something like this.

It was said that a sponsor should not determine the validity of a prop. I would have to agree with that, I think they could have kept most people happy had they lightened the ram and the amount of pressure it took to break the pin. I guess it comes back to what is reasonable for a typical healthy male or female shooter. At least some of the people had a tuff time with the prop and it probably should have been looked at a little harder by the RM (no offense here... hindsight is alway easy) I think you take this going forward and adjust it so there is less controversy in the future. There will always be people that aren't happy about a stage or prop, but this one leans toward an unfair advantage to big guy and or someone with proper training.

Somewhere along the line I was informed that Amidon at NROI signed off on the stages because it was an Area and Level II match. I am left to wonder though, if he knew how heavy the ram actually was or just approved it conceptually. As for a challenge, I was told at the match on Saturday that a group of shooters was going to challenge the stage, but as we now know, that did not happen.

[Vlad]

We've had door rams before in our matches, both real ones and fake light ones. The fake light ones work just fine and I think they are a much better option.

However, this is not a criticize of the stage designers. I too would prefer matches with a bit more challenging physical options in them, but I do understand that not everyone would or could even shoot them. As a match director I want all the shooters to have fun. As a stage designer I learned that hardway that my cool props are not always cool, recently I put up stage that involved carrying a guitar (with the sling if you so chose) for the course of fire. I should have made that prop half its size, not matter how cool and real life it was.

[Chuck Anderson]

The stage was approved by Amidon and NROI as a Level III match. The weight of the door/ram was not listed on the stage description. We had a lot of conversations with the MD, RM, AD and other match staff as to what to do with the door. There was also a thread here on the forum months ago I started about how to assess penalties, which is where we came up with the two procedurals. There was a heck of a lot of thought put into this before we did it.

As far as the shooter that chewed me out at that match, I don't really care. To be perfectly honest, I lost a ton of respect for her over this. She and a couple other ladies decided before they even got there that it was an impossible task. I know that they tried to convince several other shooters, including a junior, that it couldn't be done and to just bypass it. Then instead of arbitrating the stage they just started a rumor that it was going to get thrown out. It might have if they had arbitrated it. Although I doubt it.

Gary, I know you say you tried the ram and decided there was no way you could do it. That is fine and that is your decision. I know Tyler Roberts did just fine and he is smaller than you in height and weight. We look at every stage in the section before a match and Fish proof it. Every time we say, can Gary see through this port etc. I looked at that stage and Tyler proofed it. I figured if he could do it we were good. He was the smallest person registered in the match by far.

The reason that we didn't use a smaller ram is because there is no way to know what would happen with a smaller ram. The door is designed and tested by the company. The ram is designed and tested by the company. If I throw a sledgehammer out there, I don't know how it will last or what effect it will have on the door. As far as using pencils or dowels, same thing. I'm not going to hit the door 300 times to make sure that it opens consistently with dowels, or pencils or whatever. The pins were designed to work in the door and were a consistent challenge for everyone.

Clearly there were people who didn't like the door. We won't use it again for an Area match or even a USPSA match. I give.

[Merlin Orr]

No disrespect to any poster or their opinions.

The shooters had a viable and workable option to doing the breach. I have done the breach thing in 4 or 5 matches. Made it through every time as did every other shooter in the matches. No one died ..or even cried although one shooter did swell up so big he dropped/popped off his gun belt and DQ'ed himself on the spot.

On the other hand breaching a door has zero to do with shooting. Neither does running or bending over or caring a chicken or dropping a package in a bin or leaning around stuff or ..or..or... But IMO it adds spice and therefore adds interest to a match.... If we want to make it level on the playing field just do it like handicapping horses in the races. Tie varying amounts of weight to the hod rods to slow them down to where

EVERY SHOOTER IS FORCED TO CATER TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR....

Look - think and find a workable solution to whatever problem the stage designer puts in your way.

[bgary]

probably should have been looked at a little harder by the RM

Oh, crap! Now you've done it!

The RM was tomdagadget. If he'd had *his* way, the door would have had 3 pins (instead of 1), there would have been barbed-wire and flames, and he probably would have tried to figure out how to make you go prone in the gravel after you were bleeding from all that.

B

[JThompson]

probably should have been looked at a little harder by the RM

Oh, crap! Now you've done it!

The RM was tomdagadget. If he'd had *his* way, the door would have had 3 pins (instead of 1), there would have been barbed-wire and flames, and he probably would have tried to figure out how to make you go prone in the gravel after you were bleeding from all that.

B

What.... no moat with Greek fire?