Common sense in stage design

[Charles Bond]

Charles get off your soap box about how wonderful USPSA runs things, this topic is about MD's and RM's and to some extent Stage designers of multigun and 3 gun matches, being able to handle issues without being handcuffed to a set of rules, and as far as I am aware of all multigun matches operate with a set of rules????????

As for the rules being easy to use, in Norway it took the guy that WROTE the rules about an hour to find the specific rule that denied me a reshoot on a stage. So how easy is it for a layperson to locate what they need.

Flexibility, adaptability, common sense, call it what you like it makes for a much better shooting atmosphere with the participants, and still allows safety.

Every person I've ever seen shoot themselves or anyone else, accidently at a match was during a pistol match. Having a rulebook made up of 100's of pages doesn't make people safer, knowledge and common sense does!!!!!

Jim, I do see your point, but again I was referring to MD's, RM's and stage design being able to greatly reduce occurrences from happening, and at the same time keep competitors happy and wanting to return.

trapr

Trapr:

You need to read my post again. I said the USPSA safety rules work. So do those set out by IDPA. The cowboy rules work well too. But what is needed for any match is a comprehensive set of rules not something draw up on the back of a paper napkin over dinner. The bad result that could take place is obvious.

Since you used the word "handcuffed" I can follow your lead. What we might really be talking about as to stage design amounts to handcuffing MDs and stage designers because a few or should I say a very few competitors desire to come and shoot 3 gun matches with holsters better used for a traditional pistol match. All that is going to do is take the "flexibility" away from the folks that host a match and build stages simply because the a few shooters want to avoid adapting their equipment to what is required for three gun.

No going prone with the pistol on if you have to then get up and continue to another engagement point because of fear someone might lose a firearm? This does not sound at all like freestyle to me or when we utter the words "freestyle" do we only mean that to be about how targets are engaged rather than how stages are designed?

I happen to agree with your statement that "Flexibility, adaptability, common sense, call it what you like it makes for a much better shooting atmosphere with the participants, and still allows safety." The difference in my approach and yours is that I believe that it is the job of the shooter to be flexible and adaptable in how they approach a stage and I believe that common sense by the shooter means that he does not show up at a 3 gun match with his race holster. Safety is everyone's business and it is even the business of those who not are at the match.

[bigbrowndog]

Well put, Jim.

Trapr

[bigbrowndog]

Charles, So by freestyle it would be OK for a shooter to decide on their own to "stage" the other gun somewhere on the COF to avoid a possible mishap????????????? That would definitely be Freestyle, but I do not believe it would be allowed. So your definition of Freestyle really does not exist!!!

A COF should be able to require competitors to perform certain tasks, reloads, limited ammo capacity, etc, how you accomplish those tasks would be considered "freestyle" If complete freestyle is the goal then why do we use faultlines, ports, walls, etc. those limit freestyle!!!!

With "other" matches those requirements can be done.

trapr

[Sterling White]

If complete freestyle is the goal then why do we use faultlines, ports, walls, etc. those limit freestyle!!!!

I disagree, these items establish boundaries. What happens within the boundaries becomes freestyle.

[Charles Bond]

Charles, So by freestyle it would be OK for a shooter to decide on their own to "stage" the other gun somewhere on the COF to avoid a possible mishap????????????? That would definitely be Freestyle, but I do not believe it would be allowed. So your definition of Freestyle really does not exist!!!

A COF should be able to require competitors to perform certain tasks, reloads, limited ammo capacity, etc, how you accomplish those tasks would be considered "freestyle" If complete freestyle is the goal then why do we use faultlines, ports, walls, etc. those limit freestyle!!!!

With "other" matches those requirements can be done.

trapr

You misunderstand. I am saying that we should not by any rule limit the course designer to say by way of example that they can not draw a stage where the shooter goes prone with a shotgun and later have to engage targets with the pistol for fear of losing the gun, the holster or both. Since part of every shooting exercise is managing your equipment in a safe manner, to design stages where that requirement is watered down is exactly the same thing one does when we design and produce stages where the shooters just move from box to box engaging targets on from inside predetermined shooting positons.

Inserting ports, walls, doors, movers, etc in the course of fire is part of the shooting exercise. Allowing the shooter to go about solving that in the manner which the shooter determines is to their advantage is the essence of freestyle. We know that shooters overwhelming desire that sort of freedom. I am certain that our stage designers also desire the freedom to design stages in the same manner and not be limited becasue we have 2% of shooters who are unable or unwilling to manage their equipment properly.