Michael Bane, "The Coolest Gun Blogster Ever", has a new project in the offing: Downrange TV.
He refers to it as "just a placeholder" so far, but I'm thinking it will revolutionize gun-blogging because it will be (ta daaa!) a Video Blog!
Okay, I'm just supposin' here, but judging from the 'placeholder' evidence there will be a lot of quality content available in the future at this website.
I spent a little time at the "Placeholder" website, and one of the more interesting videos was a short interview with Bill Laughridge (Cylinder and Slide) who had built a "Browning 1908" in .45acp caliber. The interview, apparently filmed at the 2007 S.H.O.T. show ( and incidentaly titled The Coolest Gun 1908 Ever" ... get it?) featured Laughridge's Bespoke 1908 Prototype. It's a fine looking pistol, although I would have preferred it without the Grip Safety, and according to Laughridge it took 110 man-hours to produce and is available for the low low price of $8,000. He says he already has an order for 1908C&S#2 (my nomenclature; I have no idea whether it has a real serial number). If you want one, get your order in early.
Getting back to the main story, I'm excited about Bane's new website.
I don't know how he expects to find the time to produce it. He (already besides his television show) produces The Bane Blog as well as the online Shooting Gallery.
Doesn't matter. The only thing the website is missing (besides more videos ... "please sir, I want more!") is a Theme Song.
One of the more interesting words in the English language ... buttocks.
South Carolina Gangbanger (what else?) tries to steal a car from the people riding in it. Bad Guy stuck his gun in the stomach of a man getting into his car in a WalMart parking lot.
The lady passenger opened the glove compartment, pulled out a pistol, and shot the Gangbanger in the buttocks. It took her five shots, but she finally got a D-zone hit. Hit the ass in the ass, so to speak.
Lesson 1: Always escort your lady to the car, open the door for her, help her in. She just might save your ... er ... ass.
Lesson 2: Get some shooting lessons for your lady. Five shots ... come on! SWMBO wouldn't have wasted so much ammunition on a low-value target.
No, this isn't Ronald Ray-Gun (as referenced by Liberal opponents to his Strategic Defense Initiative .. aka Star Wars.)
"The military calls its new weapon an 'active denial system,' but that's an understatement. It's a ray gun that shoots a beam that makes people feel as if they are about to catch fire."
Airman Blaine Pernell, 22, of suburban New Orleans, said he could have used the system during his four tours in Iraq, where he manned watchtowers around a base near Kirkuk. He said Iraqis constantly pulled up and faked car problems so they could scout out U.S. forces.
"All we could do is watch them," he said. But if they had the ray gun, troops "could have dispersed them."
At the Tri County Gun Club (TCGC) match today, I raised a protest against a stage which was designed such that Limited 10, Production and Single Stack Division competitors would clearly find themselves at a disadvantage.
Specifically, two four-target arrays ( scoring: best two hits per target) were presented such that they could only be engaged from a single firing position. That is, this stage required a minimum of 16 rounds to be fired from a signle position.
I protested that this was not an IPSC-legal stage, because it required more than 9 shots to be fired from a single position.
This was a 31-round course of fire, but regardless of the number of rounds required the situation was patently unsupportable by one of the following USPSA rules: 1.2.1General Courses of Fire:
1.2.1.1“Short Courses” must not require more than 9 rounds to complete and no more than 2 shooting locations.
1.2.1.2 “Medium Courses” must not require more than 16 rounds to complete and no more than 3 shooting locations. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.
1.2.1.3 “Long Courses” must not require more than 32 rounds to complete. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.
(Emphasis added)
The match director determined that, while this ruling was generally applicable, the stage design was permissible because it was a Level 1 match and was not required to comply with all USPSA rules.
I suspect he was mistaken in that the most nearly applicable rule ( 1.1.5.1) states:
1.1.5.1 Level I and Level II matches are not required to comply strictly with the freestyle requirements or round count limitation
... but this is clearly not applicable. Rule 1.1.5 states:
1.1.5 Freestyle – IPSC matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions or stances.
During the course of this match, I did video a few competitors as they shot this stage.
The stage design required starting in "Box A", which was downrange and on the left side of the bay. The only targets which were permissible to engage were in the four-target array directly in front of the box "A".
Another array was presented on the right side of the bay, equidistant from the back berm. This array consisted of six steel targets: three Pepper Poppers and three US Poppers. The three targets in the front were forward-falling targets, and the three targets in the rear fell normally to the rear. The targets in the front of the array were aligned with the rear targets, so that they partially or fully obscurred the targets in the rear of the array.
Ten yards Uprange of this array, was "Box B". From this box, the competitor was permitted to engage only the steel-target array.
Box "C" was located 30 yards uprange of "Box B".
Downrange of "Box C", and only one or two yards uprange of "Box B", were two 4-target arrays which could obviously be engaged from "Box C".
The course of fire was established so that the steel-target array downrange of "Box B" could be engaged from either "Box B" at 10 yards, or from "Box C" at 30 yards.
Whatever arrangement the competitor chose to make for the engagement of the steel targets in front of "Box B", eight 2-round targets MUST be engaged from "Box C".
I realize that this description is confusing. I did film two competitors on this stage. One chose to engage the steel targets, as well as the two uprange arrays, from "Box C". The other compettior chose to engage the steel targets from "Box B", and the two uprange arrays from "Box C".
This is a 6mb WMV video, and I apologize for the size of the file download. But it does demonstrate the situation much more clearly than the foregoing description.
-------------------------------
There was another equally controversial stage in this match, which allowed the competitor to engage all targets from a single position. This 18-round course of fire was obviously in violation with the previously cited rule 1.2.1.2:
1.2.1.2 “Medium Courses” must not require more than 16 rounds to complete and no more than 3 shooting locations. Course design and constructionmust not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.
That is, all targets were possible to engage from a single location.
I didn't challenge this stage because the MD, while well-intentioned, was clearly intractible.
You may view a half-dozen ways to engage this stage at:
Note that if there were legal fault-lines on this stage which defined the 'back of the box', the question would have been avoided. Lines painted on a gravel surface were obviously not intended to serve this purpose.
If you can provide a different interpretation to this rule, as it applies to these two stages, I hope you will comment for my personal edification.
Incidently, you can see all of the videos we filmed at this match (there are two more) at:
I don't know how he expects to find the time to produce it. He (already besides his television show) produces The Bane Blog as well as the online Shooting Gallery.
