The average age of the band is 78 years.
"Hope I die before I get old!"
Hat Tip: Kim Kommando
Thursday, May 03, 2007
My Generation!
A remake of The Who's hit, by "The Zimmers".
The average age of the band is 78 years.
Hat Tip: Kim Kommando
The average age of the band is 78 years.
Hat Tip: Kim Kommando
Trigger Fingers: 1 is good, 2 is not-good
Somebody doesn't know much about guns.
Ian Rankin is not a bad writer. He's very big in the UK, I understand.
Well, they haven't had legal handguns there for ... what, a decade?
In the process, they've become even more out-of-touch with the principles of gun-handling than the American Main-Stream Media.
For those of you who are at a loss when presented with the question "What's Wrong With This Picture", the answer is -- if you need two fingers to pull the trigger, give it up. You won't hit anything anyway.
Oddly enough, this was the cover illustration for Rankin's 1993 book "Witch Hunt", about a female assassin. (This is actually the cover for the 2004 republished edition.)
Ah my, The Brits. I love 'em, but they don't have much of an IPSC program there any more, y'know.
Ian Rankin is not a bad writer. He's very big in the UK, I understand.
Well, they haven't had legal handguns there for ... what, a decade?
In the process, they've become even more out-of-touch with the principles of gun-handling than the American Main-Stream Media.
For those of you who are at a loss when presented with the question "What's Wrong With This Picture", the answer is -- if you need two fingers to pull the trigger, give it up. You won't hit anything anyway.
Oddly enough, this was the cover illustration for Rankin's 1993 book "Witch Hunt", about a female assassin. (This is actually the cover for the 2004 republished edition.)
Ah my, The Brits. I love 'em, but they don't have much of an IPSC program there any more, y'know.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
It's a Whole Lot More Important
The Hobo Brasser sent me this video, and I'm including it here because ... well, the title says it all.
The story line of this ABC Television video is that a Texas man has made it his priority, "300 days a year", to go to the DFW airport every day with as many people he can talk into accompanying him, to meet the plane carrying American military service men and women as they return from active duty in a combat zone.
This video struck an intensely personal note in my heart, because when I returned from VietNam in 1969 the only person present to gladly greet me was my wife. Not that I didn't appreciate her welcome, but I remember thinking about the ticker-tape parades and brass bands of World War II veerans, and wondering whether there was something about my service which was less honorable than theirs.
At least these military men and women will not be haunted by this doubt, that their military service is unappreciated, for the rest of their lives.
This is also available in the original 6mb download here.
The story line of this ABC Television video is that a Texas man has made it his priority, "300 days a year", to go to the DFW airport every day with as many people he can talk into accompanying him, to meet the plane carrying American military service men and women as they return from active duty in a combat zone.
This video struck an intensely personal note in my heart, because when I returned from VietNam in 1969 the only person present to gladly greet me was my wife. Not that I didn't appreciate her welcome, but I remember thinking about the ticker-tape parades and brass bands of World War II veerans, and wondering whether there was something about my service which was less honorable than theirs.
At least these military men and women will not be haunted by this doubt, that their military service is unappreciated, for the rest of their lives.
This is also available in the original 6mb download here.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Target Control
We're all aware of the ongoing "Gun Control" movement. That is, an organized effort (at levels from municipal to the United Nations) to deprive private citizens from owning, possessing and [gasp!] carrying firearms.
But how many of us are aware of "Target Control"?
Well, those of us who are members, however removed, of the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) are aware that some targets are just NOT acceptable to some individuals, some NGOs ("Non-Governmental Organizations"), and some governments.
As an example, there are governments in this sad world which WILL allow its citizens to shoot at paper targets ... reluctantly, and with many restrictions ... but will NOT allow its citizens to shoot at 'humanoid targets'. That is, any target which however vaguely represents the human profile.
And as a consequence, IPSC several years ago designed and published the design for a "Classic" target (left), which looks much like a stop sign, for use in countries where it is illegal to shoot at a "Metric" target (right), which looks much like a Human.
In point of fact, in IPSC it's not only a matter of human-shaped targets, it's also a matter of 'perceptions based on scale. There are two metal targets in common use at IPSC matches which have a vertically rectilinear shape with a circular extrusion in the top third of the target.
These are called "Pepper Poppers". They come in two sizes: large, and small. The small target (called the "US POPPER") was advocated to represent a (larger) Pepper Popper as it would be seen at a greater distance.
It's not "politically correct" to present the two sizes together on the same stage.
Why?
Because someone commented that it "looks like a momma and her children", and as soon as that comment became widely known, IPSC Management (either International, Regional or Local) began to make rules forbidding their consanguinity.
Or should that be "Propinquity". I often get these big words mixed up.
Apparently, IPSC Management doesn't know the difference, either.
__________________________
Now that we have established the tendency of IPSC Management to concern itself with Political Correctness, let us discuss the legitimacy of the Texas Star.
I've recently been featuring a new variant on that target, which I have dubbed "The Evil Oregon Star". It's a shameless steal from "Some Other Folks", you can see the trail of controversy in recent posts and the link to the original design is found here, with due credit to the original post found at the Brian Enos Forum.
This design was noted by local mad-man Evil Bill, who immediately set out to build his own version. It was featured in an article here called Evil Bill's Oregon Star, featuring a YouTube video of ten seconds duration.
I checked my blogstats the day after that article was posted. In the first 24 hours, I had over 600 hits on that article as the entry point. Over 520 of those entries came from a forum called Canadian Gun Nutz (registration required) under the title " The most Evil IPSC traget array to date" (sic).
In a word, IPSC people are "interested" in a new, challenging target.
Early comments mentioned favorably the challenge of shooting what is essentially a Texas Star, with a 'windmill' array tacked on the back with four paper targets ... rotating in the opposite direction.
Within 9 hours, someone posted a reference to "carnival" stages, which I assume is a slightly derogatory reference to stages which are not purely 'practical' in nature. (Give that I've been competing in IPSC matches since 1983, and in the intervening years I have watched the sport veer wildly from the original 'practical' stages such as the venerable "El President" stage, I can only assume that this term refers to any stage which looks more like a carnival shooting gallery than a representation of the scenario which a person might reasonably engage when, for example, meeting the President of a South American Country and his two bodyguards and having to engage each with two rounds and then inexplicably having to reload even though I may have started with a race-gun loaded with a 25-round magazine.)
I know, that parenthetical comment was a run-on sentence. I don't care. The artificial restrictions on run-on sentences are discouraged because they are difficult to read, and the goal of good writing is to be easy to read.
But it does illustrate the difference between good writing and good shooting. Good shooting is not suppose to be easy. Whether a stage is colorful, challenging or looks like a small-scale Ferris wheel doesn't necessarily detract from the value of the stage.
Here's the deal:
As the dialogue continued (over 50 posts so far), the tone of the conversation changed from a tentative awe at the complexity of the shooting problem to the question of whether this target array or, in fact, the TEXAS STAR was legally permissible according to IPSC.
I posted to the forum, and mentioned my surprise that someone may question the acceptability of the Texas Star as a legal target. The first response:
The next day, the only response I had received was:
Another member replied:
You've got to question whether this is just local/section level decisions based on 'expectations', or whether someone is talking to IPSC Management. I know that's the big question in MY mind.
So I'm signing on to the IPSC Forum to see if I can find some reference to Texas Star.
I find "The Official IPSC Forum" is called "Global Village" with the URL of http://ipsc.invisionzone.com/
The progenitor of this forum?
Vince Pinto.
Here is the sequence of "authoritative" comments from The Official IPSC Forum. The topic:
Texas Star, Can I Use It In Level III Competition: (Registration Required)
Source: Velilzar, 4 Apr 2006
Response from An Authoritative Source (IPSC Canada):
Here's another thread from the Official IPSC Forum, only coincidentally started on 10 APR. 2006:
What makes a "Legal" target array?
Wait a minute, Vince Pinto (in his capacity as Official IPSC World Forum Moderator) quoted Vince Pinto (in his capacity as Official IPSC Secretary) as his justification for closing the thread.
Can he do that?
Well, I guess so.
Vince Pinto apparently not only owns the OFFICIAL IPSC World Forum, but also owns IPSC. It's his Forum, it's his International Practical Shooting Confederation, and it's his Big Dick. He can do anything he wants.
Three words immediately occur:
Even Vinny can't find a rule which will support his position, but still he seems comfortable with Rule by Fiat.
Dare we mention that he can't even agree with himself?
Vinny, my dear friend ... it isn't easy being you, is it?
__________________________________
Note: I offer my most abject apologies for not having noticed this situation earlier. I'm not doing my job. Fact is, I have avoided The Official IPSC World Forum for YEARS, because it is the love child of ... Vince Pinto.
But how many of us are aware of "Target Control"?
Well, those of us who are members, however removed, of the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) are aware that some targets are just NOT acceptable to some individuals, some NGOs ("Non-Governmental Organizations"), and some governments.
As an example, there are governments in this sad world which WILL allow its citizens to shoot at paper targets ... reluctantly, and with many restrictions ... but will NOT allow its citizens to shoot at 'humanoid targets'. That is, any target which however vaguely represents the human profile.
And as a consequence, IPSC several years ago designed and published the design for a "Classic" target (left), which looks much like a stop sign, for use in countries where it is illegal to shoot at a "Metric" target (right), which looks much like a Human.
In point of fact, in IPSC it's not only a matter of human-shaped targets, it's also a matter of 'perceptions based on scale. There are two metal targets in common use at IPSC matches which have a vertically rectilinear shape with a circular extrusion in the top third of the target.
These are called "Pepper Poppers". They come in two sizes: large, and small. The small target (called the "US POPPER") was advocated to represent a (larger) Pepper Popper as it would be seen at a greater distance.
It's not "politically correct" to present the two sizes together on the same stage.
Why?
Because someone commented that it "looks like a momma and her children", and as soon as that comment became widely known, IPSC Management (either International, Regional or Local) began to make rules forbidding their consanguinity.
Or should that be "Propinquity". I often get these big words mixed up.
Apparently, IPSC Management doesn't know the difference, either.
__________________________
Now that we have established the tendency of IPSC Management to concern itself with Political Correctness, let us discuss the legitimacy of the Texas Star.
I've recently been featuring a new variant on that target, which I have dubbed "The Evil Oregon Star". It's a shameless steal from "Some Other Folks", you can see the trail of controversy in recent posts and the link to the original design is found here, with due credit to the original post found at the Brian Enos Forum.
This design was noted by local mad-man Evil Bill, who immediately set out to build his own version. It was featured in an article here called Evil Bill's Oregon Star, featuring a YouTube video of ten seconds duration.
I checked my blogstats the day after that article was posted. In the first 24 hours, I had over 600 hits on that article as the entry point. Over 520 of those entries came from a forum called Canadian Gun Nutz (registration required) under the title " The most Evil IPSC traget array to date" (sic).
In a word, IPSC people are "interested" in a new, challenging target.
Please don't assume that ANY of the following comments are intended as a reflection on the members of this forum. I've been a member of this forum since January, 2005, and while I haven't been a regular 'contributing' participant I have enjoyed 'lurking' until the discussion focused on this article which I posted in my own blog.
Early comments mentioned favorably the challenge of shooting what is essentially a Texas Star, with a 'windmill' array tacked on the back with four paper targets ... rotating in the opposite direction.
Within 9 hours, someone posted a reference to "carnival" stages, which I assume is a slightly derogatory reference to stages which are not purely 'practical' in nature. (Give that I've been competing in IPSC matches since 1983, and in the intervening years I have watched the sport veer wildly from the original 'practical' stages such as the venerable "El President" stage, I can only assume that this term refers to any stage which looks more like a carnival shooting gallery than a representation of the scenario which a person might reasonably engage when, for example, meeting the President of a South American Country and his two bodyguards and having to engage each with two rounds and then inexplicably having to reload even though I may have started with a race-gun loaded with a 25-round magazine.)
I know, that parenthetical comment was a run-on sentence. I don't care. The artificial restrictions on run-on sentences are discouraged because they are difficult to read, and the goal of good writing is to be easy to read.
But it does illustrate the difference between good writing and good shooting. Good shooting is not suppose to be easy. Whether a stage is colorful, challenging or looks like a small-scale Ferris wheel doesn't necessarily detract from the value of the stage.
Here's the deal:
As the dialogue continued (over 50 posts so far), the tone of the conversation changed from a tentative awe at the complexity of the shooting problem to the question of whether this target array or, in fact, the TEXAS STAR was legally permissible according to IPSC.
I posted to the forum, and mentioned my surprise that someone may question the acceptability of the Texas Star as a legal target. The first response:
"No suggestion. Fact. Try and submit a match with it to IPSC (NOT USPSA) for approval. You'll find out pretty quick.My reply was a request for someone -- anyone -- to cite the rules by which IPSC had made this determination.
USPSA picks and chooses which IPSC rules they want to use; so in the US, you're probably GTG."
The next day, the only response I had received was:
I suggested that the source was not as definitive as a citation to the rule book, and subsequent responses indicated that they were not acceptable in Level III matches. Eventually someone stated:
There was a big discussion about this on the IPSC World forum. Vince Pinto had said that any L3 with a Texas Star would not be sanctioned.
I just received the word from our section coordinator. No t-star in any match above level 1 ( He just received the official notification)So the t-star must be pulled from the match.
Another member replied:
I'll double check my email when I get to work in the morning...but I'm pretty sure Level 1's would be out as well (any IPSC sanctioned match)At this point (five days after the original post), nobody has been able to cite a rule which would ban the Texas Star (let alone the Evil Oregon Star) from IPSC competition.
You've got to question whether this is just local/section level decisions based on 'expectations', or whether someone is talking to IPSC Management. I know that's the big question in MY mind.
So I'm signing on to the IPSC Forum to see if I can find some reference to Texas Star.
I find "The Official IPSC Forum" is called "Global Village" with the URL of http://ipsc.invisionzone.com/
The progenitor of this forum?
Vince Pinto.
Here is the sequence of "authoritative" comments from The Official IPSC Forum. The topic:
Texas Star, Can I Use It In Level III Competition: (Registration Required)
When looking through some stage designes (sic)I have often come accross (sic) a target called Texas star. As I have never seen it in our region I would like to know something more about it.For example what is it like,how does it react when hit,is it still or moving,how can I construct such one ?
Source: Velilzar, 4 Apr 2006
- Nobody Important, from Bulgaria
Response from An Authoritative Source (IPSC Canada):
I understand that Texas Stars can be great fun to shoot.Source: Neil Beverly - 4 Apr, 2006
However, they are unlikely to be approved for IPSC matches because they are more of a gimmick than a true IPSC "practical" target.
Certainly as the IPSC Shotgun Course Reviewer I wouldn't approve a stage that included a Texas Star.
If you want want a Texas Star for fun shoots at your club I'm sure you will get some useful feedback from other members.
- IPSC Shotgun Rules Chairman
- Resident of "UK"
- IPSC President's Council
- IROA Executive Committee
- USPSA member
- ... and other citations
I urge you, especially being a new Region, not to bother spending time and money making a Texas Star. Some people might think it's fun to shoot but, as Neil Beverley has already cautioned, you won't get IPSC Level III or higher sanctioning for any match which includes a Texas Star, because it's considered to be a "carnival" prop.Vince Pinto, 6 APR 2006, responding to an IPSC member from Bulgaria
- IPSC Secretary
I can assure you swingers and gravity turners are found at Level III + Matches .. WSXIV had an assortment of movers, single swingers, double swingers, gravity turners ..Kevin, 7 Apr., 2006
I shot a Level III Match in Feb, which had a total of 24 Swingers in 12 stages ..
In the context of an IPSC Stage, what does the Texas Star simulate ?
- Nobody special, just Member #63 from Singapore
Hey Kevin,Source: Vince Pinto, 7 Apr. 2006
Did you notice how the Texas Star is being defended by ....... Texans?
Of course they're also responsible for the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, so I guess they're not all crazy! Must only be the ones from Austin & Houston?
- IPSC Secretary, from Hong Kong
Here's another thread from the Official IPSC Forum, only coincidentally started on 10 APR. 2006:
What makes a "Legal" target array?
The question put before this bunch of stalwart and true gentleman and gentlewomen is this:Source: Alex, 20 APR 2006
What makes a legal target array?
In another thread the question was raised, but not answered beyond the famous American politician quote about pornography ("...I will know it when I see it").
Some think that a target array has to be "practical" (vice "carnival") to be legal. However, there is no definition of "practical" (or "carnival") target arrays to be found in the rule book. Either the one half the world's shooters use, or the amended one that the other half of the world's shooters use (sic)
- Nobody (apparently) important. Sorry ... Important! (From Ankara, Turkey)
.....the moderators edit fast around here.Source: Mike, 10 APR 2006gif" border="0">
I thought Alex had a good question before his post was cut to 1/10 of what he wrote.
My reply to this thread is below as this issue has been bubbling for a while and I am no nearer understanding it.
I am sure I will be the unfortunate victim of some more swift moderatinggif" border="0">
---------------------------------------------
I think I am just as confused as some others here to be honest about what EXACTLY is an IPSC suitable way of thinking, as compared to one that would not be in the 'SPIRIT' of IPSC. This is not written down or taught anywhere. We hear from our well informed and experianced (sic) Moderators as to their views, but without this being documented its very hard trying to gauge the mentality or the methodology behind this ethos.
On one hand IPSC is trying to distance itself away from non PC self defence scenarios but on the other hand phrases are used where we are trying to still use this basis: hence I am confused.
- Nobody "Important" (from UK)
The thread was closed because the IPSC Secretary stated the official IPSC policy in respect of the Texas Star, namely that proposing use of such a target will cause Level III or higher sanctioning to be denied, and a further statement was made explaining the procedure necessary for that policy to be reversed.Source: Vince Pinto, 11 APR 2006
If you (or anybody else, for that matter) think the subject target is so fascinating, you're free to use it to your heart's content, but IPSC is also free to deny any application for Level III sanctioning. By the same token, if you want to host a match requiring that blackpowder (sic) guns be used exclusively, you're also free to do so, but that match will also be denied IPSC sanctioning.
Bottom line: Your "rights" do not trump IPSC's "rights".
- IPSC Secretary
Wait a minute, Vince Pinto (in his capacity as Official IPSC World Forum Moderator) quoted Vince Pinto (in his capacity as Official IPSC Secretary) as his justification for closing the thread.
Can he do that?
Well, I guess so.
Vince Pinto apparently not only owns the OFFICIAL IPSC World Forum, but also owns IPSC. It's his Forum, it's his International Practical Shooting Confederation, and it's his Big Dick. He can do anything he wants.
Three words immediately occur:
- Arbitrary
- Unilateral
- Autocratic
Even Vinny can't find a rule which will support his position, but still he seems comfortable with Rule by Fiat.
Dare we mention that he can't even agree with himself?
Vinny, my dear friend ... it isn't easy being you, is it?
__________________________________
Note: I offer my most abject apologies for not having noticed this situation earlier. I'm not doing my job. Fact is, I have avoided The Official IPSC World Forum for YEARS, because it is the love child of ... Vince Pinto.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Evil Oregon Star 0 - Presenting the Evil Oregon Star
The Evil Oregon Star is a new event on the horizon of Practical Pistol Competition in the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA), so you may have some questions about it.
This short video (also available as a 6mb download from Jerry The Geek's Video Shooting Gallery) may be a first step in understanding what's so Evil about this Star.
The first segment depicts the Match Walkthrough in the April 28, 2007, match at Dundee Oregon where it is first presented as a 'fun stage' in Dundee's annual Classifier match. Note the "Quote of the Day":
The second (short) segment shows the response when it is first presented to the squads.
The third segment shows how to reset the target array, in its present configuration.
Note that this video is not only available through You Tube, but is also available in its full (6mb) WMV format at Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery.
Other links to this target are:
Evil Oregon Star 1: Geek's Bane
Evil Oregon Star 2: The Movie
Evil Bill's Oregon Star
.
This short video (also available as a 6mb download from Jerry The Geek's Video Shooting Gallery) may be a first step in understanding what's so Evil about this Star.
The first segment depicts the Match Walkthrough in the April 28, 2007, match at Dundee Oregon where it is first presented as a 'fun stage' in Dundee's annual Classifier match. Note the "Quote of the Day":
"Is this because too many new shooters are staying with the sport?"
The second (short) segment shows the response when it is first presented to the squads.
The third segment shows how to reset the target array, in its present configuration.
Note that this video is not only available through You Tube, but is also available in its full (6mb) WMV format at Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery.
Other links to this target are:
Evil Oregon Star 1: Geek's Bane
Evil Oregon Star 2: The Movie
Evil Bill's Oregon Star
.
Evil Oregon Star 1: Geek's Bane
An earlier article (Evil Oregon Star 2: The Movie) showed how ten competitors handled the Evil Oregon Star, creative brain child of Evil Bill.
The video below shows the entire stage. The purpose is to provide a context in which the Evil Star is only one element.
The competitor is Jerry the Geek, who hasnt' hit the plate on the first shot in six out of the last ten stages in which it was presented. Still, it's a short video.
This video is also available as a 6mb download from Jerry the Geek's Shooting Gallery, as are all videos and phots from this match and ANY video or picture displayed here.
Other articles in this series are:
Evil Oregon Star 0 (Presenting The Evil Oregon Star)
Evil Oregon Star 2 (The Movie)
Evil Bill's Oregon Star
(Note: links available at the last location will provide a deeper exploration of the Genesis of the Evil Oregon Star)
The video below shows the entire stage. The purpose is to provide a context in which the Evil Star is only one element.
The competitor is Jerry the Geek, who hasnt' hit the plate on the first shot in six out of the last ten stages in which it was presented. Still, it's a short video.
This video is also available as a 6mb download from Jerry the Geek's Shooting Gallery, as are all videos and phots from this match and ANY video or picture displayed here.
Other articles in this series are:
Evil Oregon Star 0 (Presenting The Evil Oregon Star)
Evil Oregon Star 2 (The Movie)
Evil Bill's Oregon Star
(Note: links available at the last location will provide a deeper exploration of the Genesis of the Evil Oregon Star)
Evil Oregon Star 2: The Movie
It has been four days since I posted the 'breadboard' video of Evil Bill's Texas Star ... arbitrarily designated (by me) the "Evil Oregon Star". As anticipated, Evil Bill set it up as a 'fun stage' during the Dundee Annual Classifier match, we shot it, and we were indeed intimidated.
In truth, there are no significant differences between the Evil Oregon Star and the Texas Star, except that the Evil Star provides serious penalties for missing the plates.
Those of you who say the original post have already postulated the problems inherent in the design, and you have been proved right in many of your cautionary notes.
The lessons provided by the experience have been carefully noted, and the designer ("Evil Bill") was kind enough to stop by during the match and discuss them with me.
Early in the match ... while the second squad was shooting that stage, Bill mentioned:
"Yes, we're getting a lot of splatter from both the angle-iron on the part of the arm that holds the plate, and it's tearing up the paper targets in the background. We're also seeing a lot of hits on the two rods (leading from the axle to the plate) and that also tears up the cardboard IPSC targets. So far, we haven't had any problems with the plates hitting the cardboard. They're dropping clean to the ground. As for the weight (the blue-painted cylinder that initiates the movement), I never thought it would be a problem and it isn't."
By the time we got to that stage ... we were the fourth squad to shoot it, Bill's evaluation had changed significantly. Note that there were about 70 shooters distributed into six squads in this Club Match, so he had a lot of information from which to draw his conclusions. The product of this testing is an entire new design, which Bill was able to evolve while he was watching other people shoot the stage.
Bill said he will re-engineer the target so he has the new (version 2.0) design ready for the May match. If he says so, it will happen.
He also said that if anyone wants to build a similar target, they can "EM" (E-Mail) him and he will send them the parts list.
He said that before he realized that it required an extensive re-design, so if you are inclined to build your own Evil Oregon Star, you may email him but don't be surprised if it takes him a while to evolve an updated parts list. This is a project in development, and sometimes it takes a lot of field testing before the best design is available. (Bill didn't say that; I said that.)
I plan to provide three articles based on the Evil Oregon Star.
Evil 00: Presenting The Evil Oregon Star
This features a video of the Match Walk-through, including comments from the competitors (note especially the "Quote Of The Day". Also, there is a short vignette when the squad I was in walked through the stage, and a third part where the squad is taping targets, replacing plates and setting up the initiating mechanism on the star.
Evil 01: Geeks Bane - The Evil Oregon Star Stage
This is a short video showing the entire stage in which the Evil Oregon Star is only another target array. It provides a perspective for those who wonder how important the Star might be compared to the other targets. In the actual event, you may decide that this is not the part of the stage which slows the shooter down.
Evil Oregon Star 2: The Movie
That would be THIS article. I've included a (YouTube) video which suggests that some people can get past this stage without many more problems than would be presented with just a Texas Star. Others may find that the Evil Oregon Star is ... I hesitate to say "more intimidating", but at least "more confusing" than the Texas Star.
Now that you've read the preamble, here's how ten competitors fared on The Evil Oregon Star.
Note that this video is also available as a 15mb download from Jerry the Geek's Shooting Gallery. The other videos presented in part 1 and part 2 are also available there.
These videos, and accompanying still photos, may not be available for a couple of days due to the delay in editing and publishing them.
.
In truth, there are no significant differences between the Evil Oregon Star and the Texas Star, except that the Evil Star provides serious penalties for missing the plates.
Those of you who say the original post have already postulated the problems inherent in the design, and you have been proved right in many of your cautionary notes.
The lessons provided by the experience have been carefully noted, and the designer ("Evil Bill") was kind enough to stop by during the match and discuss them with me.
Early in the match ... while the second squad was shooting that stage, Bill mentioned:
"Yes, we're getting a lot of splatter from both the angle-iron on the part of the arm that holds the plate, and it's tearing up the paper targets in the background. We're also seeing a lot of hits on the two rods (leading from the axle to the plate) and that also tears up the cardboard IPSC targets. So far, we haven't had any problems with the plates hitting the cardboard. They're dropping clean to the ground. As for the weight (the blue-painted cylinder that initiates the movement), I never thought it would be a problem and it isn't."
By the time we got to that stage ... we were the fourth squad to shoot it, Bill's evaluation had changed significantly. Note that there were about 70 shooters distributed into six squads in this Club Match, so he had a lot of information from which to draw his conclusions. The product of this testing is an entire new design, which Bill was able to evolve while he was watching other people shoot the stage.
"There are two big problems with this target. First, we're getting way too much splatter from the rounds which hit the supporting arms. I'm going to take off the angle-iron and replace it with a mild steel plate. This should cause the bullets to bounce off instead of splattering the target. In fact, I'm going to weld this plate the length of the supporting arms so the bullets don't hit the rods, either. Most misses which hit the support arms should not hit the targets behind them."
"Second, I was wrong about the way the plates drop. I solid center-hit from a major-power bullet can push the plates back so they hit the targets behind them. This is tearing up the cardboard. I'm going to move the (windmill array, which supports the cardboard targets) back another foot. This will keep the plates from hitting them, and may reduce the effect of 'splatter', too."
Bill said he will re-engineer the target so he has the new (version 2.0) design ready for the May match. If he says so, it will happen.
He also said that if anyone wants to build a similar target, they can "EM" (E-Mail) him and he will send them the parts list.
(You can email him here: billmarrs at verizon dot net ... replace the "at" with "@" and the "dot" with ".")
You can also reach Evil Bill by sending an email to me, at the address shown at the bottom of this page, and I will forward your mail to him. But I really hope you contact him directly!
He said that before he realized that it required an extensive re-design, so if you are inclined to build your own Evil Oregon Star, you may email him but don't be surprised if it takes him a while to evolve an updated parts list. This is a project in development, and sometimes it takes a lot of field testing before the best design is available. (Bill didn't say that; I said that.)
I plan to provide three articles based on the Evil Oregon Star.
Evil 00: Presenting The Evil Oregon Star
This features a video of the Match Walk-through, including comments from the competitors (note especially the "Quote Of The Day". Also, there is a short vignette when the squad I was in walked through the stage, and a third part where the squad is taping targets, replacing plates and setting up the initiating mechanism on the star.
Evil 01: Geeks Bane - The Evil Oregon Star Stage
This is a short video showing the entire stage in which the Evil Oregon Star is only another target array. It provides a perspective for those who wonder how important the Star might be compared to the other targets. In the actual event, you may decide that this is not the part of the stage which slows the shooter down.
Evil Oregon Star 2: The Movie
That would be THIS article. I've included a (YouTube) video which suggests that some people can get past this stage without many more problems than would be presented with just a Texas Star. Others may find that the Evil Oregon Star is ... I hesitate to say "more intimidating", but at least "more confusing" than the Texas Star.
Now that you've read the preamble, here's how ten competitors fared on The Evil Oregon Star.
Note that this video is also available as a 15mb download from Jerry the Geek's Shooting Gallery. The other videos presented in part 1 and part 2 are also available there.
These videos, and accompanying still photos, may not be available for a couple of days due to the delay in editing and publishing them.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)