Area 1 2007 Multigun Match Results - McCarter Interview

The match results for The A2 MG match can be seen at the USPSA Website - click on "Match Schedule and Results" on the left-hand sidebar, and the resulting webpage has the "Area 1 Multigun Championship" as (currently) the fourth item. Click on that and you can see the match results except that the last names of the competitors are indicated only with an initial. This is done to protect the privacy of the competitors.

However, if you're a member of USPSA you can see the full-names in the match results by clicking on the "Member Page" icon at the top of the USPSA home page and entering your userid and password. Again, click on the "Match Schedule and Results" sidebar button and follow the above directions.

Here's what you get:

2007 Area 1 Multi-Gun Championship
Albany Rifle and Pistol Club
6/29/2007
Division Name USPSA Competitors
Limited Patrick Kelley -- 21
Open Robert Johnson -- 20
Tactical Carl Carbon -- 42
Total: 83

(I've deleted USPSA Member Numbers from this display) .

"Field Of Dreams" Stage Thrown Out:
Note that only nine (9) stages are listed. The long-range rifle stage ("Field of Dreams") was thrown out of the match due to the excessive stage times. This WAS the biggest choke-point of the match, with some competitors actually registering times of 700 seconds on this stage.

There were only five targets, but they were presented at 300 to 350 yards distance. There were three positions -- two standing, one prone -- and competitors were required to engage all five targets from each position.

As many as two squads were backed up on this stage, and according to Match Director Mike McCarter they had to drop the stage to allow all competitors to complete the match. The first day, each squad was expected to complete seven stages. Some squads were on the range until after 7pm the first day. Some squads still had 5 stages to shoot on the second day.

McCarter notes that "this is a young sport" and match administrators are still learning from experience. Chances are that long-range rifle stages will be much simpler in future Multigun matches. In the 2006 Multigun Nationals (held July 7, 2006 on this same range) similar problems were encountered with this kind of stage.

USPSA On Top Of The Problem:
In a telephone interview tonite, McCarter stated that Area 1 Director Bruce Gary had already begun the process of bringing these and other Multigun problems to the attention of the USPSA Board of Directors with the intention of establishing a change in the competitor rules allowing the match to set a time limit on stages.

Moving Targets
One of the successes noted by Mr. McCarter was that the eight moving targets experienced ZERO Range Equipment Malfunctions. This was due, according to McCarter, with the "hinged sticks" designed by USPSA RM Jay Worden.

These are 1" square wooden sticks which have been sawn apart in the middle, then rejoined with a simple metal hinge. An eye-screw is affixed to the stick near the hinge, and the cable to the activating device attached to this eye-screw. Further, the joint between the two halves have been sanded so that there is a slight bend in the assembly, so that the stick looks like a leg with the knee joint where the hinge is. It's intuitively obvious how to set the stick correctly ("Eye-screw toward the activator") in the target array, and it breaks reliably every time.

Cost of construction: under a dollar, and you can make one in your garage in a few minutes. No, the eye-screws don't pull out of the wood because the stick 'breaks' so easily.

"Snipe hunt" 28-round Shotgun Slug stage:
McCarter also discussed the problems with shooting a large number of slug rounds through a shotgun on a single stage. This stage included a number of IPSC targets to be engaged at relatively close ranges, but also some steel targets at ranges of about 50 feet. Shooting 12-guage Shotgun Slugs is a grueling exercise in pain management, as soon as the adrenaline wears off. He suggested that the wave of the future for Multigun shotguns may be moving to 20 guage. These are still classified as Major Power, and using a sabot round further aleviates the punishment, according to McCarter.

I'm not sure if Benelli makes a 20 guage auto shotgun comparable to the 12-guage guns which are currently so popular with Open Division competitors, but this sounds as if it might be worth looking into for Multigun matches next year.

2007 Area 1 Multigun - Still Photos

It's 11:30 Sunday Night. The match is over, I don't have access to the results (yet), and I have 3.5GB of photographs and videos from the match to sort, edit and present. I'm sun-burnt, bug-bitten, achy from standing all day for 2 days, tired and I stink of sweat, dirt and sun-blocker.

There's no way I can present all of the stories I have to tell before I pack it in for the night. I've been downloading files from my Digital Geek-cam and sorting through them for the past seven hours.


I could tell you about Darrell losing a shoe un-assing the boat on "Don't Rock The Boat", the guy who swept me with his AR this morning, Higbie dumping his SUV in the six-foot deep ditch on the other side of the North Road across from Bay 7. (I didn't get to see this, but his squad-mates told me about it and they "almost" put out a call on the Range Officer Radio Network so I could get a photo - but they didn't, which probably saved me from embarrassing a friend.)


Also, I could talk about the old buddys I saw, whom I haven't seen for months or years but they came out to just WATCH a by-Gawd honest-to-Pete Multigun match. This was much the same as I did, devoting my entire weekend to take pictures and talk to (and listen to) the 84 people who paid good money just so they could fight heat, insects, equipment malfunctions (theirs) and very FEW Range Equipment Malfunctions (the host club) for the honor and glory of saying they went there and did that.

I couldn't do that. Well, I could if I was willing/able to invest a ton of money and a slew of time to indulge myself in the masochism which is MultiGun competition.


(I could even tell you about the $37,000 Prize Table ... but I won't. Except that Chuck Anderson -- Columbia Cascade Section Competition Director -- performed his usual magic with the Vendor Community. Thank you, Vendors, for sponsoring an excellent match!)

I covered the 2006 USPSA MultiGun Nationals a year ago (less a week), and I was impressed then. The quality of this match was no less. And the quality of the people I talked to ... and didn't get to talk to ... is similarly impressive.

Awesome Al Austen showed up. He hasn't shot an IPSC pistol match for a year, but he came by to support his pal Higbie (he of the semi-drowned SUV). Dan Nelson, who has been out of the IPSC circuit for two years as he tried to build a new business, was there as a competitor. He admitted he couldn't remember which end of the gun pointed down-range, but he got through the weekend without insurmountable problems.

I filmed a lot of people, and by the 2nd day I began to feel self-conscious about it. It seemed that every time I turned the camera on, the shooters ended up fighting equipment problems. Chuck Anderson found that Remington shotgun shells were just a little bit off-spec, causing extraction problems. Bruce Gary (AD1) forgot that loading Siamese-Twin magazines in his AR caused feeding problems if they were fully loaded. Brian Berkley had problems with both his AR and his Shotgun when I filmed him. (Brian said: "I don't care, I volunteered to help run the match. The actual shooting is just a bonus, I'm not here to win. I just came out to shoot.")

Brian's attitude was representative of a lot of people there, who just wanted to shoot.

John Clark said he got half-way through a stage and discovered that the stock of his shotgun was coming loose! He just shoved the stock back against the action, held it tight with his shoulder, and kept on shooting. He got through the stage just fine, according to him.

You may notice some familiar names. Most of the folks who were instrumental in presenting this match actually shot the match. Exceptions, of course, were Match Director Mike McCarter and Range Master Tom Chambers.

Here's my impressions of the match:

Worst stage of the match:
The long-range rifle stage ("Field Of Dreams"). With a very small number of targets, competitors couldn't afford to leave a target hit. Rumor has it that some folks shot 200 rounds at five targets, just to avoid a zero score. Well, I probably heard that wrong, but it was certainly a choke point in the match.

I never got around to visiting that stage. Life is too short.


Best stage of the match:
The 'airplane' stage. All three guns, and if you planned to shoot it "pedal to the metal and hair of fire" you were just asking for trouble. It was hot, and after shooting a couple of magazines at the six rifle targets the sweat was rolling into your eyes. I watched a 'heavy metal' shooter (iron sights on a .308) finally throw up his hands after two magazines and throw off his earmuffs, and his hat, just so he could grab a towel and wipe the sweat out of his eyes. Maximum frustration, maximum challenge.



Most boring stage of the match:
Stage 1: "Shooting for Dummies". All pistol, nothing but. Start with a 40-pound dummy over your shoulder, shoot four targets, dump the dummy on a table and shoot the other dozen-or-so targets. Terver Ott dumped the dummy on the table and ... it slid off! He had to go back and lift it onto the table After the stage was over, he came BACK to the table and began pummelling the dummy! (Too bad I had turned the camera off, it was a sight to see.)

I chose this stage for 'most boring', because it was the only all-pistol stage and we see that all the time in regular USPSA matches. In the actual event, it wasn't a bad stage ... just not really 'MultiGun'. The most boring stages to watch (as compared to boring to shoot) were the all-shotgun stages. WAY too much time was spend reloading. I'll include a lot of shotgun video and usually leave in the reloading if only to illustrate the problems of reloading in Tactical and Limited Divisions.

Think there are no problems reloading shotguns in Open division? Think again. All those tubes hanging down along your leg can be problematic when you're trying to move around obstacles. SEE the "Don't Rock The Boat" stage, where Craig Outzen almost stumbles when trying to reload while exiting the boat.

Funniest stage of the match:
"Don't Rock The Boat" You had to shoot at plates with a shotgun while standing in a flat bottom boat which was sitting on a plywood platform. Every time you shot, the boat rocked. Darrell lost a shoe climbing out of the boat, but it didn't slow him down much. He finished the stage with one shoe off, one shoe on, diddle-diddle-dumpling My Son John.

(I actually got the video, which I'll show someday, but I didn't have the camera rolling when he went back after the stage and calmly retrieved his wayward shoe and returned it to the proper foot position.)

By the way, if you're looking at the stage designs at NASSONLINE.COM you'll notice that the stage numbers don't correspond to the stage numbers I cite here. That's because, when it came time to set up the stages, not all of them actually fit well in the designated bays. The match administrators compensated by fitting the physical limitations and didn't worry about the 'paper' version of the match. That's characteristic of the great Mac and Tom team. Whatever it takes to put on a good match.


Tomorrow, I'll start editing videos and will present them either here or on the Geek Video Shooting Gallery. In the meantime, I've selected 81 representative still photos and hosted them on the Gallery. You can look at them and maybe get a reasonable impression of what the range and the match looked like.

Stay tuned: film at 11.

It's now midnight, so that means ... more tomorrow. Maybe I'll even find the link to the Match Results!

Die Hard Four - The Video

Considering the "Yippie Ki Yah" lines, this is NSFW (Not Safe For Work).

Don't know what the movie looks like, I may go see it this weekend. Couldn't be better than this video, though.

"We don't know but we're pretty sure ...
John McClane Kicks Ass!"

Dave Kopel: Supreme Court Gun Cases

Supreme Court Descriptive Index


In May of 2006, Dave Kopel published a book titled "Supreme Court Gun Cases". (See the link above.)

(Co-authers: Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D. and Alan Korwin)

This book is described by Kopel:

"All 92 Supreme Court gun cases are listed here alphabetically, as answered questions, to help you find specific proceedings, and quickly grasp the gun-related elements of the case. Only the questions related to firearms or self defense are listed even if, as is often the case, the decision itself has a different focal point. Many other questions are indeed typically addressed in the cases and, because of the terseness of the questions below, you should rely on the full actual cases for an understanding of the significance of each one. Think of this index as a navigation tool, a memory jogger, and a good read."

That describes the content and utility of the book, certainly, but it also describes the content of the link. The webpage lists all 92 Supreme Court cases alphabetically, by Name, Date and Citation. It also describes the legal questions addressed and a brief one-word (yes or no) answer to the question.

For example, here are the first half-dozen cases cited:

• Indicates the 44 cases presented in their entirety in Supreme Court Gun Cases.
Ð Indicates the 14 self-defense cases.

Key: Name; Date; Citation; Page in Supreme Court Gun Cases

Acers v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 388; 238
Is fear of a deadly attack, without reasonable demonstrated grounds for the fear, sufficient to support a claim of self defense [NO]; Must the danger be immediate [YES]; Can any object be considered as a deadly weapon depending on how it was used [YES].

Adams v. Williams; 1972; 407 U.S. 143; 363
Can a peace officer conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons, if there is reason to believe a suspect is armed and dangerous [YES]; Are 4th Amendment guarantees violated by such a stop and frisk [NO].

Adamson v. California; 1947; 332 U.S. 46; 310
[The dissenting opinion in a 5th Amendment case argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, against the states].

Alberty v. United States • Ð; 1896; 162 U.S. 499; 231
If a husband sees another man trying to get into his wife’s room window at night is it natural for him to investigate further [YES]; Is the husband under a duty to retreat when attacked with a knife under such circumstances [NO]; May the husband use only as much force as is necessary to repel the assault [YES]; If in an ensuing confrontation the husband shoots and kills the other man, then flees, must his flight in and of itself be seen as evidence of his guilt [NO].

Albright v. Oliver; 1994; 510 U.S. 266; 481
[The dissenting opinion in a case involving freedom from malicious prosecution cites the right to keep and bear arms as among fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution].

Allen v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 492; 241
Are words alone sufficient provocation to justify an assault [NO]; Are words alone sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter [NO]; Can premeditation and intent to kill be determined from your actions [YES]; Although flight after a possibly criminal event may suggest guilt, does it prove it conclusively [NO].

You can order this book directly from gunlaws.com or from Barnes&Nobel. The price is the same, but one assumes (perhaps incorrectly) that the first vendor returns a greater percentage to the authors, because the Gunlaws website is directly associated with Alan Korwin's "Bloomfield Press".

I haven't yet decided to buy the book, but I have included the link to the summary on my sidebar, under "Reference Sources". This is one of Dave Kopel's "Second Amendment Project" offerings, as is "Dave Kopel 2nd Amendment", linked on the sidebar under the heading of "Other RKBA Websites".

If you have an evening free to do nothing more than expand your understanding of Second Amendment issues, I encourage you to start at Kopel's website. There's a cornucopia of fascinating reading to be found there.

For example, I found a review of Joyce Malcolm's book "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" which Kopel refers to as "The Gold Standard of Gun Control". Here's one paragraph from the review:

Malcolm describes the patterns of gun possession and violence, as well as changes in British culture due to war, food shortages, politics, and crime policy. She pays particular attention to changes in the culture of self-defense, both from the viewpoint of the Crown and of the subjects, and to how crime victims are treated by the government. Formerly, Britons happily contrasted their own permissive gun laws with the repressive laws on the Continent, and considered liberal British laws to exemplify the superior and free character of the British nation. But today, British gun controls are the most severe in the western world.

(Emphasis added)

We've all read the frightening, frustrating news stories about the consequences of severe gun-control laws in England during the past decade, and wondered how the Brits can have so lost their soul. This may help us to understand. Warning: if you assume that the increasingly burdonsome gun-control laws in Great Britain serve only to demonstrate the proclivity of British Government to place its erstwhile citizens under the dominion of an autocratic state, this book may serve only to confirm your convictions.

As I write this, I realize that I have updated this article a half-dozen times as I find ever more fascinating information at this source. It's difficult to resist the temptation to point you to other interesting articles, but for the sake of brevity (long lost in my whirlwind of enthusiasm, I know) I'll leave the rest of the research as an exercise for the reader.

That Pesky Second Amendment

Remember that old joke about "Hi! I'm from The Government and I'm here to help!"

The BATFE-men are living up to their reputation, according to a recent article on World-Net Daily.

WND, along with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, accuse the BATMen of using minor irregularities in filling out governmental forms as an excuse to revoke the licenses of gun shops all across the country.

We're not talking about 'willful' acts, such as neglecting to fill out the forms. Instead, the irregularities cited include using "N" instead of "NO" when answering a "yes or no" question on the BATFE forms. Another example: writing "Bltmo" instead of "Baltimore" when naming the city in which the transaction occurs (the forms are notoriously skimpy when trying to cram the required information into the tiny spaces provided ... you have probably noticed this).

According to WND, Pratt notes that "The inspectors have no handbook under which to operate, and the absence of such written procedures allows them to be arbitrary and capricious."

When a shop owner appeals the ruling of BATFE which shuts down the business, it goes directly to BATFE. Not some neutral third party, or a court, but directly to the governmental agency which ruled against the business in the first place. It would be disingenuous to suggest that BATFE could be impartial in this process of 'mediation', since it is one of the original parties.

Pratt told WND, "the power that has enabled ATF to take away people's licenses to do business" continues unabated.
...
The agency holds, he said, a "continuing animas against gun owners and dealers."

80mph 'Mad Max' monster

The 80mph 'Mad Max' monster targeting the Taliban



The Brits have a new not-so-secret weapon ... something of a cross between "The Rat Patrol" and "Mad Max" (Part II).


Trouble is, it's long on offense and very shy on armor.


With a crew of "3 to 4", presumably depending on whether the optional "grenade machine gun" is mounted along with the two 30-cal machine gun (one in a turret-ring) and the rear-facing .50 cal MG, that's four gunners and a driver for ... five crew?

Painted an attractive Caterpillar Yellow, this high-speed vehicle lacks only fork lift prongs and, regrettably, armor plating to defend the crew against those pesky IEDs.

Obviously, this is destined for deployment only for Afghanistan. It would never work in the IED-infested Iraqi theater.

If the American forces tried to field a vehicle like this, they would be laughed (or blasted) Out Of Country in a week.

The best thing the Brits could do is reserve this boondoggle-machine for perimeter security, behind a ten-foot cyclone fence.

Well behind the fence. Say, in the machine shop?




Hard to tell what the Brits were thinking of when they decided to field this anachronism. The African Theater in WWII, perhaps?

Painting To The Oldies

This is a dramatic divergence from the usual fare found here, but I assure you it's worth the 5:41 minutes to see the finale.

The artiste is perhaps a bit weak on "stagecraft" but his artistry is beyond dispute.

I bet he's done this before.



Yeah, I re-viewed this several times, and you'll probably find that it runs faster every time you see it.

You can see more here.

Arrogant Critic of IPSC Rules?

During my tenure here, and earlier on The Unofficial IPSC List, I have spent a lot of time and 'bandwidth' commenting on the Rules of Competition for IPSC.

Scroll down, you've seen it before and you'll see it again.

This "commentary" has been coached in at least one of several modes, including but not limited to:

• Evaluation of proposed IPSC (or USPSA) Rule Book Updates
• Evaluation of established rules in regards to specific scenarios
• Requests for other opinions when a Range Officer Question occurred to me (usually when a club match presented a stage which seemed to challenge a rule)
• Comments and request for clarification when non-match circumstances caused me to go read the book, and I wondered what events had suggested that a given rule was necessary

When you think about it, some of the rules seem almost ... arbitrary.

In the process of questioning the justification for some rules, I have alienated many people, some of them friends. Some of them are no longer friends, and I heartily regret the times when my enthusiasm exceeded the bounds of polite discussion.


It has always seemed to me that the periodic re-evaluation of Competition Rules should be driven by situations which clearly provide a justification for changes. It has not always been my experience that new rules are event-driven. Or, if the changes were necessitated by events, no explanation of the need for a change has been offered by those who were delegated the responsibility for changing the rules.

Example: going back two versions of the Rule Book, a new rule was enacted to the effect that "Disappearing targets which appear and disappear multiple times shall incur miss penalties". This was a dramatic divergence from the previous interpretation ("Disappearing targets shall be deemed to represent targets which have retreated and thus no longer constitute a threat", or words to that effect.) This single rule caused so much upset in IPSC Competition that it was changed back to the original concept in the subsequent rule book.

Example: in the 2005 rule book, rule 9.4.2 newly allowed no more than two penalty hits to be scored on a "no-shoot" target. Surprisingly, justification was offered for this rule. Disappointingly, the justification was that "new shooters may be discouraged by excessive penalties" despite the fact that they had hit the no-shoot more than two times. This had not demonstrably proven to be an issue in the past, but it was changed arbitrarily none the less.

Example: in the 2005 rule book, rule 2.1.8.4 newly stated that "Static paper targets must not be presented at an angle greater than 90 degrees from the vertical." This was famously touted as the "Hanging Ninja" rule, and was added because the "Classic" target is symmetrical, so that competitors could not readily discern the orientation of the "Classic" target and thus could not readily discern the location of the A-Zone. This was absolutely justifiable for this target design, but the "Metric" target is not symmetrical. Still, no provision was established for differentiation of this target shape. The rule was held to be applicable to ANY "static paper target" even though it was clearly without justification for the "Metric" target -- that which is overwhelmingly most typically presented in USPSA matches. Still, USPSA was obliged to recognize this rule.

I felt almost alone in my protests against this arbitrary kind of rule changes, except for a select few (who subsequently formed the core of the recently infamous "Hostility to IPSC" hit-list.)

But during a recent change of opinions on the Unofficial IPSC List, I found myself engaged in an ("Off-List") exchange of opinions with a respected IPSC member. He was the first who actually accused me of 'arrogance' in my efforts to raise the question of applicability of specific IPSC rules when I suggested that the venerable "3-belt loops" rule may not be justifiable. (Note that I am not yet certain whether the rule is not needed; I only raised the question -- which has not yet been answered to my satisfaction.)

During the course of the dialogue, I received an email which included the following comments. I have requested and received permission from the author to post his comments with only minor editing for grammatical reasons:

.............. I also feel some kind of double measuring within IPSC sometimes.

One time someone claims that IPSC is a sport, and therefore eg. the Classic is introduced as a "not-that-humanoid shaped target", or PC target if you wish. At the same time, he announces that he has asked several Law Enforcement organizations, and they agreed that the "Classic" fits better for their needs (by being smaller, i.e. more challenging, and by more or less forming the shape of the chest of a man, too).

Then at another time the very same person (or another official of IPSC) claims that IPSC is a practical sport, and therefore the mere "fun targets" should be exiled, only the practical ones should remain.

Some rule suggestions, although would increase the fun of the game, are discarded because the are "not practical". At the same time, some other rules are introduced "to emphasize that IPSC is a sport". I guess it's not just me who sense some disturbance here.


This Texas Star, for example, is not a practical target in the sense that no Bad Guy, or a bunch of Bad Guys behave as that target does.

However, as far as I see, IPSC should be "practical" in the sense that it should teach us to control the gun under pressure, and to use it effectively against both static and moving targets. Partially for political reasons, IPSC should avoid using realistic scenarios for that.

And why should it be realistic? As long as it reaches its main goal, and teaches us to effectively neutralize both static and moving targets by using our handguns under pressure, what does it matter whether we shoot at humanoid robots or funny-shaped UFO imitations?

I can't rid of the feeling that most everybody uses the word "practical" as his own interest at the moment dictates. Including many of this very list, and many of the officials or representatives of IPSC.

Home Run At The Nats - The RO's Life Is Not A Happy One

Our friend, The Hobo Brasser, sent me some range reports from the 2007 Open/Limited 10 Nationals. He worked the match as a Range Officer.

Here are his primary observations:

Tuesday: Report at 8AM RO meeting-the usual. Then setup your stage (put up targets look it over, etc.). PM RO match 6 stages. Used the ones that had activators so they would be tested. Stage 10 Shoot Out –“*&^$#@&”

Wednesday: AM shooters allowed on the range (they were not allowed on the range Tuesday) PM run six squads finished about 6:30. Went out to dinner with George and Brian Jones and Aldo Gonzalez. Nice visit. Brian was 3^rd Master for the match and George was 5^th Super Senior.

Thursday: Ran 12 squads-had to eat at stage-ran about an hour behind schedule by end of day. Two Big Macs and 3 beers for dinner then to bed.

Friday: Ran 12 squads-had to eat at stage again-ran about 20-30 minutes by end of day. Friday night staff appreciation (2 knives this year).

Saturday: Ran 6 squads finished about 30 min late. Lunch, vendor tent (small this year) go to hotel, drink beer go to bed early.

Sunday: woke up early left at 5:45 Missoula time 9 hour drive home.

We had two stages in our bay and we ran them in tandem. After Wednesday we had a system that worked well. Two stages to a bay may be the reason for getting behind each day. We were the first stage in the bay so we would pass a squad on to the next stage and they would often start before we had the squad from the stage before us. The stage next to us would then pause when our shooters arrived so we could do our walk thru. After that we would work in tandem again. This seemed to slow down the whole process.

The range is great, the scenery is beautiful and the match was the best run major I have ever worked at. I had two RO’s who were fantastic-Bruce Bethell from Arkansas and Julie Williams from Wisconsin.It was my second as a CRO and I feel like it was a great Nationals from my perspective.

Other notes:
No word yet on whether the "Go Sit In The Corner" stage actually started with the competitor sitting downrange of the gun. At least, at the Nats, it was (probably) unloaded.

In the Home Run stage, HB reports that "they put a 15# weight 15' lead on the bat to keep people from throwing it." (I'm not sure why, since the original stage instructions were clear about initiating the targets by STEPPING on the foot trap. I suppose this just made it easier for gamers to remember.)

UPDATE: June 27, 2007
Read the comments. I quoted "15# weight" when a more accurate quote would have been "15'lead" in the penultimate paragraph. Judging by the comments, rather than depending on a heavy weight attached to the bat, the Match Administrators tied the bat to the ground with a fifteen foot cable. I apologize for the misunderstanding

2007 USPSA Open/Limited 10 Results

The first USPSA Nationals of the 2007 Competitive Season are over, and the results are posted here.

USPSA, in its respect for the privacy of competitors, omits last names from the public results. However, if you are a USPSA member you can see the full names on the Member's Page of the USPSA website.

Since I'm not an official publication of USPSA, and I think winners should be publically recognized, here are the results for each division:

LIMITED 10 DIVISION

Top 10:

1. Rob Latham - 100%
2. Ted Puente - 96.19%
3. Taran Butler - 96.16%
4. Travis Tomasie - 95.95%
5. David Sevigny - 95.00%
6. Emanuel Bragg - 94.95%
7. Michael Seeklander - 91.51%
8. Michael Burrell - 91.30%
9. Angus Hobdell - 90.79%
10. Phil Strader, Jr. -88.07%

Categories:

Top Foreign: (08) Micahel Burrell - 91.30%
Top Senior: (13) Ron Avery - 85.08%
Top Lady: (46) Julie Goloski - 67.08%
Top Junior: (61) Ben Thompson - 61.40%

Special Interest:
Unclassified: (15) Jerry Miculek - 84.05%

Local Interest (Columbia Cascade Section finishes):
(21) Scott Springer - 77.52%
(28) Chuck Anderson - 73.50%
(63) Chris Cardoza - 61.02% (Junior - Glock?)
(91) Stephan Kemper - 55.25% (Junior - Glock?)
(97) Barney Brooks - 53.99% (Super Senior)
(99) Michael McCarter - 52.84% (Super Senior - Glock?)

Number of Entries: 163

Number of Match DQ: 7

.


OPEN DIVISION

Top 10:

1. Max Michel Jr - 100%
2. JJ Racaza - 98.04%
3. Chris Tilley - 96.55%
4. Saul Kirsch - 96.49%
5. Todd Jarrett - 95.17%
6. JoJo Vidanes - 93.81%
7. KC Eusebio - 93.81%
8. Matt McLearn - 90.68%
9. Shannon Smith - 90.55%
10. Michael Voigt - 89.28%

Categories:

Top Foreign: (04) Saul Kirsch - 96.49%%
Top Senior: (30) Michael Auger - 79.30%
Top Lady: (44) Athena Lee - 75.93%
Top Junior: (11) BJ Norris - 89.12%

Special Interest:
A8 Father: (104) George Jones - 65.95%
A8 Son: (21) Bryan Jones - 83.11%

Local Interest (Columbia Cascade Section finishes):
(34) Yong Lee - 78.70%
(83) Norm Bright - 68.37%
(103) Bob Lee - 66.02%
(110) Bill Marrs - 64.91% (Senior)
(111) Ryan Leonard - 64.79% (Junior)
(115) Squire Tomasie - 63.96% (Super Senior)
(117) Ramiro Rayes - 63.82%
(129) Scott Fague - 61.26%
(143) Frank Cook - 59.74% (Super senior)
(147) Everett mastrich - 58.91% (Senior)
(153) Zachary Bright - 55.49% (Senior)
(166) Michael Kennedy - 52.79% (Senior)
(167) Bill Sahlberg - 52.68% (Senior)

Number of Entries: 227

Number of Match DQ: 7

Note: If I've left anyone out who should be included here, I apologize. Please send corrections to me at the email address listed at the bottom of this page.

Congratulations to the competitors, I wish I could have joined you there.

Firearm Lubrication: warm vs Cold Weather

Although I've not been very productive in terms of blogging for the past week, in the previous month I've made much of the problems I've had with my competition pistol.


Mostly, I've accused my reloading press of creating bad ammo. Not so. My problems have been entirely due to inappropriate lubrication of the pistol.

First I didn't lubricate the pistol at all for a month. The slide failed to cycle correctly, resulting in failure of the slide to go into battery (in the very worst situation, the slide didn't even cycle far enough, fast enough, to eject the spent cartridge case.)

When I thought I was lubricating, I grabbed the wrong container in my range bag. I used a high-tech, non-aromatic gun cleaner instead of lubricant.

Finally, I used a winter-weight lubricant, similar to Sewing Machine oil, which is fine in the winter but inadequate in warm weather.
Why is a light-wieght lubricant inadequate in warm weather? Because it is much more volitile and will, essentially, evaporate in a day or two leaving your firearms dry.

Here's a tip for you:

Be sure that you lubricate your 1911 frequently, adequately and appropriately (use the heavier weight oil in hot weather, a lighter weight oil in cold weather).


What do I use in warm weather?

Motor Oil -- Synthetics. My choice? Amsoil.

I mention this to fulfill my purpose, which is apparently to serve as a bad example so that others can learn from my (repeated) mistakes.

Albany Oregon Multi-Gun Matches

If you're a "Multi-Gun" competitor, Oregon is the place to be in July.

The Albany Rifle & Pistol Club (ARPC) is hosting two (2) Multi-Gun matches in July of 2007.

On July 1 (Sunday), ARPC will wrap up its June 29 - July 1 (Friday throught Sunday) Area 1 Multigun Championship.


And on July 13-14 (Saturday and Sunday), Robert Wright of R&R Racing will present the Northwest Multi-Gun Championships (NWMGC).
(Range Officers will shoot the NWMGC match on Friday, July 13.)


If you're unfamiliar with the Multigun concept, you may recall that in 2006 I wrote about the 2006 USPSA Multigun Championships, which also was hosted by ARPC. (Also see here.)

Links for the Area 1 "3-gun match" (okay, there's a difference between 3-gun and multigun; see below) are available here. USPSA links here.

Note that the terminology "3-gun" is embedded in the host North American Shooting Sports Online (NASSONLINE) webpage. The link for the "3-gun" match include the stage procedures. Stage 1: "Broke Down in Borax" specifiy that both a pistol and rifle are to be used in the same stage, which clearly makes this a "Multi-Gun" match. I'm sure that NASSONLINE will correct this inadvertant error in the near future.

The July 14-15 Northwest Multi-Gun Challenge information may be found on the R&R Racing website. (Detail information here, PDF entry form here.)

The June 13 deadline for the NWMGC match has been extended past June 13. No shirts are available for late entries, but (as of June 23) you can still sign up for this match.

3-gun vs Multi-gun
According to the USPSA Rules (2005 is the latest edition I can find):

A “multi-gun match” is defined as a match (see 6.1.4) in which at least one stage involves the use of two or more different firearm types. A multi-gun match may involve any combination of handgun, rifle and shotgun usage, including stages which involve one, two or all three firearm types. Other than the use of multiple firearm types, all other provisions of 6.1.4 apply.

Conversely, a "3-gun" match is one in which all three guns (handgun, rifle, shotgun) are used but each stage uses only one gun.

I've never competed in either a 3-gun or a multi-gun match, but I have observed a multi-gun match and one of the complexities which lends so much to the excitement is the moment when a competitor switches from one gun to the next. And in a stage which utilizes all three guns, it can get a little hairy.

Note that I'm not talking about safety factors. The competitor is typically required to clear the gun he is leaving, and deposit said cleared (read: EMPTY, NO AMMUNITION) in a provided receptical before he can pick up the next gun. At no time may the competitor move downrange of a loaded firearm. *

Of course, that isn't an issue in a "3-gun" match.

I plan to attend both matches as an observer. I'll be there with eyes and ears, at least two cameras and a tripod. Hopefully, I'll get some interesting footage to post here.

(This post originated on 6/20/2007)

* UPDATE - June 25, 2007

See the comment from Trey. Disposition of one firearm before continuing a stage with another firearm MAY not require clearing the previous gun.

When the gun ain't runnin' ...

It's frustrating, awkward and embarassing when your pistol isn't working at an IPSC match and you can't figure out WHY.

It's even more embarassing when you discover (see previous post) that the reason why the gun ain't running is because of your own silly oversight.

But when you finally figure out what's wrong, and fix it, the feeling is as if you have shed a great weight and you can reach up and touch the sky.

The video serves as a good example of a bad example. There is a boring minute watching The Gun That Won't Run, but the last half-minute ... well, it comes as something of a relief!

The video says it all: See this, avoid it!

(Note: No STI's were injured in the production of this film, and it's a credit to its maker that it put up with being shot without a bit of lubrication without damage.)





.

The Seven-Ten Question (S.O.D.A.)

Joke:

A blonde walks into an auto-part store and says "My Datsun B210 needs a new part. I don't know what it is, but it's broken, and I have the part number. Can you help me?"

The clerk at the counter says "Sure. What's the part number?"

The blonde says: "It's a Seven-Ten."

The counter-man digs out a dusty Datsun B210 parts manual and leaves through it for a while. He can't find a Seven-Ten part number. Calls in "The Old Guy" (the guy who has worked for the store so long, he knows parts numbers by heart.) He doesn't know what she's talking about.

Finally, they say "Go back to your car and write down the part number."

She does, and comes back with a slip of paper which shows:


710




The old guy looks at it, turns the paper upside down, nods, the goes back into the parts bins. Two minutes later he brings back an oil-filler tube cap. On the top of the cap is stamped:




OIL

(Pause for laughter.)



Okay, finished? Here's the real story:



Two weeks ago I attended an IPSC Steel match in Bend, Oregon. I had some problems with ammunition feeding, which I attributed to ammunition. Just to make sure, I field-stripped the STI and wiped it down, then applied a liberal coat of Sewing Machine oil. It's a light-weight oil I use during the winter, and although it was somewhat warmer than the use I had intended it for it was all the oil I had with me. The next stage was 'sort-of' okay, but the following stage was disastrous.

I had recently changed from FMJ to JHP bullets, and I figured I had seated the bullets too shallow.



Today I went to another local club match, with a brand new batch of ammunition in which I had
taken special care with reloading. The first stage was bad ... lots of failure-to-feed problems. Actually, the slide just wasn't going into battery on a consistent basis.

People asked me what was wrong. I said the ammunition just 'wasn't right'.

As it happened, my friend Bill Sahlberg was at the match, and he offered to loan me his ammunition. Sure, it was 'practice ammo', but it worked fine in his pistol.

That stage was much the same thing. Bang-Bang Bang-Dammit!

For the next stage, Big Dawg offered to let me use HIS ammunition.

Even worse, I ended up shooting a 120-point stage 'single-action'. The gun just wasn't running with ANYBODY's ammo!

So I took the pistol to the safety area, and field-stripped it. Wiped it down, used a generous amount of sewing-machine oil as a solvent, wiped it down again. Then I poured enough sewing-machine oil on the slide and rails to drown Free Willie, put it back together again, wiped the outside with a shop towel and put it in the gun rug to soak.

The next stage I was SMOKING! The gun ran Perfectly, and I ended up 3rd overall on a technically difficult stage.

The following stage, I started getting some jams toward the end of the 24-round stage.

Hmmm ... what am I doing wrong? Big Dawg's ammo ran crummy, two stages back. I cleaned and oiled the gun and it ran great. An hour later, it won't cycle ... again.

So I went back to the safety area with my gun and rags and tool kit and sewing machine oil, and field-stripped the gun AGAIN.

As I started to pour more sewing-machine oil on the slide, I took a reflective moment to actually read the instructions on the four-ounce bottle.

Unique Tek.como

Premium
Weapons
Cleaner

• Can be used safely indoors
• Contains no oil or additives
• Will not swell plastic
• Non Flamable
• Non-Toxic
• Low Volatility
• No Ammonia
• Non Acidic
• Non Corrosive

What I had been doing was 'lubricating' the slide and rails not with "Sewing Machine Oil", but with a cleaner.

The stuff cleaned all the crap from the slide/rail interface, but it decidedly did NOT lubricate it! I had been running the gun 'dry' for two weeks, and wondered why the slide was going 'Ker-CHUNK' all the time.

Sheepishly, I went back to my bag and dug into another pocket. Came out with a 1-ounce applicator-bottle of real sewing machine oil, oiled the slide and the rails (and used a 'snake' on the bore), wiped the gun dry on the outside, then went to the final stage where I ended up 9th out of 62 competitors with a 6.07 HF on CM 99-xxxx "Fast 'N Furious'. The gun ran perfectly.

Why wouldn't it? It was clean, OILed, and running on Some Other Dude's Ammo (S.O.D.A.).

The moral of this story (besides "just when you assumed you had done every stupid thing possible in IPSC ... you'll find a new way to be Stupid!"), is that you we I need to check your our my presumptions at the door in IPSC competition.

Dave Skinner once told me: "Oil is Good! We're working with machinery here, and you can't put too much oil on machinery -- the excess will run off."

I apologise, Dave. You told me, I thought I had listened, but I forgot the Stupid Factor.

---

On the drive home, SWMBO and I talked about the match. She didn't shoot today; instead, she ran the camera. We talked about the interesting things we had seen, and I mentioned it was a shame that she missed the shot of Bill Sahlberg doing the "Rodeo Princess" wave as he slid in the deep gravel on Stage 5, trying to change direction faster than the pea-gravel would permit. It WOULD have been my headline news for the day. Without that footage, I would have to go with the "Seven-Ten" story.

"Well, it won't be the first time you've embarassed yourself in public!"

"Okay" I said; "The 'Naked Loops Dream'" story is the headline for today!"

It's good to own your blog.

Maybe SWMBO will be speaking to me again by this time next week.

PS: At least I got to shoot the whole last half of the match shooting Some Other Dude's Ammo!

Loops! We got Loops!

This weekend SWMBO was telling me about a dream she had.

She was naked on the range.

No no, I'm not appealing to your prurient interests. Well, maybe the subjec does, but that's your fault.

Scientists (?) tell us that dreams of being naked are a sign of vulnerability, or a yearning for self-empowerment. We've all had dreams of being naked in a public place (when I was in junior high school, I use to dream of being naked on the main street of my home town -- I ran from store to store looking for a necktie to go with my outfit! You won't be surprised to learn that I never found the Perfect Necktie for a nude boy.)

SWMBO's dream was unique in that it took place on a shooting range. She was at an IPSC match, and ran from place to place asking people she met if they had seen her clothes.

Her squad was yelling at her:

SWMBO! Hurry up, it's your turn to shoot!

She remembers shouting back:

I can't shoot! I don't have loops!

Which brings us to the question: why must your belt be threaded through pants loops?

In the USPSA Handgun Competition Rules (January, 2004), chapter 5 deals with "Competitor Equipment." Rule 5.2.3 clearly states:

... The belt or inner belt or both must be either permanently fixed at the waist, or secured with a minimum of three belt loops.

So I'm asking myself: Why?


This is perhaps the most abused rule in the book. In the heat of the summer, I can't guess how many competitors I've seen wearing shorts and a Safariiland-type (or CR Speed Belt) belt-and-holster system over the waistband. It's too HOT to wear pants (even in Oregon) and many competitors choose to wear the lightest material possible. This is often some kind of short pants with an elastic waistband. Sometimes it's a pair of short cargo pants, which may or may not have belt loops wide enough to thread the inner-belt.

But the ride of the belt and holster seems to be the same whether there are belt loops or not.

The draw is the same (due to the weight of the heavy belt system) whether there are belt loops or not.

SWMBO and I talked about this question. We alternately offered the suggestion that it was safer (but could not offer a convincing reason why it was safer) and that it provided a secure base for the holster so that the draw was more consistent.

If it only offers a consistent draw, it seems to me that this is the shooter's choice. If the shooter decides that an 'unsecured belt' won't slow down the draw, what does IPSC care?

And what's this about "a minimum of three belt loops"? Is that a magic number? Is a belt threaded through 3 belt loops intrinsically more safe, or secure, than one threaded through two belt loops? Does it matter WHICH three belt loops are chosed?

I think this is a subject best left for discussion. Does anyone have a supportable reason why 3 belt loops must be used to ... er ... support a gunbelt?

And can anyone tell me the meaning of the phrase "Permanently affixed at the waist"?

Doesn't this sound painful to you?

Slant

US legislators, gun lobby strike deal: report

As you're reading your daily paper, remember that you can't tell the players without a program.

One of the players is "Breitbart", which is essentially Reuters crossed with AP -- Incest, squared.

When you look at the headline of this article, the first impression is that the two organizations (The National Rifle Association and The U.S. Congress) have been conspiring in congressional cloak rooms for ... whatever purpose. In fact, this may be the most honest part of the entire article.

The article iss illustrated by a close-up photo of a table full of firearms, including a sawed-off rifle, and one person handing what appears to be either a MAC-1o or a Uzi to another.

Well, that's illustrative of a legislative process!

The text of the article (see the link above) includes the following content:
The deal could lead to the first federal legislation on gun control since 1994 and was negotiated after a mentally ill student went on a shooting rampage at the Virginia Tech university in April, the Washington Post

Leading US Democratic lawmakers have struck a deal with the powerful National Rifle Association to authorize stricter background checks on people who purchase guns, US media said Sunday.

I'm not going to fisk this to death, but I note the phrases "Democratic Lawmakers" and "powerful National Rifle Association". In the first paragraph, the article establishes the Democratic dominance (see below) and the NRA as a 'gun lobby'.

Second paragraph:

The deal could lead to the first federal legislation on gun control since 1994 and was negotiated after a mentally ill student went on a shooting rampage at the Virginia Tech university in April, the Washington Post reported.

No mention of the fact that the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" was a compromise deal with a sunset after 10 years, or that after the 10-year testing period the "federal legislation on gun control" was determined to have absolutely NO effect on criminal acts which involved firearms ... which was purportedly the purpose of the failed law.

There is, however, great emphasis on the idea that the 'deal' was 'negotiated' in response to the mass murders at Virginia Tech, which reveals that the entire exercise was an effort to demonstrate that "Democratic Lawmakers" are Dedicated to Preventing Another Virginia Tech Massacre!"

(We could only wish they had been so dedicated a couple of months ago -- it may not have been a "No Gun Zone" and someone may have had the means to counter the no-gun-zone madman.)

And the NRA -- what were they doing? Hey, they were "negotiating".

Why?

We'll never know from this article. Maybe they were just overcome by the sheer eloquence of the Democrats.

Moving right along to Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6:

According to the terms, states would get cash incentives to keep the federal background database up to date and would face penalties if they did not comply, the report said.

In exchange, Democrats conceded that people with "minor infractions" would be deleted from the database, military veterans who were entered in the system for mental health reasons could appeal to clean their records, and the government would not charge buyers or sellers a fee for background checks.

"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a ... system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Democratic John Dingell, who led the talks.

Okay, we have the carrot and the stick. We have an 'exchange' (where the Democrats graciously give up their stance on an issue which should never have been an issue), and the NRA given a nod for their willingness to accede to an issue which never WAS an issue.

Here's a nice quote:
" ... with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a ... system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement ..."

No, this doesn't do anything for gun owners, nor does it do anything to gun owners. What it does is add a layer of governmental oversight to the process of vetting the National Instant Check system so that people who are mentally dingbatish are filtered even though their mental health practitioners (read: professionals who don't really have any idea just how crazy their patients are) can't buy a gun even though their psychiatrists don't think they're a danger to "other people".

Now, I'm not saying that this is a bad bill. I'm not even saying that the Egregious Cho shouldn't have been stopped before he started. I'm just saying that the DemocRats are feeding at the trough, and The Press is acting as if this is the solution which will forever stop madmen from shooting students.

Here's the bottom line:

It ain't gonna work.

Madmen will always be with us. Same as criminals. And they will shoot sheep in any paddock they find ... and there are a lot of them here in Democratic America. The sheep are also known as "unarmed targets" and the paddocks are known as "University Campuses".

Did anyone realize that you don't need a gun to kill people? How about driving your car through a crowd. As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park, "Nature will find a way".

As is the NRA, I'm all for disarming maniacs. But I suspect the NRA is working the political side of the fence rather than standing fast for defending the right of law-abiding citizens to be armed on, for example, a University campus.

Just one more reason why I stand fast against paying an annual fee for the NRA to represent me. They're not paying attention to Job One.

This entire arrangement between the DemocRats and the NRA is bogus. It won't make any difference in the number of innocents killed. It doesn't advance the cause of American citizens to arm themselves in self-defence.

It isn't enough.

As such, it isn't anything.

It's only politics.

Just thought you ought to know.

2007 Crazy Croc Match

2007 11th Annual Crazy Croc Match

"Survivor Croc Dundee"

Dundee Oregon

September 1-2, 2007

8 Stages, 400+ rounds

The famous “Surprise Jungle Run”

Limited to first 120 entries

Jack's Back!

I was in the Campus Bookstore yesterday (it's finals week ... very few students were there) looking for a paperback to read during my lunch hours for the rest of the week. I found a SF novel by a female writer I've been reading for years, and Pompei by Richard Harris, who was recommended to me by WhiteFish.

Ho hum, okay, I'll take them both.

At the checkout counter, I learned there was a 'special' this week only: buy two paperbacks, get a third paperback for free. The clerk suggested that if I went back in the stacks and found a third paperback, it would be free.

I hadn't seen anything that looked very attractive, but what the heck -- it's a freebie. Back I went to look for a 3rd paperback. I already had about $16 invested, maybe I can find SOMETHING I haven't already read.

Bad idea. I didn't find a paperback, I found a $26 hardback by one of my favorite 'thriller' novelists, Lee Child.

That's right, Lee's 11th Jack Reacher novel, "Bad Luck and Trouble", was released on May 15, 2007, and I didn't even know about it!

So I grabbed the Lee Child Book (always a good idea) and dragged it back to the clerk.

As it happens, with my staff discount I got two paperbacks and Childs' "Bad Luck and Trouble" for less than the cost of the hardback.

[Gloat!]

This is the 11th book in Child's "Jack Reacher" series, and it's right up there with the best work he has ever done. We can only compare it with other "Reacher" books, because that's all Child has written to date. If you're a reader of Connelly 's "Hieronymous Bosch" series, you know that a Mystery/Thriller writer can make a good living turning out one novel a year based on a single unique protagonist.

I bought the book at Noon on Tuesday. I finished it at 8am on Wednesday, and completed a full workday Tuesday. That shows how un-put-downable Child's writing is.

The un-put-downable factor is my primary criteria for readability in fiction genre. This is usually based on the successful creation of an appealing main character. Stephen Hunter, for example, wrote a couple of books which weren't terribly appealing until he started his "Bob The Nailer" series. In that, he developed first Bob, then went off on a tangent with Bob's father Earl, who shared a common history. Both characters were fascinating, and the series was a maga-hit. (Note that a strong character isn't enough by itself; Hunter wrote "Havana" in 2003; it was so bland that I couldn't even stay awake on the plane ride to the Shirley Skinner Make-A-Wish Match in Waco and back.)

I enjoyed the Jack Reacher book, which is no less than I had expected. There are a few writers who are so consistently excellent that I'll spend $25+ for an early release of their latest novel in hardbound, and Child is definately in the top four. (The other three are John Ringo, David Drake and S.M. Stirling -- all SF writers. Sorry, Michael Connelly is Number 5.)

All of these authors write about iconic action figures, sort of Literary Transformers, although of course the SF writers sparkle because they create interesting worlds into which they insert iconic characters while Child and Connelly work within the 'real world' ... sorta.

BTW, Stirling has two new books coming out in September and October (one is the sequel to "A Meeting in Corvallis", the other is not) Hunter's next Bob the Nailer novel "The 47th Samurai" (due out September 11, 2007) is already on order, and I'll be ordering Hunter's "American Gunfight: The Plot to Kill President Truman -- And The Shoot-out That Stopped It" as soon as I publish this article.

Which is to say .... now!

USPSA Open/L10 National Match stage #11: "Go Sit In The Corner"

This is the second in a short series of articles describing the experiences of competitors at a Club Match which features stage designs published by USPSA and which are intended for the 2007 USPSA Open/L10 National Match.

The first in the series featured Stage 2: "Home Run".

This stage is Stage 11: "Go Sit In The Corner".

All stage designs (in PDF format) can be viewed at the USPSA Website.

Stage Starting Position:

"Seated in chair with arms crossed, hands on opposite shoulders. Gun in loaded and ready condition per 8.1, lying flat on one of the barrels, muzzle pointing downrange. All exra magazines are placed on the opposite barrel."

Comments on the Stage Design:

My personal most serious criticism of this stage design is that it required the competitor to be position downranged of a loaded pistol. Looking at the published schematic of the stage design, it seems obvious that this is an intentional feature of the design. I cannot imagine what the designer thought would be particularly attractive about this design feature, but this is one good reason why I am glad I hadn't planned to compete in this match.

Am I the only IPSC shooter who feels uncomfortable about this?

Note the starting position (above); there is no verbiage which suggests that the muzzle of the pistol should NOT be pointed at the competitor in the starting position.

I assume that the NROI has vetted this stage; are any of their members planning to sit in the corner on this stage? I suspect that this has NOT been tested in "Real Life" (that is, nobody has set up the stage and shot it, to see how it feels to stare down the barrel of a loaded gun.)

This is not A Good thing. Perhaps USPSA may reconsider this factor of the stage design. I hope.

At the Club match, I was not the only person who approached the Match Director to voice a certain discomfort about this starting position.

Local Variations on the Stage Design:

Looking at the Stage Layout, it appears that the chair (starting position) may have originally been intended to place the competitor facing downrange in the chair. The club match had the chair placed uprange. This may be a slight difference between the "pre-match" version and the "national match" version of this stage.

The national match stage procedures require that the pistol be placed on one barrel, and all magazines be placed on the other barrel. In the club match version, all magazines were carried on the belt. The Match Director at the club match stated that this was because the stage required more than 10 rounds be fired from a single position. In the actual event, the stage design only required that Limited 10 competitors (also Single Stack and Production) be careful about ammunition management. In the accompanying video, you will see that while the Open Division competitors managed the stage handily with a single (hi-capacity) magazine, the Limited-capacity competitors typically broke the stage into three-magazine arrays. The 11-target, 22-round stage was either divided into 10-6-6 or 10-4-8 round combinations, with one hapless competitor demonstrating the standing reload when he realized that he hadn't planned the stage as well as he might have wished.

In the video below, you will see that the stage design leaves very little room for any alternative than that the competitor be placed downrange of the loaded firearm at the start of the stage.

The first shooter, Mitch, demonstrated that a 10-round magazine limitation is not a serious impediment to a fast stage time. Second shooter, Geek, shows the relative placement of loaded firearm and shooter starting position. The rest of the competitors show variations on the sequence of target engagement and the reload-tactics of competitors who have limited ammunition. Clearly, the challenge of Open Division Competitors is less challenged than that of Limited 10 Competitors.

USPSA Nationals Stage 2: Home Run

Albany Rifle and Pistol Club used it's June, 2007, local match date to present its 'best guess' look at a few of the stages which are scheduled to be featured at the USPSA Open/L10 National match on June 20, 2007.

According to the published stage procedures (see all of the stage designs here), "Stepping on 1st and 3rd bases will activate swinging targets T2 and T7."

Well, this is true. However, the procedures do not specifically require that the competitor activate the targets by "stepping" on the foot-trap activators.

Consider this: at the start of the stage, you are holding a baseball bat. What if, at the sound of the buzzer you toss the bat and it hits one of the foot-trap activators? If you're the kind of person who assumes that "if it isn't specifically prohibited, it must be permitted", is this a legal way to avoid moving bodily to that location? After all, the swinging targets can be engaged from a wide area of legal locations.

This video presents four approaches to the stage.

Note again that this is NOT the 2007 USPSA Open/L10 National Match. This is the stage as presented by a 'local' club, using the stage design as provided by USPSA. The distances to targets, and relationship between targets/activators/shooting positions may be dramatically different from the National Match. Also, the Stage Procedures are ... and should be! ... tentative. My hope is that the USPSA NROI will evaluate the stage procedures as interpreted here, and reconsider whether it should specifically disallow initiation of the moving targets by throwing the bat at the initiator.

The precedent for this question is that in one of the stages presented at a USPSA Open National Match in 2003 or 2004 (Bend, Oregon), one stage may have provided an advantage to a competitor who chose to trip a foot-initiator by throwing a filled magazine at the trap. This didn't actually happen, but in an interview the Chief Range Officer voiced a concern that this might happen. The stage officials had not been instructed in how to rule in this event.

The first competitor, a GM Open shooter, chose not to use the bat to trip the initiator. He ended up 2nd overall, suggesting that there may be no advantage in this approach at this skill level.

The 2nd competitor, an A-class shooter in Single-Stack Division, also placed well without 'gaming' the stage.

The 3rd competitor, a B-Open class shooter, chose to interpret the stage procedure as a permission to trip the initiator by throwing the bat at it. He was successful in his attempt, and turned in a good time within the class.

The fourth competitor, a C-Open class shooter, missed the activator when he threw the bat at it. In the event, he not only failed to realize an advantage using this technique, he ended up with a 3-second penalty because he ran out of ammunition and had to make a standing reload on the last target. This doesn't prove anything, except that ammunition management is always an important factor in shooting any hi-round-count IPSC stage.

On the other hand, if he had expected the trap to trip by using the bat as an activation technique, he may have been rattled by the unsuccessfull attempt and in fact set up a situation where he was distracted by the failure of his tactics.

The questions here are whether it is an advantage to use a prop to trip an activator, whether it is legal given the text of the stage procedures, and whether it is advisable to 'game' a stage in this manner.

Look at the video, decide for yourself.

Blog Inactivity

I mentioned on May 22 that my server was being changed, and I still hadn't got all of the access permissions worked out so I can post pictures and videos on my Gallery website. That situation hasn't improved, I'm still trying to figure out my new URL, signon and password. Until that happens I'm unable to update the gallery. The existing link to the gallery (see sidebar) still works and the pictures and videos that were there are still available, even though some of the captions and other text may not be. I'll see what can be done about that this week. I have a lot of videos to post, but many of them are not edited so updates to the gallery may not be caught up for a couple of weeks.

Daily blogging has been sparse. Between taking a long weekend to celebrate SWMBO's birthday, transporting various family members to doctor appointments, etc., and my own recent bout of hayfever, I've had neither time nor the initiative to post regularly. I hope that this week will be more productive than last week. (My boss hopes the same improvement on my attendance at the office improves, too.)

I did attend a local match (yesterday) which featured a 'best guess' of some stages which will be presented at the June 20, 2007, USPSA National Open/L10 match. We saw some innovative approaches to some of the stages, especially Stage 2: "Home Run". I hope to edit sufficient videos from this local match version to illustrate what may be controversial tactics in the next day or two. The full-length high-density video will not, of course, be immediately available. However, I can still post to YouTube and that grainy version may be sufficient to illustrate the point.

For those of you who dropped by during the past two weeks to see if I've had anything interesting to read, and who were perhaps disappointed in the meager offerings, I apologize. In retrospect, it seems as if I should have found a few moments to explain that I wouldn't be publishing at my usual rate during this period.