Blog Stats

I'm still twisting in the wind, trying to (a) figure out what features of the Old Blog I want to include in the New Blog, and (b) then figure out how to make it happen.

I already tried to put the hit-counter on; as you can see by looking in the right-hand sidebar, where it says

Hits since December, 2004

... they aren't displaying.

According to my stats counter account, this blog has registered 369,000 hits so far.   Compared to Kim De Tuit for example, who use to get that many hits in a single day, that's nothing.  But for me, it's encouraging that I'm not completely ignored even if my blogging has been haphazard over the past couple of years.

Well, I've been distracted.

All I know at the moment is that for the first week of October, 2012, I had 15 unique hits.   But for the month so far, there were 800 hits.  Somehow, I think that the next 300,000 hits are going to be very slow in coming, because I have lost most of my usual readership.

Most of the hits I'm receiving are because people the world over are being directed to my website when they search GOOGLE for subjects which I have addressed in articles going back for years.  Most of them are related to IPSC/USPSA, or firearms/ammunition/reloading/competition in general.

VOLUME?
Also, I'm reminded because this blog came about after I had been 'blogging' on The Unofficial IPSC List, which now posts even less frequently than I do.  You see, I have been known to Have An Opinion, which I often expressed in great length.  My dear friend Bumstead once commented about a 3,000 word post I submitted, and a few other contributors gently suggested that I was using too much "bandwidth".  That is a misnomer, but I did get the point.

Thus I started Cogito Ergo Geek on December 4, 2004, and after almost eight years I'm still struggling to intersperse opinion articles with a few items which people might actually find interesting.

What I find interesting is that, going back to my email archive, I find I've saved 1,301 articles (this will make 1,302) and all told they consume a mere 15 MB of storage.  That includes embedded photos.

(the actual total number of articles is larger ... considerably; see below)

Oh the other hand, I've got text-versions (or html text) of 500-page books which only occupy 25kb.  I'm not sure how they compare to my Blog entry, but the html version of "Clean Your Gun Regularly" consumes 8kb.

But how many articles have I actually WRITTEN?  Including those which never made it past the "DRAFT" stage?         3,298

Published?  1,907

Over the past eight years, I've averaged about 240 published posts a year, or 20 a month.

The biggest year was 2007,  with over 400 posts.

...

Incidentally , my computer died and self-rebooted while I was writing this article  It restarted without problems, and I did send an error report to Microsoft, but I don't have any idea what happened.  Another problem is that my sidebar (which so far only consists of my archive links) doesn't always display.

One of the reasons I didn't convert to New Blogger earlier was because I was trying to avoid post-development glitches in the software.  I didn't expect them to have all been sorted out by the conversion deadline,  but I think those are two serious problems which one would HOPE that Google will manage to successfully address Real Soon Now.

While we're waiting, I wish to add that I am grateful to those die-hards amongst you who have continued to stop by with some frequency during The Lean Years.  Your very presence has encouraged me to get back into the normal routines which I had all but abandoned while Life Happened.  I promise to work harder at finding pleasure in my old once-comfortable habits.

And you think YOUR job sucks?

The scariest video you have ever watched in the name of science - YouTube



I don't know about you, but it makes my belly rumble just to watch this.

Following people who are running and gunning, shooting live ammunition? No problem!

Climbing a pole which is a quarter of a mile high (1700 feet .. okay, a third of a mile) .. uh-huh! not me!

Power Factor

Vortex cannon - PointlessSites.com

The definition of POWER FACTOR in USPSA is bullet weight, times velicity, divided by 1000. Which to say is:

MV/100 = PF

Or, to use an example, for a .45 ACP "Hardball" (military) round of ammunition:

Bullet Weight = 230 grains
Velocity = 800fps (feet per second)

So the "Power Factor" is calculated as follows:

230 grain bullet, and 800 FPS velocity:

PF = 230 x 800 / 1000
PF = 185,000 / 1000
PF = 185

That's the standard load (circa 1960) of the .45acp in a 1911 Browning-style pistol, using "BALL" ammunition.  And it falls well within the "Major Power" designation, according to the 2008 USPSA Rule Book, which requires a minimum of 165 PF to make "Major Power".

However, if you reload it with 200-grain (semi-wadcutter bullets,usually), you get a recalculated Power Factor ... assuming the same velocity:

200 grain bullet, and 800 FPS velocity:

PF = 200 x 800/100
PF = 160,000 /1000
PF = 160

Unfortunately, USPSA requires a PF of 165.00 or greater to achieve "Major Power".   You can see from this example that you need to work your reloads and then calibrate them, to determine whether you are likely (or not!) to be calibrated as Major Power at a Major Match.

I realize it's difficult to accept that one may be competing in a USPSA match with a .45 ACP cartridge, and still be shooting "Minor Power".

However, that's the way it is.
If you are chronographed as "Minor Power, your A-zone hits will still be with 5 points.  But your B/C-zone hits will be worth 3 points, not 4.

And your D-zone hits will be worth 1 point,not 2.

Well, that's just the way it is.

And of course the "Minor Power" floor is PF= 125.00

Consider a 125 grain bullet being pushed through a 9mm.  In order to achieve Minor Power, that bullet must be choreographed at 1000 fps. 

Oh, and in case you were not aware .. if your PF is under 165, you will be deemed to be shooting 'Minor Power'.

If your PF is under 125, then you are deemed to not meet the Minor Power Factor floor ... and you are shooting 'just for fun'.  Unless you DQ during the match, your scores WILL be recorded .. but they will be recorded as ZERO points for every stage in the match.

Sorry, Charley.  Fun, challenging .. but competitive?  No, hardly.

So what do you think about THESE Guys, with a Vortex Cannon?




Right. Shooting just for fun, and entirely 'not competitive'.

Second presidential debate: Assault weapons ban - CBS News Video

Second presidential debate: Assault weapons ban

In Tuesday Night's Presidential Debate, someone actually asked the question about "gun violence" ... wow!

And the incumbent president, AND his challenger .. actually addressed the issue!  Wow!


NOT!

Obama called for re-instatement of the Assault Weapon Ban; the original version of which was cancelled after the five-year 'trial period' proved that it had made NO difference in the incidents, injuries, or deaths which it had been intended to do.

You may recall that this cancellation was due to a 'sundowner' provision which had been demanded by Republican Congressmen before they would allow it to be passed.  At the time, we howled at the moon because we felt that our elected representatives had betrayed their constitutional rights ... as if that was something new!

But after 1999, when the law was repealed, we breathed a small sigh of relief because we thought:

"Wow!  It was tough, but experience has proved that this is NOT a viable approach to the problem of Gun Violence, so at least we will never have to experience this particular version of Liberal Hope-and-changeism!"

Or something like that.



Stupid stupid stupid us.

The gun-grabbers and the liberals (but I repeat myself here) will never give up.  They will NEVER stop believing in "Hope and Change" even when events prove that their efforts have no greater effect than taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.  The Crazy's and The Bad Guys will ALWAYS have guns, and will carry them anywhere ... including (and especially) into "Gun Free Zones".

Let me make this perfectly clear (to paraphrase that great Presidential wimp, George Bush the First).  You can NOT manage "gun violence" by taking weapons away from honest, decent, law-abiding citizens.  You just cannot accomplish the stated objective.  You only make the entire country one great "Gun Free Zone" and we know how well that has been working so far.   You cannot reduce Gun Violence by reducing the number of GUNS; you can only reduce Gun Violence by reducing the amount of Violence.  And in this, the country which is viewed by the rest of the world as "The Wild Wild West" .. is just not going to happen without a huge effort and an enormous amount of governmental financial resources (and intrusion) to reduce the violent tendencies of the American  (or any other nationality and/or ethnicity) Citizen.

Witness Zimbabwe, Jamaica, Sudan, El Salvador ... well, gee, I guess it's not just Americans after all, is it?  It's just "people".

But Mitt Romney, bless his heart, is not as namby-pamby and placating as Obama.  He took the bull firmly by the horns, hitched up his britches, stood in front of the American people on National Television and said ...

oh dear.  This is awful.

And then he changed the subject, never again to tread amongst area on the Political Map marked HERE THERE BE DRAGONS!

I'm sure there are lessons here, and the first among many are these two:

1. Obama will do anything he can to re-institute gun-grabber national policies; ignore the wimpy-fisted acknowledgements of the rights of  "... hunters and .. uh .. people who just want to defend themselves ... ".   He doesn't believe in it at all, it's all just political rhetoric, and he will do whatever he can do to retain his power.
2. Romney is afraid to even talk about the subject.   The man has no personal guidelines to ethical action as a man or as the president of the most free nation in the world.  He just wants the power.

What are the differences between the two men?  Well, for starters ... at least Obama will actually take a stand, even if it is wrong-thinking and politically motivated.

Romney, at least, is lizard-brain smart enough to recognize that Barack Hussein ("I Am The Only One...") Obama has just shot himself in the political foot, at least as far is the 2nd Amendment is concerned, and is willing to let the point ride; in the meantime, he'll merely preserve the delicate balance and do absolutely nothing to upset it

Presidential?  I think not!

Sly?  Weasel-Worded?  I would never accuse a politician of those execrable approaches to leadership!

Obama was elected to the office on the campaign platform of: "I Am Not George Bush!"

Romney is running on the campaign platform of "I Am Not Barack Obama!"

The only difference?  Romney is playing to a different audience.  Other than that, they're both mendacious, without honor, fearful of saying what they really think, and capable of debasing themselves by toadying to the Lowest Common Denominator of political thought.

In other words .. typical politicians.

What a bunch of Maroons!

In the interest of full disclosure .. both candidates discussed the value of, essentially, the "Nuclear Family" and education, as well as increased job opportunities, as important ways that the crazies can be brought into mainstream America.  I do agree that this is an important step.   It won't eliminate all of the causes of "gun violence" in America, certainly.  But if we ever do get a President who is committed to improving the quality of life of lower-earning families, it will make a difference.

The crazies, however, are still with us.  And until we recognize that FACT, we will never acknowledge that the single most effective way to reduce the death-toll from people who just want to kill other people is to get rid of the Kill Zones .. aka "Gun Free Zones".

The single greatest group of "lone killer-type" people in America, those who commit  the most atrocious mass murders by guns, are not the disaffected nor the disenfranchised; that group is comprised of the people who just want to go out and kill somebody .. anybody ... out of pure rage.

And they are Evil.

Could it be that George W. Bush had got it right?  That there ARE people out there who are so evil that they will laugh with monomaniacal glee while they conduct the slaughter of the innocents simply because enjoy it?

The only way we can protect ourselves against them, is to kill them before they kill us.

And that .. as Edith Ann has so often said .. is the truth.

Clean your gun regularly!

Or, if you don't like cleaning your gun .. buy an STI.

I've been running a little experiment for the past year.  I shoot my 10mm STI Edge twice a month .. once when I 'demonstrate' each training stage in the "Introduction to USPSA" class, and again the next weekend when I compete at my local match.

Then I take it home and don't take it out of the gun bag until next month.

Every now and then I look at the barrel ... from the outside ... by racking the slide.  I see a lot of dirty oil on the outside.  God only knows what it looks like on the inside.

Why do I look at the barrel?  I want to see if there's plenty of oil on it.  If it looks thin, I pour some more oil on it.  Usually 30 weight motor oil .. it works just fine as a lubricant.

Oh, sometimes I use a paper towel to wipe the old oil off the part of the barrel that I can see when I rack the slide, and then I pour more motor oil on it.  There's a technical name for this process.  It's called "Cleaning My Gun".

Sure, that's  not what most people would call it.  "Abuse" would be an alternative term, but I decided not to call it that, so it's not abuse.

I use to clean The Beloved Kimber by putting it in the dishwasher.  That worked fine for me, too ... although I occasionally actually ran a brass brush through the barrel.  See, I was using hard-cast lead bullets through it, and I do know the effects of leading on a barrel; reduced accuracy.  That's not generally considered to be A Good Thing.  Especially not good when you use the gun for competition (as I do).

But even when I 'cleaned' The Beloved Kimber, I always DRENCHED the wretch in oil.  Yup, motor oil.  Five bucks buys a pint of oil, and it lasts for years!

By now, you're either thinking that this is satire, or that I'm a complete idiot.  If so ... you're right.  I am an idiot, because I do know how people tell me to take care of a gun.   I just don't listen to them.  I take my own advice.

Oil it.  If a little oil is good, more oil is gooder.

I got that piece of advice from Dave Skinner, past owner and CEO of STI Guns, Inc.  He should know, since he built and sold STI pistols for years and years, all around the world.

The people who caution you not to 'over-oil' your pistol?  I think they need to define the term.  So far, I have determined that the problem with "over-oiling" your pistol is that it leaks out and makes the grip slippery.  My solution to "over oiling" is to wipe off the slippery stuff on the grip.

This isn't Rocket Science.  How much oil is in the crankcase of your car?  More than you need?  Well, it helps to have enough oil on machinery, but my EDGE doesn't have a crankcase.

My Edge works reliably, all day, every day.  The only time I have problems with it is when the ammunition I reload is "off spec".  That happened last month, when my seating die got loose and I cranked out a hundred rounds which were over-all length 1.275" instead of 1.250".  I didn't notice it until I got to the match and discovered that I could only put 15 rounds in the magazine instead of the usual 17 rounds.  I had a couple of feeding problems during the match, which was maddening.  When I got home, I reset my seating die to the correct specs, re-seated the remaining over-long rounds and cranked out a couple hundred more.  They worked just fine in the October match ... and no, I didn't clean my gun before that match, either.

I suppose I will actually clean the Edge sometime this winter, when the competition season slows down.  The days are short, the nights are long, and a Geek has to find ways to fill those idle hours.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure I'll clean it.

Not that it needs it. 

My readers are smarter than I am ... and isn't that a good thing?

A few days ago, I talked about the 'angst' of being a range officer.  (see ARGHHHH!)

The crux of the exposition was that when an RO disqualifies a shooter because of a safety-rule violation, it's often as disappointing to the RO as it is to the shooter.  (The shooter never notices or acknowledges this, because being booted out of a match is an intensely personal event, and the shooter rarely notes the responses of 'other people'.)

The thing is ... being DQ'd is like farting on the subway, only worse.  You (the person being penalized) are aware of having performed an action which is socially forbidden.  You know it, you regret it, and you wish you could just go sit in a corner and everyone would ignore your indiscretion.  But there's this Transit Cop  (called a "Range Officer") who is watching your every move, and the Dude is both remorseless and unrelenting in his drive to show you to your friends and companions in the most unflattering light.  It's as if he doesn't like you, and is gleeful about exposing your digestive indiscretions to your fellow travelers.

If you have ever competed in an IPSC match, you're aware of the Evil Range Officer.  If you have ever been DisQualified from an IPSC match, you are aware of the shame and self-loathing which accompanies being ceremoniously BOOTED from what had previously been "A Fun Day At The Range".

And if you are a Range Officer ... you don't need to read this stuff, because you already know how hateful it is to be a Transit Cop on the IPSC Subway.  The ONLY person on the range who hated a DQ more than the shooter, is the RO.  And that's the honest truth.

Okay, so much for the shared angst.

THE INTERESTING PART of blogging isn't what the writer writes.  It's what the readers contribute in their comments!   And this article is an excellent example of that premise. (Don't feel you need to click on the link .. it's the same thing you saw linked earlier here.)

I had some things to say, and most readers either got it, or didn't get it,  or kind-of got it but somehow missed the point.

The three people who commented on the article were perfect illustrations of those three variations.

He Gets It
The Hobo Brasser (Mark) is an experienced IPSC competitor and Range Officer.  We have both been 'officiating' at IPSC matches for years .. okay, Decades if you insist on details ... and have worked every level of competition from club matches to USPSA National Matches.    I don't know how many people I've DQ'd, and I doubt that he does, either.  At one time I could tell you, but I've lost count.  It's not a statistic which brings pride to a man from the doing of it.  But Mark wrote to acknowledge that kicking a fellow competitor out of a match is something done reluctantly, and I'm pretty sure that he has often given shooters the 'benefit of the doubt' even though we're not suppose to do that.

This is a man who 'gets it'.


He Sort-of Gets It, but Misses The Point
An "Anonymous" commenter (Blogger commenting isn't very insistent about requiring commenters to identify themselves) kind-of got it.  A couple of salient phrases include that I am "...too critical of newbies..:", a note that "... some stages are inherently unsafe ...",  most interestingly the following:

"... some IPSC safety violations are much worse than others.  Rather an occasional finger in the trigger guard than breaking the 180."

Yes, some stages are inherently unsafe.  Actually, ALL stages are inherently unsafe, depending upon your point of view.  For the Range Officer, that IS the point of view.  Some stage designs are more challenging than others, and  one might say that they "require a closer adherence to the safety rules".    But that would be wrong.  ALL stages require a close adherence to the safety rules.  Safety isn't a judgmental thing which can be loosened or tightened according to circumstances.  Safety is an absolute, and the most important thing.  We do NOT slack off because a stage design is simple and the Shooting Problem is easy to resolve.  Or, as Anonymous has inferred, because the stage design is complicated.  There's a basic principle of competition here, which is stated in the rule book as "no competitor may protest that a stage is too difficult".

Having your finger in the trigger guard during movement, loading or unloading, or clearing a malfunction ... is that a lesser safety issue than "breaking the 180"?  (Note: "breaking the 180" means pointing your gun at another person, either actually or potentially.)  If you accept the premise that there is a sliding scale which penalizes one violation of the safety rules more severely than the other, then you must also decide whether the person who "broke the 180" pointed his gun in a direction where another person was standing, or not.  Is that pertinent?

No, it doesn't matter.  The shooter has lost control of himself and lost focus on the safety requirements if he breaks the 180, or if he has his finger on the trigger when he is not actively engaging a target.  BOTH actions are absolutely forbidden.  BOTH have the same penalty ... we see that he is not performing safely in respect to one safety rule, so we don't let him shoot any more.

As Steve McQueen's character in "The Magnificent Seven" observed:  "We deal in lead, friend."

As for the suggestion that we are "..too critical of newbies..."?  No, we are not.  We evaluate new shooters under the exact same rules and requirements as we apply to people who have been competing in this sport for decades.  I have Disqualified Master and Grand-Master shooters for violating the safety rules, and I've witnessed (while not functioning as the RO myself) other Range Officers DQ highly experienced and exceedingly well qualified shooters for doing the EXACT same thing as "newbies" do.  Finger on the trigger.  Breaking the 180.


Good heavens, I've mentioned more than once in these chronicles that I have DQ'd my Significant Other for having her finger on the trigger during reloading.  It made for an awkward ride home after the match, but mostly it was because she knew she did wrong, and she deserved it, and she was embarassed.  It took a few days for her to admit it was the right call, but she was also a Certified Range Officer and she knew the rules as well as I did ... and she applied them with equal severity to new shooters and experienced shooters alike.

And yes, I have been DQ'd myself, a fact which I tell ALL of the people who go through my "Introduction to USPSA" seminar.

So ... no, I don't think I'm "too critical of newbies".  I think I'm helping to insure that it's safe to be on the range when people are running around with loaded guns.  I think that families can come play this sport because mean people like me watch everyone with a gun to make SURE that both rules apply:

Rule 1: don't point your gun at other people
Rule 2: even if you do, don't have your finger on the trigger

See?  Belt AND Suspenders ... you have to break at least two rules before you can begin to endanger another person, and I'm standing between you and the peanut gallery so you KNOW that I'm very aware of what you are doing with your gun and I WILL stop you.

Has anyone reading this article, and the preceding one, happened to notice that the Range Officer is the one most likely to be injured if an unsafe (proscribed violation of the Safety Rules) act went UN-punished?

He doesn't get it at all
"Rivrdog" (a retired Sheriff Deputy who is very keen on defensive pistol usage) is  a dear friend whom I haven't seen as often as I would like, and he does NOT compete in this kind of shooting sport.  As a consequence, he tends to be quite critical about all things "IPSC", and I don't really blame him at all.

I'm not quoting him completely, and I may not be quoting him entirely accurately (you can go read his comment), but essentially this is his point:

"Complex stages are a figment of a stage designers mind, and in no way resemble ... shoot/don't shoot defensive shooting....."
"Defensive shooting is simple"
"The action competition could be great training for the Defensive pistol shooter, but not because of 'The Rules' which prohibit defensive movement necessary to ... tactics and which develop deadly habits, such as waiting for a command before engaging a threat".

These comments mirror closely articles which appeared in shooting-sport magazines a decade ago, usually under the heading "IPSC Competition Can Kill You" or something similar.

Yes, forty years ago IPSC WAS "combat pistol" and the emphasis was on BOTH Defensive and Aggressive shooting against an armed aggressor.  Read the rules in Rule Book #1 ... it has you climbing walls with the use of a rope because scaling an obstacle was a useful 'combat' drill.


We don't DO that shit anymore!



Here is today's mantra:

"It's A GAME, folks!"

We're not training people to defend themselves.  If you want that stuff, go do IDPA or take a "Home Defense" class (I did the latter, don't do the IDPA thingie 'cause I'm not interested).

Yes, it is irrational to have people stand fully erect in a shooting box and, upon the signal, engage all targets as they become available.  Standing reloads.  No hiding behind barriers except as a complication at the whim of the stage designer.  Thirty-round stages.  A dozen targets which stand in one place without moving.

We are NOT training people to shoot people.  We shoot cardboard, and knock down steel targets.  We have participants in all walks of life, including psychologists, computer programmers, nurserymen, mothers, fathers, and children.

What we DO do, is we teach everyone who packs a gun to practice basic rules of safety:

• keep your finger off the trigger until your gun is pointed at something you want to shoot
• keep your gun pointed in a safe direction .. ALWAYS!
• always assume your gun is loaded, but never load it except under the direct supervision of a safety officer

Gee, that's pretty much the basic rules of gun safety, isn't it?

Here's another thing to consider:  We don't teach you to defend yourself against an aggressor, but we do teach you to handle a gun safely.

You would be amazed, perhaps, to hear that the  "Introduction to USPSA" class is more focused on breaking people of bad gun-handling habits than teaching them how to compete.  That's not the original intent of the class .. .that's just the way it happens.  We start out telling them about the "Seven Deadly Sins of IPSC" (finger on the trigger, breaking the 180, sweeping,  negligent discharge, etc.) and then we talk about 'how to compete'. 

So, yes, Rivrdog is absolutely correct in his evaluation of the sport of Practical Pistol Shooting; it is anything but "practical".   It DOES teach you bad habits, if you rely on a gun to defend yourself.

But it also teaches you how to rely on yourself to handle a gun safely in a competitive environment.

Yes, it's an artificial environment.  We're lucky; our targets are not assumed to be 'shooting back at us'.  So we have all these nurserymen and computer programmers and housewives and children as young as ten years of age ... as well as sworn police officers, ex-military, and even the home-commando wanna-be's ... competing against each other in a totally benign, totally safe environment.  We may not practice defensive shooting, but we do practice and REQUIRE safe shooting.

That makes it fun for the whole freakin' family.  We want everyone who is capable of good judgement to enjoy the sport.

Let me say this once again, just to ensure that nobody misses the point.

It's a GAME, Folks!

If you want more, you can find the training in other venues.  But when you go there, you will know how to defend yourself without shooting yourself in the foot because you learned the basic rules by competing at IPSC/USPSA matches.

Interesting 'field course'

Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, October Match .. stage 3:  "Are You Fast?"

Funny little stage this weekend, involving not only awkward physical positioning but some awesomely convoluted stage design!

Picture this:  A shooting hours (more or less), flanked on the right by a Pepper Popper and three Metric Targets, and on the left by two US Poppers and two Metric Targets.

Shooting position is on a 3'x5' box, right in front of the closed door. 

Behind the door?

Two 'swinging' targets, activated by opening the door.  The door is locked, and the shooter 'unlocks' the door by knocking down the Pepper Popper on the right outside wall.  (Actually, the door activates the left inside swinger, which in turns activates the right inside swinger.    It's complicated.)

Inside the competitor also engages a static metric target on the right side of the house;  there's also another static target on the left side.  But it's positioned so that the only way to engage it is to hunker down and shoot through a 12"x10" cutout in the opened door.

Starting position?  Standing in the box and stretching to put both hands on a mark to the left side of the door.

I know, it's not obvious from this description, but essentially you can take your time and shoot the stage with a minimum of contortions.  Or, if you ARE fast .... you can shoot it with a minimum of movement as long as you are limber enough to perform a total Aerobics workout in 15 seconds or less.

The standard way?  STRETCH to reach the mark on the left side of the door, but when the buzzer goes off engage the targets on the right side of the house ... hitting the Pepper Popper last to activate the swinging door.
Then grab the two fast-moving swinging targets before they bob behind strategically placed soft-cover barrels..  The tall static target on the right side of the house is almost a 'gimmee'.  However, you have to twist left and stoop down to engage the static target on the left side of the house.

Seven shots on the right side of  they house, and eight shots inside the house.  Production and Limited 10 shooters have to reload sometime between those two arrays.  Limited and Open shooters have the luxury of engaging both arrays without losing time.

Then taking a step to the left, placing your foot carefully ON TOP of the back left corner of the shooting box (because you can't see the last target without extending beyond that point), take US Popper / cardboard / Pepper Popper / cardboard in whatever sequence suits you best.  Yes, it obviously CAN be taken in under 15 seconds.  No, not many of us did.  (Okay, THREE of the 56 shooters managed it.)

Here are three views of the stage being shot.  Apologies for the poor quality; I was so slack-jawed watching people trying to beat this mini-monster, I forgot to actually aim the camera.

Which is pretty much the same way I shot it .. yeah, I got a miss on the stage, but I'm not going to admit missing a static target;  here, or anywhere else!

Arghhhhh!

Oh geez,

I'm either getting too old, or too soft, for this game.
 I had seven new students in my "Introduction to USPSA" class this month.  Five of them enrolled in the ARPC Monthly Match this weekend, and two of them DQ'd.


One was DQ'd because he came onto a stage where he was suppose to start with his pistol on a table, and he drew his pistol and placed it in the starting position before the Range Officer gave him the "Make Ready" command.  (In fact, the RO wasn't even looking at the next shooter ... he was still talking to the Last shooter.)

This is the second time I've seen this happen in the past year; the previous time, it wasn't the shooter's first match.  Obviously, I haven't been training my students as assiduously as they deserve.  I'm not beating myself up too bad about this, though, because they have all learned the range commands.  It's just that most people spend a lot of time on the range in a more 'relaxed' environment.  You know how it is ... you have two or three (or more) people on the range, they all put their pistols on the counter without the supervision of a Range Officer or a Safety Officer, and they have trained themselves to accept this as a normal condition.

Breaking old bad habits which experienced shooters have learned is almost impossible.  They are highly motivated, because they want to learn Practical Shooting competitive skills .... but the biggest problem is not what they don't know, but what they don't KNOW that they don't know (to paraphrase Dick Cheney).

And if I don't see these Bad Habits during the class, there's not much I can do to break them of their unsafe attitude regarding one specific situation.  The best thing I can do is to include the admonition to "DO NOT DRAW YOUR PISTOL UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO" .... which is already included in training the students to do ONLY what the Range Officer tells them to do, when and how he/she tells them to do so.

In this kind of situation, it's a blessing that the Certification Procedure requires each student to complete a match 'safely'.  Except .. the example which I witnessed last Spring involved a shooter who had already completed a safe match;  but he had never been presented with this particular challenge.

In the match, I wasn't the RO .. but I had just shot the stage and was moving back to the Squad Area when the Range Officer (he wasn't certified, but the most experienced non-certified member of the squad) said "Oh oh ... what's this?".   I looked around, saw the pistol on the table, and said: "Match DQ".   It's pretty obvious when you see a gun out of its holster and the last shooter hasn't even cleared the range!
___________________________

The other New Shooter DQ this weekend involved a shooter who was in the middle of a stage, moving laterally, reloading and experiencing a 'failure to feed' situation.  He was trying to do four things at once (move laterally, reload, keep the muzzle pointed downrange, and clear a 'jam') and under the pressure of competition on the FIRST stage of his FIRST match .... didn't take his finger off the trigger when the reloaded magazine didn't feed the first round smoothly.

In this case, I was the Range Officer. I saw that the competitor was getting confused in his initial attempt at multi-tasking with a loaded pistol, but I wasn't in a position to see CLEARLY whether his finger was on the trigger ... or merely resting on the trigger guard.  During lateral movements, it's especially important that the Range Officer be well ahead of the competitor, but it's difficult to move with your head cranked around far enough to keep an eye on the gun.  I shouted "FINGER!  FINGER!" as a warning to the competitor that he may be verging on a violation of the safety rules (keep your finger off the trigger while moving, loading, reloading, or clearing a malfunction).  And I moved faster, so I could position myself where I could clearly see the exact positioning of his trigger finger. 

Two steps later (an eternity in IPSC time) I saw him rack the slide, and his finger was not only inside the trigger guard but actually on the trigger.

I shouted "STOP!", but he was so jazzed up on Adrenaline that he merely looked quizzically at me, and continued to move (and turn the corner to the end of the lateral vision barrier) without stopping.


I shouted "STOP!  STOP!  STOP!" and continued to shout at him until he realized that he needed to do what he had been trained to in the class:  Stop, point his firearm safely downrange, take his finger off the trigger and wait for further instructions from the Range Officer.

Those instructions were, of course:

Unload and Show Clear.
If Clear, Hammer Down and Holster.
The Range Is Clear.

This was followed by the announcement that he was DisQualified for unsafe gun handling/finger on the trigger when moving/reloading/clearing a malfunction (all at the same time .. but he HAD kept the muzzle pointed safely downrange).  We got him back to the squad area and instructed him in the procedure necessary for him to initiating processing of a DQ:  sign all of his unused score sheets and mark them as DQ, then turn them into the stats shack.  I marked the time and wrote DQ on the score sheet for that stage, and signed it.  And patted him on the shoulder, said "bad break, Pal", and encouraged him to stay for a while because he could learn much from watching other shooters.

Which is the same thing I said to the man who drew his pistol without RO supervision, an hour later.



The thing is ... I think I'm beginning to take this personally.

I HATE to DQ shooters.  More, I hate especially to DQ NEW shooters.    Ultimately, I hate to DQ New Shooters who were learning "Introduction to USPSA" in the class I was teaching only one week earlier!

That's a severe Bummer, Man.  I am disappointed that they didn't have a good First Match Experience, and disappointed because I'm pretty sure I let them down.

Not only did I not teach them well enough, but I didn't spot their deficiencies and correct them in the class.

Well ... actually, I did spot some of them.

One of the students could NOT learn to keep his finger off the trigger when he did the "Unload And Show Clear" thingie.  A military veteran, he had generally good gun-handling skills, but nobody had ever taught him the extreme safety requirements of IPSC competition.  I class-DQ'd him on five of the seven exercises for the same thing, and I finally said that I wanted him to squad with me at the match.  And I made a BIG point of announcing to the entire class (including his daughter, who was also in the class) that YOU HAVE DQ'D .. AGAIN!     

[After the match, I talked to his daughter -- who had also taken the Introduction to USPSA class last weekend, and was witness to his continued embarrassment on  each event of his Training DQ --- and she told me that he was so self-conscious about DQing in the match that he spent the entire match with his trigger finger pointed up in the air every time he wasn't actually engaging a target.  Embarrassing?  Absolutely.  Effective? Entirely!]

Shame and embarrassment are powerful teaching tools.   If you have a student who has some serious bad habits from previous experiences, the only way to correct them in a two-hour live fire exercise is to make that student afraid to ... do whatever "unsafe act" he is doing,

I have them for one hour of discussion, and two hours of "Live Fire" exercises.  Start slow, with extremely simple exercises.  Accelerate the complexity of the exercises, until the folks seem to experience difficulties ... then address the reasons for the confusion; that's when the learning experience starts to pay off for the people who want to compete so badly that they'll give up a Saturday Afternoon to go to the range and listed to an antiquated also-ran rant and run them ragged fro three hours.

Okay, so except for all the bloviating, that's not a bad way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

So, why all the Angst?

I think my problem here is a matter of two issues.

First, I've made a major investment in these folks.  Not only have I assured them that they can do this, but I've also assured them that this sport is so closely monitored that is safe for ever person ... man, woman and child .. who is sufficiently mature that their judgment and ability to take direction precludes conscious violation of the safety rules.  And, in the few situations when those rules are violated "accidentally", the Range Office is RIGHT THERE enforcing them.

In other words, if there's an unsafe person on the range .. we will remove them.

What we don't say is:  "Sometimes that Unsafe Person is you!"









Here's where that "ANGST" thingie comes into play:

The thing is ... it has been my experience that some of the finest people I've ever met, I met on the shooting range.  I'm not sure whether it's because we have similar attitudes and priorities, or because I spend most of my time socializing at pistol matches.  Maybe it's just me.

But I know that I have an investment in the people that I train for competition, and every time I hear myself shout STOP STOP STOP!  UNLOAD AND SHOW CLEAR!  *(etc.)*, ... underneath that stern "Drill Sergeant" exterior, there's a failed trainer saying "dammit, I didn't train them as well as I should have!"

I don't mind it much when I shoot a match poorly ... well, I've become accustomed to that and my expectations aren't so high that I'm easily disappointed by my performance.

But I really hate to do a bad job of training people who have such a strong desire to "try something new, something really out-of-the-box".

My great fear is that they will be so turned off by their bad first experience that they will give up the sport entirely, out of sheer disappointment.

Let's Look At The Numbers!

So I thought for two days whether I should even write this article.  Who wants to  read about Geek Angst, for crying out loud?  Geez, I don't even want to WRITE it .. why would you want to read it?

Then I got out my training records, and started doing The Geek Thing:   crunching numbers.

Since January 1, 2011, I've had about 90 people go though the course.  (This ignores July, when I take my vacation ... I don't know who I've not recorded.)

Of those 90 people, between 20% and 25% of the attendees NEVER SHOW UP FOR THEIR CERTIFICATION MATCH!   I don't why.  Maybe they think they want to compete, until they get a taste of it through the class and decide it isn't really something that interests them.  Maybe they just want to learn some gunhandling skills that they can't get anywhere else at the low low price of FREE!  And maybe they figure out how much this new sport is going to cost them, and they decide they just can't afford it.  *(I know that I can't afford it ... and I've been doing it 'anyway' since 1983 ... which probably tells more about me than I want to have generally known.)*

Of those remaining people, about 10% do NOT safely complete their first match.  They have a choice of either just ... giving up, or coming back next month.

Most people DO come back.  It seems that, if they care so strongly about competing, they're willing to do whatever it takes to improve their skills set and experience so they can compete safely.

I've seen people who wanted to get individual instruction.  This is good for me; I'm retired, and I'm bored.  Any excuse to spend an afternoon at the range is a GOOD thing for me,   so I've been happy to meet them during the week for a refresher.  *(And some folks can't make the First Saturday class, so we arrange our schedules so they get the class whenever we can.  Not often, but maybe 3 or 4 times a year.)*

Also, there have been 5 or 6 people during the past 2 years who just couldn't wrap their mind around the concept of safe gun-handling skills.  Some of them I have reluctantly progressed to the competition phase of the training ... one of them I DQ'd as an observer when I was filming him at a match and he pointed his muzzle at me during a reload!  A couple of them I required to take extra training ... but after all that effort, they never showed up at a match.

But the people who DQ'd at their first match?  Ten percent, and not ONE of them quit!

A couple asked to take the class over again.  And they have competed safely every match since then.  One was so determined, he went to the Dundee match as a "new shooter" and completed safely.  He sent me a link to the scores to prove that he could do it!

And a couple of the people who I worried that they were "marginal' in their gun handling skills payed closer attention than I expected them to, and they have been competing regularly .. and safely ... ever since.

So, what's the point?

After all this worrying and feeling bad about DQing New Shooters, in the final analysis I realized that the people who really wanted to do this thing we do ... they will do it, whatever it takes.

And the people who don't really want to do it?  They'll drop out.  It's probably best for everybody when they do, because they aren't really committed to competing, and competing safely.  Whether it's ego, or expense, or inconvenience .... it's a self-regulating system.    Nothing I can do would make a difference to them.

I've been worried about discouraging people from enjoying the sport.  My concern was that I might be driving people away.  I'm not doing that when I DQ a new shooter.

What I AM doing is a careful, selective weeding.  I try to get New Shooters in my squad, and I (and other experienced Range Officers) regulate them exactly the same way as more experienced competitors.

Either they can do this, or they cannot.  They get all the chances they want, but they cannot accommodate the skill set needed to compete safely,  they figure it out for themselves.

How does this look to other shooters?

I talked to the father of one of my students after that match.  We discussed safety, gun-handling skills, and all the other fol-d-ral which are critical to running and gunning.  We agreed that people who are new to this sport need to see that this is not only safe, but also that safety is aggressively enforced for the good of us all.   We recruit families, couples, parent/child couples ... and we couldn't grow this sport unless we could demonstrate (and they can see) that safety is our primary concern.

We won't allow unsafe shooters to compete.  Not in the long run, not for a match, not for ten seconds.

Sometimes I am the unsafe shooter.  If I realize it, I don't compete that day.  And the days when I don't realize I'm unsafe ... I'm confident that there is a Range Officer watching over me like the Angel of Safety and he or she will stop me, and make me stand down before I hurt myself, or someone else.

We have a "Belt and Suspenders" approach to safety.  We tell you what NOT to do; we make rules which forbid unsafe actions; and at the first indication of a lapse of total concentration on safety ... we make you stop and bag your gun for the day. 

IPSC competition is safer than High School Football.

We're going to keep it that way.

And I'm not going to beat myself up any more for DQing new shooters.  They'll survive, or not.  But we will all survive, every day.

________________________________________________________

PS: the following is a link to a YOUTUBE video about "Firearm Negligence".  A little of it addresses what we generally consider "Negligent Discharges", which is what you get when someone has their finger on the trigger when they shouldn't ought to.  And that's why we have the "FINGER FINGER!" rules.  If you're trying to shoot at a target, you have to have your finger out of the trigger guard .. not just off the trigger.

The rest of it is a sad and sorry set of situations (alliterations deliberately incited) when someone who has NO idea what to expect is given a firearm which is more gun than they can handle.  That's a really stupid thing to do to someone, especially to someone for whom the instigator supposedly cares about.  Just ... consider this a good example of a bad example, and realize that this is exactly the sort of thing which turns a potentially safe and happy shooter into someone who hates guns and has only bad things to say about them!


Firearm Negligence - YouTube

Maybe The Best Ad Of The Political Season So Far…

Maybe The Best Ad Of The Political Season So Far…

I don't see any change here, do you?

(H/T to The Hobo Brasser,  who sez: "He's the Green Guy .. he recycles".

 How's that "hope and change" thingie working for you so far?


It's probably "unfair" to compare the promises of politicians from their first campaign to the next.

Fun ... but in no sense "Civilized".

DNF

IPSC History:  DNF

"Oh no, not the Dreaded DNF?"

If you have been indoctrinated into The Cult of IPSC for less than ten years, then you are probably unfamiliar with which I choose to call "The Dark Ages of IPSC".

HISTORY OF IPSC:
Initially, the burgeoning sport was called "Combat Pistol", and yes .. it was an unofficial meeting of military and law-enforcement professionals, along with aficionados, hangers on and wanna be's; plus some individuals who just wanted to hone their self-defense handgun skills  OR ... people who thought that there was nothing wrong with playing with guns, but there should be some kind of organization which could codify rules, establish a safe environment,  and establish a competition environment where they could compare their expertise with others with the same (or similar) attitude toward excellence in pistolry.

The movement attracted a lot of people who .... like me .. had a pistol, but really weren't sure how good they were compared to other people.  My introduction in 1983 soon convinced me that I wasn't as good as I thought I was.  Not by a long shot!

The 'movement' was initiated by people who had excellent skill sets.  They were safe, proficient, accurate, fast, experienced, bold shooters.

What they were NOT was .. they were not people who did a really good job of writing a rule book.  (This is a "yuppie" skill ... and not important .. because they all know what they knew, and it was all dreadfully informal.)

Eventually, there were so many yuppies (such as myself) involved in the sport, someone had to take a hard look at the rules and ensure that they were clear, concise, complete, and ... gee .. reasonable?  Even to people who didn't have the experience of real-life gunfights and the exigencies there-of?

Maybe, we aren't talking about training to shoot people.   Maybe we're just learning to play a game!

There was a period when the hard-core gunzines (shooting-related magazines) ran such articles as:

"IPSC will teach you to get killed in a gunfight!"

*(I haven't researched this, but for a long time it was part of the evolving IPSC lore; today .. who cares?    Since 1998 my mission was to teach this one simple lesson:  "It's a GAME, Folks!".  Since then, the Founding Father of IPSC ... Col. Jeff Cooper .. disavowed any association with IPSC because he was totally disgusted with what has become "a sport".   To him, it was and would always remain a means to hone gun-handling skills,  based on Speed Power and Accuracy, which would help "Brave Men Who Protect You While You Sleep" to accomplish their mission.  For the rest of us ... "It's A GAME, Folks!")*

And maybe it will get you killed if you allow yourself to enter into a gun-fight using the skill-set you learned in your "Introduction to USPSA" class.  Or .. maybe it will teach you the gun-handling skills you need to not shoot each other when you're at the range.  Maybe it will provide you with incentive to use your handgun safely.  Maybe it will save your life when the Bad Guys bust into your house and "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Always Just A Minute Away".    I don't know, I don't care, but I do love to shoot in benign competition against people with the same skill sets, and see how I measure up.  It's like playing a video game, except you're using real guns and shooting real bullets.



The problem is; you need Rules of Competition, and they need to be clear, consistent, mutually supportive, rational, reasonable, and justifiable.



The early rule books were NOT well written.  The rules were vague, inconsistent, often contradictory, frequently arbitrary, and usually not supported by an identifiable rationale.

Well, hell.  These guys weren't rule-writers; they were rule-enforcers.  THEY knew what they meant, and they often used a sort of short-hand language which made complete sense to them, and why did they need to conform to the mind-set of a bunch of freaking Hippy-loser Yuppies?

Except, of course, that the sport had been taken over by hippies and yuppies like me, and we really wanted to rules to make sense.

On the other hand, IPSC had gone World-Wide, and nations whose governments didn't even want their citizens to HAVE handguns .... let alone practice with them ...were demanding that the Rule Books include provisions which accommodated the considerations which drove their national political strategies.

First Hippies and Yuppies, and now Political Correctness?  Yuck!

----

Moving on from Politics to Reality ... IPSC and USPSA ... and then both entities separate but equal .. evolved the Rules of Competition to accommodate National Culture.  And Hippies and Yuppies.  And clove to "Combat Pistol" priorities, until Colonel Jeff Cooper threw up his hands in disgust, quit IPSC, and retired to his *(profitable!)* Raven Training.  He washed his hands of us, and we profited.

One signifier of the evolution of Practical Pistol Competition was the DNF Rule.

1983
As originally codified (See Footnote 1), if you didn't complete the course of fire, that meant that you had met the bad guys in a dark alley and you had run away.   That is, you were insufficiently combative.  In competitive terms, they took the very worst score on that stage, magnified it, and you were the loser by 'that much' because you didn't complete the Course of Fire .. the "stage".   That was the competitive thought as of  1983,

This (competitive) situation was designated as DNF ... "Did Not Finish".  That is to say, because of  lost of equipment or ammunition, or the malfunction of your firearm, you were unable to continue the militant confrontation consequently abandoned the Field of Combat.
_____

1992
Later, and still entirely in keeping with the concept of Combat Pistolry (and during a period when we should have entirely acceded to the demands of the Hippies and the Yuppies, like me ...), the authors of the rule books (See Footnote 2) decided that .. gee, if you ran out of ammunition, or your handgun was jammed or otherwise malfunctioned .. you didn't just lose the fight, you were DEAD!  Your score was not just 'the worst' .. it was ZERO!  You were not allowed to abandon the Field of Conflict ... you lost.  Definitively!

That was the the competitive thought of 1992.
____

1995
Still later, in 1995  (See Footnote 3),  if you were 'assigned' a DNF, you score was still zero.  But the explanation was curiously less precise, less  definitive, and less easy to intuitively understand the reasoning behind the penalty .... even though you (we) were already conditioned to accept that we had been engaged in a gunfight and were rendered a functional non-combatant in what we already understood to be a 'combat' situation.

My reading on this is that the rule book update was sloppily applied;  the authors didn't know what they were doing, or why they were doing it, but they knew the rules and they were determined to proffer that because ...
... because we were all so eager to continue The Sport, we didn't much care what the rules were, we just wanted to be able to go shooting on the occasional Saturday,  No .. we wanted to be ALLOWED to go shooting.  We were not very critical .. until it was WE who were DNF'd, and eventually we realized that we didn't really understand the rationale behind the (entirely arbitrary) judgement.

Then ... we became active members, and we demanded a voice.  We wanted to know WHY this competition was still being processed as COMBAT.

"It's a GAME, Folks!"

2000 ... 

"The Toilet Paper Ruleboook", and The End of Combat Shooting

In a surprising and revelatory move, IPSC/USPSA decided suddenly in 2000 to abandon (at least partially) rules which pertained to Combat Shooting ... and finally recognize that this was COMPETITION and not COMBAT!

Penalties would hereafter pertain to competition.  We're not shooting at "people". dammit!  We're not even shooting at "targets shaped like people"!   We're just shooting at cardboard targets, and steel targets, and we have CLEARLY defined that all the rules of competition are based on competitive concepts.

Did your pistol go south for the winter?  Did you fail to bring enough ammunition to engage all targets?    Okay.    You didn't engage some targets?  We have rules to cover that ... Failure to Engage.  No problem.

The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) encourage that dramatic change of concept in 2003 by issuing a 'provisional' Rule Book Version which was so under-the-covers that it didn't even have a "heavy-duty-cover-in-color" .. instead, the cover was of the same flimsy coarse-fiber paper as its contents.  (See Footnote 4).

Immediately (and appropriately) designated "The Toilet Paper Rule Book",  the USPSA membership responded with very few criticisms.  What we saw would tentatively legitimize a number of "common sense" changes to the rules; the most significant changes were that all references, no matter how inconsequential, to "Combat Pistol", had been changed, or deleted.

Specifically, the DNF rule and any allusions to the "You stopped fighting; you died" .. were gone.

Instead, if a competitor was unable to complete the course of fire, he was merely penalized " ... all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties...".

This changed the penalty structure from a dramatic "zero" on the stage .. or worse .. to a simple administrative ruling which gave credit to scoring which had already been achieved.  Or, to put it in context ...  you stopped competing, but you  may have stopped because of reasons which WE (USPSA) won't attempt to interpret in terms of Combat.  And you're not fighting ... you're just competing!

This 'temporary' (or "Provisional') rule book change was so well received  .. which is to say, received with so little rancor from even the most aggressive members of USPSA .. that it was later (see Footnote 5) reitterated with only minor revisions in 2001 as USPSA R%ull Book, 14th Edition ("The Red Book").

From this point on, USPSA (and by extension, IPSC) became a 'competition', not 'Combat Pistolry'.
___________________________________________________

Earlier, in 1997, IPSC (via IPSC GREECE) applied to the International Olympics Committee (IOC) for establishment as a "Demonstration sport" to subsequent Olympics competition.  The IOC rejected it with a great deal of judgmental prejudice, saying in part that they would not now, nor would they every accept as part of the Olympics a sport which "... is not a sport, but merely a hobby".

(It's a disappointment that this data is primarily available from an anti-gun website;  should we as IPSC members not be more willing to archive our disappointments as well as our successes?)

The road to legitimacy has been long, arduous, and fraught with failures.  We are no longer a COMBAT TRAINING activity, and that is good.  Well, at least my my personal point of view.  We are summarily rejected from legitimacy by no less than the IOC.  I think the suggestion was presented too soon for the IOC to see that our character has changed, and no one is more bitter about the ill-timed presentation than am I.

We are castigated for our COMBAT roots, with no recognition that we have changed.  We are percieved as aggressors, rather than mere competitors.  There are other shooting sports in the Olympics; in fact, most of the sports epitomized in the Olympics are based upon combat (Javelin?  Biathalon?  Even running .. remember that Marathon was in celebration of a Military Victory!)


So, we are not allowed to celebrate our advancement before the world.

But still .. we no longer need to contend with the Dreaded DNF.  And in our own small insulated world, that is a major triumph.

We don't lose; we don't die.  We are just  "  penalized " ... all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties...".

I can live with that.

For me, it's good enough.
__________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES:
__________________________________________________________

Footnote 1:
Rule Book: "The International Shooting Confederation and The United States Region of IPSC"
1st Edition; May, 1983
"The Original Rule Book"
 (Page 18)

2.8  Malfunctions - in the event of a malfunction, the normal procedure will be for the shooter to rectify the situation, keeping the muzzle pointing down range, and carry on with the event.  If he is unable to do so, he will stand fast, lower the weapon to waist height and lock onto the target.  He will then reaise his free hand to signal the RO/CRO to stop the clock, and proceed to examine the weapon.  In the event that a pistol cannot be unloaded due to a broken or failed mechanism, the contest directore must be informed and he will take such action as he thinks best and safest. In no case shall a contestant leave the firing line in the possession of a loaded pistol.

2.8.1 When, due to breakdown or loss of personal equipment or injury, a competitor is unable to complete or wishes to terminate a course of fire, he will raise his free hand and call "TIME".

The competitor's target score will stand as shot minus applicable penalties and he will be awarded an elapsed time equal to the slowest time recorded on that course plus five seconds.

The penalty may also be stated in the course of fire for not completing a stage or course.

(Emphasis in the original)
__________________________________________

Footnote 2:
Practical Shooting Handbook
6th Edition April 1992  (USPSA) 
"The Yellow Book"

This book contains:

The USPSA Member's Handbook'USPSA Pistol Regulations

The most current I.P.S.C Rules 

Combined I.P.S.C Rifle & Shotgun Rules

Copyright 1992 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.

Sedro Woolley, Wa 98284

 11:09 DID NOT FINISH (DNF) - When a competitor is unable to complete a course of fire for whatever reason, other than range equipment failure, his score will be recorded as zero for that stage.  (See 8.06, 8.08)  (Page 54-55)

8.06 MALFUNCTIONS - In the event of a malfunction, the normal procedure will be for the competitor to rectify the situation, always keeping the muzzle pointing downrange, and carry on with the stage.  If he is unable to do so, he will stand fast, lower the handgun safely pointed down range and signal by raising his free hand.  The Range Officer will stop the clock and proceed to examine the handgun.  See 11.09     (page 45)  

8.08 UNABLE TO FINISH COURSE - When, due to a breakdown or loss of personal equipment or injury, a competitor is unable to complete a course or wishes to terminate the course of fire, he will raise his free hand and call TIME.  See 11.09     (page 45)

_____________________________________

Footnote 3:
Practical Shooting Handbook
7th Edition, 1995
"The Blue Book"

Including:

USPSA Member's Handbook

7th Edition USPSA Rules

12the Edition IPSC Rules

11th Edition USPSA Rifle &

Shotgun Rules

Copyright 1995 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.

Sedro Woolley WA 98284

(Note 1:  This was the rule-book currently available when I took my original Range Officer Certification course in 1997.  At that time, "revisions" to previous rule-book versions were marked by the note REV in the margin;  however, a new version had been approved at that date even though it had not yet been published.  During the class, the NROI [National Range Officer Institute] instructor identified the changes and directed us to cross out deleted text, and write in new or amended text.  Deleted text is identified like this; added/amended text is identified like this.)

(Note 2: At this time, early attempts to designate rules which were unique to USPSA, but not part of the IPSC rules, were designated as US **.** rule number.   The IPSC rules were cited first in the rule book; then the US rule version was cited.

11.00 PROCEDURAL ERROR - A procedural error is defined as failure to comply with the stated procedure as specified in the stage and/or match information.  The penalty will be assed as minus ten points (twice the value of a single maximum scoring hit) per occurrence.


REV: US 11.00 PROCEDURAL ERRORS - Procedural errors apply to violations of stated procedures which are not otherwise covered by other specific rules.  Do not apply two different penalties for the same offense ......
        [Inapplicable text omitted in this footnote]
Failure to engage (shoot at) a target specified in the stage description is a procedural error.  Failure to engage will always result in one procedural penalty regardless of the number of required hits on the target.  Failure to engage will not result in a DNF unless the failure is due to the competitors equipment failure, loss of ammo, etc.  (See rules 8.08 and 11.09)  Failure to successfully engage a stop target results in a DNF.  (page 52)

 REV 8.08 - UNABLE TO FINISH COURSE - When, due to a breakdown or loss of personal equipment or injury, a competitor is unable to complete a course and wishes to terminate the course of fire, he may raise his free hand.  His score will be recorded as zero for that stage.  (page 42)

'(Note 1:  This was the rule-book currently available when I took my original Range Officer Certification course in 1997.  At _____________________________________

Footnote 4:
USPSA RULE Book
14th Edition, 2000
"The Toilet Paper Book"  
(Page 22)
5.7.3  

In the event that a firearms malfunction cannot be corrected by the competitor, the competitor  shall point the firearm safely downrange and advise the Range Officer.  The Range Officer shall terminate the course of fire in the normal manner.  The course of fire shall be scored normally including all appropriate miss and failure to engage penalties.

Copyright 2000 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.

Sedro Woolley WA 98284

_____________________________________

Footnote 5:
USPSA Rule Book
14th Edition,2001
("The Red Book") 
(Page 46)
5.7.3 

In the event that a firearms malfunction cannot be corrected by the competitor, the competitor  shall point the firearm safely downrange and advise the Range Officer.  The Range Officer shall terminate the course of fire in the normal manner.  The course of fire shall be scored normally including all appropriate miss and failure to shoot at penalties.

Copyright 2001 by USPSA/IPSC, Inc.

Sedro Woolley WA 98284

Presto Change-o!

Well, that was easy. 

Blogger has been warning its users for months that we would HAVE to drop our old template and convert to a new one, and I'm so dubious about new software versions that I've waited until almost literally the last moment.   If there are any bugs, I wanted someone else to be the Pioneer. 

With no more time to lose, I pushed the button at 5pm Sunday ... just a few minutes ago ... and this is The New Blogger.

I deliberately chose a very simple design, one which should give me as much room as possible on the screen for text and photos.

Of course, all of my customization is gone.   I'm not sure how comments will be handled, or how past comments will display.  I'll be rooting around for a while checking out the differences between Old Blogger and New Blogger.   Eventually, I'll start loading this template with the custom features which I had installed on the old template, so I can look forward to something which looks more like home to me.

Right now, it's like moving into a new house.   I'm just wandering around, seeing how big the rooms are, wondering where I'm going to put the waterbed and the television.   Maybe I'll throw out some of the old furniture; I kind of like the new roominess available here.

You're invited to comment, if you're interested.   If nothing else, it will allow me to test the commenting feature.

Some really good things about this software version; it allows me to change colors "on the fly", for example.  I REALLY didn't like the clumsy looks of the old design.  It was too dark, and gloomy.  Other things I'll not know about until I start working with it.   It's actually kind of nice to have a new project ... a new toy, if you will.  

The worries I've had were the difficulty of converting, and finding places to put my own features.   The conversion was literally a push of a button.   And the design appears sufficient for at least the sidebar thingies.  What about the footer?  I use to pack a lot of stuff in there, but several months ago my old template quit working the way it originally did, and those things were crammed into the sidebar ... where they did NOT fit!  (Knowing that I was going to convert to New Blogger soon, I decided to ignore it; as nearly as I can tell, it bothered only me.)

I may be putting up some goofy looking posts for a while.   No, don't look at me with that "so what's new about that?" expression.   What I mean is, I'll be experimenting with different ways of doing things.

For now, it's just a sunnier view.  

Bitter Clinger

DHS 'attempting to conceal' info about immigrants on welfare | The Daily Caller: Four powerful Republican senators are demanding answers to questions they posited to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in early August regarding the apparent watering down of immigration regulations which prohibit those seeking residency or citizenship from being primarily reliant on welfare, or a public charge.

The Department of Homeland Security missed the Aug. 20 deadline and has yet to respond. Also addressed in the initial letter was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The State Department did respond, claiming that the majority of the inquiry fell under the purview of DHS.

I recall several years ago when I was curious about Australia immigration laws.  My research revealed that anybody could immigrate .. as long as they could prove that they were self-sufficient and had a guaranteed job.

Also, I looked at Jamaica.  Same thing:  Sure, you can immigrate if you have X-number of dollars in private capital, or could prove that you had a guaranteed job.  Of course, in Jamaica, Native Jamaicans are always preferred in any job application.  Well, it's their country (I mused), so it's only reasonable that they want to insure employment for their own people.  They only accept immigrants if they can't find people with the same skill-sets "in-country".

Now, the United States is applying the same tests for immigration .. or are we?

Of course, it's the angry, divisive Republicans who are demanding that our nation's immigration laws be not only observed, but strictly enforced.

Unfortunately, there seem to be entire Federal Departments (those upon whom we rely to think of our citizens first) who are undermining immigration requirements.

I'm retired, and I worked for a living for over fifty years.  Now I can sit back and enjoy the benefits that I've EARNED.   Of course, we're now talking about benefits to which I have contributed (retirement, pensions, Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and our government is saying that they may have to cut benefits, because HEY!  We just don't have the money.

But we have money to allow the immigration of people who have NOT contributed, who arrive here without jobs or the means to support themselves and their families?

I am aware of the words written on the base of the Statue of Liberty.  "Send me your poor, your downtrodden ... "  And yes, I would wish that we are able to save everybody.

But it's not like that, is it?  Instead, it's as if our Federal Government believes in the old rumor that "The Streets Are Paved With Gold".

The streets here in Corvallis are paved with tar.  And sometimes, concrete.  And the City Fathers spend three summer months a year repairing pot-holes; making 'wheel-chair accessible' ramps on every corner curb of every intersection; maintaining traffic-control signals.

Somebody has to pay for this infrastructure maintenance.  It's certainly not the people who come here with nothing, work for very little, and do not pay taxes.  They are able to live with less money, because they are accustomed to doing without, unlike we spoiled Americans ... who pay taxes.

Now, I am learning to live with less money, do without.  I rely only on the savings (Hah!) that my Government has invested (Hah!) on Social Security and Medicare, because ... I've been paying into those funds for fifty years.

Oh, and my pension?  It goes down every year, because the Stock Market .. upon which the 'interest' on my pension savings is dependent ... is going in the tank.

And when I finally discover that I cannot live on Social Security alone, and when my savings are gone, and when my pension (taxable, when I draw it) is wiped out?  When every cent that I have contributed has been allocated to support the penury of immigrants?

Then I am proud to be an American, and to be the sole support of those who have contributed NOTHING to the National Economy .. excepting, perhaps, that they can work for less money than would support me, assuming I could get a job picking Strawberries in the Summer.

This is what I fought for, in the jungle.  I hope that the ghosts of my friends who gave their lives in Vietnam are content with their contribution.


To my children:  if you tell me I cannot smoke in your home, when I come to live with you ... enjoy your legacy!

Tongue, cheek

Presented here entirely without comment.  (Six Minute video)

One Term More

Unconventional Uses for your Dishwasher

Okay, I admit it; maybe I'm going a little crazy here doing all this unlikely blogging with no warning.

. 6 Unconventional Uses for your Dishwasher - DishwasherInfo.com: It takes the right mix of ingenuity and desperation to discover new uses for old tools, but whoever first tried steaming a salmon fillet in their dishwasher must’ve been drunk. For folks who are curious about what else their kitchen contraptions can do, here’s a rundown of the most unconventional uses for your home dishwasher.

Go to the link (see above) to list all of THEIR 'unconventional uses for your dishwasher. And maybe they're going a little crazy here, too!

The thing is ... I HAVE cooked Fish Filets in a dishwasher.  The first time was for a girlfriend in the 80's, and maybe it was a desperation thingie; she already had convinced herself that I was a kook (EDITOR'S NOTE:  that's a very Politically Correct expression meaning "Asshole", in the Real World).  But when I slathered a Salmon Fillet in mayonnaise, wrapped it tightly in three layers of tinfoil, put it in her own otherwise-empty dishwasher (without  detergent) and ran it through the whole cycle ...She decided that ... oh.  Okay, Full Disclosure: she still thought I was an asshole, but maybe I was not COMPLETELY full of bovine effluvia

I don't have SIX Unconventional Things, but I have also blogged here on my use of the dishwasher to clean firearms ... this time, both with and without the CASCADE soap.  (As I have just today made my custom, I'm not gong to search for the original article; if you're that interested, you can search for it as well as I can.)

Rules of Thumb for cleaning guns in your Dishwasher:

1. Rifles are not a good candidate, especially if they're (a) long, or (b) stocked with a wooden stock.  If you don't understand why, maybe you should consider just laying all of your rifles under the rear tandem-wheels of your F350 and running over them two or three times.  Same effect, but it's faster and easier.
2. If you're just putting your barrel in, go ahead and use the Cascade if it makes you feel good.  Include the slide?  Still okay, as long as you detail-strip it.  It's optional, but it WILL remove most of the grease and oil; not so good for lead or copper-jacket deposits in the barrel, of course.
3. Want to put the frame of your pistol in the dishwasher?  hmmm probably a good idea not to add the Cascade; regardless of the television adds; you may discover that some unfortunate deposits (lime,  soap-scum, etc.) may be building on the small parts and the channels through which they operate.  And always, ALWAYS TAKE THE STOCKS OFF THE FRAME!  They won't get clean, but they may be damaged by heat & humidity.  Also, they will interfere with the flow of the hot water through the frame interior.
4. Want to detail strip the frame, and then put it through your dishwasher WITH the detergent?  Hell, I don't care.  It's probably not the best idea, but you might get just as good a clean doing it by hand using the regular methods, and you'll probably be a lot more sure.
5. Stainless Steel .. isn't.  but I've run my S&W 659 through the dishwasher lots of times, and if I miss a target on a stage, I've always got a ready alibi.
6. Small parts; yes, you CAN springs, pins, safeties, extractors, etc. through your washer, and even include the CASCADE ... but make sure that your small parts are (a) enclosed in some kind of container, like a cloth bag, and (b) large enough that they're not going to squeeze out of the bag and wash down the drain.
7. Always, ALWAYS run the parts through the dry cycle as well as the Wash and Rinse cycle.  That little bit of moisture left in the extractor channel in the slide, for example?  It needs to be dry.  (Running a Q-tip through the extractor channel is never a total waste of time.)

Okay ... other things that I've cleaned in the dishwasher include motorcycle parts, car parts .. well, you get the idea.  If it's greasy and it fits, throw it in.

And washing caps in the dishwasher? Absolutely!  In fact, it may still be possible to purchase 'cap forms' online, which can be inserted in your cap to insure that it keeps its proper form through both the wash and the dryer cycles.  I've washed a lot of caps this way.  Especially after the end of the Summer Competition Season, when half of my caps are showing significant rings of salt due to perspiration.   Really, it WILL make them look a lot better; you cannot DO this in a Laundry Washer and Dryer with the same positive results.

FINAL CAUTIONARY WARNING:  .... and this is serious, Folks, so disregard this at your own peril:

Do all of this when your wife is NOT at home.  Well, except maybe for the Salmon Filet .. hey, no dishes; what's not to like?

But greasy guns, car/motorcycle/boat parts?  Funky caps?  You can't put that stuff in the laundry washer, and she'll agree with you there ... but  she doesn't want the dishes to taste and smell like your Hoppes #7; you know, that stuff that you not only use to clean firearms 'by hand', and even as a cologne by some misguided competitors.

FINAL FINAL!

• It never hurts to run an extra rinse cycle at the  end
• It may HELP if you run the last cycle without soap;  or even run a cycle before you start.   It might keep keep the machinery clean, but it's also a way to prevent irritation of the member of your household who cooks.  Nobody likes it when dishes come out of the washer dirtier than they went in.
• When you're done with the 'laundry list of suggestions for unconventional dishwasher tasks,maybe you can think of a couple which are unique and original within your own mind.  There's room for imaginative thinking here, and your creativity might earn you a little free time, while you relax and let the Dishwasher do all the "heavy lifting"

Oh, NOW I remember why I haven't been posting!

Yeah,  our charming host BLOGGER (aka GOOGLE) has been updated so that ... well, the old templates can no longer be maintained by the user.  Which means, we are forced to go to the new-and-improved BLOGGER templates, and "some of the features may not be retained" in the transition.

This is a Bad News/Good News situation.

Want to hear the Bad News?  I'm not gong to have all the features on my sidebar that I use to have.

The Good News?  My template was already fairly hozed by the updates to BLOGGER, and most of the really keen features I'm incorporated (read: "stole from other bloggers) since I started this blog in 2004 are either no longer functional, or they have been randomly distributed to other frames of the blog ... where they did not fit.

I'm thinking I have very little to lose, and honestly I saw this coming.  It's not that I'm so wise, it's just that they have been TELLING us for the past two years that we're going to have to change our template.  Me?  I've been too grumpy to embrace the change.  Hey, it may be so bad that they go back to the old version, and why should I go to all that trouble when I may have to undo the undoings I've already undone, if I change?

Remember the old John Lennon song (are there any NEW John Lennon songs?) IMAGINE, where he sings so mordantly:

"You may say I'm a Dreamer, but I'm not the only one ...."

(I'm of the sincere opinion that Mark David Chapman shot Lennon because of this song, but imagine I'm not the only one)



Anyway, Imagine that I was right and the New Blogger is a total piece of hooey, when it comes to translating eight-year-old templates to the new format.  But I've given it as long as possible to get from release 2.0 to release 2.1.11.01. ( I actually worked with a piece of vended software with that that release number, and what a piece of work THAT was), so I'm ready to concede that there are no alternatives to biting the bullet.


Uh ... sorry, John.  That was an ill-chosen phrase, in this context, wasn't it?

I'll do the conversion, okay?  So get off my back?

Maybe not tonight, though.  I don't think I've had quite enough to drink yet.  I'm not finished with the bottle of wine, and I've got three more stashed in the pots-and-pans cupboard, where the landlord won't find them in a million years!

And then, there's the half-gallon of Jameson, if I find I'm in need of still more "Dutch Courage".  (I always thought that phrase should be "Irish Courage", haven't you?).  Not to mention the Glenfiddich, the Stoly, the Ron Rico, the Malibou Stork, and that funny coffee flavored stuff you put in your coffee when you want to pretend you're not really drinking liquor when you really are.

Yeah, I can put this off for a LONG while yet, if I don't intend to actually do much blogging.

Or maybe the next time you sign on, this will look completely different (as those Monty Python guys use to say), and maybe it will look really trim and slim and totally RAD, Dude!

Yeah, right.  As if anyone still reads this blog.

Cheer up!  I've only had two glasses of wine today.  And it's not even four pm yet.

Whatever happens, you can't say I didn't warn you.

I'm just saying ........  OUCH!