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"?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
You may recall from a previous article that "Pete" and "Re-Pete" (Mitch M. and Ramiro R.) from COSSA invited me to attend the IPSC Steel match at COSSA (Bend, Oregon) this weekend.
Since SWMBO was going to visit her sister. Jo, on Saturday at Jo's cabin just east of Sisters, Oregon, we decided that Jo's husband Bernie and I could go to the COSSA pistol match while SWMBO and Jo attended the "Health Fair" in Bend. In the actual event, Bernie chose to attend the Health Fair to get his aura read, so I went to the COSSA IPSC Steel match alone.
Turns out, it was a good choice for me.
As it happened, there were a number of "Psychics" at the Health Fair, and they were determined to tell the attendees what was wrong in their life. Since I already know what's wrong with my life (I'm not rich, not young, and not thin) this would have been a waste of time.
Note thatwhile the Psychics didn't offer to correct perceived deficiencies, they were more than happy to announce the deficiencies of everyone who came into their range. Frankly, I would rather be shot. Happily, that didn't happen at the COSSA Range.
IPSC Steel is essentially an IPSC match, except that all of the targets are steel with NO cardboard (eg: Metric or Classic) targets included in the stage designs.
The stages were generally designed 'on the fly', and the stage directions were not written down. Rather, they were entirely verbal and sounded like:
"Start here, shoot this target twice. Then run over here and shoot this target twice. Re-engage T1 through this port twice, shoot these two targets twice from here, then shoot them again through this port again, then shoot these three targets twice through this port and finish at this port by re-engaging this target twice. Round count: 24 rounds."
Note: do NOT do the math, it will only confuse you.
The stage designer was one of the 11 competitors, and there was usually some discussion before the match started about how to make the stages more interesting. Some of the stages were re-designed before the match started. Other stages were redesigned AFTER that match started, usually leading to more interesting stages.
If you haven't got the impression already, the stage designs were ad hoc and fluid, as was much of the range officiating. For example, I encountered some serious failure-to-feed problems on the first stage. After I shot two rounds and dumped three more on the ground, the consensus was that I should be allowed to correct my problems and reshoot the stage. While I was grateful, I also found this local ruling a little confusing.
Of course, I took full advantage of it.
The stages involved complex "shooting house" designs, with the addition of the type of targets which one usually encounters at "Speed Steel" matches. Essentially, they were either Pepper Poppers or round (or square) plates hanging from stands made of steel 'Rebar'.
The designs made full use of "shoot each target two times" philosophy, and most targets were re-engaged from several positions. This made it sort of a "Memory Match", but there was a decided advantage in that it was easy to set up (eight targets were the only elements in a 24-round stage) and easy to take down.
The host club actually set up only 3 stages. After all had been shot, they decided which seemed the most interesting and changed them slightly by moving (or removing) a few targets, and shot those stages again.
Scoring was similarly odd: a target which was not engaged was deemed to add 3 seconds to the competitor's time. Or else FTE and miss penalties were assigned ... I never understood what criteria were used to determine which penalty system was used for each stage, but I think the match administrators used whatever techniques 'felt right' for each stage.
Note that I'm not being critical. Nobody seemed to care any more than I did what scoring penalties structure was imposed on any given stage. Everybody who showed up was obviously there to celebrate a sunny early-Summer Saturday on The Range.
I already knew Mitch and Ramiro, having met them last weekend at Dundee. And I knew GM Scott Sprenger from many previous matches. I had met Brad some years ago, before he suffered a grevious injury from having a horse fall on him (ligament damage had been 'largely' repaired, but he wore a brace on his leg anyway ... and kicked my ass score-wise!) and I met his son, JD, who was teen-ager quiet but intense, man.
Other competitors included "Drive-By Don" and "180" (who lived up to his reputation), Mike who worked most stages as RO, and Jason of the Funny Hat. There were also a few other players whose names I failed to record. It doesn't really matter, because everyone was there for the fun of shooting, and we all had fun.
Unfortunately, I had a bad lot of ammunition (curses to my reloader, who turned out to me ... me!) so I came in Second Open. Ramiro came in Next To Last Open.
There were only two Open shooters ... okay to do the math this time.
I took a lot of pictures, and some videos. When I explained to Mitch that it was a drag to take a lot of videos at a match because it prevented me from actually enjoying the match ... it tends to interfere with talking to people ... Mitch generously offered to film severl competitors for me. With some hesitation, I accepted his generous offer. Some of the segments you will see below were filmed by me, but most of them (the best ones) were filmed by Mitch.
Thanks, Mitch!
The included match segments are selected at random, generally, but they're all typical of an IPSC Steel match. Most significantly (t0 me), Ramiro mentioned before the match began that an Open shooter has a disadvantage. The report of the pistol is so loud that in combination with Electronic ear muffs it's difficult to tell whether you have hit both shots on a given steel target. I as inclined to poo-poo his petty criticism, until I shot a couple of stages. While I rely on my ability to 'call the shot', in the confusion I found myself unable to reliably do so and thus I took a LOT of extra shots. I'm convinced that the extra shots were necessary, because somehow when you are 'clanging steel' you can't always tell what targets you have hit with which shot, or even (sometimes) how many times you have shot at it.
This is an extremely challenging variation on IPSC competition. If you haven't tried it yet, I encourage you to get together with a dozen of your closest IPSC friends and play with some stage designs.
I'm pretty sure you will embarass yourself almost as thoroughly as I did last Saturday.
When I talked about the Memorial Day Dundee Match, I neglected to mention a couple of IPSC shooters in our squad that we had never met before.
Mitch M. and Ramiro R. usually compete at the COSSA Practical Shooters' Range, 21 miles east of Bend, Oregon. (This was the site of USPSA National Matches in 2003 and 2004, where SWMBO and I both competed and worked as Range Officers.) I'm not sure what COSSA stands for. "CO" is obviously "Central Oregon", and "A" is "Association (I think), but I have no idea what the "SS" stands for.
It doesn't matter, and by this time next week I'm pretty sure someone will have clarified the issue for me.
It's enough that Mitch and Ramiro left Bend at 5am to get to the match in Dundee by 9am. I assume it's because they love to shoot and have precious little opportunity to shoot IPSC matches every weekend, being as they are sited in the middle of a state the approximate size of Iraq.
We weren't acquainted with Mitch and Ramiro, so we asked if they were 'new shooters'. They laughed, and said that no, they had shot a couple of matches. (We later learned that they were B-class shooters ... clearly no tyros here.)
We enjoyed the company of Mitch and Ramiro, but as the match progressed we realized that Ramiro was experiencing some problems with his pistol. Worse, we watched as he experienced some Range Equipment Failures which necessitated reshooting the stages. That never works out well for the shooter, and by the time we started the 4th stage I was Range Officer when Ramiro came up to the line.
Hi, I'm Jerry and I'll be your Range Officer for this state, and also for your Reshoot.
Ramiro groaned, accused me of jinxing him, but managed to shoot the stage clean (and beat me on the stage with his STI Race Gun!)
By the time we got to the last stage, I had told them that I was renaming them from Mitch and Ramiro to "Pete and Re-Pete". More groans.
I'm going to be in the Bend area this weekend, and I told them so. As it happens, COSSA iss putting on an "IPSC Steel" match this Saturday. This is an IPSC match in which no cardboard targets are used. This is the High-Plains version of an IPSC Winter Match. No problems with soggy cardboard or tape not sticking. No need to cover targets with plastic bags. They use only steel targets, which simplifies 'bad weather' matches.
"Pete and Re-Pete" were enthusiastic about encouraging me to attend the Bend June Match. The even offered to invite me to squad with them. So I'll be shooting in Bend this weekend, and I hope to have some interesting photos here.
By the way, you may ask:
Why in the WORLD do they need to hold a "Bad Weather" match in June?
In response, I remind you that the 2003 Area 1 match was held in Bend, the first full weekend in May. It snowed. Why did it snow? Because it was too cold for rain.
Memorial Day Weekend was a busy time here in Geekistan.
Saturday, we shot a Club Match at Dundee, where we were treated to Evil Bill's New and Improved Evil Star (Version 1.1 -- more on this later).
Sunday, we went to a BBQ at the home of Randomly Hittin' Witten and his charming wife, Donna. Many of The usual Suspects were there, including AJ and KJ who have been so busy riding their new Harley that they just haven't had time to get to the range for matches. AJ, however, did show up for the Saturday match and I regret that I was unable to include his Evil Star run in the attached video. Perhaps I can feature him in his own video later on, which would be worthwhile if only because he did a fine job on the stage regardless of his lack of recent practice.
Monday SWMBO and I went to my mother's house in Springfield and worked in her garden. Her sprinkler system is on the fritz, but my brother-in-law John fixed that before we got there. We spent a couple of hours doing basic gardening (weeding, and trimming & spraying her Rose Garden) until we ran out of steam. On to the Evil Star.
Last month, Evil Bill introduced his Evil Star at the Dundee Club Match. There were a few problems with the design, mostly because:
The plates, when hit solidly, would sometimes fall back far enough to strike the backing IPSC targets. This didn't often slow the rotation of the array, but it did some physical damage to the cardboard targets.
There was a lot of 'splatter' on the backing targets due to fragmentation of bullets which hit the plate-supporting arms. These supports were 1/2" (or smaller) rods, and any rounds which hit them tended to tear up the cardboard.
Evil Bill built a longer pivot rod to support the backing targets another foot further from the plates. And he also built a facing plate for the plate-supporting arms, so bullets which might have hit the rods and fragmented tended to bounce off the trapezoidal flat surface, instead.
We did experience one problem. The springs which hold the plates in place on the support arms are flimsy, weak material. Over time, they tend to wear out. We were the last squad to shoot this stage, and we found that the weakest springs tended to fall off the support arms. We were able to find and re-install the springs, but this reveals a design flaw in the original Texas Star.
Personally, I recommend Bobby Wright's "Five Point Surprise" as a viable alternative to this target design. The springs are much more robust, and many of the parts can replaced by a trip to you friendly local Ace Hardware Man.
Still the Evil Star proved to be a challenging and interesting target. Here's how it looked when real people were shooting real bullets:
(This video is also available directly from YouTube, here.)
Many of the photos and especially the link icons in the sidebar are not available at the moment. Also, the "Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery" is not available. I assume this is a server problem, and will be corrected eventually.
Over the past year I've posted a lot of photos and videos of "The Texas Star", Bobby Wright's "Five-Point Surprise", and Bill Marr's "Evil Star". Folks are attracted to these interesting, challenging target designs and they write to me with either general or specific questions about the design. The most common theme: "I'd like to build me one of these!"
Most of these correspondents are extra-national, which is to say they don't live in the United States where shipping charges are probably not going to exceed the purchase price of the target. (In fact, you may find one or more of these vendors at major matches in the Continental United States.)
But when you ask me to provide design specifications so you can build your own, I have to say ... I can't do that.
These folks are engineers, or machinists ... usually both. When they build a target, they have invested their time and talents and materials to provide a product. They have created these targets to sell. They're trying to make a living, and if I provide design specifications to you the result is that I am undermining their business.
I refuse to do this.
I have posted photos and videos of these products because I believe in a Free Market economy, and Capitalism, and if someone makes a better mousetrap (or a better IPSC target) they deserve whatever compensation returnable from the market which THEY have developed.
You can search my blog for keywords which may provide links to photos and movies of these new targets. If you can't find contact information there, please write me (my email address is ALWAYS available at the bottom of every page) and I will provide as much contact information as I have or I can find.
When you and the manufacturer of a product have access to each other, then you can decide whether you will buy a target, or a license (including design specifications and/or parts list) to manufacture or retail them.
Now, I know that this will not be a satisfactory to most of you who consider yourself perfectly competent to build a Star target. I'm truly sorry to disappoint you, because I share your enthusiasm for these designs and I would like to see them being used in IPSC matches all over the world.
Please understand that I have not marketing agreement with any of these target manufacturers. My only concern is to encourage the development of new target designs, and to allow entrepreneurs to reap the benefits of their ingenuity and their labor.
Again, I will do whatever is necessary to put you in touch with these manufacturers/designers. But my articles are intended for entertainment and general information only.
So please don't ask me to tell you how to build a Texas Star, or a Five Point Surprise, or an Evil Star. I'll just spend a lot of time telling you "NO". I'll feel bad because I cannot, in good conscience, help you to build your own pirated version. And you'll be disappointed by my recalcitrance.
The March 12, 2007 match at Albany Rifle and Pistol club is unofficially called the "Mothers Day" match. The squad I shot in is unofficially called the "Geriatrics Squad", because there were only a few of the 12 squadmembers who didn't fit into a Senior or SuperSenior category.
One of the non-senior shooters, John, is featured in several of the videos I plan to present and I gave him the URL for this website so he could watch his performance objectively.
There are a lot of videos of his shooting in this six-part series (officially completed as soon as YouTube comes back online and I can upload this video), but this one is especially interesting.
John ... seemed to have broken the rules. The rules are, shoot the paper targets over the bar, shoot the steel under the bar. He took a shot over the bar after he had APPARENTLY completed engaging all paper targets. Worse, the round hit the berm just over the steel target array.
Go look at the video. You be the RO. What would you do?
Music ("I Shot The Sheriff") by Mr. Eric Clapton.
The videos for this and all other stages in this match are available at Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery. The video for this particular stage (a 16mb download) is here.
Stage 1: Better Make Sure (CM99-50) (Click the link to view the Stage design and procedures in PDF format.)
The designer of this 8-round Comstock Classifier has not been identified. by USPSA.
Mr. Mike McCarter is the designer of this 23-round Comstock stage, which includes 11 IPSC targets and 1 steel target.
Shooter starts in shooting box "A", and can engage all targets from that box and/or Shooting Box "B".
Shooting the Pepper Popper through the 'donut' activates the sliding window, which allows shooter to engage targets T1-T4 (not legally accesible from outside Shooting Box "A".)
Moving downrange through Shooting Box "B", targets T5-T6, T11 - T12 may be engaged.
Stepping on the activator box at the forward lateral wall activates bobbing target T8, as well as a no-shoot penalty target just behind the port (which is not an obstacle for tall competitors.)
Through the port, the shooter may engage moving target T8 as well as static targets T7 and T9. Note that the moving target is repetitively obscured by a steel-plate representing an IPSC target, and is considered "Hard-Cover".
All in all, it's a nifty little Mac McCarter Special stage design. Neat, but not gaudy.
We interrupt this series of actual USPSA Shooting Match articles to bring this Breaking News to your attention:
Jerry the Geek has been awarded 2nd place in the prestigious "Hostility to IPSC" competition. (Click on the title of this article to see the original award webpage ... as long as it remains available.)
I take great pride in this award, and I vow to continue my efforts in hopes that I win first Place in the 2007 competition.
There's a chance that it will actually happen. I draw your attention to my 2007 May Day post: "Target Control".
If that doesn't do it, I don't know what will.
Quality, not Quantity.
In the meantime, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Jim Norman, the winner of the "2006 Hostility to IPSC" award.
Jim, I've watched your work for years and I have the utmost admiration for your accomplishment.
(Click on the image to see the full-size version. Click on the resulting image again to see a 'clean' version.)
Note that, according to the "Page Info" option, this page was last modified "Sunday, May 13, 2007 12:11:30 AM", and it expires "Sunday, May 13, 2007 12:11:30 AM".
I think that means I'm fortunate that several of my friends cared enough to forward this link to me before it expired. Otherwise, you may have missed this little hissy-fit expression of appreciation compiled by the self-described "IPSC Secretary", creator of the "Official IPSC Forum" (Global Village), and member of the "IPSC Inner Council".
I'm sure you share my joy in this achievement, as well as my hopes that I can do better in the 2007 competition. IPSC must be very proud of the way in which the IPSC Secretary represents the International Practical Shooting Confederation!
Mr. Mike McCarter is the designer of this 22-round Comstock stage, which includes 9 IPSC targets and 4 steel targets.
Shooter starts in the large shooting box, hands are touching a "X-marked" spot on the lateral vision barrier. (Note: original requirement for toes to be touching the vision barrier were deleted due to safety considerations.)
Targets can be engaged from either end of a lateral wall, or from a port in the center. Shooting positions at the wall ends require backward movement to get around the arc of the v-shaped lateral wall to engage targets on the other end of the array. Steel targets are backed by no-shoot penalty targets.
Music: Eric Clapton - "Cocaine"
(Ignore the "Image Coming Soon" message. Push the button on this and all prior posts. It's a YouTube problem, the video(s) is/are UP!) You can see the original YouTube video here.
Mr. Mike McCarter is the designer of this 21-round Comstock stage (Originally 'Virginia Count', but changed due to the presence of steel targets), which includes 9 IPSC targets and 3 steel targets.
There are 3 strings: String 1: starting with hands resting on window sill, pistol unloaded and resting on barrel, on signal load and engage 3 IPSC, 1 PP Free Style.
String2: starting with hands resting on window sill, pistol loaded and resting on barrel, on signal load and engage 3 IPSC, 1 PP Strong Hand Only. String3: starting with hands resting on window sill, pistol loaded and resting on barrel, on signal load and engage 3 IPSC, 1 PP Weak Hand Only.
(Click the link to view the Stage design and procedures in PDF format.)
Music ("Swing Low, Sweet Chariot") is provided by Mr. Eric Clapton.
The video (10mb) for this stage is available at Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery.
Mr. Mike McCarter is the designer of this 24-round Comstock stage, which includes 6 IPSC targets and 12 steel targets.
Shooter starts anywhere in the large shooting box, as long as toes are touching a fault line.
Targets can be engaged from either end of a lateral wall, or from a port in the center. Shooting positions at the wall ends allows engagement of targets in front, or at a diagonal to the opposite side of the bay. Targets are placed behind vision barriers so that some targets must be engaged at a diagonal. A plate rack can only be engaged from the port in the center of the lateral wall.
(Ignore the "Image Coming Soon" message. Push the button on this and all prior posts. It's a YouTube problem, the video(s) is/are UP!) You can see the original YouTube video here.
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 "
We interrupt this series of actual USPSA Shooting Match articles to bring this 
