A1MG Stage 5 - "Burn Down The House"

This "rifle only" stage might very well be more properly referenced as "The Malf Stage", as I saw as many firearms malfunctions on this single stage as I saw on any three of the other stages in this match.

Why, I wonder, should this be true?

In my limited experience, and only as a spectator at this match, I can only conclude that the competitors were "pushing the envelope" in terms of firearms reliability. This 30-round Rifle stage presents challenges not really represented by any other stage in the match. (Indeed, it may be one of the paramount strengths of this match that the stages provide such a variety of shooting problems.)

The round-count is most important, in that it appears to offer a premium for a competitor who can engage all of the targets without reloading. This may or may not be true, but the suggestion is there. The lure to stuff as many rounds as possible into your fattest magazine (or pair of magazines) is there. And the irresistable temptation to challenge the capacity of your firearm ... is there.

Add to this temptation the fact that all of the targets are close, easy, and an open invitation to turn this otherwise indistinguised stage design into -- A Hoser Stage!

The result was far too often a dismal disappointment to competitors who had, they felt, reasonable expectations of Smoking The Stage.

This did not often happen, except in the case of those competitors who went into it with the intention of surviving the Siren's Song.

Those who did well on this stage seemed to be those who poured a libation to the gods of Functional Reliability, planned to reload at least once during the stage, and played it fast and not-very-loose.

In evidence of that theory, I offer the Video of The Malf Stage.

A1MG - Stage 9: "Get 'Er Done" (Gordon Baladad)

The point of "Multigun" competition (MG), rather than "3-gun" competition, is that the competitors may be required to demonstrate their profeciency with two or three firearms in a single stage.

In the USPSA 2007 Area 1 Multigun Match, all three firearms types (Pistol, Shotgun, Rifle) were used in only two stages:

Stage 4: Draining the Swamp

Stage 9: Get 'Er Done

It's difficult to choose 'the most excellent stage' between the two.

Essentially, Stage 4 pre-positioned the three guns 20 yards away from each other, and featured relatively close targets for each gun. The competitor had no choice in determining the order in which he would use each firearm to engage the appropriate target arrays, but there was a lot of movement involved. Essentially, that 'lot of movement' was running as fast as you could from position "A", where you had just used your pistol, to position "B", where you used your shotgun, and thence to position "C", where you used your rifle to finish the stage.

The distance between competitor and target was about 10 yards for pistol (large, cardboard Metric targets), 15 yards for shotgun (Steel plates), and 15 to 25 yards for rifle (more large, cardboard Metric targets).



In a dramatic comparison, Stage 9 put the competitor in a 'structure' (designed to look like an 'airplane', if you had a good imagination' and put all three firearms in boxes within easy reach. The competitor never moved out of the 'airplane'. In fact, it was theoretically possible to shoot all three arrays without moving your feet.

You use your pistol to engage 4 IPSC 'Metric' targets at 20-25 yard range. Some of the targets were partially obscured with white 'penalty' targets.


You use your shotgun to engage 8 steel plates (Pepper Poppers, US Poppers, heavy 'tombstone' plates and a single 8" round plate) at about 15 yards.

And you use your rifle to engage 6 'flasher' steel plates at varying ranges. At about 75 yards there are four targets ... an 8" steel plate, two 12" steel plates, and a US Popper. At about 120 yards there are two 12" steel plates. (I'm guessing at the actual target dimensions, but that's what they looked like from the shooting position.)

The difference between the two stages is that Stage 4 featured relatively close, relatively easy targets with movement between each array and the choice of sequence of target array engagement was fixed; while Stage 9 featured much more distant targets, no movement (other than whether to shoot sitting down or standing up) and the competitor was allowed to choose the order in which he engaged each array.

In the actual event, the target selection and distance on Stage 4 did not seem particularly challenging, speaking as a casual observer. The stage clearly provided an advantage to the competitor who could most quickly move (run!) from one position to the next.

On Stage 9, however, the ability of the competitor to run fast was never tested. The only skills involved were the ability to change from one gun to the next, and the ability to actually hit the targets accurately in the shortest possible amount of time. The fact that this stage design required the competitor to engage all targets from a single 3' square structure tested most rigorously the ability to actually SHOOT.

More, it also required the competitor to choose the tactics which most closely suited his individual skills set. The competitors had to actually THINK about what they were going to do, when they were going to do it, and the way in which they 'abandoned' one gun and picked up another may have an influence on the amount of time needed to complete the stage.

For example, if the competitor chose to shoot the rifle first, it may be awkward to 'abandon' a rifle with a fixed bipon in the same box in which the shotgun rested. Would the shotgun be tangled in the rifle bipods? In that case, it may be better to shoot the Shotgun first, and pick up the Rifle later.

On the other hand, as long as you are already sitting down, it might be better to shoot the Rifle first. If no bipod is involved, it may be a smooth and efficient thing to change guns while standing up, going directly to the Shotgun and finishing off with the pistol.

On Stage 9, I saw competitors using all tactical variations in the order in which they used each firearms, and not all of them were as advantageous as the shooter had obviously hoped they would be. I saw one "heavy-metal" shooter using an iron-sighted .308 finish with the rifle targets, use nearly 4 minutes to NOT get all the rifle targets, to the point where he had sweated into his eyes and quit without hitting all the far targets. He threw up his hands, tossed his earmuffs and hat, and buried his face in a towel to get rid of the perspiration stinging his eyes.

Here is a video of one Tactical shooter, Gordon Baladad, who chose to shoot Rifle/Shotgun/Pistol. it worked well for him, and I was able to film from a position right behind the 'airplane'. The video will serve to show what it's like to shoot this stage.


Note that these videos are also available here in the original WMV version on Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery. This video is a 10mb download

A1MG - Range Master Clarification

After I posted my video on Stage 3: "Don't Rock The Boat" I received an email from that match's Range Master (and NASSAONLINE.COM partner) Tom Chambers. He provided some information which I didn't have before. I thought you might be interested, so when I asked him if I could post his email here, he graciously gave his permission:

A few points of 'clarification' on your blog.

The seat on the dinghy runs lengthwise-there was no board sitting on seats. Shooter sat on the seat, straddling it or with both feet on one side and the shotgun was on the seat in front of the shooter. BTW, I built that dinghy almost 20 years ago to use on my sailboat where it did yeoman's service all over the northwest, including 2 trips to the San Juans and a trip up the west side of Vancouver Island. It's been sitting and rotting on my back patio for the last 7 years and I thought it was time to give it at least one more chance at being useful.

Stage 8, "Field of Dreams" , the long range rifle stage that got tossed had 5 targets that you engaged 3 times for a total of 15 targets. The 3 at 300 yards were worth 10 points each(a miss would be -20 pts) and the 2 at 350 yards were worth 20 pts each and a miss there was -40 pts.

We had just 2 squads get through this stage in 4-1/2 hours. This was the only stage where I had assigned stage RO's. They tried very hard to move it along but their efforts were in vain. I gave one of them a break and ran the last 4-5 shooters. One of them took 750 seconds and hit 4 of the 15 targets, expending 170 rounds in the attempt. There was no way we could get the other 60 shooters through during the match so Mike and I made the decision to toss the stage out.

The Montrose Toast

I think that this should be the thought of every man
who steps up to the starting line and takes his gun in hand.

The Montrose Toast defines it all, the weakling never wins;
'Tis courage that determines who goes home with Winner's pins.

He either fears his fate too much
Or his deserts are small,
That puts it not unto the touch
To win or lose it all.

-- John Graham, Marques of Montrose
(1612 - 1650)
from "My Dear and Only Love"

It's Berkley!

[sigh!]

I've done it again.

I mis-spelled the name of my Internet Host.

Brian BERKLEY has gone the extra mile during the past three years to not only host Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery, but also a lot of "other files" which I have from time to time considered necessary to support this blog.

He supported my efforts to convince the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club to use their space for my files. So far, I have well over 2GB on the server. Since I've evolved into the sorta unofficial photographer for the Columbia Cascade Section, they feel that I can share the space they've already paid for.

And when his hosting service was becoming too busy for him to handle alone, Brian not only found a faster server in Texas and transferred many of my files there, but he worked with them to set up the software necessary to support the Gallery.

What have I done for him?

I spelled his name wrong.

Every stinking time, I throw an extra "E" in there. It was bad enough that I spelled it wrong last year when I wrote an article about Mike McCarter and the Annual Single Stack Tournament which he hosts under the auspices of the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club. I apologised for that, and promised it would never happen again.

But I did it again this week, when I was blogging about the 2007 Area 1 Multigun Match.

How lower than a serpeant's ass I feel.

This time, I vow ... never again!


I've written his name on a file folder label, and pasted it to my monitor.

Maybe I'll even remember to 'look it up' the next time I write about him.

We'll see. I'll be featuring Brian in some of the Multigun videos I'll post in the next week. Let's just see if I can get it right.

And if I don't?

Brian will just point it out to me, without comment. But I'll know I've disappointed him.

Again.

[sigh!'

A1MG Stage 3 - Don't Rock The Boat

As mentioned earlier, Stage 3 was probably the funnest stage in the 2007 Area 1 Multigun Tournament. It balanced (and I use the word advisedly) fast shotgun with not-so-fast mid-range rifle shooting.


It may not have been quite so fun during the shooting of the stage. We watched as each competitor stepped into the boat for the first time, and every one looked just like a cat trying to coax himself into the water. That first cautious paw -- er, foot -- withdrawn when the flat-bottom boat began rocking on the hard plywood platform, was an almost universal response. Everyone used both hands to brace on the gunwales of the boat and kept most of the body weight there until both feet were inside the boat. Then the experimentation with where to put the feet, where to sit.
Then the shotgun, loaded and placed so it is sitting on a board placed longitudinally on the boat seats. Most found that they could straddle that board, put the butt of the shotgun on the board between their legs, and rest the barrel of the shotgun on the bow of the boat.

A few decided to put both feet on the right side of the board, since they were going to shoot the first eight steel plates on that side. (See the stage setup here at NASSONLINE in PDF format.)

SHOTGUN TARGETS:
Of course, I didn't watch every competitor who shot this stage, but those I did watch all opted to shoot the first 8 targets from the boat, reloading in the boat if necessary to complete the array. Then they exited the boat (under the emphasis of adrenaline, MUCH less cautiously than they had entered) and stood on the dock to reload. One Open shooter, Craig Outzen, opted to reload before and during his exit. Hard to tell if there was any advantage.

Outzen's performance is depicted in the video included below.

Still, the stage procedures allowed engagement of all targets from the dock, and I didn't witness that. In the actual event, it seemed to matter little whether you shot the first eight shotgun targets sitting down or standing up, the boat didn't actually rock much once you became familiar with the balance point. The boat with move with every shot, but it looked easy enough to compensate.

Perhaps that's why this stage was more fun for the spectators than for the competitors.

RIFLE TARGETS:
After placing the shotgun in the box, the competitors retrieved their rifles from the other box on the dock. There were eight cardboard "Metric" targets downrange, and white 'penalty' targets covered most of the shooting area of each target. Although the range to the targets was short of 25 yards, it left only a very small scoreable target area for each shot. I was impressed that (a) there were fewer miss/noshoot penalties recorded, (b) the winner of the Open division won even though he had a ten-point procedural penalty, and (c) the winner of the Tactical division completed the stage in only 0.52 seconds more time (with a higher raw hit factor) than the winner of the Open division.

Division winners for this 160-point stage:

LIMITED: Kyle Nice (58.15 seconds, 156 points)
OPEN: Robert Johnson (45.10 seconds, 150 points - 10 penalty points)
TACTICAL: Carl Carbon (45.62 seconds, 149 points)

The Video:
Featured competitors, in order of appearance -

• David Heyden
• Darrell Humphrey
• Chris Schiatano
• Craig Outzen
• Gordan Balladad
• Carl Schmidt

Area 1 2007 Multigun Match Results - McCarter Interview

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

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

Here's what you get:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007 Area 1 Multigun - Still Photos

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my impressions of the match:

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Stay tuned: film at 11.

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

Die Hard Four - The Video

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

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

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

Dave Kopel: Supreme Court Gun Cases

Supreme Court Descriptive Index


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

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

This book is described by Kopel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis added)

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

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

That Pesky Second Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

80mph 'Mad Max' monster

The 80mph 'Mad Max' monster targeting the Taliban



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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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




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

Painting To The Oldies

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

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

I bet he's done this before.



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

You can see more here.

Arrogant Critic of IPSC Rules?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are his primary observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007 USPSA Open/Limited 10 Results

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

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

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

LIMITED 10 DIVISION

Top 10:

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

Categories:

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

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

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

Number of Entries: 163

Number of Match DQ: 7

.


OPEN DIVISION

Top 10:

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

Categories:

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

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

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

Number of Entries: 227

Number of Match DQ: 7

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

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

Firearm Lubrication: warm vs Cold Weather

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


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

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

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

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

Here's a tip for you:

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


What do I use in warm weather?

Motor Oil -- Synthetics. My choice? Amsoil.

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

Albany Oregon Multi-Gun Matches

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(This post originated on 6/20/2007)

* UPDATE - June 25, 2007

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

When the gun ain't runnin' ...

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

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

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

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

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

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





.

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

Joke:

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

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

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

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

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

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


710




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




OIL

(Pause for laughter.)



Okay, finished? Here's the real story:



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unique Tek.como

Premium
Weapons
Cleaner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

It's good to own your blog.

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

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