|
|
 |
|
Last Updated: Aug 28, 2009 - 10:45:21 AM |
When you're a naif, there are many lessons to be learned.
When you begin with some assumptions, you must un-learn the things you THOUGHT you knew before you may begin to know the truth.
In regards to Multi-Gun competition, some of the assumptions I needed to cast away include:
- Scoring is strictly by time, with penalties for "targets not successfully engaged"; and
- It's proper to refer to this kind of shooting competition as "an IPSC activity".
Keith Tyler straightened me out on the first point. At least as far as
this match is concerned, scoring accords to the USPSA Pistol rules. You
get points for accuracy, not for hits on the target. That raw points
score, minus penalties (for Failure to Engage, Misses, No-Shoot targets
hit, etc.) is divided by the time required to complete the stage; the
total of which becomes your Stage Hit Factor. The competitor with the
highest Stage hit Factor gets 100% of the available points on the
stage, no matter how many points he or she actually scored. Everyone
else's hit factor is pro-rated in comparison to the Stage Winner, and
that percentage is their stage points.
It sounds confusing? It
is, but that's easily calculated by computers. Not people, often, or
easily. But we've become accustomed to their bits.
As to the
second point, Area 1 Director Bruce Gary corrected me when I sent an
announcement to The Unofficial IPSC List (an opt-in listmail which has
been active since 1997 in my personal experience), when I referred to
the Multi-Gun Nationals Championship as an "IPSC MATCH". In his words: "They Wouldn't Touch It!" Upon reflection, that sounds right to me. It isn't an IPSC match, it's a USPSA MATCH
(United States Practical Shooting Association). It represents the
particular cultural and historic values of the United States, not
necessarily those of the International Community.
IPSC stands
for the International Practical Shooting Confederation, but using more
than one 'gun' is far too complicated, at this date, for International
sanctions. It's bad enough to have civilians running around with
pistols, popping off at oddly shaped targets. When you add a rifle and
a shotgun to the mix, it probably shouldn't seem surprising that
European sensibilities are overwhelmed.
ALERT: Politically Insensitive Stagement!
We
say "probably shouldn't be surprising", but we don't really know why.
My best guess: it's bad enough that we allow the Little People to have
one gun. Why in the world would they need three guns?
Perhaps that helps to explain why the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club (ARPC) was decorated with hundreds of American flags.
End: Politically Insensitive Stagement!
I
apoligize if I seem to have turned this report into a political
statement. The intent is only to absolve IPSC and the International
Community from any responsiblity for what may be considered a
Politically Incorrect firearms-related activity. It's not their fault
that we believe in Argument by Extension.
MOVING ALONG ...
Another
thing I have learned is that the use of a pistol, a rifle and a shotgun
in a single match does not arithmatically complicate the competition.
Rather, it is geometrically more complicated.
As an
illustration, let us look at a conundrum (if we may use such an archaic
term) addressed by USPSA Vice President and NROI Chairman John Amidon.
A stage requres the use of (in this order) a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle.
The
competitor must use a pistol to engage certain targets, then safely
(the pistol is either unloaded, of "Safed" ... which implies that the
safety is engaged) deposit the pistol in a recepticle.
The competitor must then use a shotgun to engage certain other targets, then safely deposit the shotgun in a recepticle.
Finally, the competitor must then use a rifle to engage the balance of the un-engaged targets.
In
this specific instance, during the "Pistol Segment" of the stage, the
competitor experiences a "Squib". That is, fires a round which
incorporates a powder charge insufficient to expel the bullet from the
barrel. The result is that the bullet is jammed in the barrel .
In
a stage which requires the use of only one firearm ... the pistol ...
the Range Officer (RO) would stop the shooter for safety reasons.
(Firing another shot while the round is in the barrel would cause a
firearm malfunction which would minimally 'bulge' the barrel; in the
worst case scenario, the barrel would burst with the possiblity of
expelling metal fragments in all directions. The safety concern is, of
course, that someone would be injured by these fragments.)
Both
IPSC and USPSA safety rules require the RO to stop the shooter
IMMEDIATELY, determine that the barrel of the firearm is indeed
obstructed by the bullet, give credit for targets successfully engaged
and penalize the competitor for targets which have NOT been engaged.
The
question arose: what's the difference between a functional pistol,
safed, deposited safely, and a jammed pistol safed, deposited safely?
Why can't the competitor be permitted to deposit the jammed pistol as
is expected and continue to engage the remaining targets with the other
firearms?
The answer, according to Mr. Amidon, has two parts:
- The De Jure Solution:
That part of the stage is conducted under USPSA Pistol Rules. That set
of rules mandates that a squib in a Pistol is automatically stopped,
and the targets scored as engaged. No loaded pistol is allowed to leave
the range.
- The De Facto Solution: This
is entirely a safety decision. If a disabled firearm is left behind
during a stage, there is a possiblity that the cause of its disability
will be neglected, forgotten while 'picking up' after the stage is
completed (with other functional firearms).
This may conceivably lead to the firearm being used in a subsequent
stage without first removing the squib bullet from the barrel, with
resulting injury to participants, officials or specators in the
immediate vicinity.
Over the years I have taken exception
(respectful of his greater training and experience) with Mr. Amidon
when he parsed the rule book, but never on rules which involved shooter
safety. Again, I agree with him here.
This is a question which would NEVER occur in a single-firearm competition.
In a competition during which two or even three firearms may be used, it is literally dangerous to assume the best-case scenario.
I'm
not saying that our International brothers are correct in refusing to
disconsider multi-gun matches (for whatever reason). I'm only saying
that, where safety is a factor, any oversight rulings must ALWAYS be
found in favor of the safest possible solution.
Multi-Gun
competition is a fledgling sport, and as such must be carefully audited
so that apparent conflicts between competitive factors and safety
factors are decided in such a way that no physical injuries may occur.
It's
a great temptation for a competitor to focus on competitive issues, and
the competitor must not be dissuaded from raising the question when
competition vies with a presumption of safety.
However much a
competitor may wish to accumulate Stage Points, a neutral ruling must
always be resolved in favor of the safest possible solution.
Any other priority would inevitably result in injury, which is anethema to the sport.
Whether
we are using one gun, two guns or three guns to compete, we STILL want
everyone to go home safely when the match is over.
----------------------------
There are more lessons to be learned. In the meantime, we can look here at some actual examples of multi-gun, or at least non-pistol, Practical Competition.
© Copyright 2006 by DOWN RANGE TV
Top of Page
|
|
|
|
