[CWT USMA]

Well I was wasting some time on Youtube and found this video From NORCO IPSC 08-10-03. I have never shot there so I have no idea how this bay is laid out. But when the shooter moves to the second port. LOOK out for it really does look like the spectators and now down range. I sure hope it is just me and my poor eyesight and all. But I sure would not want to be standing near that start area when steel is engaged from port 2.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=C8BHM5sxs8I


The part in question happen very early in the video, the first stage.

[outerlimits]

hey, it's norco! if you haven't shot a match at norco, that comment won't make any sense. in defense of my socal buddies, i won't go there.

[EatMeerkats]

It definitely looks like a couple of the poppers are uprange... unless they designated the 180 diagonally perhaps?

[Tom Mainus]

Wow, I know it is hard to tell from the video, but some of those angles looked pretty scary. The RO was in front of the shooter when he went to that second brick wall, off to the side but in front. Looks like an accident waiting to happen.

Tom

[ChuckS]

It wasn't as bad as you may think. The poppers were downrange of their respective ports. (Not by much on the second port, but they were down range). You will notice that both guys used the up range end of the port. I think you may of been pushing it if you had engaged the right most target from the leftmost side of the port.


Later,
Chuck

[ben b.]

You know, I've been to some otherwise well-run, bigger matches where the 180* is followed, but a shooting position at one side of the range, across to the other side, results in spectators on that "target" side being less than 45* from the muzzle. I've spoken up a few times, but the reaction seems pretty casual, so I chalked it to "an IPSC thing".

Makes me pucker up tho.

[P.Pres]

Well, it appears that they are shooting right at the 180 not past it. You guys need to shoot
more outlaw 3gun matches to appreciate the art of the "moving" 180 ...

[ChuckS]

It seems that there is at least one stage every match where someone says "wow, that is close to the 180" every Saturday. Yup, it happens a lot at Norco. The key word is "close". Basically, these are stages without what I will call "training wheels". Yup, you could break the 180 so don't do it. Quite often we have targets along both sides of the bay and by the time you get to the end, most of the stage is behind you. If you are one of those real speedy guys (or have trouble stopping like I do) then you have to be a bit more aware of where you begin engaging targets. It is good training for SOTM. I have seeen very experienced people screw up, but it is usually premised by some sort of malfunction or trigger freeze or something. In any case, when you have field courses set up by speedy little GM bastards* like JoJo, these are the sort of challenges that you will face.

But, as an RO, I have had to remind the peanut gallery to fall back a bit. This match was the first one in a long time that it was not blazing hot so folks were scattered all over the place instead of huddled up under the shaded areas.

Love it or hate it, it's Norco.



Later,
Chuck

* Meant with much respect

[CWT USMA]

After watching a few more videos of this stage it appears that two things came to light.

First: That the shooter could start at port A or B. The videos that start at Port B show that the berm was clearly behind the steel and provided a good back stop. And that there were no spectators in the 181 deg. zone.

Second: That there were different RO's. And some were clearly seen clearing the area of spectators from the area in question. PEANUT CONTROL IS THE ANSWER!!

The stage appeared to be correctly place in the bay with regards to 180 and its berms. But some of the crowd control was poor.

Best part is no one got hurt (I sure hope so). And we can all learn from this video. SPEAK up when some thing looks "just not right".

This post has been edited by CWT USMA: 10 October 2008 - 08:25 AM

[Flexmoney]

Bullets splatter sideways off steel. Do they gets lots of shrapnel there ?

[Joe4d]

If I can see anyone in my peripheral vision at make ready, and if there are targets say 170ish degrees I tell the RO that the person is making me nervous. Even if they are technically behind the 180 line they can still be a distraction. I have seen alot of stages that start with an extreme left and extreme right target. Can be pretty distracting to engage say the right target then swing to the left to see someone standing 181 degrees. Safety is everyone's responsibility but the bottom line is the person who's finger is on the trigger. I dont care what the stage or RO says. Or if people or local habits has people standing in an area that makes me uncomfortable I'm gonna ask them to move before I load. Now there is no reason to be a jerk about it and I have only done it a few times but a turn to the RO and simply saying those guys are making me nervous should suffice.

[Steve J]

Where? If there are targets almost on the 180 near the start position, let's say on the left hand side, I won't let anyone in the bay stand on that side. If I'm looking left toward the targets as an RO, I won't start the shooter if someone is in my peripheral vision. As a shooter, I don't want to see anyone in my peripheral vision. Ever. To me, if I can see them, they are down range.

[JThompson]

Steve J, on Oct 13 2008, 04:47 PM, said:

Where? If there are targets almost on the 180 near the start position, let's say on the left hand side, I won't let anyone in the bay stand on that side. If I'm looking left toward the targets as an RO, I won't start the shooter if someone is in my peripheral vision. As a shooter, I don't want to see anyone in my peripheral vision. Ever. To me, if I can see them, they are down range.

I'm with Steve... on the stages where the shooter is standing uprange, I have them move past the center line away from the turn. That deal right there has kept a couple people from looking at the muzzle.

This post has been edited by JThompson: 13 October 2008 - 06:11 PM

[Nik Habicht]

Same here --- I've never had to be an ass about it. Usually a polite request is all it takes to get people to wake up....

[Houngan]

Not to mention that the 180 rule is there because IT GETS BROKEN. If you're sitting at 190, then you're asking to get shot.

H.

[Ray Ninness]

Houngan, on Apr 22 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

Not to mention that the 180 rule is there because IT GETS BROKEN. If you're sitting at 190, then you're asking to get shot.

H.

180 heck what happened to the 45 degree, warning, "Muzzel" one warning the second time was, STOP, uload, and show coear, slide closed, hammer down, holster, and Go Home!!

Back in the day when I designed a lot od courses of fire, I never designed anything that was outside of 45 degrees of the forward backstop. and if a shooter broke the 45 degree line, he got a lous and clear "Muzzel"..

I shot a couse of fire yesterday, that had a target perpendicular to the forward backstop, so that if you squared up on it, you were shooting on the 180 line???

Are we at the point that any target can be shot as long as it's with in the 180 degree ark???

This post has been edited by Ray Ninness: 31 May 2009 - 08:16 PM

[davecutts]

Wow 45 degrees, you should get out more, every nationals and area match i have ever shot has had targets that were way past 45 degrees.

[Ray Ninness]

davecutts, on May 31 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

Wow 45 degrees, you should get out more, every nationals and area match i have ever shot has had targets that were way past 45 degrees.

Haven't shot since 1996, everyone got a kick out of my old school guns.. And what with 32 rounds in a gun, has mag changing become a "Lost Art Form"???

You used to get a Muzzel call if you were significantly past the 45 degree line, and in the eye of the RO had the potential to go beyond the 180, but you only got the call once!!!

I guess high teck run and gun is the current thing?? I saw lots of people real close on the 180 at the match I shot Saturday.. I actually felt a bit uncomfortable seeing muzzels swing about so close to the 180 on every course.. That video was a good example...

[Flexmoney]

It's not great stage design to put the shooter right on the 180. While the shooter is responsible for their muzzle, Mr. Murphy will bite from time to time.

We do get past the 45d angle a bit though.

[kgunz11]

I've shot at a match that had a 180 that moved during the CoF. Bay had 3.5 sides, and the back berm changed during the CoF as they wanted it to. I refused to break the 180 and shoot back towards where the galley was standing. If anyone in my squad decided to take it that way, I think I would have left.

[ima45dv8]

Ray, I guess you're right. A lot has changed. It's not uncommon to see shots at 175 degrees. At matches I've help build we tend to place a No-Shoot so as to remove an actual 180 engagement, but it's not required. The shooter has the responsibility to control their muzzle whether the opportunity of breaking the 180 exists or not.

The warning "Muzzle" still exists.

8.6.1 No assistance of any kind can be given to a competitor during a course
of fire, except that any Range Officer assigned to a stage may issue
safety warnings to a competitor at any time. Such warnings will not be
grounds for the competitor to be awarded a reshoot.

I tend to only use "Muzzle" or "Finger" with new-ish shooters. More experienced competitors are expected to know better, and generally don't respond well to the distraction. If they go too far, they just hear "Stop".

[ChuckS]

Ray Ninness, on Jun 1 2009, 06:33 AM, said:

Haven't shot since 1996, everyone got a kick out of my old school guns..

Welcome back

Ray Ninness, on Jun 1 2009, 06:33 AM, said:

And what with 32 rounds in a gun, has mag changing become a "Lost Art Form"???

No, if you like reloading you can shoot single stack. You just don't have to!

Ray Ninness, on Jun 1 2009, 06:33 AM, said:

You used to get a Muzzel call if you were significantly past the 45 degree line, and in the eye of the RO had the potential to go beyond the 180, but you only got the call once!!!

The 1978 rules are slient on the "180". The 2001 rules forward call it a 180, not less. Dunno what happened in between.

Later,
Chuck

PS: BTW: What is a "muzzel"?

This post has been edited by ChuckS: 01 June 2009 - 07:25 AM

[Ray Ninness]

Flexmoney, on Jun 1 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

It's not great stage design to put the shooter right on the 180. While the shooter is responsible for their muzzle, Mr. Murphy will bite from time to time.

We do get past the 45d angle a bit though.

Agreed, I would say 2.1.4 covers designing a course for failure... I designed a lot of courses, and I was a big fan of "Run and Gun' back when I could run :-)

I alwys made sure that all the targets were safely inside a comfortable zone well inside the 180, and if a shooter got beyond 70 degrees, he generally got a "Muzzle".. he did it again, and it was in the opinion of the RO a potential violation of the 180, he was gone!!

Shooting courses of fire up to the very limit sounds pretty crazy and it's just asking for trouble.. If the RO thought the shooter had the potential to break the 180 with his movement it was his job to stop the shooter before he broke the line, and caused a problem not after.. I would not want to be a course RO who let someone shoot at 179.9 degrees and then the guy had an issue, falls down, looses control of the gun and someone behind the line or the RO gets popped... It is the job of the RO to insure, nothing bad happens on the range.. And having shooters flirting with the 180 on a course of fire just sounds irresponsible, and something that puts the sport in jeopardy...

This post has been edited by Ray Ninness: 01 June 2009 - 11:59 AM

[larry cazes]

Ray Ninness, on Jun 1 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

If the RO thought the shooter had the potential to break the 180 with his movement it was his job to stop the shooter before he broke the line, and caused a problem not after.. I would not want to be a course RO who let someone shoot at 179.9 degrees and then the guy had an issue, falls down, looses control of the gun and someone behind the line or the RO gets popped...

Ray, not trying to flame on this but how can the RO possibly know what the shooter is gonna do before he does it. I dont see that the RO has reponsibility to prevent the shooter from breaking any of the saftey related rules. The shooter holds the responsibility for this. The RO is just there to enforce the rules as they are written. As ROs we also have a mandate to avoid interefering needlessly with the shooter during a COF. This is definitely a balancing act. I do not believe in calling "muzzle" when I am running a shooter. If they have broken 180, I call "stop".

I have never shot a match at NORCO but I suspect it is no more prone to 180 violations than the 2 locals close to me. We do have situations where if the shooter is not careful he has the potential to break 180. If there is any movement at all and side berms come into play, this can often not be prevented, only discouraged. This is also common at the sectional and area matches that I have shot.

This post has been edited by larry cazes: 01 June 2009 - 02:53 PM

[Ray Ninness]

larry cazes, on Jun 1 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

Ray Ninness, on Jun 1 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

If the RO thought the shooter had the potential to break the 180 with his movement it was his job to stop the shooter before he broke the line, and caused a problem not after.. I would not want to be a course RO who let someone shoot at 179.9 degrees and then the guy had an issue, falls down, looses control of the gun and someone behind the line or the RO gets popped...

Ray, not trying to flame on this but how can the RO possibly know what the shooter is gonna do before he does it. I dont see that the RO has reponsibility to prevent the shooter from breaking any of the saftey related rules. The shooter holds the responsibility for this. The RO is just there to enforce the rules as they are written. As ROs we also have a mandate to avoid interefering needlessly with the shooter during a COF. This is definitely a balancing act. I do not believe in calling "muzzle" when I am running a shooter. If they have broken 180, I call "stop".

I have never shot a match at NORCO but I suspect it is no more prone to 180 violations than the 2 locals close to me. We do have situations where if the shooter is not careful he has the potential to break 180. If there is any movement at all and side berms come into play, this can often not be prevented, only discouraged. This is also common at the sectional and area matches that I have shot.

No flame taken?? All I can say is that things sure have changed since I shot, RO'd and designed courses. Yes a lot was up to the RO to balance safety against interfearance. Many times I called a Muzzle on shooters that were beyond say 70 degrees, and in my opinion in jeopardy of breaching the 180 plane..The last thing I wanted to see as an ROis someone letting fly with a round up range!!! :-(

As I said it's seems to be a whole new ball game ow days, I'll have to do a bunch more reading and a whole lot more practice, and shoot a few more matches to get a better feel for the new look of IPSC..

I used to shoot a lot of matches all over the country, so I saw a lot of different concepts to the sport..And I used to think we were real runner's and Gunner's :-D

This post has been edited by Ray Ninness: 01 June 2009 - 07:51 PM