[Jadeslade]

I tried to read all the rule postings, even back to Flex not buying a revolver in 2001. And the BOD not allowing 9mm Major. I know at least one of those rules has changed.So, now that we all have that out of our system, try this: the actual calibration part is here unchanged. The new wording is in lavender. The red asterisk signifies my taking out the words "as shot". The black lettering is the current rule wording. letter d is in case the RO in c is not able to get the words out before the shooter hammers the plate down. I know some shooters will hammer a plate down to speed it up, but that plate is falling after one good hit. I think that the issue for some will be "what if it's hit once", doesn't go down and the rest of the course is getting shot, should the RO stop then? That is probably the key question. I think 2 hits and a hesitant shooter would get stopped. But a blazing run, one or two good hits, no. More time than that, I think hit factor is affected a lot and most shooters would go on and take the -5 and keep the really blazing run. So shooter gets to keep run and RO gets to fix popper also.Depends on the stage and the total points. The shooter still has the current options available for popper hit but left standing. With good stage design and popper maintenance this is not likely to be an issue, but a remedy that is available when needed. Like when a shooter or staff trip and step on the popper base accidentally and mash it into the soft dusty soil on some ranges. Have at it. DVC

[RIIID]

With this you want a CRO/RO to speculate if the shooter is hesitant or is on a blazing run and also determine if the hits were good. Try again, this will create more problems than can be imagined.
Rich

[Glen]

Here is my take on the popper question.

4.3.1.1 Poppers are approved targets designed to recognize
power and must be calibrated as specified in Appendix C.

4.3.1.2 has similar wording for Mini Poppers.

Now a popper that is shot in the calibration zone and fails to
fall has just violated rule 4.3.1.1. It has, in fact, NOT recognized
power. The result is Range Equipment Failure and a mandated
reshoot under 4.6.1 and 4.6.2. It may well have been calibrated
previously, but that has been demonstrated not to be true now.

The proposed solution:

In 4.3.1.5 eliminate the sentence "Scoring Poppers which fail to fall ...".

In 4.3.1.6 eliminate the phrases "Unlike Poppers," and "or calibration
challenges".

Eliminate Appendix C1.6 and C1.7

An alleged drawback to the above is someone shooting sub-minor
and gets an undeserved reshoot. The chrono stage will demonstrate
that he is shooting for no-score.

Another is "Did he hit it in the calibration zone?" Rule 4.3.1.7 mandates
the re-painting of poppers, so the hit location should be clear.

Otherwise we should eliminate the phrase "designed to recognize
power" in 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2 as this is clearly not true under the
present regime.

Glen

[Chuck Anderson]

Who is supposed to be watching these hits? The RO is watching the gun. The score keeper is watching for foot faults. Do we need to add another position to the RO staff of Popper Watcher? The previous BOD's as well as the IPSC governing body has worked for years to remove RO discretion from the book. That's why the book is so big. Otherwise section 10 would just be: 10.1 Does something unsafe. By allowing the RO to decide how many shots to consider, or whether they were good hits, or whether it was worth driving down, or whether the shooter hesitated, that brings that discretion back. You create a worse situation where competitor one is stopped after firing 4 fast shots, but competitor two is not stopped after 3 slow ones. Or at the club level where different RO's will work the stage, each will have a different view of what is an out of spec popper.

[BSeevers]

I never believe that "judgement" has a place in a fair match. I think the current rules work well and safety can't be compromised for scoring. RO's watch the gun and safety issues and don't need to be judging targets or number of hits.

[larry cazes]

Way too much left to the discretion and judgment of the RO. This would never fly.

[Gary Stevens]

Since the rulebook applies to Level 1 through 3 matches, how does your proposal apply at a Level 1 match where painting is not required between shooters?

[larry cazes]

Gary Stevens, on Sep 19 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

Since the rulebook applies to Level 1 through 3 matches, how does your proposal apply at a Level 1 match where painting is not required between shooters?

Gary, based on what is written, it seems it would have to be left to the judgment of the RO or other competitiors at the stage?

[JThompson]

The rules aren't perfect, but it's hard to make them better without creating other problems.

One of my thoughts on the matter is a challenge card. Each shooter would have a challenge card that is good for one challenge of a popper AFTER it has been knocked down. The popper would be reset by the RO and the RM would shoot it with calibrated gun and ammo and if it fails the shooter would be offered a reshoot. You have one card and only one card per match and we keep all the rules as they are, but add/ edit sections needed to allow for this "challenge card." Once the card had been used the rules would default back to how they are now. So basically we change nothing other than presenting the shooter a way to make up for a gap in the system.

This would give some relief to issues that were discussed in the other thread where more than one target is depends on a popper.

We could even have a downside to using the card as in if the calibration passes it's a procedural and scored as shot. I don't think it's needed, but I'm just putting it out there.

People will say guys will be using this card because they had a bad run, but that's not so because if the poppers are properly calibrated then there is no advantage and it may even cost another 10 should we choose to go that route. In other words, the ONLY time this could help a shooter is if a popper had become out of calibration. I really don't see a downside to this other than, perhaps, taking a bit more time. Personally, I don't mind the extra time when you think about all the cash people spend to be there in the first place.

I don't think very many would get used unless there was a real problem with the popper. It also takes the ROs out of trying to watch for hits when they need to be watching the gun and other stuff. There is nothing arbitrary about the process either....


Thoughts?

This post has been edited by JThompson: 19 September 2009 - 11:24 AM

[BritinUSA]

The vast majority of problems that I have seen with poppers were those that were rear-ward falling. The falling forward poppers seem much more reliable. Perhaps we just need to mandate falling forward poppers?

[JThompson]

BritinUSA, on Sep 19 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

The vast majority of problems that I have seen with poppers were those that were rear-ward falling. The falling forward poppers seem much more reliable. Perhaps we just need to mandate falling forward poppers?

Drazy makes a killer forward faller springed popper... very slick.

I would love to go with your idea Brit, it's just not cost effective for a lot of clubs to do so. I know mine could not afford it.

[jasmap]

BritinUSA, on Sep 19 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

The vast majority of problems that I have seen with poppers were those that were rear-ward falling. The falling forward poppers seem much more reliable. Perhaps we just need to mandate falling forward poppers?

If there was a way to overcome the cost for clubs that just don't have the money then I'd vote this way or at least for the rear falling poppers to have the lower portion covered.

[Jadeslade]

Chuck Anderson, on Sep 19 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

Who is supposed to be watching these hits? The RO is watching the gun. The score keeper is watching for foot faults. Do we need to add another position to the RO staff of Popper Watcher? The previous BOD's as well as the IPSC governing body has worked for years to remove RO discretion from the book. That's why the book is so big. Otherwise section 10 would just be: 10.1 Does something unsafe. By allowing the RO to decide how many shots to consider, or whether they were good hits, or whether it was worth driving down, or whether the shooter hesitated, that brings that discretion back. You create a worse situation where competitor one is stopped after firing 4 fast shots, but competitor two is not stopped after 3 slow ones. Or at the club level where different RO's will work the stage, each will have a different view of what is an out of spec popper.

Well that is a good question. However, there is a long thread about being a good RO by Vince Pinto in this forum.What to watch He addresses this issue of "looking at the gun". I am not sure why a fast competitor would be stopped and a slow one not. Everyone should be stopped if a popper isn't working-right? But some guys are just that fast. Good hits are in the calibration zone-not that hard to see. The idea is that a problem can be rectified. Somebody gets a reshoot- I don't see that as a problem. The wording may not be perfect, but at least there are no wherefores and whereas and such. RO's use judgment every time they step to the line and use the timer. Safety is the main issue. Are you saying that the RO's can't handle this? Suppose an RO stops someone and recalibrates the popper and it falls. Shooter gets a reshoot and a fair run. No problem really. I am trying to take a situation where there is no remedy and make one. If a popper isn't working, it is not a fair course.DVC

[BritinUSA]

JThompson, on Sep 19 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

I would love to go with your idea Brit, it's just not cost effective for a lot of clubs to do so. I know mine could not afford it.

How about not mandating it for local matches, but only for Level II and higher?

[jasmap]

BritinUSA, on Sep 19 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

JThompson, on Sep 19 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

I would love to go with your idea Brit, it's just not cost effective for a lot of clubs to do so. I know mine could not afford it.

How about not mandating it for local matches, but only for Level II and higher?

Or maybe even set a time frame. Such as Level II or Level III matches must use the forward falling poppers within 3 years. That gives clubs time to do the change for larger matches. Keep the rules the same for the calibration and don't mandate Level I matches to change their poppers.

[elynch2007]

As a RO/CRO, I have got to the point that I do not watch steel as it is being shot, because it hurts too darn bad when the jackets come flying back.

[larry cazes]

jasmap, on Sep 19 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

BritinUSA, on Sep 19 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

JThompson, on Sep 19 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

I would love to go with your idea Brit, it's just not cost effective for a lot of clubs to do so. I know mine could not afford it.

How about not mandating it for local matches, but only for Level II and higher?

Or maybe even set a time frame. Such as Level II or Level III matches must use the forward falling poppers within 3 years. That gives clubs time to do the change for larger matches. Keep the rules the same for the calibration and don't mandate Level I matches to change their poppers.

Sounds sensible. This would also minimise problems with ricochets due to multiple shots to drive down poppers. At both of our locals here in Norcal, I have always been uncomfortable with the consequence of shooting into a popper that is in the process of falling for this reason.

This post has been edited by larry cazes: 19 September 2009 - 02:12 PM

[Nik Habicht]

BritinUSA, on Sep 19 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

JThompson, on Sep 19 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

I would love to go with your idea Brit, it's just not cost effective for a lot of clubs to do so. I know mine could not afford it.

How about not mandating it for local matches, but only for Level II and higher?

Where do you think the props come from for Level II (State, Sectional) and III (Area) matches? Mandate it for Nationals --- and USPSA will be buying a lot of steel every couple of years.....

So a ten or 11 stage Area match would need ~ 40 poppers -- figure four per stage. You'll use more on some stages, fewer on some, and have a few spares, in case you break one. Checking MGM, Poppers are $268, USP are $237, forward falling brackets add another $67 each. Assuming a 50/50 split between poppers and USPs, you're talking about a tab of $12,780, or an additional $63.90 per shooter, assuming 200 paid match entries. Ready for entry fees to jump that much for a year?

Of course this could be cheaper --- if a club already owns compatible targets in good shape, discounts might be able to be worked out, clubs might be able to work into it by buying a few pieces a year --- but it's still an obstacle for all but the richest and most committed clubs....

[jasmap]

Nik Habicht, on Sep 19 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

BritinUSA, on Sep 19 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

JThompson, on Sep 19 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

I would love to go with your idea Brit, it's just not cost effective for a lot of clubs to do so. I know mine could not afford it.

How about not mandating it for local matches, but only for Level II and higher?

Where do you think the props come from for Level II (State, Sectional) and III (Area) matches? Mandate it for Nationals --- and USPSA will be buying a lot of steel every couple of years.....

How often does a small club that can't afford forward falling poppers within 3 years generally host Level II or Level III matches? I'm not asking to be a smart-aleck.......I really don't know.

This post has been edited by jasmap: 19 September 2009 - 02:31 PM

[JimmyZip]

Well. I'll throw this one out there.
When I first started shooting practical, we just had steel. Not reactive, just steel like Steel Challenge.
If we had non-reactive steel in this sport, we could just forget all these calibration problems. You can weenie roll cheap paint on a target where it was hit just as easy as you can tape a paper target.
Yeah you would get those nics that score, but so what? You get nics that barely break the perf at the edge of a ppaper tardet, and they score too. There would be no more of this guessing, calibration stuff, it would either be a hit or not, end of story.
Tempera paint is cheap, water soluble, non-staining, and cheap.
I know this would make things really different because we could no longer have poppers revealing poppers, or used to activate targets. But you would be giving up one thing and alot of variables too.
Or, no longer make them poppers but rather falling plates. i have seen fewer plates on pedestals fail to fall, and they represent less surface area to the wind.

Just my .02

[fourtrax]

Recently got rid of the hinge on some of our poppers. Now,... we are lucky to have a guy at the club that is a "build it" genius. Basically, he welded an upside down "V"on the bottom of the popper. It sets on the edge of a piece of steel. Hit the popper it falls and is free from any twisting/bad hinge action. Cut the weight of the whole unit by about half also. Cheap alternative to forward fallers, more reliable than standard Poppers. IMHO

[jasmap]

fourtrax, on Sep 19 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

Recently got rid of the hinge on some of our poppers. Now,... we are lucky to have a guy at the club that is a "build it" genius. Basically, he welded an upside down "V"on the bottom of the popper. It sets on the edge of a piece of steel. Hit the popper it falls and is free from any twisting/bad hinge action. Cut the weight of the whole unit by about half also. Cheap alternative to forward fallers, more reliable than standard Poppers. IMHO

Sounds like a good idea. When you get some time later could you post some pics?

[Glen]

I don't think we need to concern ourselves with popper desgn, just
how to proceed when they fail to perform according to specifications.

A popper either falls or it doesn't. When it doesn't fall from a hit in the
calibration zone, we refuse to call it a failure. Instead we bring out the
calibration gun and shoot it again.

We have, I think, the unwarranted belief that the result of this shot
provides any information on the state of the popper before the competitor
shot it once, twice , or however many times.

I would make the assumption that the competitor's shot was at least as
powerful as the calibration shot, and the popper failed to recognize that
power.

Gary Stevens, on Sep 19 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

Since the rulebook applies to Level 1 through 3 matches, how does your proposal apply at a Level 1 match where painting is not required between shooters?

I would remove 4.3.1.7.1. I missed the level 1 exemption. Mea Culpa. Spray paint
is cheap.

Glen

[Jadeslade]

I am Glen posted this proposal. I had this ready in case. This really simplifies poppers. Suggestion 2 Lavender is new wording.

By the way, if you want to upload text, save it as a .pdf file (use print) and then save that file as a .jpg-that can load into this forum without too much space.

[MoNsTeR]

JThompson, on Sep 19 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

One of my thoughts on the matter is a challenge card. Each shooter would have a challenge card that is good for one challenge of a popper AFTER it has been knocked down. The popper would be reset by the RO and the RM would shoot it with calibrated gun and ammo and if it fails the shooter would be offered a reshoot. ...

The problem with this is that many popper designs do not reset consistently. That is, it is possible to set the popper "heavy" or "light" without actually adjusting it. In my experience this accounts for the vast majority of mis-calibrated poppers, at least at Level I. So if you had such a design and were to reset the popper before firing the calibration shot, you would completely invalidate the test.

While there is something to the idea, suggested by another poster, that forward-falling poppers be mandated, I think a better first step would be to mandate designs that set consistently.