Urgent Meeting

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Sorry bunny, that won't cut it. I'm referring to this statement:


and would like to know (a) who it's directed at, (b) what it's provenance is and (c) be given an opportunity to refute it because if it's (as seems to me) directed at the NTSA, then it's not true.

Please confirm owner of said quote, as it's not mine. Also can you give full quote so we have full context ?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Please confirm owner of said quote, as it's not mine. Also can you give full quote so we have full context ?

It's on this thread here and it's the quote I replied to which you then quoted with this.

You appeared to know what the OP was talking about, because the post you replied to quoted the OP. So my questions still stand.

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

It's on this thread here and it's the quote I replied to which you then quoted with this.

You appeared to know what the OP was talking about, because the post you replied to quoted the OP. So my questions still stand.

Hmmmm

Apparently a list of a certain type of pistol/s was handed to DOJ and/or the FCP by certain people involved in the FCP without the agreement and/or knowledge of other FCP participants ? Hence my statement "All the members of the FCP know " As the man said, there are stories circulating. I reckon the truth is out and some people are worried ? Who they may be is anyones quess though. I/we can't name a name/s on this matter, on this forum, I refer you to

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055171178

It will all come out in the washing I'd say

Sparks

Bunny, I've heard that story before. Like I said, I know where it started. And knowing where it started completely discredited the story. We can't discuss that source in here anymore though (read devore's stickies in the forum), but you can reread the discussion by using the search function.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Bunny, I've heard that story before. Like I said, I know where it started. And knowing where it started completely discredited the story. We can't discuss that source in here anymore though (read devore's stickies in the forum), but you can reread the discussion by using the search function.

I am fully up to date on the previous discussions and DeVores stickies.

As the say in the "X Files" - "The Truth is out there".

smoke and mirrors :rolleyes:

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Hmmmm

The list was handed to DOJ by the people involved in the FCP and the other FCP members were made aware of it ? Hence my statement "All the members of the FCP know " As the man said, there are stories circulating, reckon the truth is out and some people are worried ? Who they may be is anyones quess though. We can't a name name/s on this, I refer you to

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055171178

It will all come out in the washing I'd say

It wil come out here and now if you can answer my questions directly instead of beating about the bush. Any sane person or organisation would be worried if untrue rumours are circulating about them and yes I will refer you to DeVore's post on that score. I would particularly wish to have withdrawn the scurillous allegation: "said that they were the only type of handguns that they thought should be used for target shooting in Ireland." which is complete bull.

The only list the NTSA gave the DOJ was the one that specified all the ISSF rules regarding firearms to be used in ISSF competition.

In the interests of openness, I'm attaching that document here. It was given to the DoJ at a meeting back last year before the FCP was set up, and was in reference to the draft restricted list which if it had continued in it's then form would have restricted certain Olympic Air Rifles among others.

This list was also produced at an FCP user group meeting (not the full FCP) to prove that there was no such thing as a 'Pistol designed for use in Olympic competition' as stated in the SI No. 21.

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

It wil come out here and now if you can answer my questions directly instead of beating about the bush. Any sane person or organisation would be worried if untrue rumours are circulating about them and yes I will refer you to DeVore's post on that score. I would particularly wish to have withdrawn the scurillous allegation: "said that they were the only type of handguns that they thought should be used for target shooting in Ireland." which is complete bull.

The only list the NTSA gave the DOJ was the one that specified all the ISSF rules regarding firearms to be used in ISSF competition.

In the interests of openness, I'm attaching that document here. It was given to the DoJ at a meeting back last year before the FCP was set up, and was in reference to the draft restricted list which if it had continued in it's then form would have restricted certain Olympic Air Rifles among others.

This list was also produced at an FCP user group meeting (not the full FCP) to prove that there was no such thing as a 'Pistol designed for use in Olympic competition' as stated in the SI No. 21.

I remind you I did not make that statement you want withdrawn. I have started no rumour/s. I made a statement regarding a list being handed to DOJ, which you have confirmed happened. I didn't name individual/s or organisation/s. What exacctly am I beating around the bush about then ?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Is this new info in the public domain ?

I'm not sure what you mean by this bunny. The spec sheet attached is a synopsis of the ISSF rulebook, which we have supplied to other people in the past and is easily downloadable from the ISSF website.

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this bunny. The spec sheet attached is a synopsis of the ISSF rulebook, which we have supplied to other people in the past and is easily downloadable from the ISSF website.

I deleted this post as I rethought my response, posted above (for benefit of those who haven't seen my deleted post)

Sparks

It's not an effort at smoke and mirrors bunny. Go search for the sandbox or how to derail a thread and you'll see precisely what I mean.

The list that RRPC mentioned by the way, I can confirm - because it's a list I originally drew up myself. This was before the FCP, before the CJA and if I remember correctly, before even the final CJB was published. It comes from an australian target shooting webpage and it's a list of photos of ISSF pistols and it's marked as such. The point of it was to show what the ISSF rulebook was referring to, because the DoJ had no mental image of target shooting pistols (they did have a very solid image of the handguns in use by terrorist groups at the time, and we wanted some seperation from that image). At the time, the DoJ had been told by the source of the rumours you're discussing that 9mm glock pistols were used in the Olympics. We were asked about that. We pointed out that they weren't since there are no centrefire pistols in the Olympics (they went off the programme in the early 70s with the 300m rifle events because of the cost of building new ranges for them and the increasing pressure on space in the Olympic Village). At no time that I know of or have heard about has it ever been suggested that it's a list of the only pistols that ought to be allowed. We were not the only group meeting the DoJ at that time by the way - we were one of at least a half-dozen.

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

I remind you I did not make that statement you want withdrawn. I have started no rumour/s. I made a statement regarding a list being handed to DOJ, which you have confirmed happened. I didn't name individual/s or organisation/s. What exacctly am I beating around the bush about then ?

You didn't make the statement, and I never said that you did. However you certainly affirmed it without equivocation.

Pretty much everything in that post is untrue. There was no list of firearms, no list of pistols, no blanket statement about 'the only pistols to be used for target shooting', no going behind the FCP's backs (because they weren't in existence at the time) and the situation we are supposedly responsible for (range standards) have nothing whatsoever to do with a list of firearms used in ISSF competition.

Chinese whispers indeed :mad:

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

I was just on the phone to the NTSA Chairman and he'd like to know who sent that list in as well.

Any ideas?

Seems ye knew all along ?

As I said smoke and mirrors.

Gunter Mauser

As Bertie would did say.... Lads its all Smoke & Daggers... its the little
things that trip you up in the end.:)

Sparks

Here's the list of pictures mentioned above. As to smoke and mirrors, I'm pretty sure I know who's been blowing smoke up whom and it's not the first time it's happened, and the upshot of the last time this was gone through was that the source ended up hoist by his own petard.



It's taken from a list of suggested pistols to buy, hence the "preference" bit on the side.

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Seems ye knew all along ?

As I said smoke and mirrors.

Bunny, please address the post I made above. No list of firearms was ever submitted to the DoJ.

The list that was submitted was of rules relating to firearms allowed for ISSF competition. And seeing as those rules could conceivably allow anything from a Walther P22 to a Glock 17 I can't see how that could be construed as "the only type of handguns that they thought should be used for target shooting in Ireland". Especially as the list also included rifles.

If you have such a list, please post it here and explain it's provenance and also when and by whom it was submitted to the DoJ.

You can do it by PM if you like. I have absolutely no problem with this.

rrpc

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

As Bertie would did say.... Lads its all Smoke & Daggers... its the little
things that trip you up in the end.:)

No Gunter, I didn't know all along. It appears that bunny is talking about another list entirely, or at least that's what it seems to me because the list I'm talking about included all firearms and was a list of rules. Bunny and others seem to be talking about a list of pistols being submitted to the DoJ, and I don't know nor does anyone else I've asked know where this originated.

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Bunny, please address the post I made above. No list of firearms was ever submitted to the DoJ.

The list that was submitted was of rules relating to firearms allowed for ISSF competition. And seeing as those rules could conceivably allow anything from a Walther P22 to a Glock 17 I can't see how that could be construed as "the only type of handguns that they thought should be used for target shooting in Ireland". Especially as the list also included rifles.

If you have such a list, please post it here and explain it's provenance and also when and by whom it was submitted to the DoJ.

You can do it by PM if you like. I have absolutely no problem with this.

Looks like a list of pistols to me. No sign of any glocks 17's , H&K's USP's, Sig.P226's as I know them

Sparks

Which list BS, the list of photos I've put up or the other list that rrpc put up?

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

No Gunter, I didn't know all along. It appears that bunny is talking about another list entirely, or at least that's what it seems to me because the list I'm talking about included all firearms and was a list of rules. Bunny and others seem to be talking about a list of pistols being submitted to the DoJ, and I don't know nor does anyone else I've asked know where this originated.

Yesterday you knew of no list now there are a few...........................:rolleyes:

Maybe it's time to stop digging ?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Looks like a list of pistols to me. No sign of any glocks 17's , H&K's USP's, Sig.P226's as I know them

Well obviously if you don't want to show us this list, then the only conclusion I can draw is that this is more mischief making on the part of someone who is trying to drive a wedge between the shooting bodies on the FCP for their own selfish reasons.

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

drive a wedge between the shooting bodies on the FCP

or bodies not on the FCP ?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

or bodies not not on the FCP ?

Indeed.

Bunny, I've gone to a great deal of trouble to try and get to the bottom of this. I've phoned anyone who might possible know what you're referring to and even checked emails I've received and sent to people to see if there's any reference to such a list.

Nothing comes up, bar the list I posted here already. I'm afraid I can do no more than that. You may doubt me as much as you like, but I've been as frank and open as I can possibly be to the extent of posting documents here that quite frankly are nobodies business anyway bar our own.

If you have something, I'd really appreciate a copy of it by PM.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

or bodies not on the FCP ?

I've already PM'd you with the name of the person most likely to be doing that and why, and what happened last time. If I was right about that, then all we're seeing here is a situation that needs as the first step for the IPSA to be on the FCP; and this person is spreading rumours that would do only two things - tick off the bodies involved on either side and make everyone look bad in the eyes of the non-shooting bodies on the FCP; and simultaenously give him an opportunity to say that it all happened 'cos he wasn't running things.
I have zero time for any of this if that's the case.

bunny shooter

Indeed.

It's very confusing

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

I've already PM'd you with the name of the person most likely to be doing that and why, and what happened last time. If I was right about that, then all we're seeing here is a situation that needs as the first step for the IPSA to be on the FCP; and this person is spreading rumours that would do only two things - tick off the bodies involved on either side and make everyone look bad in the eyes of the non-shooting bodies on the FCP; and simultaenously give him an opportunity to say that it all happened 'cos he wasn't running things.
I have zero time for any of this if that's the case.

And I replied to you that that person had nothing to do with it. Keep going and convince DeVore that Mr. Unmentionable is behind it and I will be banned and silenced Just like old times eh ?

Sparks

Deliberately so, I think.
Double Alpha posted the initial rumour - DA, where'd you hear it from?
(Also, I've emailed the IPSA about it)

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Deliberately so, I think.
Double Alpha posted the initial rumour - DA, where'd you hear it from?
(Also, I've emailed the IPSA about it)

Better known as a "pampers e-mail" ? Why the sudden rush to include them now ? Didn't they matter all along ?

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

And I replied to you that that person had nothing to do with it.

And you've also said repeatedly that you didn't make the initial statement. Do you know where this came out of or not?

Keep going and convince DeVore that Mr. Unmentionable is behind it and I will be banned and silenced Just like old times eh ?

Yes, because that's just how I've done things for the last four years in here, isn't it.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Better known as a "pampers e-mail" ? Why the sudden rush to include them now ?

The sudden rush. With the rumour only pointed out by you last night. Yeah, I suppose it's a sudden rush.

Didn't they matter all along ?

Look mate, I'll admit I've only emailed the DoJ when the FCP was set up to say they should have a seat on it and told everyone on the FCP I've ever spoken to that they should be on it or this thread would wind up happening, but exactly how much did you want me to do for them? And do you think they're incompetent or something, to say that I should do their job for them without being asked to?

bunny shooter

We have confirmed that info on pistols was sent to the DOJ before FCP was established.

We know who sent some/all of it.

We know the practical boys are not fully represented on the FCP.

It appears their sport is under "review" by DOJ.

Now certain people are suggesting they should now be given a seat on the FCP.

This thread hasn't been a complete waste of time :cool:

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

.............With the rumour only pointed out by you last night. Yeah, I suppose it's a sudden rush...............

Sparks wrote: »

................I've heard that rumour as well. However, I've also heard where it started from, and suffice it to say that the knowlege of the source very soundly discredited the rumour in my mind, long before I ever asked the guys cited in the rumour what the story was. And we've had this argument on boards before, and I don't want to go into it again. Click on the Search button at the top of the page and use it - there's at least three threads in here about it.

STOP, you're cracking me up. :rolleyes:

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

We have confirmed that info on pistols was sent to the DOJ before FCP was established.

Confirmed? I hate to tell you BS, but that's like confirming that water's wet. It's been known for years that several (note the use of the word several here) bodies (note the plural bit there) sent information on pistols to the DoJ. It started happening in 1972, and pretty much never stopped.

We know who sent some/all of it.

Yeah. The NARGC, the NRPAI, the NTSA, the NSAI, the NASRPC, the Pony Club, the NPA, FLAG, and a good few others as well - and that's just those bodies who were sending in stuff to say we should have pistols. The Gardai were sending stuff as well, as well as others, saying we shouldn't have them.
Congratulations, you now know something that's been discussed on these boards in public for the past four years.

We know the practical boys are not fully represented on the FCP.

We knew that from the day they announced the list of invited bodies. Which was when most of us started supporting the idea of the IPSA being on the FCP to the DoJ. When do you plan to start doing that?

It appears their sport is under "review" by DOJ.

According to you maybe. So far as I can tell, all our sports are under constant review by the DoJ, and always have been.

Now certain people are suggesting they should now be given a seat on the FCP.

Yeah. Where "certain people" means "just about everyone other than the DoJ".

This thread hasn't been a complete waste of time :cool:

That depends on what you consider a waste of time I think.
:mad:

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

We have confirmed that info on pistols was sent to the DOJ before FCP was established.

We know who sent some/all of it.

We know the practical boys are not fully represented on the FCP.

It appears their sport is under "review" by DOJ.

Now certain people are suggesting they should now be given a seat on the FCP.

This thread hasn't been a complete waste of time :cool:

You're just stirring sh1t bunny. I shouldn't have wasted my time replying to you.

One thing's for certain though, nothing much has changed. The minute there's a sniff that something is going wrong, people look around for someone to blame.

Anyone but themselves of course :rolleyes:

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

STOP, you're cracking me up. :rolleyes:

I wrote to the IPSA to ask where the rumour was coming from and if they'd heard it. Not to ask if they wanted onto the FCP (I emailed John Fitzgerald back when the rest of us saw the invite list and told him I was writing to the DoJ to say the IPSA should be in the FCP).

Bananaman

Just playing catch up here.

you'd have to wonder how the practical lads could make a range safe when there's no fixed firing point, no fixed butts or backstop and a possible 360 degree arc of fire (not to mention elevation).

There are a wide range of ways in which "the practical lads could make a range safe"

You have to remember that in Practical Pistol there are a great many aspects to ensuring the safety of the individual shooter and any other person.

Range: First of all you have the range itself. I do not see the difference between a static and a practical range. You require a fixed bullet stop which is good for shooting from a distance. Anything less than that distance is alos fine.

Competitor Training and qualification: In Ireland it is not enough that you have a firearms certificate issued by the state - to compete in practical pistol you must undergo rigorous training in order to be allowed to partake in the sport.

This has a twofold effect - it weeds out people who are, as yet, not ready to compete on a practical stage and it ensures that before ANY qualified competitor takes a shot or plans where they will shoot from they are thinking about safety first.

Safety Angles: In some stages in practical pistol there is an angle other than directly ahead - up to 180 degrees is allowed but is very rare as if you did have a 90 degree shot to your left or a 90 degree shot to your right - I have seen them in competitions abroad - you must be EXTREMELY careful not to break the safety angle - postioning your foot a few inches ahead of a certain line will lead to disqualifiction.

The general approach is that on every stage the safety angle is stated and any breach of it - not just a shot taken outside that angle - ANY BREACH of it e.g. after unloading your gun - leads to disqualification.

In general, in copetitions that have been held here in Ireland before, the safety angle on a stage is no vertical deviation from the median and between the corners of the backstop.

Ranges must have been constructed with greater angles in mind to allow for greater angles to be allowed. The bullet trap must extend out from the backstop and past the defined safety angle before a stage can be designed to allow it. There are, as yet, very few ranges in Ireland designed for this purpose.

Target postioning is VERY IMPORTANT and is utmost in the mind of all stage designers. Targets are positioned on the stage in positions other than on the backtop itself but all possible shots are visualised and it is ensured that all shots are taken into the backstop. In other countries thay also utilise portable bullet traps but I have not seen one in Ireland as yet.

Someone asked in an earlier post what happens if it is a prone shot - simple - you lower the target so that it does not require elevation of the firearm. The competitior is trained in how to achieve a prone shooting position and how to get up from a prone shooting position without breaking the defined safety anges. Any breach of this and they are disqualified.

Range Officers: AKA God. Even with a great range, defined safety angles, competitior qualification and training there is a devils advocate.
The Range Officer.
Firearms may ONLY be loaded or unloaded or fired under the range officers direct supervision. In Practical Pistol this is a one to one relationship - there is one range officer for every firearm that is being used, NO EXCEPTIONS.
The range officer will stop the competitior if he /she feels that a safety breach is in progress. Yes I did say in progress. These guys will stop you BEFORE you become a danger to yourself or others.

An example i will give you of this is at a recent shoot in Vienna a Range officer - from Ireland - disqualified a competitor for having her finger obscuring the TRIGGER GUARD while changing a magazine. She did not have her finger on the trigger, she did not fire a shot, she did not breach the safety angles. He could not see the trigger so she was stopped BEFORE she could od any of those things.

There are myriad other ways in which the range is made safe for not only the competitor but everyone - remember that there are numerous multi thousand competitior shoots yearly in Practical Pistol and they are all safe.

Bananaman

In addition, on our range and many others, loaded firearms must be pointing down range at all times until unloaded and checked by a range officer.

In Practical Pistol, from when your firearms is removed from your hoslter to when it is returned to your holster covering everything including:

• Loading,
• unloading
• reloading
• firing
• dealing with a jam
• moving
• being cleared by the range officer
• being cleared again by you
• drawing
• holstering

it MUST point downrange at ALL times. No Exceptions
Any breach of this will lead to immediate disqualification.

"Downrange" is defined as towards the bullet stop and within the safety angle.

The only other time you are allowed to unholster your gun in a define safety area. This also includes a bullet stop.
Ammunition is prohibited in safetyu areas.
Any breach of this will lead to immediate disqualification.

B'Man

Bananaman

The pistol range at Midlands is not a practical pistol range. It is a pistol range.

Practical shooting may not be feasible in Midlands now due to the restrictions applied in their authorisation - based on what I am reading here - but be under no illusions - it is a practical pistol range.

Any centrefire pistol range is a practical pistol range. A bullet stop stops bullets - regardless of what you were wearing when you fired it

B'Man

Bananaman

It does not mean that NTSA members can't shoot IPSA matches (several already do)

Surely you meant:

It does not mean that IPSA members can't WIN NTSA matches (several already do)

B'Man

Bananaman

they did have a very solid image of the handguns in use by terrorist groups at the time, and we wanted some seperation from that image

At the time, the DoJ had been told by the source of the rumours you're discussing that 9mm glock pistols were used in the Olympics. We were asked about that. We pointed out that they weren't since there are no centrefire pistols in the Olympics

Seeing as those rules could conceivably allow anything from a Walther P22 to a Glock 17

Is there some insinuation in all of this that people with Glock 17s are terrorists?

Am I glad I have a Glock 34!!

B'Man

Bananaman

Bananaman wrote: »

Practical shooting may not be feasible in Midlands now due to the restrictions applied in their authorisation - based on what I am reading here - but be under no illusions - it is a practical pistol range.

Any centrefire pistol range is a practical pistol range. A bullet stop stops bullets - regardless of what you were wearing when you fired it

B'Man

I know nothing of practical pistol, but is it not the case that people fire at fixed targets from different positions?

I know for Rathdrum, the police calculated a 'cone of fire' with the origin at the fixed firing point. This cone reprsents all possible shots and they required that everything within the cone have 'precautions' ie baffles, no obstructions etc. etc. (RRPC can fill in the details).

Now, with PP I imagine the restrictions will be same (otherwise its an unfair deal for the rest of the shooters) and the police will also require the same cone. However given that the firing points are dynamic (I think!), the safety requirements will be much greater as these cones will be all over the range.

Is this case then, that PP will need the shooting equivalent of a 'padded room' to satisfy the inspector? Or have I gotten this wrong?

Bananaman

In short I do not know what the requirements of the Ballisitics Dept are.
I'm sure we will find out.

You are correct in that the shooters position is dynamic.

I just know that the people who design a stage for a practical pistol match do so within what is possible on the range that is being used.

The "cone" that you speak of still exists but it is a bit more elliptical in that there will invariably be a wider arc from which the comeptitor can engage a given target. There is usually no deviation in height from one shooting position to another. Given that, I would hope that wraparound bullet traps should cater for this.

Practical Pistol is free style so you cannot apply restrictions to where a competitor can and cannot shoot from - you cannot tell them that they must engage targets 1 thru 5 from here and targets 6 thru 15 from there - what you can so is with the use of charge lines, simulated hard cover, windows or portals in simulated hard cover and no shoot targets force them to engage certain targets from certain positions.

That in practice creates the "cones of fire" that you spoke of.

Some of the guys in our club can talk ballistics and they generally give the stages the once over and move some targets or add additional no shoots if they feel that there is potential for someone to engage a target from an undesirable position.

End of the day you use these props to limit the exposure the shooter has to a target to ensure that the bullet strike will be in the bullet trap.

At the start of PP in Ireland the stages used to be extremely simply and were just a step up from static pistol but as we have learned from those competitions and experienced what other people do abroad and what they do to make it safe we have applied that experience to the point where I would say stage design here is on a par with anywhere in the world.

That means that competitions held here can be of a standard where people in Ireland can gain valuable, relevant experience but also that we can attract shooters from abroad.

All going well there will be the first international here next year and the stage designs must be submitted months in advance so that they can be vetted by IPSC itself.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

In short I do not know what the requirements of the Ballisitics Dept are.
I'm sure we will find out.

I can quote you the requirements under JSP403 which is the standard the Garda Ballistics department worked to.

Cone of Fire (CofF) is the distribution of fired projectiles within a margin of error in the vertical and horizontal planes. The CofF accounts for acceptable deviation caused by errors associated with the firer and machining or manufacturing tolerances, and allows an additional margin for unacceptable firer error.

It then goes on to list the CofF for various firearms for different types of ranges. The ranges are specified as LDA (Limited Danger Area), FDA (Full Danger Area) and Field Firing.

For Pistol, there's no difference whether LDA or FDA, the Azimuth is set as 135 mils and the Elevation at 135 mils also. (17.77 mils is a degree)

So that's 7.6 degrees either side of the line of sight (LoS) and 7.6 degrees above the LoS. That's about 3.24m for a 10m range.

What all that means is that when engaging a target, there must be a backstop such that it will catch any rounds discharged inside the CofF.

That sounds reasonable. However the problem is that an LDA or an FDA range is a very expensive business because you must have land incorporating every CofF out to the limit of the round's capability to travel, completely cordoned off such that no-one can enter the Danger Areas while firing is going on.

Where this is not possible, the angles change a bit. This is called Field firing and the angles increase to 14 degrees either side of the LoS and 10.7 degrees above the LoS. Now your backstop has to be 3.89m high for a 10m range and extend 4.5m either side of the target.

Increase the length of the range and the stops become higher and wider. At 15m, the backstop is now 4.64m high etc.

An added difficulty is where there is some distance between the target and the backstop. In these cases, the range length is the distance from the firing point to the backstop. This is why Midlands don't allow the targets be moved from the butts.

There is also a requirement for the backstops for pistols to have a wall angle of no less than 56 degrees and to be faced with sand. This was a major problem in Midlands, where they were trying to get sand to 'stand up'. The end result was the bags that they used to get the required angle and height.

There is a whole lot more in the document, but that's a rough guide to what's involved.

Sorry, forgot to add that it's important to recognise that these angles are above the line of sight. If for example a shooter is lying prone and firing upward at a target, the backstop has to incorporate that angle plus the CofF angle as well.

Sethur

Bananaman wrote: »

Practical Pistol is free style so you cannot apply restrictions to where a competitor can and cannot shoot from - you cannot tell them that they must engage targets 1 thru 5 from here and targets 6 thru 15 from there - what you can so is with the use of charge lines, simulated hard cover, windows or portals in simulated hard cover and no shoot targets force them to engage certain targets from certain positions.


__________________________________________________________________

I think when the DOJ got wind of the word that certain practices were taking place like cycling bicycles from a village to a range as part of the practice and then when your exhausted shoot the practice. Or while being pushed around the range in a shopping trolley firing at targets.

Bad publicity like the article in the Shooters Digest showing a person firing through a window of a mock up building. BAD publicity lads "what do you expect"

Grizzly 45

Well Sethur,that is practical shotgun ,not even started here yet.

And those kind of stunts you are talking about were common in the 80s in the UK when it was still called Combat Shotgun or Combat pistol.I remember shooting shotgun from the back of decript landrovers,driving around the range.Shooting "survivalist" this and that scenarios. It is now all gone,and that needs tobe empathised to all..This is NOT any form of combat training in any firearms!! I have done combat firearm training for BG work and this totally different.So much that I even failed for my practical pistol liscense here.
In Europe it isnt even called practical anymore it is now being called dynamic shooting.
It could be just as easily argued that long range rifle shooting is training for snipers to the uninitiated!!!

NO Publicity is BAD publicity.And God help the DOJ if they are so small and narrow minded if they ever see pics from a normal practical ,three gun match.

Sparks

NO Publicity is BAD publicity.

Having done two stints as a PRO for the NTSA, let me say that I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are on that one.

Bananaman

certain practices were taking place like cycling bicycles from a village to a range as part of the practice and then when your exhausted shoot the practice. Or while being pushed around the range in a shopping trolley firing at targets.

I have never heard of such a thing - either here or abroad.

The first one just sounds lunatic - how you can have a competitor involved in a course of fire that begins outside the range - would never happen.

The second one could also never happen. Primarily because only you, the competitor and the Range officer are allowed on the stage while it is active so there is no mechanism for someone to "push you about".

Both of those scenarios are downright dangerous and would never be allowed here.

B'Man

Bananaman

Bad publicity like the article in the Shooters Digest showing a person firing through a window of a mock up building.

I do not see that as bad publicity. That was quite a good article which explained, in a relatively succinct format, what IPSC dynamic shooting is all about.

Having someone engaging targets through a window is a very common feature of IPSC competitions.

The purpose of putting windows in simulated hard cover is to force the competitor to engage a target from a specific position - it causes the competitior to move between firing points and it has the added side effect of limiting the exposure the competitor has to the target thereby allowing the stage designers to better calculate the likely firing angles and ensuring that the bullet will strike a bullter trap after going through the target.

B'Man

Grizzly 45

How so Sparks????

Banana,
there were some of those sort of things back in the 80s in the UK in practical rifle,or combat rifle/shotgun.[Pre Hungerford,[1987]when practical shooting was more combat orientated].
But it was range contained all right.Somthing like you had to sling the rifle,cycle a bike to a range,shoot 10 rnds,cycle back to the club house under time collect another 30 cycle back and shoot the remainder of the course.Stil have some of the old Target Gun mags and Handgunner mags that described these shoots.

packas

Sethur wrote: »

Bad publicity like the article in the Shooters Digest showing a person firing through a window of a mock up building. BAD publicity lads "what do you expect"

Sethur,

You must be confusing IPSC with another shooting discipline. IPSC courses of fire are not set up in as you call a "mock up building" or anything like that. IPSC is purely sports orientated in Europe. Windows or apertures are there to challange shooters and force them to be dynamic in how they shoot targets. Take for example a stage at the European Championships last Sept. in France where IPSA sent a squad of two teams. This stage had you sitting on a jet ski in a pond and shooting targets. The challange was the fact that the jet ki was bobbing around while you shoot at targets (please note extensive safety measures were in palce to ensure shooters & range crew safety while this was taking place i.e. the ski wasn't free to float all over the place & there was a solid platform to get on & off the ski)

In Europe (i.e. outside USA) you'll find no reference to mock up buildings or mock up's of real life scenario's. Maybe you're confusing IPSC with IPDA which is carried out in USA. IPDA is designed soley as defensive training. I can understand that's the case seeing as you're allowed to carry a gun in USA for self defence. But in most of Europe guns are solely for target shooting & it's only fitting that IDPA is not carried out. Unfortunately for IPSC though is the fact that sometimes IPDA is confused with IPSC (as you seem to made that mistake also & assumed that the course of fire was a mock up building)

When you've time please check out www.ipscireland.org
If you decide to research IPSC shooting in Europe you'll see that it's purely a target sport discipline & in my view one of the best there is for pistol shooting not to mention the largest growing target sport in the world. I'm sure all IPSC shooters in Ireland will agree with me.

By the way you're not the first & probably won't be the last to confuse IPSC with other disciplines so really no harm done now that it's been clarified to some extent. But on the other hand if you're out soley with a view to have a go at discrediting IPSC then no amount of reasoning can change your mind.

regards,
Pat.

rrpc

packas wrote: »

This stage had you sitting on a jet ski in a pond and shooting targets. The challange was the fact that the jet ki was bobbing around while you shoot at targets (please note extensive safety measures were in palce to ensure shooters & range crew safety while this was taking place i.e. the ski wasn't free to float all over the place & there was a solid platform to get on & off the ski)

In light of my previous post and what's quoted above, I'd have to suggest that predicted CofF in the situation described would be considerably greater than for an immobile firing position. I'm not sure how you could calculate the CofF and I would suggest that the scenario described would only work safely on an FDA range.

Simulated buildings, windows and other such 'obstacles' do not present as protection from misdirected shots, because they are not impenetrable and in fact could create an even wider CofF should a shot go through such a structure and deflect at an unpredicted angle. A one degree change in angle is almost eight inches at 10m.