Urgent Meeting

packas

rrpc wrote: »

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.

Hi RRPC. The above was on a shooting range in France so I'm really not sure what your point is. Also I'm not an expert regarding the regulations in France for range construction. But as it was an international event I'm sure it met all approved legislation for range construction. That particular point of mine that you isolated was an attempt by me to demonstrate the diverse COF (Course Of Fire in case you'r confusing it with what you call cone of fire) that shooters face. In reality the ski was bobbing about 5-6" up & down & considering all targets were low against the backstop I'd say it was safe but as stated I'm not an expert. Great care is taken with the design & construction of all IPSC course of fire. They are designed for the particular range/bay they're intended to be set up on.

Bananaman

Folks,

I think it needs to be said that the differences in elevation of the firearm during discharge that may be experienced in a practical stage are the same as those experienced in a static stage.

Agreed, in practical, the shooter has the freedom to lower or raise their shooting position but the difference in height of various shooters far outstrips this for difference of shooting position.

A guy who is 6'4" versus a guy who is 5" tall on a static stage will still incur a far greater difference between shooting positions than anything competitors may choose to do in a practical stage.
In practical you would rarely have a difference this great in shooting positions unless there was also disparity in the heights of the shooters.
The vertical shooting position may be forced to be changed by having a low aperture but the targets will always be lowered accordingly to help ensure the competitor does not break the defined safety angles.

B'Man

rrpc

packas wrote: »

Hi RRPC. The above was on a shooting range in France so I'm really not sure what your point is. Also I'm not an expert regarding the regulations in France for range construction. But as it was an international event I'm sure it met all approved legislation for range construction.

My point is going back to a previous post I made about the difficulty in designing a range for practical pistol. I'm quite sure the range in France was designed safely. My point is that it may not be possible to do the same thing here without a great deal of expenditure. I'm basing that on what I've read on range safety and range design criteria.

That particular point of mine that you isolated was an attempt by me to demonstrate the diverse COF (Course Of Fire in case you'r confusing it with what you call cone of fire) that shooters face. In reality the ski was bobbing about 5-6" up & down & considering all targets were low against the backstop I'd say it was safe but as stated I'm not an expert. Great care is taken with the design & construction of all IPSC course of fire. They are designed for the particular range/bay they're intended to be set up on.

I don't confuse Course of Fire with Cone of Fire. I've explained CofF in my post above. Why I quoted your description of the particular course of fire was because it changed the dynamics of normal range design to such a degree that it wouldn't be possible (logistically or financially) to construct a NDA or LDA range with such a scenario because of the increased CofF that a moving firing point would create. This is why I suggested that it would have to be a FDA (Full Danger Area) range.

None of what I'm saying here should be construed as an attack on Practical Pistol Shooting or the IPSA or IPSC. What I'm endeavouring to do is point out with the knowledge I've gained from being involved in range design and discussions with range safety experts what will be necessary to design and operate a safe PP range.

Many of the scenarios used in PP create the ilusion of safety because the shooter is required to shoot through an aperture or around an obstacle that appears to limit the possible CofF. This is a fallacy becuase the obstacles themselves can be an inherent safety risk and are not impenetrable. Where such scenarios are set up, shooters could be wholly unaware of the other safety measures on the range such as Danger Areas extending well beyond the physical range limits.

The 1200 yard range in Bisley is a case in point. Standing on the firing point, it's hard to know that there is an enormous tract of land stretching beyond the butts to a distance of almost two miles which is the danger area for that range.

fluffyduffy

RRPC, can you confirm if you belive that IPSC shooting has a 360 degree arc of fire??? Or was that a typo??

You seem to be very negative about this sport.

Is it not true that as a shooter gets closer to a targer the cone of fire is reduced???

Why can Ireland not have IPSC shooting run safley like the rest of the world???

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.

If a shooter is shooting lying down at target that is low reletive to the backstop surley he is more stable than if he is standing. RRPC, I think that you will find that if an IPSC shooter is engaging targets from a prone position that they not be mounted high relitive to the backstop!!

Have you ever looked at the safety record of IPSC shooting worldwide????

Bananaman

Simulated buildings, windows and other such 'obstacles' do not present as protection from misdirected shots

A few misnomers there.

Simulated buildings - they do not really happen - for one they would take too long and too much money to construct and you would have to rip them down afterwards. In the U.S.A they get up to this sort of thing but not here. Quite frequently we will simulate a wall with some red and white safety tape strung across a stage. The competitors know they may not engage targets across this tape. Sometimes when we wish to present a specific shooting position we will use a "wall" or "window" or "door" to present this option.

protection. - All "obstacles" as you put it that are placed downrange are placed there to force the competitor to adopt a certain shooting position or to choose between two or more shooting positions.
Under no circumstances are they intended to be bullet traps. They are designed and built to be penetrable.

A "Wall" which is simulating hard cover is invariably built out of a frame of light lats of timber covered with plastic webbing. There are a number of reasons for this. a) They are penetrable b) the RO can see through them c) they are very light and so can be carried on or off the stages when the competition is complete.

A "Window" in simulated hardcover is simply a part of the "walls" I explained above where the plastic webbing has been removed - thereby presenting the competitor with a portal through which they may engage targets. These may be covered and have to be opened.


A "door" in simulated hardcover is simply a part of the "walls" I explained above where the plastic webbing has been removed - thereby presenting the competitor with a portal through which they may move. i.e the portal is large enough for the shooter to go through without presenting any trip hazards. There say be full height or may require the competitor to crouch somewhat.These may be covered and have to be opened.

I have seen people use a plastic bin, whin bushes, plants, a snowman, etc as "obstacles" they were all used for the reasons I outlined above.

B'Man

rrpc

fluffyduffy wrote: »

RRPC, can you confirm if you belive that IPSC shooting has a 360 degree arc of fire??? Or was that a typo??

There is a possible 360 degree arc of fire where the shooter is moving regardless of whether the range is set up for a 180 degree arc of fire or not. This is simply because a shooter who is moving can trip or fall with unpredictable consequences.

You seem to be very negative about this sport.

No, I'm realistic. I've spent a lot of time on range safety and design and I'm perfectly willing to pass that knowledge on. To anyone.

Is it not true that as a shooter gets closer to a targer the cone of fire is reduced???

No. The Cone of Fire is measured in angles. These remain the same regardless of where the shooter is in relation to the target. The possible impact area within the cone of fire reduces with proximity to the backstop, but the angles remain the same.

Why can Ireland not have IPSC shooting run safley like the rest of the world???

No reason that it can't. It's just going to require a good deal of money. In the US for example there are such vast areas of land that a FDA range can be set up in with very little cost so it's a no-brainer there.

If a shooter is shooting lying down at target that is low reletive to the backstop surley he is more stable than if he is standing. RRPC, I think that you will find that if an IPSC shooter is engaging targets from a prone position that they not be mounted high relitive to the backstop!!

CofF is measured from the line of sight. The backstop must incorporate both the height of the line of sight plus the CofF. The norm for a standing shooter is 1.8m, so you're backstop should be 1.8m plus the CofF angle in relation to the distance from the firing point.

Shooting from the prone position brings in another variable I'm afraid. That's the danger of ricochet. Most prone ranges are required to incorporate a ricochet pit in front of the firing point. In Rathdrum, the firing point had to be raised 450mm above the floor.

Have you ever looked at the safety record of IPSC shooting worldwide????

You see, this is where you missed the point of my last post. I'm sure the safety record is very good. The problem is that a lot of people concentrate on the physical range layout and assume that that's sufficient for safety. They don't realise that there are safety factors beyond the range layout that are absolutely essential to keeping the entire range safe.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

protection. - All "obstacles" as you put it that are placed downrange are placed there to force the competitor to adopt a certain shooting position or to choose between two or more shooting positions.
Under no circumstances are they intended to be bullet traps. They are designed and built to be penetrable.

Sorry B'man, I didn't intend to create the impression that I was referring to them as bullet traps. Some people I've spoken to make the assumption that because you have to shoot through a certain obstacle (or virtual obstacle) that this in some way reduces the possible CofF to within the boundaries of that obstacle. I was just pointing out why that is wrong.

The situation you describe using tape is better in that as you say it maintains a clearer vision of the range as a whole. It's also less likely to create that impression of reduced CofF that more solid obstacles can.

Sethur

Packas this is not from the Shooting Digest article and is it not up on the IPSA WEBSIGHT and would you not call this mock up building. Again I say BAD PUBLICITY


ipsa.jpg

fluffyduffy

RRPC, thanks for your honest reply.

There is a possible 360 degree arc of fire where the shooter is moving regardless of whether the range is set up for a 180 degree arc of fire or not. This is simply because a shooter who is moving can trip or fall with unpredictable consequences.

I would have though the fact that the shooter is not allowerd to move with his/her finger would eliminate this problem.

IPSC shooting (to me) would seem to be a competition where the shooter moves from one static shooting position to another.

I am open to correction, but I dont think 180 degree arcs of fire are normally permitted.

No, I'm realistic. I've spent a lot of time on range safety and design and I'm perfectly willing to pass that knowledge on. To anyone.

In the real world IPSC shooting has less accidents than flower arranging.

I do not doubt your experience BTW.

The Cone of Fire is measured in angles. These remain the same regardless of where the shooter is in relation to the target. The possible impact area within the cone of fire reduces with proximity to the backstop, but the angles remain the same.

I see your point. But the area of the base off the cone reduces (possible impact area). This gives you a smaller and smaller cone as the shooter gets closer to the backstop. That is my point.

Why can Ireland not have IPSC shooting run safley like the rest of the world??? No reason that it can't. It's just going to require a good deal of money.

I dont think the Midlands range was cheap, yet the built it. If something stops IPSC shooting in Ireland it will not be money.

CofF is measured from the line of sight. The backstop must incorporate both the height of the line of sight plus the CofF. The norm for a standing shooter is 1.8m, so you're backstop should be 1.8m plus the CofF angle in relation to the distance from the firing point.

I see, so if the line of sight reduces, the backstop can be lower??

Most prone ranges are required to incorporate a ricochet pit in front of the firing point.

I would imagine that this would be one of the easier problems to solve.

I'm sure the safety record is very good.

More than very good!! Check it out.

Grizzly 45

Think it is somthing like Zero fatal accidents in all three disiplines since it's inception????

Blazher

To clear something up, Before anyone can take part in a IPSC Match, They need to have a license,

before you get a License you need to do a knowledge and safty test,

You need to know how to shoot,
You need to show that you understand what safty is,

In short, Not just anyone can shoot an IPSC match.

There is a possible 360 degree arc of fire where the shooter is moving regardless of whether the range is set up for a 180 degree arc of fire or not. This is simply because a shooter who is moving can trip or fall with unpredictable consequences.

This is true for every sport not just IPSC,

Blazher

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Think it is somthing like Zero fatal accidents in all three disiplines since it's inception????

Yes your right, In all the years IPSC has been running not one person has been shot at an event,

You wont find a sport where safty is more enforced then an IPSC Event,

Sparks

To bring up the earlier rumour regarding lists one last time, I just received a reply from the IPSC. They heard the rumour some time ago, they don't believe it, and they met with the DoJ after having heard the rumour and heard nothing to back the rumour up. So far as they're concerned, the rumour's groundless. I hope that puts an end to that one.

packas

Sethur. I'm aware of the article. I wrote it. However regarding the shotgun pic. 2 things I want to make clear:-

1. Nowhere in the article do I mention a mock up of a buliding. That is just not IPSC
2. IPSC shotgun is not carried out in Ireland at the moment. That competitor shooting is not Irish & he's not shooting on an Irish range. The sole prupose of that article was to illustrate the fact that IPSC shotgun does exist & is as dynamic & exciting as pistol. Maybe I probably do deserve a slap on the hand for publishing what may look like a mock building. I honestly never ever saw it that way as I think in terms of IPSC shooting. To me it looked like apertures to make the stage more challanging. I'm into IPSC for the pure sport & competitiveness of it & nothhing else. If you see it differently then you don't really understand what IPSC is about.

DVC,
Pat.

rrpc

Blazher wrote: »

To clear something up, Before anyone can take part in a IPSC Match, They need to have a license,

before you get a License you need to do a knowledge and safty test,

You need to know how to shoot,
You need to show that you understand what safty is,

In short, Not just anyone can shoot an IPSC match.

This is true for every sport not just IPSC,

In the interests of clarity, I'm also not referring to shooters ability, training or knowledge of safety. Merely the physical safety aspects of constructing a range.

When considering safety, we should not be blinkered by what sport we do. We are all custodians of each other's sport where safety is concerned.

Bananaman

IPSC shooting (to me) would seem to be a competition where the shooter moves from one static shooting position to another.

I am open to correction, but I dont think 180 degree arcs of fire are normally permitted.

In essence you are correct. The shooter moves from one position to another with the gun safed - i.e. safety engaged and trigger guard uncovered at all times. Any breach of this and they will be stopped and disqualified. They must maintain the safety angle at all times - while moving, not just while engaging targets. Any breach of this and they will be stopped and disqualified.

There will be many positions from which they will be able to see and engage targets and all of these positions will have been setup to ensure that the bullet trap is behind any targets engaged from that position.

IPSC does allow for up to 180 degree stages but you are correct - they are very rare - firstly you need a range on which it is possible. Then you need to be VERY clear with EACH competitor about the dangers involved before they start. As I said in an earlier comment - if you breach the safety angle - quite easy to do if the shot is 90 degrees to either side - you will be disqualified.

On one of my first shoots in the north there was a stage which had a shot 90 degrees to the left. During the stage briefing the RO repeatedly pointed out the tightness of the angle - a "wall" prevented you from engaging it any earlier. He pointed out a piece of charge line and if any part of you was past that line (if your toe was on the board) while you were aiming at the target (note you did not have to have taken a shot) you were stopped and disqualified. On the day nobody broke the safety angle and nobody was disqualified but we were all EXTREMELY slow when engaging that target.

B'Man

Sethur

Packas I would suggest you remove the bottom picture as it might cause a problem. The people in it might not want their photo up on boards.

Bananaman

Merely the physical safety aspects of constructing a range.

RRPC - I know and thank you for your comments - I know nothing of the requirements for range construction so some of this is quite an eye opener.

From my point of view we start with a suitable range. I have no control over the process up to that point.

What I am pointing out is that the capabilities of the range are utmost in the minds of stage designers. A typical Practical Competition will have multiple stages each of which will take place in a bay or range. What I mean by this is that there will be multiple smaller bays within the range.

Typically, these bays will have different dimensions and may or may not have other bays to their right or left. The Bullet trap may extend around to the side berms or may not. Depending on these, and other, factors the stage designers will construct a stage which is suitable for the bay in question.

Not all of us are up to date on the specific ballistic properties of the various calibres or the possible outcomes of a strike in the backstop but we do all know some. We defer to the guys who do know to ratify what we have concluded but safety is the primary concern in stage design.

I suppose what I am saying is that even after the range has been cleared by the ballistics dept and authorised for dynamic shooting - that is just the first of many phases of safety review that happen prior to a competition being held.

B'Man

packas

Sethur wrote: »

Packas I would suggest you remove the bottom picture as it might cause a problem. The people in it might not want their photo up on boards.

I got approval to post their pics on the website & in the shooters Digest. Both are available to the the whole world to see. But I take your point. I will remove it. i presume that's why you took it down?

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

RRPC - I know and thank you for your comments - I know nothing of the requirements for range construction so some of this is quite an eye opener.

It was to me too believe me. In some respects I feel for the range inspector. He has to sign off on a range being safe within certain parameters. If through ignorance or inattention, one of those parameters is breached, it's his ass on the line if something goes wrong.

If you're trying to engineer a NDA or LDA range; and with land costs here they are always the best option wherever possible, it's a nightmare trying to predict where shots will land when you have an unlimited supply of firing points throughout the horizontal plane of the range. Add in different firing positions (standing, kneeling or prone) and you've just magnified all that threefold.

This is why I suggested somewhere towards the beginning of this thread that an indoor range would be easier to construct. I wasn't being tongue in cheek about this, but I had given the subject some thought as a friend of mine who does a bit of practical asked me about it.

A No Danger Area Range btw is one where no additional danger area is required beyond the range boundaries as no shot can leave these boundaries. This includes aimed shots, unaimed shots and ricochets.

MortgageMan

Well done again guys, you have all shown how educated you are and how brilliant you are at trajectories, cones of fire etc.

But knowledge and not just hot air is learnt from rule books and experiences of the topic that you choose to discuss.

Please before any more hot air blows up can you take the time to read the IPSC rule book, it might just help to know the actual rules.

Safety is the primary concern of all sportsmen and women who shoot the sport of IPSC.

IPSC is a sport that is enjoyed worldwide, we do not act like idiots during a course of fire and would not push each other in trollies or cycle off into the distance to take a shot, how absurd !!!!!!!!!

I have attended ranges in Ireland and abroad to shoot not just IPSC but also other target disciplines, and in my experience the IPSC shoot's have been the safest and most professionally run.

I am biased as I shoot IPSC and I will voice my support for my sport, so please once again read the rules and get some education on the sport before you try to knock it.

In the current climate all sportsmen and women who shoot should try to stick together for the greater good, it should not be them or us, no one sport is better than the other, stick together and we can all enjoy our sport in the long term.

Rant over, by the way the trolley incident was to get competitors home after the shoot, and was not used during the shoot

Bananaman

an indoor range would be easier to construct.

I have seen some indoor ranges on the continent. They are all good and well but you are talking about putting a couple of acres under a roof which can stop a bullet. The ones that work best were there before such as the tunnels beneath the city of Vienna or the Moss Indoor range in Norway which was some form of storage tunnels.

They have their own problems as now you have much higher chance of ricochet as you cannot sand trap the whole thing so need portable bullet traps and all the ventilation and lead exposure issues that go with an indoor range. Remember that a 100 man shoot with 10 stages will on average require the expenditure of ~20,000 rounds of no less than 9mm calibre.

Remember that practical pistol is huge - you would be looking at ~50-100 competitors for even a local match here and if you were holding an international ~200-300 shooters and if you get to hold the Europeans or some day the World shoot you are looking at many 1000's of competitors.

It would not be practical (no pun intended) to build an indoor range on that scale from the ground up.

B'Man

Sethur

MortgageMan wrote: »

Rant over, by the way the trolley incident was to get competitors home after the shoot, and was not used during the shoot

mortgageman


Was there one for everyone in the competition , was there no taxis. :)Joke

Sparks

I don't believe the trolley rrpc was referring to was the shopping trolley in the recent photo of post-match celebrations that got put up on here, but a different story entirely.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

I don't believe the trolley rrpc was referring to was the shopping trolley in the recent photo of post-match celebrations that got put up on here, but a different story entirely.

Eh??

I don't think I ever referred to a shopping trolley anywhere. Doesn't really come into range design criteria (unless you're using an abandoned supermarket or something)

Sparks

Doh. My bad, it was Sethur who mentioned it, not you.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

To bring up the earlier rumour regarding lists one last time...............

Are these the "lists" you and RRPC admitted to submitting or the "lists" that nobody has admitted to submitting or the "lists" that were never actually submitted by anyone at all ?

Sparks

Tell me BS, if the IPSA - the National Governing Body, who'd know more about this than anyone else - has no problem with the NTSA (and in fact there's been a good relationship there for a while now), and doesn't believe the rumour you've been pushing in this thread, why are you still pushing it and saying there's a problem?

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

I don't believe the trolley rrpc was referring to was the shopping trolley in the recent photo of post-match celebrations that got put up on here, but a different story entirely.

And ye choose to believe the trolly story but not the "list" one ?:D

Only stories about Practical Pistol are believable ? Stories about lists are unbelievable ? Strange logic

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

.............if the IPSA - the National Governing Body, who'd know more about this than anyone else.........

How could they ? They aren't on the FCP.