Fatal Incident at CA USPSA Match

I'm still unsure why you would want them to face the same direction. It just seems safer for them to both face outward. If they are going to face the same direction, then add an intermediate berm to make sure shit like this just doesn't happen. I see nothing around that would demand both sets of pits face the same direction.
 
Ink said:
maybe its the perspective but those berms look very low.........
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that this isn't an aerial photograph, it is Google Earth screenshot. Google Earth uses an algorithm to interpret the height of objects, so it may not be an accurate reflection of the berm height.
 
MuzzleDiscipline said:
It isn't so unusual to have ranges in front of other firing lines.
Call me old fashioned I wouldn't use such facilities.
Old school says nothing in front of the muzzle is safe.
Click to expand...
As long as the berm is high enough, and does not deflect, it's safer to be right behind the berm than a few hundred yards downrange of it. From the reports, it sounds like a wood barrier (great for popper splatter but not much else) acted a a deflector.

As to the later - if that were literally applied we would only have "no blue sky" ranges.
 
The big design fail in this is the wall at the top of the berm. I may see some daylight at the bottom of the wall in one of the above pics posted. A high enough earthen berm would make the layout OK, not ideal, but OK. Looks like the issue might have been a round getting above the berm but under the wall, then deflecting downward off the wall.

A lot of you need to chill out regarding overhead bullets under controlled conditions, lest some libtards pick up on this. It's SOP when you are in the pits pulling targets.
 
This is not the first time such an accident has happened. at another USPSA match ten or fifteen years ago a round fired over the top of a berm struck a steel support at the top, ricocheted down and stuck a shooter behind the berm. I think the solution would be to prevent any rounds from leaving the pit.

PS I am not real happy shooting in the 65 yd pit at Harvard when the 200 yd range is in use.
 
One problem is that saying "you need the berms to face opposite directions for safety" is an admission to expect rounds to go over the berm and into, presumably, unsafe territory or even worse, someone else's property. Once you adopt the position "the berms contain all shots", the any area outside that range becomes, by your own declaration, "unsafe".

Imagine a range that told the community "our berms are all oriented facing out so they pose no danger to us, and stray rounds will land on neighboring property".
 
Rob Boudrie said:
One problem is that saying "you need the berms to face opposite directions for safety" is an admission to expect rounds to go over the berm and into, presumably, unsafe territory or even worse, someone else's property. Once you adopt the position "the berms contain all shots", the any area outside that range becomes, by your own declaration, "unsafe".

Imagine a range that told the community "our berms are all oriented facing out so they pose no danger to us, and stray rounds will land on neighboring property".
Click to expand...

That's a good point.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
One problem is that saying "you need the berms to face opposite directions for safety" is an admission to expect rounds to go over the berm and into, presumably, unsafe territory or even worse, someone else's property. Once you adopt the position "the berms contain all shots", the any area outside that range becomes, by your own declaration, "unsafe".

Imagine a range that told the community "our berms are all oriented facing out so they pose no danger to us, and stray rounds will land on neighboring property".
Click to expand...

New design: All ranges point inward in a star pattern. With the RSO tower right in the middle.
 
Design like this should have baffles at the first firing line to keep any rounds from getting close to the wall at the top of the berm. Switzerland has ranges which fire over busy roadways with such a berm and baffle system to restrict the field of fire to safe angles.
 
NBS blows chunks though, but sometimes there is no safe alternative.

-Mike
 
Rob Boudrie said:
One problem is that saying "you need the berms to face opposite directions for safety" is an admission to expect rounds to go over the berm and into, presumably, unsafe territory or even worse, someone else's property. Once you adopt the position "the berms contain all shots", the any area outside that range becomes, by your own declaration, "unsafe".

Imagine a range that told the community "our berms are all oriented facing out so they pose no danger to us, and stray rounds will land on neighboring property".
Click to expand...

While this is true, they certainly don't have to be so ****ing stupid enough to come right out and SAY that. [rofl]

"We did it this way so that if the sun was shining in your eyes you could just use the range on the opposite side."

-Mike
 
I've lived long enough to know that Murphy's law is fact.
It may be a one in a million chance , but if there's millions of rounds most likely fired there......
I would take one look at a set up like that and be noping my ass on out of there.
 
Dadstoys said:
I've lived long enough to know that Murphy's law is fact.
It may be a one in a million chance , but if there's millions of rounds most likely fired there......
I would take one look at a set up like that and be noping my ass on out of there.
Click to expand...

.....would you leave the range in your automobile? Just wondering.




I would be interested to know if, for sure, the wooden fence on top of the berm played a significant role in this accident.
 
atmay said:
.....would you leave the range in your automobile? Just wondering.




I would be interested to know if, for sure, the wooden fence on top of the berm played a significant role in this accident.
Click to expand...

Apparently, from the thread on calguns, its not a wooden fence, it is plywood holding together a rock and dirt filler. So its almost a box filled with rocks and dirt, and the round might have hit a rock or something and ricocheted down that way.
 
bigblue said:
rocks are a poor backstop, mmkay? Can we agree on that?
Click to expand...

If we were only talking pistol rounds, rocks would probably be merely annoying. With rifle rounds (which might have things like M855 steel penetrators etc in them) things start to get screwy pretty fast....

-Mike
 
Mountain said:
The big design fail in this is the wall at the top of the berm. I may see some daylight at the bottom of the wall in one of the above pics posted. A high enough earthen berm would make the layout OK, not ideal, but OK. Looks like the issue might have been a round getting above the berm but under the wall, then deflecting downward off the wall.

A lot of you need to chill out regarding overhead bullets under controlled conditions, lest some libtards pick up on this. It's SOP when you are in the pits pulling targets.
Click to expand...

I agree - provided the berms are adequately built up there is no way for a round to hop from one firing line to the next. The only thing that would allow that is some other structure on top of the berm which could deflect the bullet, which was evidently the case for this incident.

It sounds like the moral of this story is not "don't have ranges, separated by berms, pointed toward each other" but rather "don't add unnecessary structures to the top of the berm"

That makes me wonder what was the stated purpose of the walls on top of the berms?
 
jefftk said:
I agree - provided the berms are adequately built up there is no way for a round to hop from one firing line to the next. The only thing that would allow that is some other structure on top of the berm which could deflect the bullet, which was evidently the case for this incident.

It sounds like the moral of this story is not "don't have ranges, separated by berms, pointed toward each other" but rather "don't add unnecessary structures to the top of the berm"

That makes me wonder what was the stated purpose of the walls on top of the berms?
Click to expand...

It sounds like the purpose was to stop the bullets that were going over the berm from leaving the range.
- clearly the design didn't work, and provided little ability to stop the rounds that impacted high.
- why in the hell were so many rounds going over the berm?

I'd guess they need to either build much higher berms, or restrict the angle that the shooter's gun can be elevated. I know that type of range sucks, but it might be the only long term solution.
Perhaps they should have some kind of range qualification, especially for rifles. Probably would lower the number of paying customers, but also lower their financial liability in the long run.
 
Last edited:
atmay said:
.....would you leave the range in your automobile? Just wondering.




I would be interested to know if, for sure, the wooden fence on top of the berm played a significant role in this accident.
Click to expand...

I know where your going with that.
I'd stay off any road that had cars going in opposite directions in the same lane though.
I still consider it a piss poor design to have bullets going in the direction of other human beings , I don't care what's in between.
What could go wrong? You just saw it.
 

Similar threads

WEIRDEST ammo+firearm incident i had at the Range yesterday.....
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
Nick Fury
Nick Fury
85-year-old Idaho woman hailed as 'hero' in fatal shooting of home invasion suspect
Replies
7
Views
137
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
SWAT team responding to Arkansas shopping mall, police ask public to avoid the area: Officials called it “an incident that is active"
Replies
5
Views
227
TJ4
T
Buying ammo at BassPro at Foxboro
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
inerlogic
inerlogic
LAPD releases body camera footage of fatal shooting of man holding plastic fork
Replies
22
Views
546
ridleyman
R
Back
Top Bottom