Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Schutzenmeister

  • Rank
    MC Hammer

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Minot ND
  • Real Name
    Mike Carraher, L1636

Recent Profile Visitors

560 profile views
  1. Wall base designs

    Thanks Larry!
  2. Wall base designs

    Larry I guess I'm out of the loop somewhat ... I didn't know there was anything in particular going on in G.F. Can you send me some information on the club, range location, matches, etc.? Mike Minot
  3. fault line on USPSA vs IPSC

    Under IPSC rules, such action would generally be ruled a shortcut. The penalties are applied one per shot fired after the start of the shortcut regardless of subsequent actions. Note that IPSC rules DO NOT have the equivalent of our USPSA "Forbidden Action" rule or our "Out of Bounds" rule ... Simply do not exist. Not saying either approach is necessarily better - Merely acknowledging there is a BIG difference in how the rules address this topic. If you shoot matches under IPSC rules you NEED to be aware of this!
  4. The future of IPSC

    Guys ... I sense this is starting to get a little heated. NOT my intention, I assure you! Hence I will make a couple of replies then give it a rest for 24 hours. Besides - I need to cut the grass today and 4 acres is a HELL of a lot of grass! (LOL) My point is that we do have the opportunity. We vote for our President (our RD) and he represents us at the General Assembly each year. If we don't like his record, we can replace him. And, by the way, that's really no different from how we run things domestically. We (you and I) do not have the "opportunity" to vote on day-to-day things. We elect Area Directors to the BoD and THEY make the decisions on our behalf. If we don't like them, we replace them. The "large match syndrome" here in the US is a relatively new phenomenon. Historically, our matches have been nowhere near this size. As to commuting distances ... I guess we're victims of our own success in manifest destiny! Last I checked, I don't get a vote for actual government positions ... My elected representatives do that ... Guys ... I've got yard work to do - really! I hope each of you find the discussion as thought-provoking as have I. Until later ...
  5. The future of IPSC

    My intent here was to point out that we run fewer (USPSA) L3 matches than, for example, Russia runs (IPSC) L3 matches. Medal counts are a rather silly metric, I agree. They HIGHLY favor the host country as a rule. Sorry, but I have to chuckle here, just a little. Looking at our own (bicameral) Congress, I'm not certain just how wonderful an idea that is! (Please accept the humor and irony intended!) These are WONDERFUL suggestions. I second them and think Mike Foley should give this list some thought! If I may compare this to our own political system in the USA ... If our Presidential system were similar to what you suggest, Hillary Clinton would be President. You may or may not like that, depending on your point of view. Second - I WISH I could force my elected representatives to vote as I want them to on any given issue. That's not how it works, even in our own country. We elect them. They vote on the issues. If we don't like the way they vote, we can (and sometimes even do) vote someone else in. How is this any different?
  6. The future of IPSC

    I wish I had access to (or at least knew where to find) actual match results to answer you apparent question as to the level of participation in any given L3 match worldwide. I don't. I can tell you there are, particularly in Europe, numerous L3 matches which draw 800-1000 shooters each - every year. For some reason, we can't match that! And, by the way, USPSA having only ONE IPSC match per year is by our choice, not a restriction placed on us by IPSC. Trust me - the leadership of IPSC would be THRILLED if we were to have a dozen or more under IPSC Rules! Not saying that's going to happen, just acknowledging a fact.
  7. The future of IPSC

    Grumpy ... I hear you. But if I may, let me pose a couple of questions for you: USPSA does not get wonderfully high participation rates for our own domestic elections as it is. How many USPSA members do you honestly believe actually would vote on IPSC issues if what you propose were in place? For the moment, I'm asking you to temporarily put aside the "opportunity" issue you refer to. Now - and neither one of us has the answer to this one, I'll wager - How many Russians would vote on IPSC issues? (As an aside, also consider the answer to this if Vitaly, the Russian RD, wins the election and becomes the next IPSC President ...) Opportunity is a wonderful thing, from a philosophical point of view. Personally, I'm more concerned about likely real world outcomes. I think such a system might actually dilute our standing at the table. I know Mike Foley ... We both know he is reading this discussion! He is an intelligent individual and I am confident he will weigh and consider both of our (differing) points of view on this topic! I think the discussion is good and healthy. I'm happy it's remaining civil and issue-oriented!
  8. The future of IPSC

    What's your point? We in the US are the exception to the rule in firearms ownership (thankfully!) Many countries (if not most) require such membership. Further, if one looks at "activity count" (subjective term ... depends on just how it is defined), Russia lead the world in L3 match activity for 2016. http://www.ipsc.org/results/regionstatus.php If you question this, go on line and look at the IPSC Match Calendar ... Select "Russia" and list all matches. (Note, it will only list L3 and higher.) Look at that list and compare it to how many L3 matches there are each year in the USA. I think you'll be surprised at what you find! I wouldn't call them inactive. Similar arguments can be made for other regions. One other item ... I would respectfully disagree with limiting the discussion to handgun. Many places in the world severely limit civilian handgun ownership/use. Some flatly prohibit it. IPSC attempts to provide these places with SOME form of the sport in which they can participate ... Rifle, Shotgun, and yes - even Airsoft! My advice to Mike Foley is to encourage this aspect of IPSC as it does us no harm and spreads some form of the sport on a global basis. My 0.02 ... YMMV
  9. The future of IPSC

    Tank You could not possibly be more wrong ... Sorry. USPSA has around 28000 members. Russia alone has something on the order of 36000. Technically, we're not even the biggest kid on the block anymore. Saying IPSC should adopt USPSA standards is absolutely the tail wagging the dog. I'm not at all advocating we cave and adopt international rules, but to imply they should bow to our standards because we're bigger and better than the rest of the world combined is irrational. We need to find ways to work together. That will require some give and take on both sides. That's really all I'm advocating.
  10. The future of IPSC

    Grumpy It is incredibly obvious to me that direct voting, by all "members" worldwide is a concept that has little if any chance of succeeding ... either in getting it approved, or in the execution of it thereafter. We have enough problems getting our own members to vote in our elections. I'm less than optimistic about the chances of global success on that. However, it appears I may be offending at least you with my thoughts. I shall voluntarily withdraw from the discussion unless specifically asked to reply to something. Cheers
  11. The future of IPSC

    I'm not sure exactly where you're headed with this. Direct voting by all members, worldwide? I suspect even you would agree that would never fly. Something more republican (small r)? Kind of what we have - just more like the Senate than the House. I really don't mean to be "shooting down" comments so much as trying to encourage folks to provide some ideas that are based in reality and may be achievable. If anyone is offended, I'll stop.
  12. The future of IPSC

    Your question is pretty much on target ... But I'm not convinced it's the right question. Yes, only a minority of USPSA shooters have ever shot under international rules. But the better question might be what harm does it do to remain affiliated? The good comes from USPSA controlling who gets selected to represent the US on the world stage. As they say, ya gotta be in it to win it!
  13. The future of IPSC

    Understood, oh Grumpy One! However, this has been an ongoing issue for decades. Truth be told, it was apparently the US who wanted a cap of 2000 members for dues purposes. And by the way ... We've got ~ 28,000 members. The Russians have something like 36,000! Right now our vote is equal to theirs. Would you prefer theirs to be ~ 150% of ours, relatively speaking?
  14. The future of IPSC

    To start with ... Our by-laws and our IRS tax status include sending members to compete in international competition. Changing that could have consequences. (Not saying it would, just it could.) Absent USPSA being the organization hosting IPSC in the US I suspect another organization would eventually step up to fill the void. Do we want this, or would we rather own it?
  15. The future of IPSC

    Mike Generally speaking, I pose 3 broad questions: 1 - What do we (USPSA) want and expect from the relationship? You and I have had this conversation before and, if I may paraphrase you, "They can have our membership when they can pry it from our cold dead hands." I don't think those were your exact words, but that was clearly your sentiment. I agree. There is a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship between USPSA and IPSC. We are each better for knowing the other. IPSC needs to continue to be a VERY broad tent under which folks from all over the planet can enjoy some form of our sport. They need to defend that - We need to support them in that effort. 2 - What does IPSC want from US? Two things come to mind: They don't want US competing with their rule set in places outside our borders. I think this has reached a stasis, but it is only just beneath the surface and could easily rise again. Second - I know they would very, very, very much like to see the US hold more than just one IPSC L3 match per year. Yeah, technically it fulfils our obligation under the IPSC Constitution, but you have to admit it's little more than lip service. 3 - The salient question we face now is which of the candidates for IPSC President can best accomplish the above and not threaten US with expulsion from IPSC? Some of this may lay deeper than merely the candidate. I suggest you consider each candidate's platform and the people he will have on his Executive Committee afterwards. This will have more significant impact on our continued affiliation with IPSC than anything else I can envision. Respects