The future of IPSC

[d_striker]

On 7/14/2017 at 8:26 AM, dvc4you said:

Proportional representation.

Rules convergence as much as possible.

 

This.

 

But let's pick the best rules of the two and go with that.

Edited July 17, 2017 by d_striker

[d_striker]

On 7/14/2017 at 3:18 PM, Steve RA said:

 

How many people would want to shoot IPSC here instead of USPSA  ???   I'd think the number of people who have shot an IPSC match would be a very low percentage of USPSA membership.

 

Depends on a lot of things.  

 

But let's say a hypothetical new shooter has a Production gun and there are two matches the same distance away.  One USPSA and one IPSC.  I'd bet that shooter picks the match where he can load his mags up.  

[BritinUSA]

40 minutes ago, d_striker said:

But let's say a hypothetical new shooter has a Production gun and there are two matches the same distance away.  One USPSA and one IPSC.  I'd bet that shooter picks the match where he can load his mags up.  

 

I think that would depend on whether or not they have made ANY changes to that gun. IPSC Production is significantly more stringent than USA's version. 

 

Bringing the divisional requirements inline between USPSA and IPSC is not trivial, the impact to some divisions can vary from slight changes in minimum bullet weight for Open, to reducing magazine size in Standard, but the impact to Production is huge.

Edited July 17, 2017 by BritinUSA

[d_striker]

5 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

 

I think that would depend on whether or not they have made ANY changes to that gun. IPSC Production is significantly more stringent than USA's version. 

 

Bringing the divisional requirements inline between USPSA and IPSC is not trivial, the impact to some divisions can vary from slight changes in minimum bullet weight for Open, to reducing magazine size in Standard, but the impact to Production is huge.

 

I don't believe IPSC shooters aren't making ANY changes to their Production guns.  I'm guessing their trigger pull weight in Production is pretty close to the 4lb limit.  I don't know of any striker fired or DA/SA gun that comes from the factory with a 4lb pull.  But at any rate, this would be a good opportunity to align the rules between the two organizations.  

 

I agree that the changes are not trivial, but this isn't remotely close to rocket science either.

[ChuckS]

4 minutes ago, d_striker said:

 

I don't believe IPSC shooters aren't making ANY changes to their Production guns.  I'm guessing their trigger pull weight in Production is pretty close to the 4lb limit.  I don't know of any striker fired or DA/SA gun that comes from the factory with a 4lb pull.  But at any rate, this would be a good opportunity to align the rules between the two organizations.  

 

I agree that the changes are not trivial, but this isn't remotely close to rocket science either.

FWIW, the production limit is "2.27 kg (5 lbs.) for first shot"

[d_striker]

Just now, ChuckS said:

FWIW, the production limit is "2.27 kg (5 lbs.) for first shot"

 

Okay.  Maybe the odd striker fired gun may come close to that.  But definitely no DA/SA gun comes close to that from the factory on the DA shot.

[GeneBray]

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
 
 
 

I would think Russia would have more area matches than the US. Geographically Russia is almost 75% larger than the US. And, if more areas, then they would have more regions than the US and if each holds an annual championship voila more L3 matches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeneBray]

I would think Russia would have more area matches than the US. Geographically Russia is almost 75% larger than the US. And, if more areas, then they would have more regions than the US and if each holds an annual championship voila more L3 matches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think I replied to wrong person. Sorry. Believe this was for grumpyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeneBray]

@ BritinUSA.  I think Standard would require nearly every Limited/L-10 shooter to replace their base pads to be compliant.  Could be relatively expensive.

 

Production.  Would be a nightmare.  USPSA let the horse out of the barn years ago and there is no way to it back.  And, I suspect a major revolt by USPSA membership if USPSA tried.  I appears to me IPSC made their production rules what USPSA should have done, if USPSA really wanted it a cheap, easy way to get into the sport.  And, expecting shooters to migrate to O or L/L10 as their skills improved.  With the current rules, production is beginning to push open and limited for total participation at some major matches.  One Level 3 in the last two or three years, total production shooters were second to limited -- beating out open.  I think part of the reason for productions popularity is the ability to do considerable modification to the pistol.  But, that defeats the entry level division purpose and keeping costs down.

 

On a side note, it is relatively easy to get a 5 lb. DA pull and from 1 lb. up SA pull on a CZ75 trigger and have the pistol reliable without Federal primers in DA/SA.

  

[tanks]

2 minutes ago, GeneBray said:

@ BritinUSA.  I think Standard would require nearly every Limited/L-10 shooter to replace their base pads to be compliant.  Could be relatively expensive.

 

Also I don't think IPSC allows grip safety to be disabled. 5.4" guns would have to have a different hammer to fit in the box as well I think.

[Brooke]

7 hours ago, GeneBray said:

 I appears to me IPSC made their production rules what USPSA should have done, if USPSA really wanted it a cheap, easy way to get into the sport.  

 

It's hard to believe that USPSA rules should be like IPSC for Production. Given the popularity of USPSA Production division looks to me like IPSC should adopt the USPSA rules. You can argue that Production was or was not intended to be a cheap entry to the sport. Fact is it has evolved into a an extremely popular division that IS cheaper to get into than others. My view is nobody wants a kindergarten division. The current USPSA Production is a good compromise that allows cheap easy introduction and some gun upgrades as one progresses. 

 

While it is frequently joked about, IDPA is a cheap entry sport that allows new people to get some experience and switch to USPSA.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Brooke

[ChuckS]

Here is a Production philosophy document that Vince published in 2006 to aid your discussion.

 

Later,

Chuck

PD Philosophy.pdf

[Gooldylocks]

13 hours ago, GeneBray said:

@ BritinUSA.  I think Standard would require nearly every Limited/L-10 shooter to replace their base pads to be compliant.  Could be relatively expensive.

New magazines, not just basepads in most cases. It would be expensive, regardless of which direction (IPSC going to Limited rules or USPSA going to standard rules). But I think having the two sports mirror each other as closely as possible makes people feel more connected to our international brethren. 

13 hours ago, GeneBray said:

 

Production.  Would be a nightmare.  USPSA let the horse out of the barn years ago and there is no way to it back.  And, I suspect a major revolt by USPSA membership if USPSA tried.  I appears to me IPSC made their production rules what USPSA should have done, if USPSA really wanted it a cheap, easy way to get into the sport.  And, expecting shooters to migrate to O or L/L10 as their skills improved.  With the current rules, production is beginning to push open and limited for total participation at some major matches.  One Level 3 in the last two or three years, total production shooters were second to limited -- beating out open.  I think part of the reason for productions popularity is the ability to do considerable modification to the pistol.  But, that defeats the entry level division purpose and keeping costs down.

As shown in Pinto's production division manifesto Chuck posted, it was never intended to be an entry level division. It is also silly that in that manifesto he says guns built specifically for PD competition will not be allowed onto the AGL, and yet... the Shadow 2 and all of the Xtreme line of Tanfos are all approved 

13 hours ago, GeneBray said:

 

On a side note, it is relatively easy to get a 5 lb. DA pull and from 1 lb. up SA pull on a CZ75 trigger and have the pistol reliable without Federal primers in DA/SA.

  

And entirely illegal if you go by the IPSC PD rules. "Oh but Mr. RM sir, I just dropped my gun in a vat of blue magic and dry fired it 15,000 times before I cleaned it, I didn't do any modifications!" People still do modify their guns, but it is technically illegal. 

[GeneBray]

You are correct. I was wrong. 126/127mm length mags.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[terrydoc]

23 hours ago, tanks said:

 

Also I don't think IPSC allows grip safety to be disabled. 5.4" guns would have to have a different hammer to fit in the box as well I think.

IPSC does allow the  grip safety to be disabled as it's not the primary safety. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by terrydoc

[perttime]

On 7/14/2017 at 3:51 AM, Trent1k1 said:

It is concerning that Airsoft has been sanctioned by IPSC.  Seems to me that is one step away from "see! we don't need real guns to play this game:

 

It's not really about the targets, but it seems it started with the no head targets and  Steel with heads looks like people and has progressed to....CO2 is a great way to shoot the sport.

 

I DO understand that in many countries it is extremely expensive to get real bullets so

 

 

In many countries, it is hard to get permits for powder burning pistols and revolvers. In my case, Finland, you have to prove 2 years of pistol practice BEFORE you can get a permit for your own. Action Air (Airsoft guns) has been accepted as pistol practice, so it is working as a way to get people into the game, and hopefully into moving up to "real guns".