Chuck Anderson

Nope. FN w/ XRail (at least, so he told me at the Open Nationals this year) But that was before he found out some moron changed USPSA to 10+1. Didn't you read the OP? I'll be interested to see what he does this weekend. The Xrail is great for IMGA, sucks for USPSA.

Deleted

Well bummer, It's always good to see you. I'm assuming at least Kurt will be there? The Fallen Brethren 3 Gun took the dates vacated by FB3G. That's the match in Texas at Spartan Tactical.

You completely misunderstand. I had to wait a day before responding to try and understand some of what you said. Here is my 2 cents. First there is no IMGA. There is a rule set that has been around for years and is modified by every IMGA MD out there. However there is no Association that backs that rule set up. You talk about not needing overlays to score, but Horner scoring (used in "IMGA" matches) still devalues hits outside the A and shooters are still going to try and get the value of those hits. You mentioned USPSA power factor. There are still many shooters that like shooting matches with Hit Factor scoring. I'm not one of them, but many died in the wool USPSA shooters realize that hanging a couple D's on a target is not as hard of a shooting challenge as actully trying to hit the A zone. Beyond that, USPSA has Time Plus scoring, just like IMGA. I just ran the Area 1 MG match as Time Plus. No major ammo required. As far as USPSA succeeding in MultiGun. It's possible we'll fail. I don't think so but who knows. What I do see happening is IMGA matches are getting harder and harder to get into. Used to be there was one then two big three gun matches nationwide. SOF, then SMM3G. In the last 5 years that number has gone up dramatically. But it's still geared towards bigger matches. Blue Ridge, RM3G, Ironman, Ozark, FNH, Pro-Am. All great matches. But there is only so much that can be accomplished with major matches like those. I still see the same faces at most of these matches, whether I'm in Missouri, Idaho or Arizona. Chances are, of 200 people in the match I'll know 100 or more from all the other big IMGA matches we shot earlier in the year. These big matches are great and having a single MD or group running the match works well. Where this model breaks down is club and mid level matches. Without a nationwide organization of some type ensuring some consistency from match to match, state to state, we won't dramatically grow the number of people competing in MultiGun. USPSA functions not based on how our Nationals runs, but how well the local club, sectional and Area matches run. The vast majority of USPSA shooters will never make it to a Nationals, but almost all of them will at least shoot a club level, or higher match. If USPSA can come up with something that will appeal to the local clubs and drive growth is what will determine success.

Therein lies the flaw in your logic. USPSA and IPSC already do have separate rule books. The USPSA rule book split from the IPSC rule book in 2008. IPSC is an international sanctioning body that USPSA is affiliated with. We run an IPSC Nationals to stay in IPSC's good graces. Everything else in the US is run under USPSA Rules. Yes the organizations are affiliated, but the rules are different, just like USPSA and SCSA. SCSA is run under USPSA, but has it's own rules, because running a Steel Challenge match with USPSA rules would be illegal, and frankly, dumb. 20,000 USPSA members shoot in the US. Significantly less than 1000 compete internationally. The options are, essentially, 1. Scrap the USPSA rule book in favor of the IPSC rule book and allow IPSC complete control over how matches in the US. 2. Completely separate from IPSC and just run as USPSA without international sanction or the ability for members to participate internationally without being a member of a separate organization. 3. Continue with the status quo. Members in the US use the USPSA rule book and don't worry about IPSC rules unless they want to participate internationally or in the IPSC US Nationals. I'm not seeing a down side to scenario three. IPSC is not going to adopt USPSA rules. We tried for years. They won't. And they get further and further each passing year. Since IPSC won't budge and the US with one vote can't sway that would you prefer went to IPSC? Or dumped any affiliation with them?

There will be twelve stages, one chrono and two off periods. Give you a chance to go see the vendors. At least that's the way they've done it in the past

Nothing, there is no match on November 13. Don't know where you read that. You and Kurt just hang out. No reason to go to West Virginia, or heck even the East Cost in November. I heard the weather will probably be horrible that weekend anyway.

Does Jerry run an Xrail in USPSA? I seriously doubt it, unless he has a very major sponsorship to consider. The 10+1 heavily favors the Saiga and other magazine fed guns. If I can only start with 11 in the gun, and most of the courses are 12 or more, that means everyone has to load. With the Saiga, it's a simple push release shove in new mag. With tube guns it's shove in Tec Loader, shove in Tec Loader, and depending on numbers, thumb in a round or two. As far as the Xrail, it's a complete waste in USPSA, just extra weight on the gun. At least if Open is Open, it allows an Xrail or for that matter any other Tube gun to be competetive with the Saiga. Right now the only thing holding back Saigas from winning every USPSA match is a noticable lack of reliability. SO by your logic, if we go, true Open, shooters will have to at a minimum buy an Xrail. Xrail is $700, but there are routinely $300 off certs in the classifieds, Say $400.00, less the price of the magazine extension tube, call it a cheap one at $50.00. You really don't need to port the barrel anymore either because hanging 4 pounds of weight off the gun I'm sure does a good job of reducing muzzle flip, but we'll ignore that part. So for $350.00-450.00, you're tube gun is competetive again. But the big advantage is you really don't need to learn to load it any more. You may have to load a few times, figure out how to run a stick, but it won't be the primary factor in how you do with a Shotgun anymore. That is appealing to a lot of people. I just have a hard time believing that someone is going to look at Open and say, well crap, I was going to have to lay out 10K to be competetive in that Division, not I have to lay out 10,300.

W. Washington not so much, but you're only a bit north of Sherwood and Tri-County Gun Club. They hold 3-Gun Tactical matches there on the 4th Sunday, Practical Rifle on the 2nd Saturday, Top Shot Iain Harrison runs a CQB rifle match in there sometime, and I heard there will be one or two more three gun matches popping up next year. A little further south is Albany Rifle and Pistol Club. They run a 3 Gun on the second Sunday of the month and the NW Multigun has been there the last several years.

Dang, that BigHamp in there. Aaron Hampton from the AMU. Bit surprised, hadn't heard he was playing with the Maxim crowd. I'll have to give him a ration of crap next weekend at the MultiGun Nats.

Well for one it lacks the ability to record B hits. Not an issue for IPSC or the World Shoot, but still one for the USPSA. Haven't used one, and that's the only one brought to my attention so far.

We're in a great position at this time to make it happen. A1, A2, A4, and A8 are all active three gun competitors, A6 has worked a ton of three gun matches, including lots of IMGA matches. The President, also competes in the occasional 3G match. Basically, if we want it to happen the votes are there. It's just a matter of trying to get some consensus among the IMGA match directors and figure out a benefit for them. Since the IMGA matches already sell out with long waitlists we can't offer them increased participation. What USPSA can offer is a beginners step. Local matches, and regional matches. Basically something other than the Majors that seem to fill the Match Announcement pages. To do that we need a set of rules that everyone can use, but still allows for the individual flavor of some of the more "out there" matches. Believe me, I do not want to change the Ironman, or Blue Ridge.

Nothing is 100% yet. My hope is to create a rule book with multiple scoring options. Hit Factor, Time Plus and say Horner scoring. Allow the individual match Director to choose. We just ran the Area 1 MG match last weekend using Time Plus scoring (which is already in the rule book). Lots of 9's there. Will the Nationals change to using Time Plus? Don't know. Probably depends who is President/responsible for Nationals.

That will be the eventually downfall of IPSC, in my opinion. I don't think many realize that a region can have...say...20 total members...but PAY for a full membership, and they get a vote that carries the same weight as a region with hundreds (or thousands) of members. And, did the IPSC Executive Council (or some internal body) issue a voting guide again this time around? I honestly think that system is corrupt. (Note: I am not accusing anyone within the system of being corrupt. It is just a system that consolidates power. In other words, a bad system, IMO.) Since most US states have more USPSA shooters than some IPSC regions, can't we have each and every state join IPSC as a region? The argument from IPSC is that it would require an additional payment. IPSC caps regional membership payments at 2000 members. Whether we have 2000 or 20000 we pay the same. In a way it's good for us because the individual share per member is minimal. The down side is we have a very small voice in the matters of IPSC. If we were to go to a per member vote, USPSA would dominate IPSC and our dues would go up about $5.00 a year. To be honest, I don't think there are 5000 people in USPSA that care enough about what IPSC does to pay an extra $5.00.

Doug, we've got it. We're just trying to come up with some consensus and rules that everyone can live with. Not one rule set for one match, another for a different one and have to change gear everytime you travel to a different three gun match. Not that I think everyone needs to use exactly the same rules, but it would be nice to have equipment, and safety rules even across the board.

Tnek, Craig knows what he's talking about (and oh, it pains me to say that). Outerlimits has probably been shooting 3 Gun longer than you've been alive (he's like a 112 I think) He used to shoot it with a blunderbuss and a muzzle loader. You can shoot any guns you want in Open. You can get into Open as cheap as you want. You can shoot a used P85, Mossberg 500, and an iron sight Ruger Mini 14. You can probably buy all three guns for under 1000. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. Yes, you can get into a Saiga on the cheap. It will fail you at some point, and it's not competetive at the highest levels. No one has ever won a major three gun match with a home dremeled Saiga. The point is it costs a couple thousand more to be competetive in 3 Gun in Open. Between the additional costs of red dots, comps and extra gadgets that Open allows, it's going to be more expensive. But isn't that what Open is about? The ability to push equipment to the limit of it's capability, not the arbitrary rules or budget? I talked about this with Mark Hanish last year at the MG Nats. At the time I was trying to think of a reasonable limit in Open for SG, similar to the 170mm limit for pistol. Could really come up with one that would be fair to XRails and Saiga's alike. Mark wanted open to be open. He said if he wanted to make a belt fed shotgun let him. Can't really come up with an argument for his logic. Plus I really want to shoot a belt fed shotgun. We have other divisions for folks that want to get into multigun on a budget.

Entities under the same umbrella naturally seek to homogenize their rule structure to make transition between each entity a seamless transition. So to state there is no chance that USPSA will adopt IPSC rules or IPSC will adopt USPSA rules flies in the face of normal corporate evolution. Over time the rules will be the same in USPSA and IPSC for the following reason. It will be best for members of each organization as it allows members to compete in each organizations events without placing undue requirements on the members and the organization. No it won't happen soon or in 5 years but it will happen. That might be true, except when one of those entities, has significantly more people involved than the remaining whole. When that entity has very different ideas, and beliefs about the way the parent organization should be run and a membership that as a whole, does not want IPSC rules in USPSA. USPSA has been consistently moving further away from IPSC for the last several years. The latest changes just highlight how far apart we've become. The only way USPSA and IPSC rules are going to be the same is if USPSA absorbs IPSC and we swap to USPSA rules, not the other way around. And for the foil hat crew, I'm not saying this is coming, on the horizon, been talked about, been thought about or anything else. Just the only way it's happening. Yes it would be nice to allow USPSA members to compete without change in IPSC, however I think the vast majority (and I mean every single person I've talked to with the exception of Frank Thompson, and then some) would rather use USPSA rules, than IPSC. Even if it means changing for an occasional match shot under IPSC rules.

Tried it this morning. Nope, won't work. The extended portion of the release, back towards the shooter, needs to contact the frame to keep the release in place. There isn't enough meat on the 21 release when you stick it in a 17. It's also more of a pain in the butt to change releases. I had to pull the spring instead of just levering it out of the way. Anybody have a G35/34 Gen 4? Is the release extended on that one?

So the next question, will the Gen 4 21 release work with the Gen 4 17/34?

We had a local shooter install a fiber optic signt on his to walk through with. Another one mounted up a red dot. (This was before the whole sighting aid on walkthrough rule).

Holy cow Matt, how long has it been since you shot a USPSA match? It's been that way for well over 10 years. Haven't been around long enough to know if it's always been 10+1. I'm hoping to get it changed with the new rule book. I'd say talk to your AD, but I doubt you need to. Chris already knows his way around a Multi Gun match.

I almost forgot to mention. As I said during the Shooters meeting. This really was a test match for me. You all were guinea pigs. USPSA is working on a new MG rulebook. Let me know the good, bad and ugly from this match. What worked, what didn't. Either in this thread or by PM. I want to get as much right in next rule book as possible. Help me make that happen.

Thank you guys for the kind words. Dave, I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Stage 9, not 7. If Todd shot 7 in 17 seconds, my hat is definitely off to him. This was definitely a learning experience for me. First time designing USPSA MG stages, first time as RM, first Time Plus USPSA match I've been to. I want to thank the RO's and the Set Up and Tear Down crew. I meant to arrive a little earlier on Friday but forgot how long of a drive it and and that darn time change. Oops. By the time I got there, everything was on the ground and in place. You guys did an awesome job. I was really happy with the RO's as well. You guys did an awesome job. I know how hard it can be to work and shoot at the same time. You guys worked your butts off. I want to especially thank Travis Gibson. The only reason this match went as smoothly and as quickly as it did was the Steel targets donated by MGM Targets. I was able to design the stages with minimal reset because of the self setting (Recons, flash targets, Strobe target) and easy to reset (plate racks) targets. Without that we'd probably still be there shooting. In addition to helping with targets, he was helping set up, tear down, and served double duty as a squad RO and RM for the match. Just absolutely worked non stop. The whole crew from Parma was great to work with, Aaron Goodfellow, Brian Kohagen, and even Mike Wirth. Great location for 3-Gun. Hopefully we can play again there next year. Finally Evans Kuo, the MD. I had never met Evans before the match but he came highly recommended by Travis and Idaho SC Tim Egan. They were right. Absolutely squared away MD. From the very beginning he had this match dialed in. He even managed to figure out my scribbled in crayon stage diagrams enough to get them on the ground. Some folks do their stage designs in Google Sketch Up, I do mine in Crayola scribble. Evans kept me on track and did a great job. Thank you Evans. Now we all need to gang up on him and make him do it again next year!

Just a bit of additional information. When it comes to 3-Gun/Multigun, USPSA and IPSC are very, very different. IPSC, doesn't have Multi-Gun. When they run a 3-Gun match it's actually three different matches run at the same time, Pistol, Rifle and Shotgun. USPSA moved to Multigun in 2005. Actually, some of IPSC's rules are less restrictive than USPSA at this time. For example the Open SG capacity. Right now in USPSA the total limit in Open is 10+1. I'm trying to change that to true Open, but for now, IPSC is less restrictive in that regard. We do allow significantly more options for carrying spare ammo than IPSC. We also don't have limitations on differences in shot size or restrictions on shot and slugs in one stage. I think USPSA MG has less in common with IPSC 3-Gun than it has in common. USPSA has used it's own rules for the last couple years, only using IPSC rules for certain events, IPSC Nationals, IPSC Pan Am Shotgun, and a very small handful of others. With the current BOD it's very unlikely that any of the changes IPSC just adopted will find there way to the USPSA rule book. That may change with future BOD's but I don't think anyone on the BOD now is in a rush to eliminate sight pictures or dryfiring, or any of the other dozens of changes IPSC made to their rule book.

Nope. Not just no but HELL NO. What Chris said.