Neil Beverley
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Neil Beverley
-
-
Just a word of warning.
If you intend to shoot it for IPSC/USPSA watch out for the minimum PF (520).
This certainly applies to the IPSC rules and I haven't heard of any proposed change for USPSA but please check.
20ga can make it but you have to watch your loads.
-
Do IPSC shotgun rules and/or the new USPSA multigun rules allow you to declare a frangible target as worth ten points?
Erik
We introduced the new rule below this year. I am fairly certain that the USPSA rules will read the same. Indeed, with the exeption of the Divisions and other already known changes, the USPSA shotgun and rifle rules should be very similar to the new IPSC rules.
9.4.1.1 In order to recognize a difficult shot in a course of fire, a small number of metal and/or frangible targets may score double value for a hit. The use of such targets is restricted to not more than 10% of the total number of targets in the match. Their use must have been approved during the course review process and they must be clearly identified in the written stage briefing.
-
If we assume that the winning HF of 3.9 included shooting the clays then it calculates as 150 points in 38.46 seconds.
If we allow a generous 1 second per round to load (x2) and 1 second per clay to shoot then by not going for them we have 140/34.46 = 4.06 hf. A small improvement by not shooting them worth 6 points .
In reality the actual time saved for a top shooter would probably only be 3 seconds total so 140/35.46 = 3.95 hf. With the risk involved in a miss I would leave them. There is no gain to be had.
However, if scored at 10 points each then there are about 8 points to be picked up on the stage.
-
Deuce
There are no barrel length restrictions in IPSC.
However they must be of such minimum length so as to conform to any regional legalities.
For Modified Division the complete gun must fit within a box which is 52 inches long. In reality this covers just about all barrel lengths and if anything only restricts mag tubes from getting to silly lengths.
-
A thin piece of hard cover or a no shoot that the clay passes behind on its way up could be used to create multiple exposures thus invoking 9.9.1 couldn't it?
-ld
Sorry! A good try but it doesn't work.
9.9.1 Moving targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.5).
-
I went looking for the web link below in answer to a question posted in the "What I Hate" forum but I noted it hadn't had many hits in that forum.
It occurred to me that the info is very useful and might serve a better purpose if posted here as well. Useful, if disturbing, reading.
-
Hey Guys
I knew I had some stuff on this somewhere. You might like to check out the link below. The source of the research paper is very well respected.
-
I would add to my earlier post that it is better to leave the clay on high hit factor stages. Providing you can slow the stage down then the clay becomes more viable,
e.g.
7 hits out of 8 (by ignoring the clay) in say 4.5 seconds = HF 35/4.5 = 7.77
8 hits out of 8 (by shooting the clay) in say 5.5 seconds = HF 45/5.5 = 8.18
but if
7 hits out of 8 (by ignoring the clay) in say 3.5 seconds = HF 35/3.5 = 10.0
8 hits out of 8 (by shooting the clay) in say 4.5 seconds = HF 45/4.5 = 10.0
and finally
7 hits out of 8 (by ignoring the clay) in say 3.0 seconds = HF 35/3.0 = 11.66
8 hits out of 8 (by shooting the clay) in say 4.0 seconds = HF 45/4.0 = 11.25
So, Phil, while it doesn't make them a "must shoot", if you declare them to be worth 10 points and only include them in stages designed to have low(ish) HF then at least there is some merit in going for them.
-
Under IPSC and USPSA shotgun rules there is an automatic procedual penalty for not engaging a target and a miss if its missed, hence two penalties for one.
I think this includes dissapearing ones.....James or Neil b will shoot me down in flames if I am wrong about this one, but the only way is to make the penalty so severe that shooters have no option but to give it a go and that is what i think they had in mind by introducing this.
Mike
Sorry! You are going to crash and burn on this one, see 9.9.2 below.
9.9.1 Moving targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.5).9.9.2 Moving targets, which do not comply with the above criteria, will not incur failure to shoot at or miss penalties except where Rule 9.9.3 applies.
-
Phil is correct. There isn't enough of a differential to justify shooting them. Actually if you add in the risk factor of firing the shot and missing then you are better to leave them.
I'll look into upping the value of disappearing clays next time round. They can be fun and can add something to a course of fire but there must be a justification to shoot them.
I messed with some numbers and found the following general figures (with clays declared value at 10 points [Rule 9.4.1.1]) :
On Short courses if it takes you 1.0 seconds to shoot the clay you lose points and if you shoot it in 0.8 seconds you have a marginal gain up to about 7 targets in total.
On a Long Course, say 18 targets total and allowing 1 second to load an extra round (for the clay) and 1 second to shoot it then there is probably a small but minimal gain, perhaps 3-4 points. If you load and shoot quicker than 1.0/1.0 then a further small gain.
Dave's idea may help but it's not just the waiting for the release that adds time. The shooter still has to break from low level to high level engagement and track the bird, shoot it and then perhaps move on. A flying clay will always take longer compared to a static target within an array at the usual height range.
It would be better to build in a delayed exposure of a target that has to be shot. The waiting time can then be used to shoot the clay before returning to the other target. This could even be created by using a penalty target that is slow to expose a scoring target behind.
Otherwise an optional value of 15 or maybe even 20 points will be needed to make them properly attractive to shoot.
James, I understand your concerns, but I don't think we should eliminate flying clays just because of the scoring issue. It's no different to any major clay match. The RO has to call it as they see it and the competitors have to accept the decision.
It's either that or abandon them.
-
sssshhh...may I whisper...squib puller cartridge...?
NO!
-
Vince,
can I request an official position of the IPSC rules committee about this issue? I'd be very interested in the official call and the argumentations.
Luca, my friend, You're flogging a dead horse with this one. I would be amazed at anything other than a unanimous vote, and not in your favour.
Sometimes you have to know when to give in gracefully.
-
Bruce
The comments in my previous post most certainly are not a criticism of the excellent work done on these rules. Please accept my comments as merely a contribution to the debate.
I can't argue against starting out "better safe than sorry" and you clearly debated the subject. At the end of it all I'm sure you will achieve a decent set of workable and popular rules.
I like the concept of the conditional depositing of a "still loaded" gun, i.e. can be left loaded but only if X, Y and Z have been put in place. This would deal with the smaller clubs and smaller matches but provide for those matches than want to and can make it work.
-
Ah well, in Inguhland it is quite common to call a man that
In Inguhland, or anywhere in the Yoo Kay for that matter it sits way, way at the top end of insults and is more usually directed at a man than a woman. I think many would say that it is regarded as the worst thing you can hear in public.
-
I agree with the the others who prefer simply to apply the safety and then deposit the gun in a safe direction and preferably in a pit or bunker of some kind. The downwards sloping tubes or tables (or shelves/boxes?) is an excellent idea providing they're not too "fussy" (too small) about receiving the gun.
I also agree that the "speed unload" has great potential for a problem and it's simply not "practical" to have to run the gun (probably the shotgun) at less than normal capacity.
Providing the competitor has properly complied with the depositing requirements then he should cease to be responsible for the gun (for penalties and DQ etc.) until he returns to clear it when he immediately (from the first touch) becomes responsible again. Nobody else should be touching the gun at all and if they do any penalty should be directed to them at that time not the competitor.
My comments above are completely my own personal thoughts on the matter and in no way can be considered as an IPSC view point.
And just in case someone asks, "have I ever done it?" Yes, but a long time ago.
-
Increasing the value of the procedural penalty to be applied would solve the problem by completely neutralising any gain but surely we don't want to go there, do we?
Why not?
short_round/Flex
Why not? Because I would prefer not to have to keep writing rules to deal with exploitation issues.
When I started in IPSC the rule book was half it's current size. So many of today's rules have had to be written to defend against competitor behaviour.
As Flex says this issue isn't strictly illegal but morally? Then again we can't run a sport like ours based simply on morals. This whole subject wouldn't be the same issue if everyone scores and patches between strings. I don't agree with the exploitation but I'm not going to beat anyone up over it. However, I will propose that we try to plug the gap.
It will probably be better to leave the value of the procedural penalties alone and instead create a new rule whereby the highest scoring hit on the string/stage is deducted from score per additional shot fired. That would return VC to it's intentions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone remember the days when Virginia Count was often also called "Limited Comstock"?
Somewhere in my files I have a document written by Nick Alexakos in the form of a theoretical court case discussion which argues the pros and cons of retaining Virginia Count in IPSC (and before anyone launches into one at me I'm very much in favour of retaining it). It was written in the late 80s or early 90s and I'll try to dig it out. I may even post it here if I think it's still relevant enough considering the passage of time. I thought it was well argued at the time (in both directions).
Does anyone else remember it?
-
Flex
The rule (9.2.3) describing VC now states: "limited number of shots to be fired". This is declared in the stage briefing.
The old rule (9.2.2.1) states: "The number of rounds is fixed".
To me this is explicit in the meaning of VC. However, we have a problem because we need to prescribe a penalty in case a competitor infringes the rule.
We shouldn't, mustn't and almost certainly couldn't physically interfere to stop an extra shot being fired.
We mustn't restrict the number of rounds that are loaded at the start of the stage or string for reasons I'm sure we don't have to rehearse here.
We therefore have no alternative but to penalise an extra shot being fired by way of a penalty because there is no other sensible option. This doesn't alter the rule for VC above which does not permit extra shots to be fired, it is explicit.
Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, the rule is being exploited.
The problem disappears if the strings are scored and patched separately but I hear and appreciate the comments about the distances if Standards are set to start at 50 yards/metres.
Increasing the value of the procedural penalty to be applied would solve the problem by completely neutralising any gain but surely we don't want to go there, do we?
There's gaming and gaming. If a course designer leaves something open to be exploited on a stage then fair enough but to be able to miss a shot at 50 yards/metres and then pick it up again at (say) 10 yards/metres is going a bit far, isn't it?
-
Neil,
When were the "FINAL" Ipsc rules accepted.
And since most of us here in the USA shoot USPSA, not IPSC, there area lot of people that don't ever visit the IPSC site.
It is my understanding that he actual FINAL rules were not adopted until after the GA in Sept 2003, that there was some "tweaking" of wording after the vote and that the final edition came into being in Novemeber.
I would like to respond to the query about the rules not being adopted until after the World Assembly.
The rules were adopted unanimously at the WA to become effective I January 2004. No changes that affected the meaning of any rule were permitted. However, the motion below was approved:
21. Motion:That the IPSC Executive Council be allowed to make minor grammatical corrections to any spelling, punctuation and formatting errors in the Rules adopted above, providing such changes do not alter the meaning or intent of any rule. Likewise, rule cross references may be changed if clearly in error. Any such changes as a result of this motion are subject to ratification or modification at the next IPSC Assembly.
Moved: Germany Seconded: Brazil
Carried For-34 Against-O Abstain-2
The work was carried out by the rules committee and they then submitted their recommendations for approval.
-
Hi Synchro and welcome,
You link is wrong and you will probably want to fix it. You have a comma instead of a full stop between ukpursuits and com.
-
Had this approach been used with the Handgun Rules, we would have saved hours of typing and no one knows how much discussion from the too quick adoption of rules. Thank you BOD, this is the way it should be done!
The IPSC rules were posted on the USPSA web site last year for some considerable time in a special section and comments were invited and discussed. Indeed a number of changes were made as a result. Eventually a date had to be set for final comments and a line was drawn.
Additionally there were a number of discussions on these forums and Vince posted links so all could access the rules for consideration.
-
I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised that some of you think it's acceptable to correct an earlier miss that was likely to have been as a result of a more difficult shot.
Theoretically you could be correcting a miss that occurred at 15 yards, weak hand only, with an extra shot with both hands at 10 yards.
Sorry Guys, I really think this is unfair and plain wrong.
While the IPSC sytem of scoring and patching between strings is a little slower at least the result of the shooting challenge truly represents what the competitor actually shot and as Vince points out conforms to the principle of separate encounters.
-
Hey Guys, this is a bit of an irrelevant discussion. Standards can only be scored as VC or FT, no Comstock (6.1.2).
I have to say I would personally like the opportunity to create a Comstock Standard Excercise but that's another story.
While I understand the desire for expediency I think this topic proves the correctness of scoring between strings (IPSC 6.1.1, USPSA 6.1.1 is different). In the examples given the miss could be strong or weak hand only but the top up shot on a subsequent string is mostly going to be with both hands. It is contrary to the challenge of strong or weak only.
Also consider a couple of pulled shots that miss a target and hit a penalty target instead. On a 6 shot string the result would be a minus but we don't permit minus scores. If you don't score and patch between strings there is no positive way of knowing and so the negative score then inflicts itself on another string, either a previous or later one.
After a huge amount of discussion the committee decided that the best and fairest way forward was to insist on scoring each string separately.
Now all I've got to do is to pursuade Vince to let me have single string Standards and an option for Comstock scoring.
Boy, did I lose that one!
(but I forgive him) -
Anyway, jokes aside, there's no question about it - Rules 10.2.8.1, 10.2.8.2 & 10.2.8.3 should all say "the other hand or arm". so I'll submit a proposed correction to the Rules Committee this week.
Neil, if you're out there, what say you?
This is now being discussed by the committee via email in a hope to come to a resolution.
-
How about if the 2 hits that are on the penalty target (instead of the six) are both misses from the same scoring target?
So now we still have a hit penalty target 2 hits, 6 hits, it's still hit, and I agree with the point shred makes on this.
But what we also have is a scoring target that has been missed completely. Still standing as it were! And this is a good thing????
The counter argument to Jim's is that with the 6 perf hits at least all the targets have actually been hit.
Rem 1100 20ga Youth Model
in Shotgun - Technical
Posted
I agree that this is the current rule but I'm also aware that the BOD is looking to adopt the new long gun rules as soon as it is possible.
It will become even more important once the January 2004 rules for HG replace the 14th edition rules (which must surely now be only a matter of days) because the SG & R rules will then be in a bit of a limbo in that the current (SG) rules will exist as part of a set of discontinued HG rules.
Perhaps one of the directors can shed some light on this? I think I'll send a PM to ask the question.