Neil Beverley

I've been following the replies in another thread about magazine capacities for pistols and the law which may sunset in 2004. Presumably this would apply to shotguns as well? If the law goes would it change anyone's views on the current USPSA restriction in Open of 11 rounds?

Rich - If I divorce myself from the rule writing process and simply put on my competitor hat then I would have to say that the 11 rounds restriction solves a lot of issues and levels the playing field. Personally I don't like the impact of box mags on the sport. I even confess to not liking speedloaders being used. But these are personal preferences. A 20 round box mag changes the whole face of the sport unfortunately and the discipline becomes a test of gun capacity, not shooting ability. I started in the sport in 1986 with an out of the box Mossberg with a C-lect choke 25" barrel (8 round capacity). When I put on my rules hat I feel I have an obligation to find a "practical" solution to the problem. Would it be right to exclude box mags? Should we artificially restrict capacity? Surely this is what "Open" division is all about. I have to say that if every IPSC Region, and IPSC itself, were to accept 11 rounds loaded as a maximum it would solve a lot of difficulties. I can certainly canvas this conceptually. One of the great things about these Forums is that people can air their views and I'm finding it very useful.

Rich - I think you mis-understand my suggestion slightly. I'm suggesting a max length of barrel of 720 mm (28.34 inches) inclusive of any fitted compensators. Add an extra 1 inch to this for the mag tube for a max total of 745mm (29.34 inches) measured from the frame. This sets an absolute limit without anyone being able to get creative as you suggest with long comps. In turn this creates an capacity limit subject to cartridge length.

I've had a thought of a possible alternative solution for consideration. How about instead of setting a max number of rounds or a max overall length of gun instead we set a max length of barrel including any compensators/muzzle breaks. If this was set at around 720mm it would allow standard barrels up to 28 inches. Then we stipulate that the mag tube must not exceed barrel length of any barrel being used by more than say 25mm (1 inch). This places a restriction in a more practical manner. There's only a handful of competitors with 30 inch barrels out there that I'm aware of. From my rough and quick calculations I estimate that an 11-87 with a 24" barrel, 1 inch extension tube + std cartridges = about 11 cartridges. Does this have any merit to consider taking it further? (Edited by Neil Beverley at 9:29 am on Nov. 5, 2002)

Steve - I'm convinced that we can achieve a set of rules that will be accepable for all. I don't think we're that far off now. What is important is that I get the feedback that I'm getting now so that it can all be considered. I recently heard from A N Other about some really short "Aquila" buckshot and my edited reply to their email is quoted below: "In my earlier email I failed to reply to your comment about short cartridges. Basically my view on this is why ever not? If the cartridge functions and puts the target down then it’s “practical”. Short cartridges giving extra capacity in the gun are particularly “practical”. This comes with one proviso – they must be up to the job in hand! Some people thought I was mad to include a power factor for shotgun (520) but it does stop cartridge power drifting too far away from practicality and should prevent silly light loads being introduced. If you are concerned about the Aquila buckshot then check to see if it makes factor. If it does then great if not then a competitor’s scores are removed from the match and the problem goes away. I’d be interested to learn the result. Again I say that personally I would love us to adopt a stance that states “X rounds loaded” but I’m tasked with writing rules for IPSC and I feel that this isn’t the right way “practically”. As I said in my earlier email I try to write IPSC rules rather than my rules. This particular issue is a bit of a conflict because I think that the “no. loaded” approach is actually better for the sport, it levels the playing field, it’s just that IPSC hasn’t accepted this concept yet and doesn't like "impractical" rules. I guess if it was easy everyone would be doing it. " Does anyone have the stats for these short cartridges? The power factor requirement of 520 equates to a cartridge with an ounce of shot at 1200 pfs or the equivalent. Elsewhere in these Forums one of the first threads that I got involved with was about whether buchshot should be included in a match at all. The comments were concerned about recoil. I would suspect that these short cartridges are light to shoot. For 2003 IPSC has 4 Divisions. "Modified" the middle division at the moment, restricts the max length of the gun to 1320mm (52 inches), see my initial posting in this thread as to the statistics behind this. I don't know why I am so surprised that so many of us have been unhappy with the length of gun/number of rounds issue. I only wish I had this info 2 years ago. The feedback at that time was that a great many shooters in the US were choosing to guns with long tubes. In fact I even received an email from someone in Scandinavia, who had just returned from shooting in the States, expressing horror at such a thing. Against this background the 2002 IPSC rules were written to specifically include long guns. It would have been much easier then to have restricted capacity at that time. I believe that it was only last year that the capacity restriction was introduced in the US. Is this correct?

Alex Thanks for the your ideas on Divisions - it all helps. With the current state of play between handgun, SG and rifle I think I'm not going to worry too much about the name for any Divisions to start with as I don't want this to restrict any thinking on the subject. First I want to sort out what the Divisions should be then worry about what to call them. This particularly applies to Standard Division where you find that what's considered to be the standard division in one Region is NOT the standard division of another region. Sometimes I think it would be easier just to call them X, Y or Z Division (or ABC). I hear what both you and Steve are saying about "fixing" the "weird" guns and a few years ago you might have found me agreeing with you but I see no problem with them now. We had a similar situation when the first red-dot sights appeared on top of handguns and suddenly a great many letter boxes appeared in stages. There was a real fear that these "race" guns would mess up the sport. But now we have separately scoring Divisions why worry. All the "weird" guns are scored together in the current "Open Division". Providing they are scored and factored in a separate division does it matter? I say this as someone who was seriously worried about the impact of long mag tubes, box mags and speed loaders. But these are all moved into "Open" so what's the big deal. It's not what I want to shoot but why stop others who want to go that way? In my opinion "Open" Division is the easiest to define - just about anything goes. The interesting stuff is defining the other Divisions. What I really want to achieve with the next set of rules is to give as many as possible what they want and not make it too painful for others that may need to change. I really don't think we're that far apart and by pooling our knowledge we should be able to cater for the majority. I'm starting to form the framework of an idea for a simple change to the 2003 IPSC Shotgun Limited Divisions and these are already very close to the USPSA Standard Division. I'll post something on this soon. The nightmare to sort is which Division per discipline goes with which in a multi gun tournament. This is so fraught with problems. Fortunately for me it's not my primary responsibility although I will have some input on it. How about a 2'6" corridor with a low letter box to shoot through? This sorts the long tubes, box mags and red-dots all in one go? Just kidding! Let everyone enjoy their shooting. We're all still shooters regardless of the kit we use.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink! Vince is right guys. As much fun as Wakal's toy obviously is it doesn't help with the task in hand. I've read many criticisms in these Forums about various subjects, and often they are very justified. I'm trying to give everyone the chance to stick their oar in early. i.e. Moan before the next set of rules is written instead of after! Nobody can say I'm not trying, .......................... very trying! Wakal - It may only be semi-auto ............ but boring????

Wahal - That looks like a serious bit of kit and a 12 gauge on full auto sounds like a whole lot of fun. If only .......... Patrick - Thanks for the input your comments have been noted. The mixture of Divisions across the disciplines is going to be one of the hardest things to balance in a 3 gun match/tournament.

I responded to a Topic in another Forum and raised the subject of Divisions for IPSC Shotgun. All IPSC rules are being revised again and for shotgun I’m trying to consider the requirements/wishes of all Regions to try to achieve rules that we can all work with. It is clear that there are a number of differing views about Divisions but at the same time the differences don’t seem to be so far adrift as to not be sortable. There may need to be some compromises but hopefully nothing too drastic. However, it does seem clear that at least most would agree that there should be an Open Division which allows just about anything and certainly Optical/Electronic sights and speedloaders fall within this division. At the other end of the scale it is apparent that there needs to be a division that doesn’t allow Optical/Electronic sights or speedloaders and restricts the round capacity. In this division again the consensus seems to be that compensators and the porting of barrels shouldn’t be allowed. Anything else? The total number of rounds seems to be more widely interpreted and this needs some more consideration. I’m curious as to why, for the US Standard Division, you have opted for 9 rounds. Certainly one other region lobbied very hard for 8 rounds on the basis that this was the capacity limited for a great many guns ex factory. My own experience supports this view. The rule book for 2003 has been changed to restrict the capacity of Limited Division to a max of 7 rounds loaded in the mag tube. This avoids any possible conflicts if a Condition 3 start and also avoids an artificial restriction on anyone with an MI Bennelli which can take 9 rounds with only 7 in the mag. Was it set just as an arbitrary figure or was there some “method in the madness”. Likewise for Open Division. Why 11 rounds max? Was this just to level the playing field for new guns bearing in mind the 10 shot mag restrictions I believe you have? The problem with this for International rules is that “Open Division” becomes no longer truly “open”. With the exception of the number of rounds US Open and IPSC Open are near as dammit the same. Likewise for US Standard and IPSC Limited (2003) except that IPSC has split pumps/slide action from semi-autos. Any thoughts on this? Also no box mag guns (detachable mags) in IPSC Limited Division. Do you think that it is the right thing to do to restrict the number of rounds simply to level the playing field? There is a great discussion elsewhere in these Forums about the sport of practical shooting versus the practicality of shooting. The latter of course being the foundation for the sport. I’ve been party to many a debate about the capacity issue for shotguns and the fairness of someone starting with 8 rounds in the gun v someone with 15 rounds and if speedloaders or detachable mags aren’t being used then the time issue for reloading is significant in deciding stage winners. Restricting the overall length of the gun is arguably a more practical solution and creates a limit but has it’s own difficulties. Regional laws add to the difficulty in creating universally acceptable rules. Just take the situation between the US and the UK as an example. In the US (please correct me if I’m wrong) you have a magazine restriction of 10 rounds max. In the UK we can have a 20 round extended mag tube within UK laws. In the US a short barrelled “combat” shotgun is legal and I believe some of you are using 18-20 inch barrels. In the UK the legal minimum is 24inches, barrel lengths below this are classed as prohibited weapons and the penalty options include imprisonment. Likewise the minimum overall length must be no less than 40 inches or again bye bye freedom. In the UK at least Remington 1187s (the most popular gun for IPSC Shotgun in the UK) are generally only supplied as a standard 5 shot. Why add a tube extension to 8 shot if 10,11,12,13 or 14 are also available. The 5 shot magazine tube must be in the region of 16-18 inches short of the end of a 26" barrel. Why not use this space practically? My gun, an 1187, takes 12 rounds total (11+1) with cartridges 65mm in length. The magazine tube extends less than half an inch beyond the end of the 26" barrel. Small extensions beyond the end of the barrel are sensible to protect the barrel from taking knocks and also to help prevent a possible “mud plug” or similar when going prone. Please consider the overall gun lengths below. All were std out of the box ex-factory guns. Remington 1187 with 26" barrel = 46" total Remington 1100 with 28" barrel = 48.5" total Winchester 1300 with 28" barrel = 49" total Mossberg 500 with 28" barrel = 49.5" total Benelli M1 with 26" barrel = 47" total Now some competitors add up to 1" extra to the butt plate because they are tall or have long arms and see above about the justification for allowing some extension of the magazine tube beyond the end of the barrel. If you look at the data above it can be seen that with 28" and 30" barrels and possibly with an increase in overall butt length the guns are only just below the set limit of 1320mm (52inches) which is why the current limit is set at this figure. I offer the information above to try to give some background to the current position. I’m sure we would all like to see one set of IPSC International rules. Therefore any suggestions (polite ones preferred ) or general comments about this issue, or any other about the rules, will be very helpful as the process of developing the rules continues. Over to you for thoughts/comments about Shotgun Divisions. Thanks.

I think Mike's posting is slightly mis-leading about the state of play in the UK. The IPSC 2002 rule book provides 3 Divisions - Open, Standard and Limited. It has become clear that from Region to Region the concept of "Standard" is different and so for 2003 "Standard" Division has been renamed "Modified" but is otherwise the same and there will be no division referred to as "Standard". IPSC Limited Division, in 2002, restricts the initial load to 8 rounds. For 2003 this is changed to 7 rounds loaded in the tube. A subtle change that doesn't change things much unless you have an earlier M1 Benelli and take advantage of the extra round on the floor plate. Again for 2003, Limited Division has been split into Pump/Slide Action and Semi-auto Divisions. Modified Division is restricted in capacity by virtue of a maximum overall length of the gun with this being set at 1320mm. For Open Division anything goes and so no restriction in length or capacity. In the UK for many a year everyone competed together in just one division. Then gradually longer and longer mag tubes were introduced and this year the UK has seen about a third of competitors moved to Open Division by virtue of gun length because of the extended tubes. The set up that Mike describes with 15 rounds in the tube would not make the current Standard Division (2003 Modified) but instead would have to go into Open. It is just, and only just, feasible that someone with a short stock could get into Standard Division (2003 Modified) with a tube capacity of 14, giving 15 rounds total. Short (65mm) cartridges are essential to achieve the above. I hope this helps clarify things a little. It has become very clear to me that there is some disparity between the Regions as to what the Divisions should be for shotgun. It's too late to change things now for 2003 but I have made a plea elsewhere in these Forums for feedback as the IPSC rules are again being considered for change to take effect Jan 2004. I intend to start a new Forum specifically to try to get some debate going about Divisions to help wth the rule writing process. All input gratefully received. See Forum: "IPSC Rules Questions" soon.

In reply to "Limited40" - You will find that there are a number of differences bewteen the IPSC rule book and the USPSA rule book, some subtle and some not so subtle. Significantly the IPSC Shotgun rule book has been written specifically for SG and is not just a bolt on. Hopefully this better deals with some of the anomalies and really focuses on SG as a stand alone discipline. IPSC have previously been slow to address SG and Rifle rules and as a consequence various Regions have been forced to do their own thing. The USPSA, the UKPSA and the FITDS (Italy) for example have all been running with their own rules until now. As stated elsewhere in another Topic the 2003 European Championships will be run in accordance with the 2003 IPSC SG rules. Over the next few months there is to be a concerted effort within IPSC to produce common rules that should be acceptable to all. There will of course need to be some compromises and it's impossible to please all the people all the time but on the other hand I truly believe the differences are quite small because the problems are the same and the desire to shoot is the same. Whilst reading through rule books ranks up there with watching paint dry it really would help if some active SG shooters in the US could find some time to go through the new IPSC rules. All feedback will be useful to help mould the SG rules for 2004. It will be useful to discover the stuff you like as well as dislike and for me one of the big attractions of the BE Forums was to be able to listen to what is being said by the shooters.

Edmond The 2002 IPSC rules can be downloaded from the IPSC website http://www.ipsc.org or from the UKPSA website http://www.ukpsa.co.uk . The 2003 rules will be posted to both these sites soon. There is a downloadable file on the UKPSA site which highlights the changes to the SG rules for 2003 but there have been a couple of minor amendments to this document. The definitive 2003 document will be the one that appears on the IPSC site. There were 4 Level III SG matches in Europe this year (UK, Russia, Hungary and Italy) that I am aware of and I believe that there will be more next year including the Level IV Europeans in Italy (starting 26 August). Providing you are a member of IPSC you should be eligible to apply to shoot at Level III matches. Keep an eye on the IPSC website - all approved matches will appear on the competition calendar. For specific questions you could post the query within these forum pages under the "IPSC & IDPA Rules Questions" section and of course you can email IPSC direct, please refer to the IPSC website.

I've only just read through this topic so date wise I'm a long way behind. In reply to the question about choke tubes from "tightloop" I can advise that for IPSC and for 2002 only the changing of choke tubes during a match was not permitted with the exception of choke systems permanently fitted to the barrel and which can be adjusted by hand. The C-lect choke system on earlier Mossbergs being an example. Screw in or other replaceable chokes were(are) not permitted to be changed. This is all a bit academic because for 2003 the IPSC rules have been changed so that chokes can be replaced between stages. There have been some arguments about the concept of "practicality" and this argument will go on generally within IPSC for years but it was decided it was going to be difficult to police and did it achieve much anyway? Most UK shooters shoot between Mod to Full with probably slightly more shooting Full. We see more penalty targets close in to shoot targets than I think you do in the states and the tighter pattern from the full choke makes it easier to call the shot. I agree with comments elsewhere that the tighter chokes improve the knock down power at the greater distances. I've found from a fair bit of testing that you achieve a similar pattern spread with full choke compared to open at twice the distance! Buckshot is more consistent out of a mod choke. I also think slug is better out of mod rather than full. Breneke slugs used to recommend them being shot out of a choked gun but never went as far as saying which choke. Mostly 5s ans 6s with only a few 7s are used in the UK.

Patrick - I'll add your arguments to mine. I can only try! I know that there is one standpoint about the use of non-falling steel penalty targets in that they are used to protect range equipment or an area of the range which is not to be shot at but only too frequently this isn't the case and there is no logic to having peppers or steels that don't fall. On the plus side of things were you aware that the last IPSC WA has voted that for 2003 onwards the max number of penalty hits to count per penalty target is 2, both for paper and steels. From 2003 this applies to the handgun rules as well as for SG. Unfortunately the change didn't go through for Rifle because of other technicalities but we will get changed for 2004.

I agree about the handgun rule and penalty steel targets but I haven't had the same influence there. The new rules committee is tasked with making the rules more consistent across the 3 disciplines in time for next years Assembly. I will take up the cause! There! A single paragraph! I knew I could do it.

Patrick I’m pleased to hear you say “ the irrational ‘visible marks incur the penalty’ definition” because it’s just that and even more so to those of us who shoot a lot of SG. For a bit of background: I’ve been on the IPSC Rifle and Shotgun Rules Committee for a little over 2 years. I’ve been very active on the UK SG circuit for many years (too many some might say), and for SG - UK RM, Course Reviewer, Instructor, NROI Administrator etc. etc, ad nausea! Actually I know next to diddly squat about rifle shooting and have never claimed to have. I used to shoot a lot of pistol (badly) when we had them. My role on the IPSC committee was to help on the SG rules. Phew! I’m glad I got all that out of the way. The last official set of IPSC SG rules dated way back to the 1980s and were pretty useless. For the countries that shot SG it seems that many developed their own sets of rules. The committee was tasked with producing a decent set of rules that could adopted by IPSC. The current SG rules are based from a start position of the 14th Edition IPSC Handgun Rules. At the IPSC General Assembly in August last year it was voted: “That the Shotgun rules as submitted be accepted for one year for evaluation” That is for 2002. These rules can be viewed or downloaded from the IPSC web site. These rules include the references to the penalty targets having to fall, see below. “9.4.3 Steel penalty targets shall be penalised the equivalent of twice the points value of a scoring hit. Steel penalty targets shall always fall or overturn when hit to count as a penalty and must be designed and installed to prevent them from turning edge-on or sideways. Steel penalty targets that can turn edge-on or sideways when hit are not permitted.” Also: “9.4.2 Hits visible on the scoring surface of a paper or card penalty target shall be penalised the equivalent of twice the points value of a maximum scoring hit, subject to a maximum of two (2) penalty hits per penalty target.” “9.5.3 Penalty paper targets shall be penalised no more than 2 hits and penalty steel targets must fall to score.” I suspect that the discrepancy with the email exchange with John is that not all countries (IPSC Regions) have yet adopted the new IPSC rules. They were voted as an evaluation set for 1 year. At this year’s World Assembly the R & SG Committee submitted some updates, changes and corrections to the 2002 Rules. Nearly all the changes were written by me and these were in response to feedback, such as it was, to the 2002 rules. I also closely monitored proposals from Mike Voigt and the committee members of the IPSC Rules Committee for changes to the handgun rules. Where I thought a change sensibly relevant to SG I included it. Clearly not everything was going to be applicable . At the Assembly the revised SG rules were adopted as provisional rules including all the changes. They will take effect from Jan 2003 and the European Championships will be conducted under these rules. I think Carlos has already seen this set of rules and this triggered the current discussions. I feel that SG (and Rifle) has drawn the short straw within IPSC for far too long and at last I see it moving forward towards greater recognition. The rules may not be perfect (yet) and may not suit everyone but they’re a big improvement on what was there before. We now find the discipline being discussed within IPSC and not just within individual Regions. There have been a number of Level III matches this year and I’m sure we will see more next year. Next year’s World Assembly is to be held in conjunction with the SG Europeans in Italy. SG is on the map …. At last! I am still expecting to change the rules again for submission next year to come into effect in Jan 2004. I know this is a pain but on the other hand it is also giving us the chance to sort problems and to modify rules if necessary. As these IPSC SG rules are still fairly new to many I have to regard it as a good opportunity despite the work. I’m no miracle worker and I make mistakes like any other, but like the rest of you using these forums I’m passionate about our sport. The purpose of my questions elsewhere have been to try to glean information so that I can try to produce good rules that suit the majority.. I suspect that I will never totally please everyone. All input gratefully received. One day, just one day I’m going to write just one simple paragraph …….! :-) Hope this helps.

I wish I had discoveredthe BE Forums sooner. The dialogue is very useful and I agree with the comments from Vince Pinto elsewhere that it is particularly good that everyone approaches the discussions in a positive manner. I’ve never known a problem of a plate being taken down by a wad. We generally spray penalty targets red and will re-spray if one takes a hit so there are no arguments with subsequent shooters. We use almost instant drying road marking spray paint and it hardly adds any time during the reset process. There is a slight concern that with certain target designs the penalty plates could be knocked down with the splash back off a closely placed shoot target. It doesn’t happen very often but a cleanly painted penalty plate avoids any doubt. Penalty targets can definitely add an extra dimension to a stage. I’m surprised that you haven’t done much with them before and without trying to teach my granny to suck eggs you might like to consider the below. For example try setting 2 shoot targets (6 inches square) about 10 feet apart and about 7 yards from the shooter. Now add a penalty target in front of each shoot target and to the outside overlapping by about 3 inches leaving about 3 inches of shoot target visible. So we get (from the left to right) penalty target, shoot target, 10 foot gap, shoot target, penalty target. Now a competitor in the middle of a shooting line 7 yards from the targets has a choice – one position and 2 difficult(ish) targets or move first to the left by about 2 yards to get an easy shot on the right hand target but with the left hand target all but disappearing from view, then they can move about 4 yards to the right to get an easy shot on the left target. But this is slow, so the competitor chooses the compromise between the easy shots with a longer time or the quick one position solution but with the greater risk of hitting a penalty target. Clever course design can set this into a stage say for example with a barricade and 3 apertures. Add in the pressure of the timer running and we create extra interest in a stage and no longer such an easy blag. But then this is just my humble opinion. On the subject of plates had you spotted that for IPSC SG there is a wider choice of acceptable plate sizes compared to IPSC handgun? You can use any size from 15cm x 15cm to 45cm x 30cm (6” x 6” to 18” x 12”). Also any round plate between 15cm to 30cm diameter (6” to 12”). What size or sizes do you use in matches? How would you feel about the inclusion of other steel targets, for example a steel silhouette of the IPSC Classic target? Surprise No. 2 for me was that you are not using much if any buckshot. I had expected the opposite to be true. The Italians who shoot quite a lot of IPSC Shotgun (Italian style) allow competitors top choose either bird or buck to suit themselves per stage except for nominated slug stages. In the UK the buck stages are nearly always popular particularly because of the challenge of the longer range shots or because of the inclusion of some paper targets. Why not try a small stage with buck ammo and say 2or 3 paper targets and see what feed back you get? The dimensions for the new A4 and A3 targets are in Appendix G of the rule book and are easy to draw by hand and even easier for anyone with a CAD program, then photocopy. Please note the rules don’t allow for birdshot to be used in competition against paper targets for score. There have been some adjustments to the Divisions for 2003 as a result of discussions with some IPSC Regions. Hopefully the changes won’t be as controversial as the Handgun Division debates. As they are written what would be the percentages of US shooters in each Division? Regards,

Patrick Thanks for the input. The current ruling (IPSC Rules) about no-shoot targets was changed as from the beginning of this year and plates or poppers must fall to count as hit. Clearly this was a major requirement for SG and we have operated this rule in the UK for years. Also please note that again for SG a max of 2 penalty hits per paper penalty target to count against the competitor rather than "all visible hits" but see above for plates and poppers. Actually I've had some arguments about this with others within IPSC (mostly those who don't shoot SG and who hadn't contemplated the consequences of a pulled shot). Fortunately I have been able to win the day and hopefully we have a more practicable rule as a result. With this in mind could you see a situation where carefully placed no-shoots (penalty targets) add to the shooting challenge? I'm not keen on multiple runs per stage just to boost factors - it's too artificial. I guess as far as the smaller ranges are concerned then we must accept that they won't have big SG stages but it's still better that they are doing something. I agree with you wholeheartedly that buckshot should never be forced on people just so that they have to deal with the recoil but our experiences are that buck copes with longer range targets than could be shot with birdshot. In a UK match of say 12 stages sometimes we will see no buck stages and other times perhaps just 1 or 2. Their inclusion must satisfy the course reviewer that there is genuine reason for the inclusion (and not just to achieve sales of buck ammo :-) !! ). We also try to include some paper targets in these stages with the highest 2 hits to count - we nominate OO buck as a specific ammo type. The targets must be test shot with factory OO ammo and with a test specification gun to check that 2 hits can be regularly achieved. Stages will often allow competitors to get closer to the targets to ensure they achieve 2 hits but this adds to their time - freestyle! With only one shot usually being necessary per target but with 2 hits to count this helps with the factor. Patching is obviously a problem and is why the rules now provide for a nominated buck type such as OO (and this is only just under 9mm per pellet) so only 9 pellets per cartridge. If the targets are set at a long range then you won't have 9 holes to patch anyway. Actually the UK has nearly entirely moved to the new A4 and A3 targets which are photocopyable and so cheap they are disposable per competitor. No patching and everyone gets a clean target to start with. I also agree with you about clays or at least flying clays but static clays are OK. IPSC handgun rules no longer allow frangible targets (unfortunately) but we got them accepted for SG. Bearing in mind that there should be no miss penalties on a flying clay (disappearing target) and considering Limited Division then a flying clay should not feature in stages of above 8 rounds because it can be a better option to ignore the clay rather than to engage it and have to reload the extra round. Have a look at the factors - it's close but it can mess things up. Out of 4 Level III matches in Europe this summer 2 of the matches had a single flying clay in each.

Carlos - Thanks for kicking off this new topic. Patrick - The rule book test for testing plates and poppers is close to your thinking but uses a 28gr or 1 ounce load and should be at around 1200 fps. There are also cartridge specifications for Buckdhot only stages and slug only stages see the end of Appendix H of the IPSC rule book. I take the point about unloaded starts in a 3 gun match as described but we shouldn't preclude this type of start in a SG only match or even a SG only stage. Match Organisers and Course reviewers should be sensible when considering the inclusion of such stages. I believe Erik is correct about the need for big SG stages in 3 gun matches and also I believe that there is a place for them in a stand alone match. IPSC certainly seems to be taking a bigger interest in multi discipline tournaments and we need to consider the balance of the 3 disciplines to decide a tournament winner. This may be different to IDPA 3 gun matches of which I have very limited specific knowledge so please forgive me if I get something wrong with regards to IDPA. The difficulty of course lies in the target types with steels only needing (usually) a single shot whereas the paper targets in pistol are nearly always double tapped. This can quickly lead to a disparity in the number of shots fired for Sg v pistol. So we should keep the big stages in Sg to help balance this problem. I have heard an argument that the balance of a tournament should be assesed by the number of targets but I believe that the number of scoring hits is the shooting challenge rather than the number of targets. Two scoring hits on a paper target is more difficult than knocking a plate down with a SG and a single shot! This subject is very much up for discussion within the IPSC rules committees. I also agree with Erik that the hit factor for Sg can be low and I hear the comment about accuracy - but why do some people still miss? You can add to the accuracy requirement by setting tight Penalty Targets (No-shoots). The shooting challenge must always be achievable with the test gun and test cartridge specification but can still present a really tough challenge. And the risk of the 10 point penalty makes shooters consider their shot placement. Clever positioning of Penalty Targets can also add to the freestyle element of the sport - take the time to move to the side to get a clear shot or save time and take the tight shot whilst risking the penalty. Freestyle! I'd like to see more input from others as well but at least it's a start. Thanks.

Further to the reply from Vince I would advise that the proposed revisions and updates for the IPSC SG rules were accepted for 2003. But there is a proviso and this is that the rules need to be further considered alongside the handgun and rifle rules so that proper commonality (wherever possible) is achieved. This therefore gives us a chance to re-visit any rules that would benefit from a change. Of course we can't assume that everything will get approved but at least everything can be considered. We also must remember that we must produce rules that are appropriate for IPSC shooting and acceptable in all Regions. And we must attempt to write rules that won't cause significant problems in other Regions. With regards to the subject of slugs on steel targets: what minimal distances are suggested? Should the distance be the same for plates and poppers? Does anyone think that there should be a suggestion for restrictions on backwards falling poppers (I doubt that this would be approved) or minimal thickness of steel? I am also interested in peoples views on the min and max round counts per stage and per match. I am aware of one Region who would like SG stages restricted to a max of around 15 rounds but personally I would not be happy with this restriction. What distances are you shooting the average target at? What are the views on unloaded starts? These feature in UK matches and at least make sure that everyone starts equal regardless of gun capacity. The difference between a handgun with an 8 round mag and one with a 15 round mag is one reload but in SG an extra 7 reloads (assuming no speed loaders). The queries above are just some initial thoughts and I'm sure there will be others from me and hopefully from others as well. I await your replies with interest. Please note that after next year the intention will be to leave the rules alone for some time so we have just a few months to consider any new ideas. Is everyone happy to carry on in this thread under the heading of "Proposed Shotgun Rules" or should we consider starting a new one? As requested by Vince can you please direct SG rule comments to me as I will be particularly involved in the process of producing next years proposals. Thanks. More soon.

Carlos V many thanks for your offer. Generally we have found that many shooters from all over the world have been happy to help and this has helped a lot. Sadly the UKPSA has lost a lot of members and only a fairly small number actually made the transition over to active IPSC shotgunning. Quite a lot took up clay shooting but some gave up completely. We also saw the development of a new discipline of "Mini Rifle" using .22 semi autos, mostly 10-22s. The discipline is based on Practical Pistol but with rifles and much smaller targets (scaled down Classic targets). The guns have seen a lot of development with typical pistol Open division bits being added on. The members shooting this seem to enjoy it - it may not be pistol but they're still pulling a trigger. Also there is a small number of people who have tried to replicate pp by using Co2 handguns. Shotgun matches have been going on a steady basis for years - I've been shooting SG since 1986. There has been an increase in the last 4/5 years and continues to grow in the UK but our firearms laws are still tough. The Italian Region is hosting the IPSC SG European Championships (Level IV) next year and there has been a general increase in interest but it has become apparent that there were many more people shooting various forms of Practical SG are over the place but it hasn't been co-ordinated. I am convinced that we will see much more activity throughout IPSC and particularly in Europe as a result of the new rule book and the European Championships and about time too! Sorry all! The above was a little long winded and a bit off the subject but hopefully you might be interested. Back on subject ....... I think there is a little confusion about the new rules. They are not that new and were first up for discussion in the summer of 2001. They were adopted for trial for 1 year starting in January of this year and this year has only seen minor changes, corrections and updates. The rules about slugs on steel haven't changed. It is a shame that we couldn't have started the debate a few weeks ago in time to have considerted a change to the rules in time for the IPSC World Assembly. I don't think that it would be right to write the rules to take into account the new frangible slugs. They are not widely available and until they are they couldn't properly be considered for International rules. When the rule was written opinions were canvassed about whether to allow or not allow and at what minimum distance. There was only minimal feedback and the rule was eventually written as it is now. We don't ever shoot slugs at steel targets in the UK, not that that matters as far as the rule book is concerned. The next time we start on a rewrite or update of the rules we can look at this subject again but it is too late now for the 2003 rule book. I agree with your view point about forward falling poppers but would add that the possible ricochet problem with backwards falling poppers isn't just restricted to slugs and can be a problem for handgun and rifle rounds as well. Whilst not ideal I guess in the meantime you can carry on shooting slugs at steel plates providing the USPSA agrees and acts in accordance with 3.3.1. Are there any more views or thoughts on this subject?

Carlos The fibre wads only rule can only be used if there is a genuine need (and not just because a match organiser bought some ammo cheap and wants to sell it). I've shot at more than one match in the UK which have been on farmland (livestock) or forestry land. Basically the conditions imposed by the land owner have been "fibre wads or nothing". Given the choice ...... ?? Actually I know of a venue that asks for fibre wads with birdshot cartridges which are readily available but permits plastic wads for buck and slug because cartridges are not so easily available. This is a good compromise and restricts the "mess" to set areas - easier to clean up. The critical thing here is that it is not a rule that is automatically imposed at all matches but instead provides for venues where there may be a problem. In some IPSC Regions it may never need to be applied. Please note that the rule requires the requirement to be published in advance. I think the wording of the rule needs to be changed from "fibre" to "biodegradeable" next time around. I hope my comments are a help.