Neil Beverley

Jeff Are you still running your Extrema? I've ordered one to give it a try from next year. I might need tips?

Bisley is without doubt regarded as one of the all time great shooting venues. It is difficult to explain to anyone who hasn't been there. There is a huge tradition attached to Bisley and I'm very pleased you got sorted out. We ran the IPSC HG European Championships there in 1987 and the IPSC HG WS in 1993 (WSX). We're running quite a few slug matches there at present but it is best known for rifle shooting (up to 1000 yards).

ZH Sorry for the delay in replying and my apologies for not getting around to your email. I've been away at the European HG match (only for Admin purposes unfortunately) and when I got home I had a shed load of stuff to catch up on - and I haven't yet! I certainly can't claim to have much knowledge of the intricacies of the licencing system because it's not really my bag. Nor I am involved in any way in clay shooting, I simply don't have any free time. However, I will ask around for you. I have to say that I think Kurt may be slightly off target with his comments. We operate a 2 tier licencing system in the UK. Kurt's comments are correct in regards to Section 1 Firearms. However, clay shooting clubs (and guns) fall under Section 2 and certainly my understanding is that it should have been perfectly legitimate to turn up, pay a fee and shoot with a club gun and ammo. I think it works that you can't buy the ammo without your own licence but you can buy an all inclusive package, including ammo supplied. You then have to shoot under the supervision of the range owner. All in all I'm amazed you've been turned away and I apologise to you on behalf of the good guys over here, because there are some, but, unfortunately, there are also some *ssholes. Certainly some clubs are as snooty as hell but other clubs are perfectly happy with normal people! In fact if you met some of my friends who do go clay shooting up to competition level you would see the other side of the coin. Salt of the earth! I've pasted a link to the primary organisation for clay shooting and they are usually pretty good but I will see if I can find some more info for you. http://www.cpsa.co.uk/ Sorry you've had a bad experience.

I saw Angus on Sunday in France. He's doing OK.

Anyone? I just received an email from Kelly. They have not been posted. He's not sure where they're going to post, either USSA's website or IPSC's website. I sent a return note asking for a copy. For an IPSC Level III match it is a compulsory requirement to post the top 10 in each division within 14 days or IPSC official recognition is lost except in exeptional circumstances. IPSC has no provision to host a full set of resultson the website. The IPSC Global Village can handle the results data. However, the usual practice is for the Regional body to host the full results while IPSC hosts the top 10 as well.

Here is a link to the official match website maps: CLICK HERE If you still aren't sure just allow a few extra minutes and drop by the headquarters hotel to pick up a tow from one of the ROs, staff, IPSC Council or shooters who are staying there. It is almost entirely shooters at the hotel. The range is less than 5 minutes from the hotel (3 miles). Hotel "Mercure"*** 601, avenue Boscodomini – 84300 Cavaillon – Tel : 04 90 71 07 79 Fax : 04 90 78 27 94 e-mail : h1951@accord.com Web site : www.mercure.com

I have a web address for the Italian gun but when I tested it just now I couldn't connect. I've pasted it below anyway and I'll contact Skywalker who may be able to help. http://www.roscoitaly.it/english.html

Please find below 2 video clips of IPSC Open shotguns. One, an Italian design, features 3 revolving tubes that hold up to around 28 rounds in total. The second design is a Thai invention and can be adapted to different guns. Basically the entire mag tube is preplaced with an new loaded tube. I entirely support mag restrictions in Standard Division but I believe Open should be Open, even if I personally don't like silly-long guns. Italian Open Gun - Download then play (8.5MB) Thai Open Gun - Download then play (1.5MB)

Strings exclusively belong to Standard Exercises. Comstock scoring is not permitted under USPSA rules for Standard Exercises. Standard Exercises are separately listed as "Special Courses of Fire" under Sub-Section 1.2.2. They do not fall under Sub-Section 1.2.1 and therefore any discussions about Medium and Long Courses do not apply. Level 1 match exemptions do not apply in this case. The max number of rounds permitted per String = 6 unless there is a mandatory reload in which case the String could be 12 rounds. Why not simply split these into 2 separate stages (Short Courses). They could then be Comstock or Virginia Count. Job done.

We lost handguns in the UK back in 98 and our IPSC competition circuit now revolves around IPSC Shotgun. Having said that we have always had a separate competition circuit and gradings for SG. Some UKPSA members dropped out, some took up clay shooting, some AirSoft. We are seeing some growth at the present and we're seeing some mimicking of the HG disciplines being adopted for shooting with shotguns using slugs. There are more IPSC Shotgun matches at home and elsewhere internationally than I can possibly get to. I'm still having fun. Big time. The important thing is to never give up. Never give in. That's what the antis want. Don't let them win. And, for me and many others, it's not just about pulling the trigger. The people are special too.

I emailed the admin Vince Pinto and he said if you only used "demetrio" without a surname or if you looked like a spammer it was probably deleted. To this point, it doesn't seem to me I am welcome there. I also emailed Vince Pinto some days ago reporting that I didn't have received the email for validation of my account and, once again, I didn't get any answer from him, so it doesn't seem to me to be a such friendly place to make part. If you guys don't bother of having a Brazilian also joining this forum, I will keep posting here instead of trying in vain to join there. At least here I didn't have to give lots and lots of proof that I am a real person. Demetrio I'm a Moderator over on the Global Village and I know very well that we have been inundated with a lhuge number of spammers recently. Unless you registered with a First Name AND a Last Name you may have been subject to an automatic rejection. It's not personal. Please try again using both names. Most genuine registrations are dealt with VERY promptly. If you continue to have problems PM me here and I'll pass your details onto Vince to help things along.

Hi Pat It's not the discipline that sets the Tournament Division but the most "open" gun division. So if you had had Shotgun Open, Standard Rifle and Production Pistol, it would still have been Tournament Open. By way of another example a Modified Handgun + a Standard Shotgun + a Standard Rifle would set Modified Division in the Tournament. i.e. (in rough summary) Take the "highest" division of any of the disciplines. The tournament scores are taken by adding the percentile points from each componenent match and this keeps the 3 disciplines in balance to each other regardless of the number of rounds or points in each match. Having said that there is still a requirement to keep them within a % range of each other. From the IPSC Tournament rules: 3.1 Each component match must be scored separately and independently of any other component match. 3.2 Tournament results will be calculated, by tournament division, by treating the actual unadjusted match percentile attained by each competitor in each component match as tournament points, calculated to four decimal places, as illustrated in the following example: 3.2.1: Competitor registered in Tournament Open Division Component Match/Division Percentile Attained Tournament Points Handgun – Open 79.4562% 79.4562 Shotgun – Open 82.8473% 82.8473 Rifle – Open Semi-Automatic 45.1097% 45.1097 Total Tournament Points: 207.4132

From the 1986 IPSC Rulebook (7th Edition): 11.01 RETREATING TARGETS - Targets that turn, move, rise or fall by mechanical means to limit the time exposed shall by their disappearance, be deemed to have retreated, offering no further challenge to the competitor and shall not incur penalties for missed shots.

Looking back at my post I can see that it must have seemed very blunt. I apologise for that and I wasn't intending to create a fuss. I guess it's a frustration in what I believe we should be trying to achieve with the rules. It was pointed out to me very early on when I first started out some 20+ years ago, that this is a practical shooting discipline. It was further explained to me, in regards to equipment concepts, that the gun you shoot should be the gun you would have taken out with you first thing in the day with no prior knowledge of what you will encounter (practicality). You wouldn't have the benefit of being able to determine what challenges you may encounter and so you shoot with what you have. By allowing too many changes to equipment during the match, we, IMO, detract from the "Practical" in USPSA, IPSC, UKPSA, etc. I know there are many other areas where Praccticality has slipped as well. They are separate arguments. The reality is competitors are changing kit to suit stages that in a practical world they would have no insight to. If we could ever (and we can't) get back to proper surprise stages and surprise matches, how would you set up your gun? With absolutely no knowledge of what is on the other side of the door how would you configure your kit? And, IMO, this is the configuration that should be shot for the entire match. cpty1/smokshwn - I apologise again if it seemed I was having a go at you. That wasn't my intention. If anything I'm criticising the system and I don't hold with the "if it isn't banned it is allowed" arguments when we have rules like 5.1.8, and ommissions in MG 5.1.7 where the frame and trigger-mechanisms aren't mentioned. Do we really want to allow those to be changed because they aren't mentioned?

Where does it stop? What will competitors want to change next? The stock? The barrel? The trigger mechanism? 5.1.7 Competitors must use the same rifle and type of sights for all courses of fire in a match. <snip> 5.1.8 A competitor who substitutes or significantly modifies a rifle and/or sights during a match without the prior approval of the Range Master will be subject to the provisions of Section 10.6.

Trapr Very best of luck with your match. It will be very interesting to read the reactions of the competitors. Keep it evil!

Back to the subject of bi-pods I think you guys need to add this to the melting pot. I think somebody, somewhere, was asking whether the bi-pod had to stay with the rifle throughout. US8.2.4 Bi-pods must be folded, slings must be in the carry condition (not looped around elbows, etc.) at the start of every string or stage unless otherwise specified in the stage description. Please note my highlighted text in red. I should add that I don't believe the intention of the rule is to prevent bi-pods being taken off or fitted between stages, and this is why it is in Chapter 8 instead of Chapter 5. I think it exists to prevent a bi-pod, if fitted, to be in the down position at the start signal. However, like I said above, it muddies the water a bit.

I would like to return to the situation in regards to a hit on a penalty target in rifle. US4.3.1.7 Penalty metal targets designed to fall when hit, but which accidentally turn edge-on or sideways, shall be treated as range equipment failure. However, any metal penalty target which fails to fall or overturn when struck by a full or partial diameter hit shall incur the penalty or penalties in accordance with Rule 9.4.3. The same as for SG, the US Rifle rule was modified from the IPSC rule (by accident IMO - I'll return to this later). No interpretation has been written for the Rifle rule and so any hit is theoretically to be penalised, if you read US 4.3.1.7. However, Chapter 4 of the rulebook deals with targets. Chapter 9 tackles scoring policy. Rule 4.3.1.7 points to Rule 9.4.3 which reads: 9.4.3 Metal penalty targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score and then will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit. Therefore, US 4.3.1.7 is a clear contradiction of 9.4.3, and , IMO, the scoring rule should take precedence on the subject of scoring. This applies to both SG and Rifle. How did this occur? It goes back to a series of on-line USPSA Board Meeting held between 2 December 2003 to 17 January 2004. Arnie Christianson proposed that the IPSC Rules, with limited exeptions, be adopted. The motion failed. There then followed a series of individual motions mostly relating to specific changes with Handgun in mind. Most were adopted, some failed and the motions that passed set the scene for the US rule changes. During these meetings a proposal was made, and carried unanimously: Motion: President moves "USPSA rule modifications will be applied to the handgun, rifle, shotgun and tournament book as applicable" It is this proposal that causes the problem and in my opinion hasn't been implemented properly. The rule modifications were applied to Shotgun & Rifle without fully checking the relevant rule books, and while the rules probably work OK for HG the differences in the SG and R rules weren't, IMO, taken into account. I emailed Mike Voigt and John Amidon when I realised the implication of the changes to SG 4.3.1.5 and SG 4.3.1.7 in particular and interpretations were written as a result but they still don't deal with the main contradiction. MODERATORS: You may feel that this should be split off into a separate topic - I'll leave it up to you.

Actually we don't calibrate plates. The rule is clear: if it's hit and doesn't fall, it's REF and a reshoot. No calibration allowed. Troy Hi Troy If I may post a slight correction, as it is relevant to multigun discussions, Your statement above is correct for HG and Rifle but not correct for SG, even the USPSA Shotgun rules. The procedure is different for SG and competitors can request for a plate to be tested (rather than calibrated). This partly reflects that metal targets are the primary target for SG and partly replects the ammunition being used (mostly birdshot). A hit by a single pellet from a No.7 birdshot cartridge is still a hit but is no reason to call REF. Appendix C1 is very different for SG. I should add that for SG any calibration or testing should be carried out from the nearest distance that the competitor could have legally shot the target from and not from where they actually shot the target. Again this recognizes a primary difference in shotgun in that it is an essential element to know your gun, your choke and your ammunition, and then decide how close you have to be to successfully take down the targets. Course designers are obliged to provide achievable challenges using an open choked gun and a specific maximum test cartridge but again, initial stage testing is carried out as close as is legal on the stage. It is up to competitors to choose to shoot further away if they so want. Please also note that while in HG a hit on a metal no-shoot is counted, and static fixed metal-no-shoots can be employed, for both SG & R metal no-shoots must fall to count and any metal target that can't fall is no longer a no shoot but instead just hard cover because they won't count if hit. The IPSC 2006 rules made a small number of changes to the procedures, mostly in regards to the specifications of the test cartridges, but also to accept manufacturers cartridge data rather than having to rely on chronoing the ammo. This post has been edited by Neil Beverley: Today, 08:18 AM Hell! I just checked a couple pf USPSA interpretations from John Amidon. It muddies the water somewhat. In fact I recall emailing him about these. I won't tell you what he said! I'd hate to be the RO trying to call it with accuracy. Title:Shotgun Metal Targets Created:6/27/04 Updated:10/05/04 Effective:7/04/04 Rule number:US 3.1.5 Applies to:Shotgun Ruling authority:John Amidon Status:Released Ruling"Fails to fall or overturn when hit", the interpretation of HIT to be, the center of the pattern striking anywhere on the face of the plate. US4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring metal targets which accidentally turn edge-on or sideways or which fail to fall or overturn when hit, or which a Range Officer deems have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the apparatus supporting them or for any other reason, will be treated as range equipment failure. (see Rule 4.6.1). Title:Shotgun Metal Penalty Targets Created:6/27/04 Updated:10/05/04 Effective:7/04/04 Rule number:US 3.1.7 Applies to:Shotgun Ruling authority:John Amidon Status:Released Ruling"Any metal penalty target which fails to fall or overturn when struck by a full or partial diameter hit shall incur the penalty" the interpretation of FULL OR PARTIAL DIAMETER, that the center of the pattern strikes anywhere on the penalty target. US4.3.1.7 Penalty metal targets designed to fall when hit,but which accidentally turn edge-on or sideways, shall be treated as range equipment failure. However, any metal penalty target which fails to fall or overturn when struck by a full or partial diameter hit shall incur the penalty or penalties in accordance with Rule 9.4.3. Please note that Rule 9.4.3 states 9.4.3 Metal penalty targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score and then will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit. This seems to contradict a suggestion in US 4.3.1.7 that you can employ No-shoots that are designed not to fall. I know the history of when and how this contradiction occurred in the US rules but I didn't have the time to discuss this initially but is perhaps relevant to understand what occurred (see subsequent post). This is the subject that I wrote to John about. Rule 9.5.1 further confirms that metal targets must fall to score. Metal no-shoots are generically under the heading of metal targets - see Section Heading 4.3. Sorry, for the thread drift but I sort of think it is related.

Exodus You're thinking in the right direction. You have to be careful to not make the long-route so long that no-body takes its and opts for "living" with a possible penalty. However, that's something you have to work out on the day. The possibilities are huge and variations almost endless. I've added below an example stage. We would set the no-shoots so as to be real tough from the back of the stage but easy enough from the front of the access "fingers". Likewise, the long distance shots would be marginal from the back but OK from the ends of the fingers. I've indicated the stage starting in the bottom left hand corner but even starting the stage in the back-middle could cause problems because of the distance of the targets on the far right and left. Of course a stage like this would take up a lot of range space but I've been trying to convey concepts. In fact this layout isn't so far off from one of the stages of the British Open this year.

One other regular feature of UK matches is that we will push metal targets way out to say 35 yards and give competitors an opportunity to get up as close as they like (subject to minimum safety distances). However, we try to create a possible advantage by saving time by not getting close, often by presenting a more economic movement to another part of the stage. We leave it to the competitor to know and understand their gun, their choking and their ammo. The competitor has to analyse how close they must get to successfully take the target against the background of the time cost. We try to create an easy but time-expensive opportunity and a difficult but quick solution as well. I've seen many a shooter get caught with their trousers down by opting for the wrong choice. Viva "freestyle"!

Below are a series of photographs from the 2005 British Open. We made the stage an unloaded start. This created 2 further pressures in that the intial few seconds focused the mind on loading and not the positioning of the targets and it created a pressure on how many to load, bearing in mind that competitors might aim off too much to be cautious. They could load the exact number of rounds for speed or one or two extras for safety. This sort of "messing with the mind" is a regular feature in UKPSA and IPSC Shotgun.

There seemed to be a small increased rate and range of swing dependant on the weight of the shooter. Not a big issue and nobody complained but at a Level IV match I would expect to add compensatory weights to even things up. Not a stage for malfunctions or reloads - and I witnessed both. Edited to add that recoil doesn't make any noticeable difference. I heard one competitor say that this simple 6 target Short Course was the best stage of the match, in his opinion.

Typically an IPSC Level III match will be 12-15 stages shot over 1 day, and usually between 140 - 200 rounds. The last 2 IPSC Level IV matches (European Championships) have both had 21 stages shot over 3 days. In Greece last year the match was 304 rounds and had some really excellent props. We will probably have a higher incidence of Short Courses but will add something else into the stage to add interest. Ask the guys about the swing! However, for the British Open the ratio was 4 Short, 6 Medium and 4 Long. One of the Medium courses was probably over 60 yards in travel distance for just 15 targets. This stage had 3 metal targets, 6 clays and 6 paper targets, mixed ammo as an option, buck and/or bird to suit. We use a lot more no-shoots to test or even force accuracy and in IPSC generally we are seeing an increase in the use of buckshot stages that include paper targets. In truth we've been employing buckshot/paper-target stages for donkeys' years in the UK. We've had an established shotgun-only-match circuit going for years and years.

Hi Eric I met Pat when he came over for the British Open about 3 years ago. I know he went home a happy guy and enjoyed our style of stages. I think he had some (pleasant) surprises when he came over. There's nothing to stop our type of target positioning and concepts being included in the shotgun elements of 3-gun. But having said I'm working up towards running an IPSC World Championship Shotgun Match in 2010, but in addition I would love to see IPSC Level IV matches established for PanAmerica and Australasia. I'll be designing and running the SG elements of the IPSC World 3-gun Tournament in Ecuador in 2009 so anyone attending that can expect something a bit different, I hope. I've only got 8 stages to play with though and I would have preferred 12 stages to test a more complete range of shotgunning.