Neil Beverley

Likewise, Brian. There will be a few others you shoud know as well. Vince will be there of course, and also Myro, Kees Guichelaar (RM) and Luca (I'm fairly sure) and probably a few others. I know Vince is looking forward to his trip to Jeff's match. That should be intetresting!

For IPSC/USPSA rules it isn't legal. See SG Rule 8.2.3.

I'm going to be there for the week prior to the match, and for the IPSC General Assembly but unfortunately can't stay for the match itself. It is almost certain that I will running at least one seminar focussing on the differences between HG ROing versus SG ROing. There are also likely to be other training seminars on offer as well, all during the week prior to the match, and with one or two new ideas being considered.

Tommi These shell holders have been the preferred choice for many shooters for a number of years. I bought myself one of the belts way back when I first started 21 years ago but I found there was a big potential downside. A lot of it is down to the side of the person's belly but I have seen many, many rounds pushed out of the clips, ending up on the deck. This can particularly occur on any of the more physical stages. And prone isn't good. I've even seen shooters run out of ammo because of the number of rounds that were lost on the way. I still have my belt for demo purposes but it didn't survive even 1 season with me and I reverted to an elasticated loop belt. Now I know some VERY good shooters who got on well with this type of belt but it didn't work at all for me (and back then I didn't even have a big gut to worry about). I thought I would add this commentary so you can proceed with open eyes.

Alex I think you need to read the information again. It's a no-shoot in front. So what is being asked is to shoot through the chest of a no shoot, without hitting the chest, to hit a scoring target behind. Presumably hits on the no-shoot are to count. How is this practical?

Bearing in mind our practical roots, and bearing in mind the theoretical push to move back towards them, what is this target meant to represent? It does not conform to the principles of practical shooting and no course reviewer should allow such targets on any IPSC/USPSA stage. Sorry.

With the best will in the world you will not get a perfect set of rules. It will never happen. Someone, somewhere will be unhappy and will want (require) a change. The point I was making is you either live with the problems for 5 years or instead you allow corrections to put things right. These are the only two options, because the perfect rulebook will not exist. Not to suit everyone.

George Like I said ............. SG & R need (and deserve) a (separate to HG) champion to progress the disciplines.

If you don't want the rulebook to change for 5 years then you should vote to keep the current rule book exactly as it is. And if you do want to make changes to the current rulebook then I think this answers the 5-year-ban-on-changes issue.

I'm not aware of any Classifiers for SG or R that will conform to the rulebook definition of Classifier.

George This is kinda what I was alluding to in an earlier post. In Regions where the disciplines are active SG and R deserve and need their own specific champions. The UKPSA created a Shotgun Commission with its own Chairman way back in the early 80s. This helped forge and drive that element of IPSC shooting in the UK. I was Chairman of the Commission for a while many, many years ago. IPSC is now embracing both SG & R as separate disciplines, more so in the last 5-6 years than at any previous time in its history. All credit to the IPSC President, Nick Alexakos, for his support. Both disciplines are growing steadily, SG slightly faster than rifle and the future is looking very good. There will be the very first IPSC SG World Championships in 2010. There will be an IPSC World 3 Gun Tournament in 2009 (Ecuador). I would love to see the US getting more involved in these 2 disciplines than seems to be the case at present. I'd love to see a USPSA Ladies SG team and a Junior team in 2010 as well as teams for each division. The guys that have travelled over to IPSC SG matches in particular seem to have had a ball. I can't sort it out for you but maybe you guys can? Historical snippit - UKPSA Claim to fame (other than WSX) - Did you know than we had a UKPSA member who was President of IPSC for a couple of years around 1980?

Jim I'm not sure I'm interpreting your post properly but if I am ...... where does it say in the rules that you can't move in a Standard Exercise? Certainly if the briefing says, for example, "shoot prone" then it pretty much makes it a static shoot. But otherwise a certain amount of movement is permitted.

Flex I'll outline my thinking on this and I openly admit it was me that campaigned for this change on the IPSC Rules Committee. It wasn't an easy ride. The thing is that we can already have FT and VC in Short Courses so they didn't make Standards special either. For me, Standards should have been (are) only about being enable to create specific shooting challenges. This should be the ONLY justification for Standards. For Standards to be Standards because they require 2 strings or more is the worst possible reason to have them. So if the "reason to be" is shooting related why make it mandatory to have 2 strings? And if we truly want to test: seated, prone, weak hand only (HG), weak shoulder only (SG [but not allowed for rifle]), strong hand only, compulsory reloads, etc. then surely this is the test - the ability to shoot with forced restrictions or added requirements. Why then, when say we're asking for weak hand only, have we previously restricted the challenge to FT or VC only? It's a shooting challenge not a round count challenge or a timed fire challenge. We used to give the competitor a tougher challenge and then made it worse by illogically not permitting Comstock. This against a background of Comstock being the de facto normal scoring type. We have been careful to take nothing away. You can still have Standards with 2, 3, 4 Strings. In IPSC you can also have a single string. And why not? We can now have Comstock Standards but we can still have VC or FT. And why not? This simply gives more scope and more flexibility. In SG we sometimes test weak shoulder only shooting. In a regular C of F it can be difficult to truly force it upon competitors and the degree of difficulty changes between a 5ft competitor compared to someone who is 6ft 6ins tall. So we would run it as a Standard Excercise. However, under the old rules this wasn't permitted unless we created a compulsory second string simply to conform to a daft requirement in the definition of a Standard Excercise. So to conform we throw in a 6 round kneeling position 6 plate array simply to conform? And what has that got to do with the real desired test, which in this case in weak shoulder shooting. This is the sort of anomaly I hope we have resolved. As a slight aside to this, and for Level I and II matches only, the rulebook allows for SG (only) "Load One, Shoot One" to be treated as a Standard Excercise. Gun starts empty and the exercise simulates a total blockage/malfunction of the mag tube. Therefore shoot the targets solely by loading one at a time direct into the chamber. As an occasional addition to a match it can provide a new challenge. Difficult to manage with box mags though. See Rule 1.2.3.2.

George Isn't the usual assumption that EL Ps start facing uprange? In which case the 90 degree safety angle will almost certainly be broken during a turn. A start position of facing downrange works OK. Would it be worth adding it to the stage notes? Just a thought.

The IPSC rules were changed in January 2006 and now: Standard Exercises can consist of a single string Standard Exercises can be scored Comstock (this only works in single string Standards or where you patch between strings or where you use separate targets) This takes nothing away and instead simply offers more choices to course designers. The IPSC rulebook and indeed the current USPSA rulebook allow Standard Excercises up to 12 rounds in the case of a compulsory reload. So, in theory an El P. in SG or Rifle is permitted within the current rules but for the USPSA it would have to be nominated as FT or VC only. Comstock OK in IPSC. The problem I have with an El P. is that I believe it contravenes Principal 7, but (and I'm not looking to kick something off) so do all Classifiers and Classifiers are here to stay. So the next issue to resolve is that you (USPSA) are required to have 2 strings to make up a Standard Excercise - so add a second one. String A can be 12 rounds with a compulsory reload, String B could also be n rounds (up to 12 with a compulsory reload). Or it could be something basic like 6 rounds compulsory kneeling. SEs are NOT REQUIRED to use the same targets. You have now introduced introduced compulsory reloads. The skill of reloading quickly in shorter courses will probably be more significant in score than in longer Course. There is no requirement for SEs to be "stand and fire" only courses.

I would have agreed with your comment prior to 2004 and indeed the SG & R rules were just a bolt on to the HG rules up to that point. However, since then the rules have been separately and significantly developed for each discipline in turn. Admittedly, where possible, there has been an attempt to keep the rules aligned for simplicity across the disciplines, particularly so in the case of the 2 long guns, but a lot are now properly discipline specific. As I mentioned in an earlier post IPSC has a separate Rules Committee Chairman for each discipline (HG/SG/R) and then these people sit together on the Rules Coordinating committee along with 2 others (including John Amidon). The overall IPSC Rules Committee is chaired by Mike Voigt. I accept that not everything appeals to one and all. We can see that even in these discussions. However, and I'm going to repeat myself, I am fearful that you are going to see within the USPSA, 3G and MG matches run with a changed HG rule-set and where SG and R haven't been adequately considered at the same time. There WILL be problems.

While this post may not offer much to the question in hand it may still have a relevance in general terms. I have a fear for USPSA 3G/MG and USPSA shotgun only matches in that while the USPSA is rewriting a new set of rules for USPSA handgun matches I understand that SG and Rifle isn't seeing the same treatment at present. There is a danger, I think, that the SG and Rifle rules will become contradictory to the new HG rules. This in time may (will) lead to some unfortunate anomalies. The current SG & R rules were adopted by the USPSA in May 2005 and are effectively the 2004 IPSC rule set with a very small number of changes. I am already aware of an occurrence where a change to the IPSC rules for USPSA HG (in 2005) was subsequently voted (inflicted) on SG and screwed up a rule because it was carried through without proper reference to the SG rules. I emailed the powers that be, an interpretation was issued and guess what? It still didn't fix the problem. IMHO SG and Rifle deserve their own champions within USPSA to properly look after the interests of these 2 disciplines. Otherwise they will be written as also-rans to HG and this isn't the ideal solution. I experienced this before within both IPSC and the UKPSA and I now fulfil this shotgun function within IPSC for the SG rules and for the discipline in general. We also have a separate rep for the Rifle rules. To expand these disciplines, and to give their due credit, they need champions within the organization. And I don't mean HG shooters who dabble in SG & R. I mean full-on SG & R specialists (who dabble in HG ). My 2 cents worth.

The USPSA adopted the IPSC 2004 Shotgun Rules in May 2005. Since then IPSC has significantly dropped any attempt to mechanically restrict the number of rounds in the gun at the start. It was simply a nightmare bearing in mind the use of 3 different ammunition types and that cartridge lengths vary anyway. The new approach (IPSC) is simply to restrict the initial load before the start signal to 9 rounds max or 8 rounds if an empty chamber start (IPSC Standard divisions). This is very easy to administrate. Competitors are then free to choose whatever mag length they want but everyone starts with 9 (or 8). What we have found is that this has nicely policed itself and nobody is opting for silly length mag tubes in these divisions, they're not practical. Many guns can actually hold 10 or 11 rounds and there can be occasional tactical advantages in being able to load more than 9 after the start signal.

Yup, 1993 World Shoot - cold, rainy day, cold, cold water, but they kindly provided a towel with which to dry off, should one wish to take the time (thank god for skateboard tape)...can you say "chapped?" We added some washing up liquid for good measure. The whole stage was set up as a washroom. Practical!

My comments were only offered to serve as evidence that we still have gun ownership in the UK. There are many shooting options that fall outside of the UKPSA's arena (or desire). What I do believe is that without IPSC the UKPSA would die and without the UKPSA Practical Shotgun (and/or IPSC Shotgun) would also die in the UK. I see IPSC as absolutely critical for the long term good of Practical Shotgun in the UK.

A small correction needed here. Britain doesn't prohibit civilian ownership of guns in total - only handguns and semi auto rifles other than rimfire. We have an extremely active IPSC Shotgun following, we have a National League, National Gradings and usually run 5 Level III IPSC Shotgun matches a year. In turn we crown a National champion. Indeed over in the 3 Gun Forum you will find discussions from a small handful of USPSA members that intend to visit the UK for the British Open next year. Kurt Miller and Pat Kelly have both visited us in the past. We fielded the largest number of competitors from any Region at the recent European IPSC Shotgun Championships in Greece with 36 competitors, beating even the hosts. We were the only Region with a Ladies Team and a Junior Team We have rifle matches and a developing interest in long barrelled revolvers, which in conjunction with a small extention fixed to the butt legalise the guns as "carbines" instead of as handguns. They can be drawn from a holster and while they aren't very practical and aren't going to pick up any medals in a serious IPSC match, at least we are still sending lead downrange This in turn provides a background for 3 gun tournaments although not in a format that either IPSC or the USPSA would (could) recognise and sanction. We have a popular and stil growing Airsoft competition circuit, which provides a background for competitors from which to set forth to shoot international IPSC matches. We took up our entire allocation of competitor slots at the last IPSC European HG Match and at the last IPSC WS. Yes! We have some cr*p laws but we're still actively shooting and we are contending with limitations rather than a complete ban.

You're wrong and Mr. Pinto is right and I suppose that's why he's secretary You should check your facts like I do before making crazy comments. Every country has to run matches under IPSC rules and that's the basis of the dispute with the US. How many IPSC matches were run in Japan this year? Last Year? Japan is an IPSC Region. Japanese law prevents IPSC Japan from holding matches in their own country but IPSC Japan does hold IPSC matches ............ they hold them in Guam and the Philippines.

Well it would be great to see them at the 2009 Europeans but more importantly at the 2010 World Championships. I've already started the ball rolling looking for a host region.

On a separate note, you guys have enough time to put together an Open team and a Modified Division team. If possible why not also try for a Ladies team and a Junior team as well. For these Standard Division would be the best home. If you could get teams together for all of these then we're looking at 24+ Yanks to keep us Brits in order. In the opening ceremony the teams process in alphabetical order. I still haven't forgotten the very proud moment when Kurt led the US team of 1 in Italy (2003) following on from 45 Brits. 4 of you in 2006. 24 WOULD be great in 2010.

There is so little difference between IPSC Standard and USPSA Standard that you would be hard pressed to notice. However, please note that USPSA Limited Division no longer exists. IPSC has dropped the minimum PF to 480 but the USPSA SG rules are still modelled on the IPSC 2004 rules (min 520 PF). USPSA MG rules now simply state "minimum of 20 gauge". But 480 PF is easy to achieve and was determined for the 2006 IPSC rules with the backing of Mike Voigt. IPSC permits a competitor to load (to have in the gun) more than 9 rounds AFTER the start signal, but we start with only 9, or 8 if an empty chamber start, so only a minor difference. In IPSC Open Division the only significant difference is that there are no restrictions on the number of rounds that can be loaded. Open is Open! IPSC Standard Manual Division is the same as Standard Division other than that it provides a separate home for pump guns, lever action guns and break action guns. Otherwise you will find that the current USPSA SG rules are VERY, VERY close to the IPSC 2004 SG Rules. In fact the starting point was the IPSC Rulebook and then a small handful of changes were implemented. Please bear in mind that Arnie Christiansen was on the IPSC SG Rules Committee, together with Myro Lopez of the Philippines, and we worked very closely together to achieve what we thought would be acceptable rules for all. Mike Voigt is the overall IPSC Rules Committee Chairman. In the next day or so I'll find some time to check whether there are any significant (relevant) differences in the IPSC 2006 SG Rulebook and comment on them here. Howver, my comments above regarding divisions are already bearing in mind the IPSC 2006 rules for divisions.