noname

Quote: from Duane Thomas on 11:17 pm on Feb. 1, 2003 "I would like to believe that USPSA had a vision of the FGN being more than a match of downloaded Limited raceguns, but that seems to be the preference that the customers have, and management is going to pay attention to the anemic number of competitors in Production and Revolver." I don't think 72 Production shooters at the first-ever Factory Gun Nationals was "anemic." Less than Lim-10, sure, but still pretty darn good. And yeah, okay, 19 Revolver shooters - but that's more wheelgunners than have been at a Nationals in.....since when? Ever? My anemic comment was not directed specifically at the FGN, but at the larger matches in general. Area 1: 185 shooters, 11 Production, 2 Revolver Area 2: 359 shooters, 11 Production, 6 Revolver Area 3: 185 shooters, 14 Production, 2 Revolver Area 4: 242 shooters, 7 Production, 1 Revolver Area 5: 231 shooters, 19 Production, 4 Revolver Area 6: 295 shooters, 19 Production, 7 Revolver Area 7: 184 shooters, 16 Production, 5 Revolver Area 8 split their match into a Factory Gun (136 shooters) and a Race Gun (202 shooters) Championship. Area 8 Factory Gun Championship: 136 shooters, 38 Production, 10 Revolver When given a choice, most shooters will choose Open and Limited. If you aren't shooting Production or Revolver on a regular basis, it is hard for the average shooter to show up to a match like the FGN or the Area 8 Factory Gun Championship and feel that he is going to perform well, so he is more likely to shoot a downloaded Limited racegun in L10. It may be interesting to note that both the FGN and the Area 8 Factory Gun Championship had 27% of their competitors in Production, and 7% in Revolver. At matches where all 5 divisions are available to the competitors, the numbers drop off to about 5% in Production and 1% in Revolver. (Edited by noname at 12:52 pm on Feb. 2, 2003)

Quote: from Stewart on 9:44 am on Jan. 30, 2003 Dave: Equal numerical representation. This is too much like the United Nations, where a small group of large regions, that have the most members and pay the most fees, are subject to rules and regulations that can be created by a large number of the small regions. Stewart, I'll offer an analogy to consider. You hold a Benefactor membership, I hold an annual membership. Though you have paid more money to USPSA than I have, I have the same power as you do by way my single vote come election time. IPSC works much the same way. Each Region has one vote, no matter how much money they pay to IPSC.

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 11:57 pm on Jan. 31, 2003 The rule changes which produced the 14th Edition September 2002 edition came about from a collaboration between Doug Lewis (then IROA Vice-President - but who has since stood down), John Amidon (USPSA VP) and myself. Thank you.

Norton updates its software and virus definitions every Wednesday. There is no need to run Live Update every day. I use Norton System Works 2001 and Norton Internet Security 2003 on a Windows 98 OS, 56k modem, and Outlook Express. I have scheduled tasks of Norton Antivirus to run every day to scan my entire hard drive for viruses, Norton System Check to run every day to make sure my hard drive/files are running at their peak, and Windows Critical Updates to run everyday. Norton makes great software, and I wouldn't think of running my computer without it. The antivirus constantly runs in the backround with Auto-Protect, it scans all incoming and outgoing email for viruses, and I'm able to block all email attachments from being opened and infecting my system without first getting my authorization and first being scanned with the antivirus program. It may sound like overkill, but I have had the dreaded Klez virus infect my computer through an email attachment prior to instituting more strenuous defenses. I ended up having to reformat my hard drive, and reinstall all of my software and my OS. That is no fun, and a lot of work. The Norton systems do come at a cost to your user resources. I have installed 512 mb of memory, and the OS runs slower than it would otherwise; a reasonable trade off though.

Quote: from BDH on 8:54 pm on Jan. 31, 2003 Noname, got it.... IPSC and USPSA rules do not always agree. I realize you said IPSC, but not everyone here would make the distinction. Cool?? You're right, I should have been more clear.

Quote: from BDH on 7:55 pm on Jan. 31, 2003 Noname, First, I want to say that 8.7 is an IPSC rule, not a USPSA rule (not sure where you shoot). Second, 8.7 applies only to taking a sight picture with a 'loaded' gun. BDH, That is why I said IPSC instituted 8.7, not USPSA. :^) 8.7 also says: ...."Match Organizers may prohibit sight pictures for a competition. All competitors must be advised during the stage instructions." This covers loaded and unloaded guns. (Edited by noname at 8:50 pm on Jan. 31, 2003)

By my rough estimate, USPSA disagrees with the IPSC version of the rules in the 14th Edition 2001 rule book by way of its 23 US adendums in the Pistol Rules, entire Rifle and Shotgun Rules, entire Appendix A, entire Appendix E, and the Non-Team Categories in Appendix G. I would like to see the two organizations continue to work together to reduce these differences. I'm curious if USPSA collaborated on the rewrite of the 14th Edition Rules (September 2002) that went into effect at the first of this year for IPSC (not USPSA) competition? (Edited by noname at 9:10 pm on Jan. 31, 2003)

It has become common place in IPSC to "practice" a turn, a draw, or some other action with your empty gun after receiving the LAMR command. There is no rule allowing it, or disallowing it. I know IPSC has instituted a rule regarding sight pictures (8.7). Are these mini "practice" sessions a good idea, do they increase the potential for a safety infraction, and do they fall under the governance of 8.7?

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 11:53 pm on Jan. 30, 2003 Here's my thought process: Rule 2.2.2 specifically deals with the maximum height of walls which need to be climbed but the wall you mentioned is only intended to be a vision barrier. Rule 2.2.1.2 states that charge and fault lines are "deemed to extend to infinity" but that doesn't apply to your question. Bottom line: Unless the COF briefing prohibits climbing on the desk, or states that the wall is deemed to extend vertically to infinity, the competitor is entitled to do as you describe, provided no safety rules are broken. Hope this helps. Vince, You could also refer to 2.2.3.1: They (barriers) must be high enough to serve the intended purpose...... I would tip my hat to the shooter for thinking outside of the box.

xcount, I'm sympathetic to your situation, but I think it is clear that you won't get any relief from IPSC. With USPSA heavily promoting the new divisions and the concept of a FGN, maybe you will get some help from them. I would like to believe that USPSA had a vision of the FGN being more than a match of downloaded Limited raceguns, but that seems to be the preference that the customers have, and management is going to pay attention to the anemic number of competitors in Production and Revolver.

Back then we even had the nerve to break protocol and give awards to categories like Top Foreigner, Top Law Enforcement, and Top Military. Top Revolver was not a sub-division, but was extracted from the match overalls, which tended to give a significant advantage to the revolver competitor in Open Division (gun with a scope and comp). (Edited by noname at 1:10 am on Jan. 27, 2003)

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 7:36 pm on Jan. 26, 2003 Revolver was never a category. We created the division to "test the waters", on the understanding that despite the course design 9 round rule, revolvers would be competing against revolvers, not against single-action pistols. It may have been an unofficial category, but a Top Revolver award was being handed out at every USPSA match that I shot prior to the formation of the Revolver Division. (Edited by noname at 8:35 pm on Jan. 26, 2003)

I would like to make it clear that I'm not advocating my 6 shot neutral position because I think it will attract new revolver shooters. I think Revolver Division will always have a poor turnout. My position is based soley on fairness and being treated with the same considerations as the other divisions. IPSC/USPSA knew very well that revolver shooters didn't show up in great numbers at the matches, yet it decided to elevate the revolver from a category to a stand alone division. Why do that if you are not going to fully support the division in the rule book? The revolver could have been kept as a catagory with the top 3 being recognized in both Open and Limited Divisions if it wasn't deserving of a full partnership because of its low attendance.

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 1:07 pm on Jan. 26, 2003 In respect of IPSC's "maximum of 9 rounds required from a single position" is concerned, this was done for two reasons: 1) To require course designers to include movement, one of the cornerstones of IPSC shooting; 2) To give single-stack shooters an opportunity to reload between positions. IPSC published the 9 round limit first, and USPSA later reduced this to 8 rounds. 1) Forced static reloads by revolver shooters discourages movement. 2) As I mentioned earlier...the rule was probably made to eliminate static reloads, except for the revolver shooters. For those who are concerned that 6 round neutral stages will reduce your overall match round count, do you avoid using 9, 12, 16, or 18 round stages? Those "small" stages could pose a problem if your only goal is round count, rather than testing a particular shooting skill.

I'm curious as to why IPSC chose 9 and USPSA chose 8 as their maximum number of rounds that are required to be fired from a shooting position; not that the two organizations chose different numbers, but why they set a limit at all? If you believe that it doesn't matter because we only compete against those in our division, then no limit is necessary. If you believe that it was to eliminate static reloads, then that part of the game should be available to everyone. No matter what, there will always be but a handful of revolver shooters at our matches, relative to the participation in the other divisions. Production will always be less than L10, L10 will always be less than Limited. Does body count dictate the degree of equality inherent in the rules? (Edited by noname at 11:30 am on Jan. 26, 2003)