omnia1911

Vince, since your motivation for lowering the minimum caliber is to accomodate the available equipment in certain Regions, is it possible to write the rule to say: The minimum caliber in IPSC is 9x19, to include the 7.62x25mm Tokerev. That would narrow the solution to the specific problem.

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 6:30 pm on Dec. 3, 2002 I'm discussing two broad groups: G1) Regions which are already members of IPSC all meet our minimum calibre rule. G2) Regions which don't apply because they can't meet our minimum calibre rule. If we lower our minimum calibre, the G2 regions would apply and some G1 regions would grow more rapidly. And it's not necessarily a case of restricted or zero access to 9mm, it's just a prevalence of 7.62mm, and if you consider the areas I mentioned earlier, you'll know that 7.62mm has long ruled the roost. OK, but why don't they use, or have access to, the calibers, or the types of guns, that IPSC currently uses? Vince, I'll guess that you are primarily talking about the 7.62x25mm Russian Tokerev cartridge being used in a Tokerev TT33 pistol, which is also chambered in 9mm. The cartridge can also be used in a Nagant Revolver and the CZ52. Are these the handguns and the cartridge that you want to include in IPSC competition? (Edited by omnia1911 at 2:37 am on Dec. 4, 2002)

I guess there was a great deal of thread drift here. We are all talking about lowering the minimum caliber when the issue was the type of guns that are available. Are these "other guns" going to meet the Division requirements, or are we going to modify that too. Will these "other guns" be available to all of the Regions, as specified in Appendix E?

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 5:49 pm on Dec. 3, 2002 No. You're way off the mark. Every aspiring region who applies for affiliation to IPSC is informed of existing rules, however there are a bunch of regions who cannot apply because they cannot comply. There are other regions who comply, but they'd grow by leaps and bounds if we lowered the minimum calibre to match guns which are prevalent in their country. If we want to stick to our guns and retain 9x19mm as the minimum, fine, but if we drop it a bit to, say 7.62mm then, potentially, we have an oppotrunity for a huge surge in membership. And more members means more political clout for every region. What am I missing? You just stated that if we lower the caliber to 7.62mm then, potentially, we have an oppotrunity for a huge surge in membership. That is what I said in my post; we are lowering the minimum caliber (it's stated in the rule book) to accomodate new membership (Regions). You have said in past posts that individuals can not be members in IPSC, only Regions are members in IPSC. I'm assuming that is what you mean when you use the word "membership". Maybe a better first question would have been: Why don't these Regions have access to the calibers that we are currently using?

I don't think my last post was thread drift. When the General Assembly meets to vote on whether a Region should receive membership in IPSC, don't you think it is incumbant upon those voting to insure that the prospective new member has the necessary local laws to allow it to abide by the existing rule book, and not rely on IPSC reworking the rule book to accomodate them? That is what the smaller caliber issue is about, isn't it?

Doesn't 3.3.1 provide a mechanism whereby a request for sub-9mm calibres by Eastern Europe, China, Indochina, the Balkans, and Central Asia in IPSC competition can be accomodated if it it due to local laws, and if done with the consent of their Regional Directorate? If that is the case, why is it necessary to make the entire IPSC membership comply with a particular Region's politically correct laws?

Am I correct in assuming that these smaller calibers would only be allowed to shoot minor for as far into the future as one could ever conceptualize? Even then, it all comes down to altering the mag capacity for me. (Edited by omnia1911 at 7:36 am on Dec. 3, 2002)

Just scent your new line of "Lady Light" SG; "Made for a woman, strong enough for a man".

Any change in the minimum caliber that will effect the magazine capacity for the 140 and 170 length limits is a bad idea.

Thanks Vince for a spirited debate. We all learn a great deal from these exchanges.

Pretty soon IPSC is going to have to define what the meaning of the word "is" is. Now, that is familiar territory!

It sounds like IPSC is going to have to define what it means by "type". Shred's question was about types sights. What is meant by type of gun? Can you substitute a Caspian with a STI? One is a one piece all steel frame. The other is a modular steel and plastic frame. It seems to me that if the gun, the sights, and the ammo meet the requirements of the division, that is all that it should take to swap guns. What advantage could someone gain by meeting this less restrictive standard? I would require that they shoot the same power factor (major or minor), though. (Edited by omnia1911 at 7:49 pm on Dec. 1, 2002)

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 3:58 pm on Dec. 1, 2002 As you edited your comment, I need to address your additonal point. Did I say: "If we had more Range Officers and fewer Timer Holders in the USPSA, this issue would be a non-issue"? Answer: NO! This was a global comment which means that if every single RO in the world did their job properly and actually checked the chamber before declaring "Gun Clear", we'd never hear a "bang" and this thread and a major point of contention between IPSC and USPSA, would not exist. And, before I sign off, another example of where you read the opposite of what I've written is: I said (emphasis added): "....... so shots which do not meet the criteria of rule 10.3.1 (e.g. into the ground at 8 metres) are usually called "unintentional".....". You asked: "My rule book says 3 meters. Did you revise that too?". I'm talking about shots at 8 metres not being an AD, and you ask me whether we've changed the rule!!! Understood.

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 2:53 pm on Dec. 1, 2002 Every time I've said that, the entire class laughs or smirks, without exception, and they understand exactly what I mean. I guess you had to be there.

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 1:55 pm on Dec. 1, 2002 Omnia, In this thread I said: "I've conducted RO courses for IROA in 8 different regions and the first thing I say to the huddled masses sitting in front of me is: "This is the IROA Range Officers Seminar. If you're looking for the Timer Holder Seminar, that's down the hall next to McDonalds". If we had more Range Officers and fewer Timer Holders, this issue would be a non-issue." Before I reply to another post, tell me how the above comment was personal and, if so, to whom. Some of the replies following that statement, and subsequent followup references to that statement, led some to believe it was meant to immediately weed out those in your course that would be no more than mere timer holders, if they didn't share the same views of the rule book, or how it was to be administered. "If we had more Range Officers and fewer Timer Holders, this issue would be a non-issue" was made after some USPSA member disagreed with your views on a rule. This statement by you labeled them as timer holders. Were we wrong? If so, what did your opening course statement realy mean? If you remember, that is why I raised my hand (virtually) and asked, "What do you mean by that?", and your response was, "Do you want fries with that?". (Edited by omnia1911 at 2:50 pm on Dec. 1, 2002)

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 11:57 am on Dec. 1, 2002 Singlestack, no, the word "accidental" has a specific meaning in IPSC, so shots which do not meet the criteria of rule 10.3.1 (e.g. into the ground at 8 metres) are usually called "unintentional" (unless Omina gets the rule changed!). My rule book says 3 meters. Did you revise that too?

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 11:57 am on Dec. 1, 2002 Omnia, yes, time stops on the last shot. There is a considerable difference with a shot into the back berm (or anywhere else) while moving if not engaging targets. It means your finger was on the trigger when it shouldn't have been, and the risk is that you may trip or fall and cause a serious injury to somebody. This is not the case when standing still (as I have repeatedly emphasised) at the end of the COF. Since you feel 10.3.1 is flawed, will you be requesting the USPSA change it so that any shot into the ground at any distance is a DQ offence? And, please, when do you think a shot is more likely to leave the range? During a COF while moving under time pressure, or at the end of the COF while standing still? I'm assuming you mean that a discharge during the hammer down command would be considered the last shot, and as a result, the hit, extra shot, and added time would be scored. Yes, the finger would have been on the trigger during movement, but the round itself went safely into the berm, and that is the only distiction. IPSC has decided to institute a rule that we can't have our finger on the trigger during movement, just like it can institute a rule that a shooter will be DQed if there is a discharge during the hammer down command, if it really wanted to. Saying that logic prevents IPSC from making it so is not......well, logical. Whether a round causes serious injury to someone while the competitor is standing still, or is moving, is of no consequence to the injured party. It can happen anytime and anywhere. I wouldn't remove anything from 10.3.1.1, but would include the wording of US10.3.2.5. I think that a round has the possibility of leaving the range at anytime during the COF, including when the competitor is a little winded, the adrenaline is still pumping, and just before he gets the "If you are finished, unload and show clear" command. The COF fire doesn't end until the gun has been holstered (8.3.7) (Edited by omnia1911 at 1:56 pm on Dec. 1, 2002)

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 11:57 am on Dec. 1, 2002 Argue your case, by all means, but don't make it personal. I agree, but shouldn't that include the adjective "timer holder", and the suggestion that one go to Mcdonalds if they can't measure up to your instructional standards?

I have a question that came to mind when thinking about this issue. If the competitor (IPSC competitor, not USPSA, since the IPSC competitor doesn't get DQed for "safe" discharges during the hammer down command) has a "safe" discharge during the hammer down command, I'm assuming that he gets the added time that that round registered on the clock tacked on to his score, and gets penalized for an extra shot, in the case of a Virginia Count stage. Yes? Also, what if the competitor aimed at a target during the hammer down command and had a "safe" discharge into the A zone, would he get that hit scored? See what happens when you open a can of worms. (Edited by omnia1911 at 11:46 am on Dec. 1, 2002)

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 9:55 am on Nov. 30, 2002 In any case, please explain to me why a shot into the berm while the competitor is standing still, is unsafe? Vince, I understand your position very clearly, and I understand the logic that you have used to arrive at that position. Never the less, logic is not the ultimate benchmark by which we should be creating rules. I don't happen to think that it is logical that a competitor can have a discharge that goes into the berm, while standing still and not engaging targets, and have it be considered safe, but be considered unsafe gun handling if the round goes into the berm while moving and not engaging targets. I suppose there is a perceived notion that one action has a greater chance of producing harm, therefore, we have made rules to punish the shooter for this action, such as, 10.3.2.2, 10.3.12, 8.5. Logic should not be the ultimate benchmark in the case of how we rule on a discharge that occurs during the hammer down command. Safety, and the perceptions that we instill in the competitors regarding safety, should be the ultimate benchmark that we use in developing rules to protect those on the range and the surrounding neighborhoods that will be the recipient of a round that has left the range due to a competitor perceiving that we aren't serious about safety. (Edited by omnia1911 at 10:36 am on Dec. 1, 2002)

A shot fired into the berm during the "Hammer Down" command is not the only one that is being accepted by IPSC as safe. The AD rule also accepts a shot fired into the ground that is no closer than 3 meters to the competitor. 10.3.2.5 is in the rule book only because 10.3.1.1 is flawed and should be rewritten in a more safety conscious manner. The AD rule allows a shooter to break one of the 4 Laws of Gun Safety: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. It is amazing that the IPSC AD rule doesn't uphold this law at all times, but allows it to be broken for a less than ideal reason of not wanting to burden a shooter with a DQ. Why is it imperative that the rules go out of their way to avoid giving a DQ to a shooter, but the idea of revoking the RO's certification for his participation in the same "safe" incident is an acceptable possibility? (Edited by omnia1911 at 3:27 am on Dec. 1, 2002)

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 11:46 am on Nov. 30, 2002 Bill, When it comes to a discharge during GC/HD/H, IPSC observes the same line of thought. The thing is, IPSC doesn't have to observe the same line of thought. The rules can be whatever we want them to be. It seems that both sides are more intent on holding their ground than finding a solution that requires a different approach than what has occured so far. If IPSC and USPSA would contemplate a split over something as silly as this, and that could easily be resolved, I would question the leadership on both sides. IPSC may think that changing the wording in the AD rule to include discharges while carrying out the "Hammer Down " command, regardless of where the round went, is unfair to the shooter. The rules are not always fair. Take for instance the issue discussed here about an RO bumping the shooter and causing his gun to fall to the ground, earning him a match DQ. IPSC's position is that it may seem unfair, but the rules are the rules regarding a competitor dropping his gun. The rules should always error on the side of safety, even at the expense of fairness to the shooter. Don't you agree Vince?

Quote: from BSeevers on 9:13 am on Nov. 30, 2002 Actually this is one of the "ideas" that helps me to swing to the side of "lets leave IPSC" because it sounds so silly. And I really believe international sanctioning give us credibility and consistancy. If you clear and check your gun, reguardless of a RO checking it, and you AD into the berm, your foot or prop. At the very least you are lazy and I would say, probably should not be shooting a gun, at least today. Yes we can all screw up or break parts but please. ITS A GUN!! You "thought" it was empty and had an AD. Its a screwup. The dry firing is a final check to make sure it really is empty but is not a routine gun clearing procedure like I think this rule is turning it into. You are responsible for keeping it safe. Time to be accountably for your actions. Welcome to the land being a responsible person. What if your airline pilot had the same standards to landing gear. Yea, its down. Do you want to check it? No. Hello belly landing. Do they pay the price for lazyness, incompentance or whatever? YES. So should a shooter. PS The fact that powers to be in IPSC came up with that rule bothers me. Safety is the primary resposiblity of the RO and shooter and where in the "world" are we taking it. Yes, it is a screwup, but it is not an AD if the round goes into the berm. 10.3.1.1 is pretty clear on this. That is where the impass is. Are we willing to make some changes to 10.3.1.1 to make a discharge during the "Hammer Down" command an AD, regardless of where the round goes?

For one thing, the unloading procedure needs to be "tightened up". No more one handed, at the hip, pointing at the prop, or into the ground, while dropping the hammer on the part of the shooter. There should never be a case when a round that is discharged during the unloading process goes anywhere, but into the berm. So we have a case of an incompetant shooter and an incompetant RO that have managed to discharge a round during the unloading process. Can we DQ the RO for a safety violation? Can we rescind the RO's certification? Can we require that the RO go back for remedial RO instruction? Do we publically humuliate our incompetant ROs by publishing their names in Front Sight?....just brain storming here. (Edited by omnia1911 at 8:12 am on Nov. 30, 2002)

Try this scenario. The COF has the handgun loaded, lying flat on a table, the shooter is facing down range with his hands touching the marks on a wall about 3 feet from the table. On the signal the RO backs away from the shooter, he and the shooter move towards the gun on the table, but in doing so, the RO kicks the leg of the table and it collapses. The gun falls to the ground and the RO proceeds to give the shooter a DQ. Fact or fiction?