omnia1911

Tim, "hiding in lesser divisions?" There is no such thing a lesser division; just diferent. Don't let anyone sell you that line of BS. The "hiding" accusations have been going on since we went from "shoot what you brung" to an Open and Limited division. It's the same old and tired trash talk; just more BS. You'll find that most USPSA shooters are above all of this. Good post Rob.

Bruce, Instead of eliminating or moving L10 to a category, don't clubs already have the ability to choose which divisions they recognize under Appendix A2? APPENDIX A2 IPSC Recognition Prior to the commencement of a match, the organizers must specify which Division(s) will be recognized. Thanks, Ronnie ...and a match is only required to recognize at least one division. 6.2.1 IPSC Divisions recognize different firearms and equipment (see Appendix D). Each match must recognize at least one Division. When multiple Divisions are available in a match, each Division must be scored separately and independently, and match results must recognize a winner in each Division. So, why is there a perceived problem with competition being diluted because of having too many divisions?

The theory is, that we should have four divisions (OK, really 5 when you count revolver) -- Two "Race" divisions (Open and Limited) -- Two "Stock" divisions (Single Stack and Production) If this is the foundation for building USPSA's future, why would you deny all the members that live in a 10 round restricted state the pleasure of competing in a "race" division. L10 provides that "nirvana". Making Limited a 10 round division would reduce the number of divisions, would not make anyone's equipment obsolete/unusable, or require any added costs to the members. Is that any more of a difficult decision to make than the ones now being contemplated. At least a Limited/L10 merger makes sense from a structural perspective. L10 has already proved that both SS and widebody equipment can coexist on the same playing field under comparable capacity limits. Why not?: -- Two "Race" divisions (Open and L10) -- Two "Stock" divisions (Revolver and Production) It seems to me that the easiest way to reduce the number of divisions is to stop adding new ones. SS is not needed to support the 1911 platform. L10 will do that. IDPA CDP shooters aren't with that organization because of the equipment. It is the philosophy/rules/stage design differences that keep them away. SS division will never resolve these issues for them to consider crossing over. Where is King Solomon when you need him?

Really? What does it mean to you?

I feel that a full magazine inserted into the gun but no round in the chamber complies with the start position specified. Am I gaming this too much? (and yes, I did prop the gun up too with an extra mag ) I think you are confusing loaded with chambered when it comes to your pistol. Would you consider a 6 shot revolver loaded or unloaded if it contained 5 rounds with the hammer down on the empty chamber?

I think that's a great idea. EVERYBODY can shoot L10 but a whole lot of members can't shoot Limited due to capacity issues. L10 is truly National!! Combining Limited and L10 into one division with a 10 round mag capacity would be too easy of a solution for reducing the number of divisions. The inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth would follow. Some on the BOD think that eliminating L10 is more politically palpable, while others don't want to rock the boat. The need for a 10 round capacity race gun division still exists in the USA regardless.

I assume that the full text of the 2008 rules will be made available to the membership for review and comment prior to the BOD adopting them.

Why not come at the issue from a different direction? Rather than penalize someone for dumping rounds or for leaving mags on the ground, why not award bonus points to the shooter who is conserving ammo (sliding scale based on how close the shooter comes to the minimum number of rounds scored in a stage) and is retaining mags after reloads. Give the shooter the incentive to adopt the kind of "tactics" IDPA is trying to encourage in its "game". The specifics shouldn't be too hard to work out. No mind reading by the SO would be required.

As a side note, I find it peculiar that 1.2.2.1 requires a mandatory reload if 7 up to 12 rounds are used in a component string, but the rule doesn't specify where the reload has to be. Technically, it could be after the the last shot is fired in the string, off the clock, and still comply with the rule. 1.2.2.1 “Standard Exercises” must not require more than 24 rounds to complete. Component strings must not require more than 6 rounds (12 rounds if a mandatory reload is specified).

I *AM A CRO* and at a major match or any match for that matter, there is no way in hell I'd assess an FTE without assessing a miss to go along with it! If there's holes in the target, twas engaged. The proper way to have scored this was to tape and score in between strings - then you would have given the FTE and miss on the first string. But again, since it was comstock and apparently the course description did not specify penalties in the briefing, I personally would have not assessed any. (See my congratulatory comment on successful gaming) Kath So answer this one, again. He shot 11 shots at 12 targets. That's not enough to exercise common sense? Oh and as I said the T12 was maybe 5 feet away. I'll vouce for the fact that I could see it. We should have scored between strings but welcome to the real club world. It was the MD's call and I understand why. When you all(me included) start lining up at 8 AM to set up the match and RO and stay to tear down, he might not make these calls to reduce time and effort. It had the standard -10 miss -10 procedural,-10 no-shoot language in the course description, it was USPSA match. So I might have given the shooter a Unsportmanslike award(not a DQ I mean a boobie prize) but no kodo's for gaming. That's not gaming. The course description said engage T1-T12 with 1 rd each. Anything else is just wrong. Comstock scoring cannot define the number of rounds to be fired at a target in the written stage procedures.

Because of the way the competitor shot the stage in this case, he made one of his two necessary reloads for completing a 24 round stage, while shooting in Production, off the clock. It may, or may not, have been an advantage, but doing anything in a stage off the clock should never be dismissed.

I agree that the stage is illegal. It should have been scored Virginia Count with mandatory reloads. With that said, is failing to shoot at a target in string 1 really a violation of 10.2.2? If you believe that not shooting at a target is a failure to follow the written stage procedures, then why aren't we applying 10.2.2 each time we also apply 9.5.6/10.2.7 (FTE penalty), thereby assessing two ten point penalties when a target is not engaged with at least 1 round? Failing to engage targets in a stage cannot be considered a failure to follow the written stage procedures. Only 9.5.6/10.2.7 and US9.4.5.3 can apply. We should not be using 10.2.2 as USPSA's defacto "failure to do right" rule. So, what does that leave us as a remedy in this case? We can make up an applicable rule to cover this illegal stage, or comply with the rule book and toss the stage. If the stage had been scored Virginia Count, and the competitor shot the stage as it has been explained here, I would have issued a procedural penalty for not engaging the target in string 1, unless the written stage procedures authorized the stacking of shots (US9.4.5.3). If stacking was authorized, I would have scored the competitor as shot, and with 1 extra shot penalty on the second string in either case.

If the majority of clubs are not following the calibration rules we have, something is broken. It does not look like the use of forward falling steel will change that. I agree.

Is your club affiliated with USPSA? Did yor club agree to run matches under USPSA rules? Do your written course descriptions mention which rules you are using? You may not want to boast about your principles. All those clubs following the calibration rule (as written regarding the calibration ammo, calibration gun, calibration of poppers, and calibration challenges) for your level I matches raise your hand. I have read other posts that use some variation of the calibration rule for level I matches. You didn't seem to challenge their affiliation commitment. I stand by my principals. BOD members have shot at the matches where our poppers aren't being calibrated. It is no secret as to what is being done, or not done. The club affiliation was never questioned knowing this.

We don't "calibrate" our poppers in our level I matches. We set them light enough by hand and they fall for every legal round. If the poppers get out of adjustment and fail to fall, we readjust them, and the shooter gets a reshoot for REF. It's a pretty simple management issue to deal with this way. If you are not calibrating your poppers then you are not shooting a legal USPSA match. Just because a popper falls doesn't mean someone is using a legal round and I have seen lots of edge hits with 40's & 45's leave a popper standing. You are not doing anybody any favors at the local level by not calibrating your poppers. Lazy is as lazy does. A legal round can only be determined by chronographing it. We don't chrono at our level I matches either. Chronoing is mandatory in level III matches only. In fact, we don't calibrate any poppers that we use for classifiers we send in....and this may be a shocker, we aren't the only ones doing this. It's not an issue of being lazy. It is a matter of principal. The calibration rule is a useless exercise!

We don't "calibrate" our poppers in our level I matches. We set them light enough by hand and they fall for every legal round. If the poppers get out of adjustment and fail to fall, we readjust them, and the shooter gets a reshoot for REF. It's a pretty simple management issue to deal with this way.

Why shouldn't they fall from any hit? A popper can only recognize the minor PF minimum of 125 with the methods we use now. So, of what use is the calibration of poppers? Is it to catch those cheating on their declared PF? It can't recognize a 165 PF minimum for those shooting major. If a popper fails to fall from a hit, why isn't the shooter's ammo tested to see if it makes the declared PF as part of the calibration test? Just what is the point of calibrating the poppers? Scoring zone dimensions on paper targets and major/minor point values assigned to them is strictly an arbitrary decision by those that designed this game. I have no problem with that, but the idea that the scoring zone dimensions and point values have a direct correlation to one's chronographed PF is a stretch.

not true. the power factor is not based on steel targets. it's based on paper targets. lynnJoneswiderecognize 4.2.2 Paper targets must have scoring lines and non-scoring borders clearly marked on the face of the target, however, scoring lines and non-scoring borders should not be visible beyond a distance of 10 meters (32.81 feet). The scoring zones reward power in IPSC matches. 4.3.1.1 IPSC Poppers, which must be calibrated as specified in Appendix C, are approved metal targets designed to recognize power. 4.3.1.2 IPSC Mini Poppers, which must be calibrated as specified in Appendix C, are approved metal targets designed to recognize power and are intended to simulate regular sized Poppers placed at greater distances. A hit on a steel target that falls is equal to a hit in the “A” zone of a paper target. APPENDIX C2 All Poppers – Scoring value: 5 points (Minor and Major) I can set up a stage that has only the “A” zone of a paper target available for scoring. The rest of each paper target can be painted black and considered hard cover. In this case, a paper target will not recognize power. 4.3.1.4 Various sizes of metal plates may be used (see Appendix C3), however, metal plates must not be used exclusively in a course of fire. At least one authorized paper target or IPSC Popper must be included in each course of fire. One has to assume that the sentence above in bold print has been included in this rule because it is believed that both paper and popper targets recognize and reward power, but yet the rule book does not prevent me from setting up a stage with plates and paper targets with only the "A" zone available for scoring. Does a paper target really recognize or measure power? Does a Metric paper target and a Classic paper target equally measure power and assign a point value? Can a paper target distinguish between someone shooting a 164.9 and 165.0 PF? No, but we have decided to reward/score these two power factors differently even though there is no distinguishable difference in gun control or muzzle flip. Targets should be used for scoring/rewarding purposes only. Only the chrono should be used for recognizing/measuring power.

A classification system is not necessary in order to collect activity fees/credits for 3 gun matches.

Bingo! The idea that a target has to measure power for this game to work is bogus. Plates are a perfect example of that. The gun design, the recoil from the ammo fired through it, and the chronograph are the true measure of power. The targets should be there to score power only.

1) Does US4.3.1.5 contradict the idea of having Appendix C1 Calibration of Poppers? US4.3.1.5 Metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. 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). “Metal targets” would suggest both plates and poppers are referred to in the rule. 2) IPSC poppers must be calibrated (4.3.1.1). Does that include penalty poppers that are designed to fall? 3) What is the “scoring area” of a metal target, as referred to in 9.4.3? Unlike paper targets, metal targets don’t have scoring lines and non-scoring borders. 4) Can I lodge a calibration challenge on a penalty popper? Here is the scenario: I’m having a bad run. I shoot at a penalty popper that is designed to fall, but it fails to do so. I’m thinking I will receive the scoring penalty whether the popper falls or not (9.4.3), IPSC poppers must be calibrated (4.3.1.1), metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score (US4.3.1.5), and if during a calibration challenge the popper fails to fall from the RMs hit in the calibration zone, I should get a reshoot (Appendix C1). Or, would I get a reshoot according to US4.3.1.5 based on REF? Penalty metal targets do have “scoring areas” (9.4.3). Therefore, a hit on a penalty metal target is considered a score, albeit a negative one. 5) From Appendix C1: 3. Once the supply of ammunition and the designated handguns have been tested and approved by the Range Master, they are not subject to challenge by competitors. The rule says that the chrono ammo used in a calibration challenge has to be tested and approved by the RM. A round isn't "tested", and its power factor known with certainty, until it has been fired across the chrono. How do we know the actual round that the RM fires at the popper makes the required specs (+/- 5% of 125PF)? Shouldn't we be firing the calibration round across the chrono at the same time as the popper calibration is made? As a competitor, I make no warranties as to whether my match ammo makes my declared PF. I understand the division rules and the penalties for failing to meet the PF requirements. The match administration has the ability to challenge and chrono my match ammo at any time to verify that I’m in compliance. The calibration ammo is tested and approved by the match adminstration. Once that has been done, competitors are denied the ability to challenge its PF. The calibration ammo is then used in a questionable process that can alter the order of finish in the match. Because of that difference, I think the testing method falls short of what it should be. I reload ammo. I know that unintentional errors can occur during the process. Reloaded ammo is being use as calibration ammo. Isn't it possible that one, or more, rounds from the chrono ammo supply could be out of spec? It could be the one that is used on your calibration challenge, and you will never have the opportunity to answer that question. The evidence was sent down range.

When you challenge a popper that doesn't fall, you aren't challenging the legality of the target, the accuracy of the hit on the target's scoring/calibration zone, or the laws of gravity. What you are challenging is the mechanism that supports and allows the popper to fall; a mechanism whose design is neither officially approved of, or standardized in the rule book. Bad idea.

We are allowed to have moving targets. If the movement mechanism malfunctions we get a re-shoot. Both paper (drop turner, swinger) and metal plate (Texas star) targets can be moving. There is no rule against a moving popper. If I shoot at a moving popper and get a good hit on it, but it fails to fall, can I challenge as REF the functionality of the moving mechanism as the reason for it not falling, or am I subject the calibration rule only? If your answer is that I can challenge the moving mechanism, then why isn't a non-moving mechanism that supports a popper subject to REF too? The fact the a RM can knock the popper down during a calibration challenge only proves that the popper can fall from his hit. It doesn't explain with certainty why it wouldn't fall for the competitor. The hit and impulse from from the competitor's round on the popper may have "fixed" the problem without knocking the popper over, which in turn allowed the RM's round to knock the popper over.

It is ludicrous that IPSC would have approved steel target designs, require the steel to fall to score, use falling steel targets to measure power factors, but not have any requirement on the mechanism that supports and assists the steel target in its fall. The days of using falling steel targets to measure power factors has long since past. The game will not suffer if this relic goes away. Matters that should be classified as equipment failure are negatively effecting match play, when it comes to poppers. Defective mechanisms that activate moving paper targets are REF. Falling steel targets should be treated the same.

Categorizing a handgun platform is issuing it a death sentence. The concept won't work. In the past, Revolver was a category, not a division. An award was given for Top Revolver only. There was no such thing as revolver classifications, or need for them, due to the single award. If with reconfigure some of our divisions to a category status, will we only be handing out Top Revolver, Top L10, Top SS, etc. ? If not, why have the change. Why would anyone shooting a revolver compete in the same Limited division as a high cap S_I just because he, or she, might also get Top Revolver? If you are going to recognize class in every category, what is the point of removing its division status? I don't get it. Not enough competition in the divisions at your match? Don't recognize every division. Too much overhead recognizing every division at you match? Don't recognize every division. Both of these solutions don't cost anything in manpower or money. What a concept.