BritinUSA

They do, however according to the website it’s only available in North America. I’m not sure if that affects its eligibility for IPSC. https://waltherarms.com/shop/tungsten-guide-rod-rsa-50n I’m not sure how easy it is to change the recoil spring on that rod, typically Walther recoil springs are over-strength for 125-135PF.

I used a 200-600mm lens and set my sensor to APS-C mode - which makes the lens effectively 840mm - to get my shot.

This is the best I got in South Dakota, it was very cloudy unfortunately.

I thought It was 1998, USPSA did not adopt the new IPSC rulebook that year.

Link to the current IPSC Handgun Rulebook : https://www.ipsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IPSC-Handgun-Competition-Rules-Jan-2024-Edition-Final-27-Dec-2023.pdf

It might be referring to the stippling on the pedal surface:

Its possible it got shut down or died due to lack of interest.

I can’t find a website for IPSC Japan, only an email address: jpn@ipsc.org

They should just state it has to be rubber, plastic or aluminium. Why make it out of anything else ?

Yes, see Appendix D4 and D4a. The only exception is if the base pads add significant weight to the magazine(18.2), that’s probably not the case as most pads are aluminum. Rulebook: https://www.ipsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IPSC-Handgun-Competition-Rules-Jan-2024-Edition-Final-27-Dec-2023.pdf

….

Not everyone that cares is able to shoot outside of L1. People have jobs, families, responsibilities, other things that take up their time. Maybe the only opportunity they have to shoot is at a local club. They might still be a competitor that wants to improve, but are limited with their options. They want to know how they are doing, we shouldn’t be taking that knowledge from them. Instead, we should be providing them with a viable method of determining their skill level.

I’d suggest some mechanism to adjust downward (if required) at year-end only. Bumping someone down a class in the middle of a season could provide incentives for sandbagging. I would suggest that ranking can go UP through the year and optionally a DOWN adjustment just before Jan 1st. Perhaps there could be two measurements on your site, the CURRENT ranking and a HISTORIC HIGH ranking to recognize a high watermark for the competitor; only the CURRENT ranking would be used by the system.

219,211 classifier scores were submitted in 2023 (per the DME report). Obviously there is a demand for a ranking system of some kind. The problem is the current system is not fit for this purpose.

You would also have to drop the bit about classification only going up. That’s not representative of reality. To clarify; none of this addresses the root cause of the problem.

Depends on where the "best shooters on any given classifier" score is coming from, if its from a Nationals stage then that would be a 'Yes' from me. If the "best shooters on any given classifier" score is coming from an L1 match, then 'No'. Edited to add: You used a negative in the question so maybe reverse the Yes and No above. The Nationals score should be the definitive metric.

The goalposts keep shifting due to arbitrary changes in the measurements, this affects everyone to various levels. Fixing the HHF's may provide some degree of equity but it does not address the root cause of the problem which is the following: USPSA considers the resulting HHF's to have the same statistical significance. The HHF set at Nationals may seem low and readily exceeded at an L1 match because the environment is not the same; there is no Championship title on the line, there is no consequence for a bad run, the stage may not be set exactly the same - even a couple of inches can affect the score. The sport needs a better, more accurate system. The members are paying over $300,000 each year in classifier fees, but the system is flawed, though a more accurate system may lead to fewer people willing to pay for it, especially if their ranking goes down.

8.3.7.3 indicates that after hammer-down the competitor can flag the gun. I think it might be referring to PCC but it does not expressly state that. Might be worth getting a response from DNROI to be certain. Have you tried round-nose ammo? It might be a little more forgiving.

I think there are thousands of competitors; don’t assume they are all sponsored, don’t assume they are just M’s and GM’s. A competitor could be in ‘D’ class. It’s about the attitude to the sport, treating every L1 stage as if it’s a stage at the Nationals; dry-fire practice in the evening, reading books and watching videos to improve skills. They are being ill-served by a failing classification system, because the org treats it as a social gathering and not a competition, because the love of money is more important than the principles of the sport.

The gun may be cycling too fast. I had similar issues with a Tanfoglio Open gun many years ago. No matter what I did to the magazines/ammo I would get rounds nose-diving, or spent cases stuck in the ejection port.

You're comparing participants to competitors. Participants will seek a classification that is beyond their abilities, because they know they will not test those abilities against the very best. Competitors will pursue a classification to improve themselves, that they might one day test their abilities against the best. The system cannot achieve both ends, is this a sport or is it a hobby? To the shooters it is one or the other, but the organization must make a choice, the mechanism cannot serve two disparate functions.

I don't have a problem with a ranking system, I can see why it would be a valuable tool for someone wanting to improve and measure that improvement. That being said I don't think the USPSA method is valid, meaningful, reliable or provides value for money. I'll go further and say it's deceptive. The data is being manipulated, so the results reflect the opinions of the manipulator(s), and are not reflective of reality. The sport needs a viable replacement, and USPSA needs to acknowledge the flaws in the system and work with skilled members to replace it.

I’m really enjoying these posts.

If restricting the number of GM’s is causing HQ to adjust the HHF’s which affects everyone below that level, then I would consider that unreasonable.