caps

Just found this thread - what's the problem with the interview? I thought he was humorous and good natured. What do you read between the lines?

It seems to me the BOD is trying to distance USPSA from IPSC but trying to be more like IDPA at the same time. Look at the plan to change from the IPSC box to the IDPA box then look at how they want to change divisions. I just don't get it. Worst of all, I doubt more than 5% of USPSA members even know about the new rules, so the vocal minority will be dictating everything IF the BOD even listens to them but I get the feeling the whole thing over theres nothing more than lip service. All we need now is for another organization to splinter shooting in the US even more but I think it's a distinct possibility.

Any Nokia on T-Mobile if you travel as much as I do!

Are these comments really neccessary or appropriate here?

Jeff, I just heard that Vince Pinto will be working/shooting your match. Have you heard anything or does he plan to spring it on you? Work permitting, I'm going to try to attend if for no other reason than to see if VP really has horns, fangs and cloved feet!

As far as I know "action jobs" have never been permitted in IPSC no matter who performs them or when, and that's the rationale behind IPSC having a minimum trigger pull from Day 1. This is a whole different ball game to the trigger pull about to be foisted upon us here in the USA after people have spent lots of money on trigger jobs which have always been allowed. I admit those quotes look incriminating but is it possible the policy changed since 2004? I recall there was a big kafuffle in 2005 (??) about some guns being booted off the list, and that tells me something changed. I had a Homer Simpson moment! Yep, the P-01 has an aluminum frame and that's what I meant to say - I'm a big CZ fan and I also have a CZ100 and THAT has a polymer frame.

Where did they say "for our game"? Vince made it very clear at the GV that IPSC didn't want guns "made specifically for production division" (our game). Can you show an actual quote to support your claim? When was the P01 made illegal? I've had one since they were first released and they were never illegal in IPSC. Besides, the P01 has always had a polymer frame and CZ85s have always had steel frame. Maybe you should check your facts! You mean like the 3lb trigger pull? Or how about Vanek trigger job, visible external mod = bad, but milled slide/buried Bomars and changed recoil guide rod, visible external mod = good? :lol:

No doubt about it. On the CZUSA website the SP01 is listed at $595 and the Shadow is listed at $850. That's a 43% increase is price just for a different hammer and different sights! @stefano - dude, are you serious? The TSC is a race gun with a double action trigger!

What rules are they changing and which divisions is IPSC planning to add or drop?

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!!

IIRC, that's not true. First we used the IPSC box, but there was no list or trigger test. Then we used the IPSC gun list. Then we did our own list. Then there was the Vanek ruling. Now we're changing to the IDPA box and adding a trigger test. God knows what's next! Like what? We had no probs in Canada enforcing the rules coz the 5lb trigger test took care of internal mods and we couldn't change anything externally except some sights and grip tape.

What's a PTB???

Thanks for clearing that up. Right now our green book is titled "IPSC Handgun Competition Rules, USPSA Version" and it also says USPSA/IPSC at the bottom. Does this mean the new USPSA rules will only say "USPSA" and the IPSC rules will only say "IPSC"? The other question is could/should we make Tulsa our equivalent of the NRA's Camp Perry?

Isn't that like a judge or a marriage guidance counsellor hearing only one side of the story from only one of the parties? I'd like to see reps from USPSA and IPSC in a real debate so we can hear both sides of the story instead of the typical "our guy said whatever, so it must be right" narrow mindedness.

Isn't the very same gun NOT approved by USPSA either?

Stepping down or not running again? When is the next election for Prez?

I think you're right but why hasn't the BOD stated their intent behind USPSA production division rules?

How do you figure that? IPSC has stricter rules for production guns so any IPSC production-legal gun can shoot USPSA production, but customized and longer barrel USPSA production guns can't shoot in IPSC production, right? I thought USPSA put in the 10 round limit due to the AWB law. If "keeping the playing field level" was the real reason, why didn't USPSA change Open to Open 10 and help out the guys in CA, HI etc.? Why do you keep dumping on Vince in every post you make? At least at the IPSC forum he posted the intent behind production division but I've yet to see a statement from the USPSA.

Sure there is. Wasn't it you who said the US -- the biggest member of IPSC should act like Japan or Guam -- the smallest members(?) -- and hold a token number of second-class lip-service IPSC matches just to hang on to the franchise? If it's only a matter of paying $2,000 to IPSC, that's only 100 members paying $20 or 200 members paying $10 -- hardly a big number for a new group to handle. There are plenty of ranges to go around in the US so that won't be a big deal either. As to who would run it - anybody who wanted to shoot overseas and the world shoot and who wanted to run their own show.

Why do you keep bringing up and blaming IPSC? We're dealing only with the former red USPSA rulebook because the new rulebook has a different "If clear" command. You continue to add quesiton marks and inflections which were never there. The language of the rules is PRIMARY - your comments contrary to what is clearly stated in the rulebook are something else! NOW we can move on!

Your profile says you were born in 1953 so you started shooting when you were 3 years old? Wow - I'm impressed! If you read Chuck's post he was not debating the merits of who should or who should not be responsible if a gun discharges. He was taking you to task over your silliness about rising inflections, question marks which never existed and the wording of the old rule which placed blame squarely on the RO, whether you agreed or not. The current rule changed direction to your line of thinking, so what's the problem and why bring up the past?

I'm confused with the two opposing comments above. Who is right? You or Mr. Stevens?

I thought forward poppers are used to eliminate the mechanism from the equation?

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.

+1. We started with concealed carry sized guns but we lost our way some where! We should've had three power factors (add Mouse Gun!) coz a lot of people conceal carry guns lower than 9mm like 380 and 32ACP but they are still practical. Arguments about stopping power making 9mm the lowest caliber were wrong for a sporting org.