Revolvers in IPSC Issues

[xcount]

Drawing upon comments made in Sam's "Ltd-10 Equipment Position" topic and Gary Stevens' "What good ideas do you have?" topic, I would like to open up a topic on the issues facing revolver shooting in IPSC, if anyone is interested.

As the author of the proposal mentioned by ChuckD and Nik Habicht, I would love to see some discussion by people interested in this equipment division.

I'll begin by addressing the specific comments made on these other topic threads and, later, I will bring up some revolver issues for your consideration. My hope is to generate some discussion which may lead somewhere.

First, yes, as Chuck D said in response to noname's post, I did send a proposal to the USPSA BoD. I asked the board to adopt a resolution urging match directors (and course designers) to require no more than 6 rounds from any shooting position, instead of the 8 allowed by the rules. Strictly on a voluntary basis.

This request was not for a rule change or even an official policy change. What I was hoping for was a statement from the board asking course designers to take into account that revolver shooters are limited to only 6 rounds before being required to reload.

And as Nik Habicht commented, stages that have you engaging 4 targets per port suck and they REALLY suck for the revolver shooter. This is the prime reason, in my opinion, why the participation numbers in revolver division are so low. In two words - standing reloads.

This board resolution was intended to urge voluntary action on the part of course designers (and match directors) - absolutely nothing was to be mandated and these match officials were free to choose not to honor this request if they so desired.

My feeling was (and still is) that by making courses of fire more conducive to revolver use we could open the door to more participation in the division. Which should translate into more members (and increased revenues) for both local clubs and USPSA. And greater participation at major matches.

The 2002 ICORE national championship match had 145 entrants willing to pay $165 to shoot (essentially) IPSC with revolvers. While our Factory Gun Nationals only pulled 19 revolver shooters. When you look at these numbers you have to ask yourself - Why? And then you have to ask yourself how USPSA can increase its numbers.

If you wish to read my proposal in its entirety it can be found in the Archives on http://www.boudrie.com.

The proposal was presented to the board at the November meeting. The meeting minutes state simply "No action was taken". So Rich Bagoly's response to Duane Thomas' wish for a 6 shot neutral Factory Gun Nationials appears to be correct - "USPSA BOD appears to not be in favor of the 6 rnd. neutral thing."

My AD, Rob Boudrie, posted some comments of his own concerning this proposal on his web site (www.boudrie.com) under Board Meeting Minutes - November. This link is password protected (same password as USPSA members area) but the link seems to be not working right now so I will paraphrase his comments.

Rob said there was little interest on the part of the board in implementing it. He concurred as he did not agree with my contention that making 6 rounds the upper limit of the number of shots that could be REQUIRED (from one shooting position) would not adversely affect course design.

He felt, and claimed many others felt, that this action would force clubs and staff to add shooting positions to stages in order to maintain overall stage round count. And the net result would be fewer rounds per stage, resulting in "diminished" stages which 95% + of our members would not approve of.  

So there you have the history of the proposal. Yes, noname, I think you are right when you say we could shoot stages with an upper limit of 6, rather than 8, shots from a given shooting position. And, yes, Duane, I think it would be great to see a 6 shot neutral FGN. But I also think Rich is right - USPSA has no interest in it.

[Vince Pinto]

While I understand your submission sought a recommendation, not a requirement, two issues come to mind:

1) What about 5 round revolvers?

2) Regardless of the number of rounds-per-position, the revolver shooters are competing against each other in their own division, not against other types of guns, so surely whatever number is picked, it's equal for all?

And, having admired the incredible skills of Jerry Miculek, surely the difference between "men & boys" in Revolver Division is largely the reloading?

The other thing is that with a 32 round upper limit (in IPSC), course designers will need at least 6 shooting positions instead of 4 on a long course, and this is easier said than done at many ranges or shooting bays.

Under USPSA rules, with no upper limit, the problem is amplified.

[xcount]

How did we come to have the number "8" in the rules and what would happen if a course designer used "6" instead?

When the 14th Edition rules were written one of the major changes was the creation of 3 whole new equipment divisions - Limited 10, Production, and Revolver. And rule 6.2.2 was added. This little rule states in part that "each Division shall be scored separately and independently".

If you looked only at rule 6.2.2 by itself, it would seem there is no need for any restriction on the number of rounds that can be REQUIRED from one position (that is, shots not available anywhere else in the course of fire).

The number could be infinite, because the shooters in each division, competing only against other shooters in that division, would be subject to the same limits in ammo capacity. Production shooters might have to make X number of reloads per position but it wouldn't matter if Limited or Open division shooters had to make less. Because Production shooters are scored separately and independently from Limited or Open shooters.

So any other rules restricting the number of shots allowed to be fired from a position would be redundant and superfluous. And yet, the rules writing committee saw fit to place some restrictions in IPSC rules 1.2.1.2 & 1.2.1.3 and in USPSA rule 1.2.1. Why did they do that, I wondered.

I contacted two of the members of that rule writing committee and asked how those numbers (9 & 8) came to be. I was told, in part, "it was felt that some restriction should be put on how many rounds could be fired from one position, if not, it was felt that many clubs would go to hicap friendly COF's. The 8 rounds from one position keeps the single stacks in the game, it does not however, help revolver shooters….”. (This is a direct quote.)

Now, I don't think there was any grand conspiracy to stiff revolver shooters. Keep in mind that when the "provisional" 14th Edition rules were written 8 shot revolvers were allowed, as noname points out. But that later was changed to "maximum of 6 rounds fired before a reload" in the final version (for reasons which have never been published as far as I know).

The restrictions written into IPSC and USPSA section 1.2 rules created a blanket of protection for those guns with limited capacity (L-10, Production, & Revolver) preventing the course designer from requiring a number of rounds from a position that only a hi-cap shooter could handle without a STANDING RELOAD.

Unfortunately, when the equipment rules were changed in the final version that blanket of protection was pulled away from the revolver division, leaving those shooters to often have to perform numerous standing reloads.

So the redundant and superfluous rules which protect L-10 and Production shooters from having to do standing reloads no longer protect Revolver shooters from the very same thing.

What would happen if a course designer decided to eliminate standing reloads for the revolver shooter by requiring no more than 6 rounds from a position?

First of all, the key word is "require". The course designer could have 10, 15, 20 rounds "available" from a position so the hi-cap shooter could engage any target that could be seen. The designer would just have to make sure the rounds in excess of 6 were also available from somewhere else. (Just like they now do with rounds in excess of 8.) So not much would change.

As for Rob Boudrie's contention that this would require more work, more props, etc. I don't necessarily disagree. Possibly, in some cases. But, remember, the use of "6" rather than "8" would be (and, in reality, IS) strictly voluntary. Those clubs or venues willing to add more shooting positions to a stage in order to maintain the overall round count can do so. And those clubs or venues unwilling to add positions do not have to. And, based on courses of fire, the revolver shooters can choose which clubs and which tournaments to patronize.

So is there any reason why we can't have 6 shot neutral courses of fire? Is there some reason I'm missing why this just would not work?

Because, folks, what we have now is a "chicken & egg" situation. Course designers, following the rules and without any "guidance" from USPSA, often design courses the revolver shooters deem to "suck". So those shooters do not attend matches in great numbers. Then, the low attendance numbers are used to justify not designing courses of fire with revolvers in mind.

As noname asks, are we serious about Revolver Division or not?

 

[Vince Pinto]

You didn't answer my question about 5 round revolvers.

[Steve Anderson]

Wouldn't it be simpler to legalize 8 shot revolvers?

That would solve the problem and leave the 8 round rule alone.

(Edited by Steve Anderson at 6:30 pm on Jan. 25, 2003)

[Chuck D]

Today the members of the IPSC shooting committee (myself included in this capacity) met to design/modify the coming seasons match stages for the months of March thru July. The discussion of Revolver Neutral stages came up and the consensus was that you COULD design interesting and challenging stages that were revolver neutral. I didn't believe this could be possible with any great regularity but after listening to the others on the committee ( including fellow poster Rich B. ) I began to warm up to the idea. Using a library of 10 years worth of sample courses of fire from various Eastern Lakes Section clubs, our home clubs library and the USPSA classifier book we accomplished this goal.It took us roughly an hour and a half to complete this task and the courses of fire will be made available on our club website on a monthly basis for those of you whom wish to review them. The goal of revolver neutral CAN be accomplished....if you really want to.

[Chuck D]

5 shot revolvers huh.... I seriously doubt anyone will show up at an IPSC match with a new S&W model 340PD ( with its Scandium alloy construction,5 shot cylinder and 1-7/8 long barrel) and contest for high revolver division. Can we stop looking for the obscure excuse to defeat common sense and concentrate on the guys/girls who own model S&W's 10/66/67/586/686/625's/Colts/Rugers/Taurus?

( here's the disclaimer Vince....it's NOT personal)

[Vince Pinto]

No offense taken, Chuck.

However if we use the "majority of guns" argument, then the 8/9 round guide already covers it, but we've got competitors with 20 round mags complaining about COFs limiting round count from one position stiffle them.

If we use the "smallest capacity" argument, then we must go to 5 rounds, until someone wants to shoot his Thomson Contender, of course, then we can all go home!

I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time but pick a number, any number, and I'll bet you that somebody is still unhappy.

If we remove the "load X, fire 6" rule, then the guys who have 6 round revolvers are unhappy. Under the current rule, guys with 7/8 round revolvers are unhappy.

I like to make people happy.

Give me a solution that will make everyone happy, and I'll go to bat.

[Vince Pinto]

One more thing. The USPSA BOD decided not to action the request, so I'm just a commentator here!

Having said that, this is one of those occasions where IPSC and USPSA seem to agree ...........

On the other hand, it's legal in USPSA to have a 50 round (or higher) COF.

Surely that's also a challenge for revolver shooters who would need to carry at least 8 speedloaders?

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 7:19 pm on Jan. 25, 2003)

[Chuck D]

xcount's proposal is a VOLUNTARY proposal. Our local club chose to volunteer to attempt this accomodation with a great deal of success, that even I thought wouldn't be possible. A fair amount of last season's C.O.F.'s also met the Revolver neutral criteria. All revolver shooters are asking for is the same consideration single stack guys got when the "8 from a shooting position" rule was enacted,so to not allow the 1911 to be overrun by the wide body gun. If "special considerations" are o.k. for them why not "attempt" to accomodate the member who shoots a revolver? It's important to keep in mind...what's being asked here is for consideration on a VOLUNTARY basis, not a rule/policy change.

[xcount]

Vince,

Sorry, I guess we were cross posting.

I know you would like to walk me right down to the derringers or, maybe, Thompson Contenders but I think not.

If you are saying you would prefer that we advocate for a 5 round upper limit, VOLUNTARILY of course, I wouldn't object. After all, that would leave us 6-shooter shooters with some extra ammo in the gun. Why shouldn't we enjoy the advantages that that imparts just like all the other divisions?

Another way of answering your question would be to ask why do we not allow 200mm magazines in Open division? Because a number had to be selected and 170mm was it. Does that mean the number 170 is "right" and 200 is "wrong"? I guess that would depend on whether or not you own a 200mm magazine.

But, in all seriousness, while you would like to distract readers with discussions of 6 vs. 5, my point is not the "rightness" or "wrongness" of either 6 or 5. It is to take steps toward addressing a "wrong" created by a rule change of the past. And I would suggest that to change the number 8 to a 6 in one rule but not in another (related) rule is (was) wrong.

Not because I happen to own a 6 and not an 8. It is wrong because it stifles participation in the sport. And that can be very easily addressed.

While we are at it, my friend, if questions demand answers, answer one of mine. 145 ICORE championship entrants - 19 FGN revolver entrants. Why?

Could it be that courses of fire designed for automatics are not attractive to revolver shooters? If that's the case, if it stifles participation to that extreme and we do nothing about it - that's wrong.

Steve,

The rule writers reversing course once again and re-allowing 8 shot revolvers is another possible course of action. And, possibly, one that may come to pass.

That does have one inherent fault, though. It solves all the problems except the low participation numbers in revolver division. Which is the whole point, for me at least.

If the idea is to attract more (or new) shooters and members, I don't know if requiring $1,000 plus Performance Center guns just to be able to shoot our courses of fire is the way to go. There have to be several tons of 6 shot revolvers in the hands of potential new shooters and existing members alike. As opposed to not a whole lot of 8 rounders.

Telling a new guy he can start his IPSC career or telling an old timer he can shoot a 2nd entry with a $400 gun is not a hard sell. Telling him he'd better start out with a $1,000 gun is a whole lot harder.

All the custom gunsmithing aside, for a box stock .45 to go from 8 round capacity to 10 round capacity requires the added expense of, maybe, $30-$40 for a magazine. For the revolver shooter to go from 6 round capacity to 8 round (the number REQUIRED by many course designs) means an extra expense of $400-$600. Not as easy to sell.

Changing 8 to 6 changes nothing but the number of targets that can be "hidden" at one position. The course designer can have as many targets "available" from one position as he has stands for in the equipment shed.

I shoot all divisions. When I shoot an automatic it makes no difference how many rounds are "required" at a position. 5, 6, or 8 - no difference - it's never more than I have in my gun. But with a revolver - big difference - it is USUALLY more than I have in my gun.

 

[noname]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 4:52 pm on Jan. 25, 2003

While I understand your submission sought a recommendation, not a requirement, two issues come to mind:

1) What about 5 round revolvers?

2) Regardless of the number of rounds-per-position, the revolver shooters are competing against each other in their own division, not against other types of guns, so surely whatever number is picked, it's equal for all?

---

1) USPSA has chosen to support 6 shot revolvers by means of the Revolver Division guidelines. If they had chosen the 5 shot revolver, I would have advocated 5 shots from a shooting position. That is the key to the issue.

The rule dictating the number of shots from a shooting position must coordinate with the equipment guidelines of the divisions that are also being supported.

2) I'm confident that if the static reloads were being forced to be made by any other division, other than Revolver Division, s**t would hit the fan, the "you are only competing against other in your division" arguement would be ignored, and the rules would be changed at the speed of light.

I don't shoot a revolver, and never will, but I think Revolver Division should be treated as a legitimate division and not as if it were a ball and chain impeding the sport's desire for high stage round count. You have to either return to the support of the 8 shot revolver, or lower the shots from a single shooting position to 6.

[noname]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 7:09 pm on Jan. 25, 2003

No offense taken, Chuck.

If we remove the "load X, fire 6" rule, then the guys who have 6 round revolvers are unhappy. Under the current rule, guys with 7/8 round revolvers are unhappy.

---

That is not how I'm framing the arguement. I think it is unrealistic to expect that every revolver shooter will be happy with USPSA's decision as to what capacity it is going to support in Revolver Division. My problem is with the discrepency between US1.2.1 and Appendix E US Divisions that forces static reloads.  

[xcount]

Vince,

Since you have picked up this ball and are running with it, I will address this to you. With the caveat - nothing personal. You're just the only guy that seems to be willing to suit up for this one. (As usual.) (Ya got stones, I'll give ya that, mate!)

When the final 14th Edition rules reversed course and limited the number of rounds that could be loaded in or fired from a revolver, this was not without reason.

I'm going to hazzard a guess here as to what the reason was. Tell me if I'm wrong.

With courses of fire often requiring more than 6 shots from a given position, the guy with the 8 shot revolver had a HUGE advantage over the guy with the 6 shot revolver. I imagine this was pointed out to both IPSC and USPSA officials. Probably very vocally.

Now, since both organizations desire as much participation in the sport (and membership and revenue) as possible I assume those officials looked at the numbers - both demographics and dollar amounts - and concluded that it was in the best interest of the organizations to target the largest revolver owner group (6 shot guns) and elected to change the rules to relieve them of their disadvantage.

How am I doing so far?

The goal is to get as many people in the game as possible. Having made revolver division a place where only those financially able to own 8 shot guns were able to be competitive, the organizations realized they were (what's that phrase?) - stifling participation. Shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak. So they changed the rules. Well, one of them.

And yet, participation is still not great. Not at the National level, not at the Area level, not at the local level. Just look at the pitiful numbers of classified revolver shooters on the USPSA web site. What is it, somewhere around 5% of all classified shooters?

Jeez, revolver has got to be the least expensive way to get into this sport - it should be hugely popular. But in fact, very few play with one. Hell, as far as I can determine only one member of the USPSA board has a revolver classification.

So, my stalwart friend, two years later, what's stifling participation now? Something is making IPSC revolver shooting unattractive. What is it?

[Vince Pinto]

OK, let's cut to the chase.

If you really want to attract the attention of the USPSA BOD (and IPSC), then you (and other like-minded individuals) should offer to organise the first USPSA Wheelgun Nationals.

There. I threw down the gauntlet!

While I can't speak for the USPSA BOD, I believe they'd listen more attentively if they hear "let me" instead of "you should", and I say that with all due respect for your obvious passion on the subject.

Moreover, while I obviously can't committ 100% "blind", I'll move heaven & earth to come work your match as an RO, and I don't require a complimentary room or any other compensation.

Waddya say?

[xcount]

Vince,

Interesting idea and a generous offer. I don't want to hog this thread, I'd like to see others jump in if they wish, so I'll contact you by messenger.

[Bill]

Hi, my name's Bill and I shoot revolver. Group says in unison, hi Bill.

I'm not sure shooting a revolver is quite that bad but it does seem like we are ignored a lot.

Vince stole my idea. I suggest other clubs step up to bat like ChuckD's club did. Have all your stages be revolver neutral. Would anyone like to have a State, Section or Area match be revolver neutral for all stages? Advertise it as revolver neutral and see what happens. Yes it will be a little harder in course design. It doesn't have to be shoot 6 , run over here and shoot 6 more then run over there to shoot 6 more. Variety can be put in a stage design that still will allow hicaps to have fun. I think it would be interesting to see what shakes out. There are some pretty tricky revolver shooters out there. Will all you flatgunners out there give us a chance to strut our stuff? You aren't afraid of us are you??

Bill Nesbitt  A-4429

(Edited by BILL at 8:23 am on Jan. 26, 2003)

[noname]

This was taken from the ICORE rulebook. It contained the only item in bold print, meaning that the revolver shooters place a high value on this being followed.

1. Stages must be set up in a safe manner, without presenting a hazard to any shooter. You must take into consideration ricochets, ground hazards, visibility, local shooters abilities and any other item that may constitute a problems such as, 180's, shoot throughs etc. NOTE: The stage layout must be 6 round neutral. The Match Director of each event is responsible for this.

You can't please all of the revolver shooters, and I think this is understood by even them, but you can reach a reasonable compromise on making the stages 6 round neutral without harming the rest of the competition.

[xcount]

I'm with you, Bill, but if we're gonna do group hugs, I don't know..........

[Bill]

xcount,

Group hugs of 6 only. No group hugs of 8.

Bill Nesbitt

[Ted Murphy]

FWIW, we've been hashing out what exactly "six round neutral" means as it pertains to IDPA.  There are quite a few opinions on the issue.

Thinking over USPSA with a revolver I think that as long as a wheelgun shooter doesn't miss a disappearing target cause he was reloading as it went by -you're being fair to the wheelguns.  Wheelguns compete only against other wheelguns.  The problem of wanting a more pure revolver neutral stage ususally pops about when some wheelgun shooter wants to be able to keep ups scorewise with the bottomfeeder shooters.

I don't get to shoot ICORE as the only match in the area conflicts with the one I run but I do recall they permit all sorts of mods,calibers and capacities that USPSA does not.  Those things also may well contriute to the difference in attendence between the ICORE nats and Revolver participation in the USPSA nats.  Those ICORE boys can trick out their wheelgun with nearly as much imagination as the USPSA Open boys do.  I"m sure that has more than a little appeal.

Ted

[Ted Murphy]

Speaking of revolvers,

ARe there many folks who shoot an open revolver.  Looked at this compensated 8 shot .38 stupid wheelgun yesterday and for the briefiest of moments, imagined throwing an optic on it and going over to the dark side.

Ted

[Gary Stevens]

Well guys I tell you what.  I am going to "strongly encourage" everyone that I deal with in Area 5 to consider/adapt revolver neutral courses.  Realising that some matches are well underway in their planning, I might not be totally successful.  I don't believe in micro-managing, but eventually shooters vote with their money and their feet, so MD's should be mindful of that.  I remember a time when 6 shots was the norm, and we still didn't have but a small handful of revolver shooters come to play, usually less than 5 or 6 at a national event.  Where those 145 ICORE shooters were then, I don't know.  I am a person who is willing to experiment to see if something will work.  We'll see.

[noname]

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)

[Bill]

I know that all the divisions are only competing against others in the same division. However, I also like to see how I did against everybody. I only shoot USPSA at one club right now. I mostly shoot IDPA because that is what is available locally. It seems to me that, when shooting a revolver, it is a little easier to keep up with everybody in IDPA than it is in IPSC. It all comes down to stage design. At the USPSA club where I shoot, one match was revolver neutral and I did pretty good in overall standings. Another match was 8 round neutral and I shot to my ability but the time put me much lower in overall standings. I guess the question is: What are we shooting for? Is it High Revolver? Or is it how good did we do against everybody? We can't make everybody happy all of the time. Somebody is always going to be in first place and the rest will have to practice. Or buy a new gun.

Bill Nesbitt