Revolvers in IPSC Issues

[xcount]

Ted,

"Six round neutral" shouldn't be an issue in IDPA. By my rulebook, courses of fire are mandated to have no more than 6 rounds required from one shooting position.

In IPSC, the issue becomes one of standing reloads. On some stages (particularly those speed shoots with more than 6 shots required before the mandatory reload) it is possible for the revolver shooter to spend more of his total elapsed time reloading than actually shooting. This changes the nature of the sport for that shooter - placing more emphasis on reloading skills than on shooting skills. Kinda takes some of the fun out of it.

I don't know anyone who joined the United States Practical RELOADING Association.

And, again, if IPSC & USPSA didn't think forcing people to do standing reloads was a bad thing, they wouldn't have put in place rules which prevent that from being foisted upon L-10 and Production shooters.

Gary,

I don't live in Area 5 but I will thank you anyway. (That's not intended as a "hug".)

noname,

The answer to your question is in my 2nd post on this topic. I asked two of the 3 writers of those particular rules that exact question. What I posted is what one of them told me. The other told me the IPSC number of 9 was based on the 1911 loaded to 8+1. That was the "yardstick", as he called it.

Also, you are right in your assessment that the numbers of revolver shooters will never be comparable to other divisions. My greatest fear is that those with an open enough mind to try this might become quickly discouraged when there is not a huge influx of new revolver shooters overnight.

[jmaass]

Mark me as one firmly opposed to a mandated "6-round neutral" requirement for USPSA/IPSC at any level.

At the local level, we have limited numbers of bays and a limited amount of space in each bay. Mandating 6-round neutral designs will reduce the number of rounds in each statge and so in our matches. If you want to see USPSA/IPSC voters "vote with their feet", try charging them $15 or $16 for a 40-50 round match!

For those who claim that their motivation is wanting to see how they match up against those in other Divisions, no problem: just enter in Open, and see how you do.

Or, lobby your USPSA Area Director to return adherence to the eight "Principles of Practical Shooting", especially  Principle 3: "Firearm types are not separated, all compete together without handicap".

Of course, you won't find the 8 Principles in the front of your rulebook anymore:  you'll have to go to the IPSC Constitution to find any mention of them. The current USPSA rulebook (red, page 9) states "The Principles of the Sport" are "safe gun handling" and "DVC".

New Millennium shorthand, I guess!

[Vince Pinto]

In respect of IPSC's "maximum of 9 rounds required from a single position" is concerned, this was done for two reasons:

1) To require course designers to include movement, one of the cornerstones

of IPSC shooting;

2) To give single-stack shooters an opportunity to reload between positions.

IPSC published the 9 round limit first, and USPSA later reduced this to 8 rounds.

[noname]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 1:07 pm on Jan. 26, 2003

In respect of IPSC's "maximum of 9 rounds required from a single position" is concerned, this was done for two reasons:

1) To require course designers to include movement, one of the cornerstones

of IPSC shooting;

2) To give single-stack shooters an opportunity to reload between positions.

IPSC published the 9 round limit first, and USPSA later reduced this to 8 rounds.

---

1) Forced static reloads by revolver shooters discourages movement.

2) As I mentioned earlier...the rule was probably made to eliminate static reloads, except for the revolver shooters.

For those who are concerned that 6 round neutral stages will reduce your overall match round count, do you avoid using 9, 12, 16, or 18 round stages? Those "small" stages could pose a problem if your only goal is round count, rather than testing a particular shooting skill.

[Ted Murphy]

---

"Six round neutral" shouldn't be an issue in IDPA. By my rulebook, courses of fire are mandated to have no more than 6 rounds required from one shooting position.

---

What rulebook are you using?

By  my rulebook the rules say "Every effort will be made to keep all courses six (6) shot revolver neutral." And nothing else.  That part about six shots from one position is never said in the rulebook.  Many people have made opinions on what revolver neutral is but official policy is a bit grey on the subject.

Ted

Ted

[Vince Pinto]

The statistics for World Shoot XIII were:

Open: 338 competitors (43%)

Standard: 306 competitors (40%)

Modified: 55 competitors (7%)

Production: 56 competitors (7%)

Revolver: 25 competitors (3%)

Total: 780 competitors (100%)

Trivia: During WSXIII, IPSC had 65 member regions.

Modified Division has been in existence for over 10 years and those guns are

not disadvantaged in any way by the 9 round rule.

Production Division was introduced in 1999 (with Revolver) and those guns are

not disadvantaged in any way by the 9 round rule.

If the 9 round rule has a significant bearing on the lack of popularity of revolvers, how does anyone explain the better (but still poor) turnout in Production, where the guns are the most common (and cheapest) in the world?

My conclusion: It's the guns, folks, not the courses of fire. People just prefer to use single-action pistols for IPSC.

Rather than criticising IPSC for failing to completlely address the aspirations of revolver shooters, I think we deserve a bit of recognition for creating a specific division, when the worldwide trend is to abandon revolvers in favour of pistols.

[Vince Pinto]

One more thing.

From the ICORE website: "Founded in 1991, we currently have several hundred active members worldwide".

Several hundred? Worldwide? After +10 years?

And there are only 3 clubs outside of the USA, all of them in Australia.

The defence rests ...........

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 4:27 pm on Jan. 26, 2003)

[Ron Ankeny]

Revolver shooting has always been my first love because that is what I do the best. When I came into IPSC I thought about trying the revolver, but it was obvious that IPSC shooting just doesn't lend itself to the wheel gun platform, so I made the leap into the world of semi-automatic pistols. I  understand revolver shooter's concerns as well as anyone. Still, I just can't see the entire IPSC community regearing their thinking to accomodate the minority of shooters. It just isn't realistic.

[xcount]

Just to keep things going........

Jeff - I am with you completely on not forcing clubs, which do not have the physical layout for it, to increase the number of shooting positions on a stage. Clubs that are able and wish to do so, however, should be able to do so voluntarily. Even without guidance & approval from Sedro Woolley.

Ted - I just rechecked my rule book and you are right. I guess I confused a mandate with my personal belief that, given an instruction to "make every effort" to keep stages 6 shot neutral, it would happen. I just don't understand how anyone could fail to comply with an instruction that clear and simple. I can't envision a stage where we would absolutely, positively have to have more than 6 shots and no other possibility exists. The old Marine coming out in me, I guess.

Vince - too bad about the poor attendance in the "other" three divisions at WSXIII. Perhaps with better marketing you could pull those numbers up a bit. (I kid the Vince.)

I am more interested in the ICORE numbers. You see a glass half empty - there are only a few hundred members world wide. I see a glass half full - wow, only a few hundred members and 145 of them attended their national championship!!! Jeez, with percentages like that our nationals would have thousands of competitors. What have they got going for them that we don't? (Don't try to spin numbers with me, mister. )

Ron - I understand where you are coming from. You came to IPSC from PPC, didn't you? I came from Action Pistol. I did try it with a revolver for my first year, and yes, this style generally doesn't lend itself to a revolver. But when you can reload as you're moving, hit a position & shoot some more, when it all works like a Swiss watch - man, that's sweet. But that only works on some stages. I just thought if there were more of those stages, voluntarily of course, more shooters could enjoy that sweetness.

[noname]

I would like to make it clear that I'm not advocating my 6 shot neutral position because I think it will attract new revolver shooters. I think Revolver Division will always have a poor turnout. My position is based soley on fairness and being treated with the same considerations as the other divisions.

IPSC/USPSA knew very well that revolver shooters didn't show up in great numbers at the matches, yet it decided to elevate the revolver from a category to a stand alone division. Why do that if you are not going to fully support the division in the rule book?

The revolver could have been kept as a catagory with the top 3 being recognized in both Open and Limited Divisions if it wasn't deserving of a full partnership because of its low attendance.

[Vince Pinto]

Dave,

In my position, I must look at things from an international perspective and I must also be a realist.

After over 10 years of operation, the organisation which is dedicated 100% to revolver shooters (ICORE), using IPSC courses of fire which are 100% revolver friendly, has only managed to expand to 9 States in the US and only one other country outside the US.

If ICORE, with such a narrowly focused target audience, and with a program tailor-made to suit, cannot achieve a decent level of growth after +10 years, what could IPSC possibly do differently, when we're trying to address the needs of our largest customer base, namely people with single-action pistols?

With IPSC, I receive enquiries every week from new regions wanting to affiliate.

If there was a similar demand for revolver, then ICORE would be in the same position. I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with ICORE, it's just that it seems clear that most people who want to shoot competitively prefer to use a pistol.

But even with Production, where the numbers are far, far superior to revolver, we haven't seen the growth we expected.

Anyway, I don't have anything new to add to this discussion, so I'll bow out gracefully.

I really hope more clubs and areas in the US will consider your request, and that you acheive the results you seek, and I wish you the best of luck.

However I can't take this matter further internationally, when the numbers are so weak.

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 7:57 pm on Jan. 26, 2003)

[Vince Pinto]

Revolver was never a category.

We created the division to "test the waters", on the understanding that despite the course design 9 round rule, revolvers would be competing against revolvers, not against single-action pistols.

[noname]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 7:36 pm on Jan. 26, 2003

Revolver was never a category.

We created the division to "test the waters", on the understanding that despite the course design 9 round rule, revolvers would be competing against revolvers, not against single-action pistols.

---

It may have been an unofficial category, but a Top Revolver award was being handed out at every USPSA match that I shot prior to the formation of the Revolver Division.

(Edited by noname at 8:35 pm on Jan. 26, 2003)

[Vince Pinto]

I have no reason to doubt you but categories separate competitors by age or sex (and, in some cases, by vocation).

Divisions separate equipment.

If revolver was recognised, I guess it was an unofficial "sub-division" because the USPSA 7th Edition specfically refers to revolvers under Limited.

However the down side is that revolver scores were directly related to Limited (or IPSC Standard) scores, and that's an easy way to skew them.

At least with Revolver Division, the top dog would always be a revolver.

I also remind you guys that the correct name is Revolver Standard Division. This was done so, in the event it proved popular, we could later introduce a Revolver Open division.

Highly unlikely now.

[noname]

Back then we even had the nerve to break protocol and give awards to categories like Top Foreigner, Top Law Enforcement, and Top Military.

Top Revolver was not a sub-division, but was extracted from the match overalls, which tended to give a significant advantage to the revolver competitor in Open Division (gun with a scope and comp).

(Edited by noname at 1:10 am on Jan. 27, 2003)

[spook]

Vince, I think you're right when you say it's the guns. People tend to watch times. They like being fast. You can't be(/look ) fast with a revolver if you don't practice your like mad.

BUT, I also think there's something else involved. Most people I know that are really competitive have been competing since there was just open and standard (and modified, but I'll get to that later). The newbies tend to listen to the experienced shooters (at least in my region/area, which is the Netherlands). They tell them to get this and that and mostly advise them to get a Standard or Open gun. I think this is also the reason there are so many more Tanfoglios in Europe. It's a little paradoxal, but there are so many Tanfoglios, because a lot of people shoot them, and tell other people to buy one. Same reason why there are so many Open and Standard competitors. Nobody here says:"Go try production first" They all say: "Wanna shoot my gun?" And two days later you see the new guy bought the same gun".

Plus, if there's no competition, people go to other divisions. This (I think) is the reason there are so few modified shooters. It's a division that's just as expensive as Open, but with no competition. Over here, we have ONE Modified competitor (and about 90 or so open shooters.

With production, the reason for few competitors is the unfamiliarity with the rules. Plus a lot of people doubt which gun to get and wait until a "winning gun" is determined (I know, I know, it's the shooter not the gun. But lots of people think it's all in the gun).

So long story short: New shooters are not FAMILIAR with the idea that you can win DIVISIONS. They just think:"I'll be slow with a revolver/production gun. That racegun was so much cooler/faster. Gotta get me one of those". Just my 2 cents on that thread drift.

Now on revolver division I can be shorter . I think it's the only division with PERFECT rules. No .40 for major crap. A capacity limit (sort of) and no dimension limits (except weight). It's the coolest. If I were king of IPSC, those would be the rules for standard too. (And I'd probably make a lot of friends too, with the capacity limit)

[Patrick Sweeney]

Dear Vince,

Looking at match entries is not statistically valid.  The numbers are skewed for several reasons:

The entries are capped.  Would there have been 1780 entries if allowed?  I don't know, but more than the 780.  Therefore, the sample was not evenly distributed.  The most experienced or dedicated arrived.

The bigger the match, the more likely you are to see experienced shooters.  Experienced shooters are more likely to have invested in equipment years ago.

The earlier investment means they pre-date Production and Revolver.

At our club, Open is the smallest category, save for Revolver.  We typically have more Lim10 and Production shooters than Open or Limited.  but, the club shooters have not worked their way up to going to Area, Nationals or WS.

The next FGN will have more Revolver shooters if the USPSA tells us that there will be a Revolver Team to WSXIV.  Nothing lke recognition to bring the competitors out of the woods.

I too am puzzled by the flat growth of ICORE.  I attribute it not to a lack of interest, but that many clubs are under-staffed for match work, and adding another program is just too much.  So ICORE depends on each club having a sufficient number of wheelgunners to exceed the threshold for staff.  Since most are hard-pressed to keep IOSC RO's in the schedule, ICORE suffers.  It has at our club, where we've had ICORE matches for the past few years, with good turnouts but over-worked staff.

[xcount]

Let me approach this from a slightly different direction.

If we took the rules limiting the number of rounds that can be required from one shooting position out of the book, what would happen? My guess is we would have nearly zero participation in L-10 and Production divisions and what few shooters there were would be bitching their heads off.

Why? Because some course designer would say, "You want high round count? I'll give you high round count. Here's a stage for you. From position A engage these 12 targets with 24 rounds - move to position B - then engage those 12 targets with 24 rounds. There you are - a 48 round stage."

How long would the guys with a 10 round magazine capacity limit put up with that? Wouldn't this DISCOURAGE participation in those divisions? But why should it if "it's the same for everybody"?

We all know the answer. It's because nobody wants to have to do standing reloads. Everyone wants to combine two actions and reload on the move.

People don't enjoy standing reloads and you need look no farther than the words on this forum from one of the writers of those very rules for confirmation that this was taken into consideration -

"In respect of IPSC's "maximum of 9 rounds required from a single position" is concerned, this was done for two reasons:

1) To require course designers to include movement, one of the cornerstones of IPSC shooting;

2) To give single-stack shooters an opportunity to reload between positions." (Vince Pinto post 1/26/03)

And yet, it's OK to foist this upon Revolver division shooters. Why? Simply because they are the minority?

All I have ever asked is for USPSA to say something like this to the venues hosting matches - "You guys don't have to do this but if you do you might attract more people to your matches, might have more 2nd entries in your matches, might pick up a few new club members, might garner a few new members for USPSA. But it's up to you. This is strictly voluntary."

Why is there so much resistance to this?

(Edited by xcount at 12:23 pm on Jan. 27, 2003)

[noname]

xcount,

I'm sympathetic to your situation, but I think it is clear that you won't get any relief from IPSC. With USPSA heavily promoting the new divisions and the concept of a FGN, maybe you will get some help from them. I would like to believe that USPSA had a vision of the FGN being more than a match of downloaded Limited raceguns, but that seems to be the preference that the customers have, and management is going to pay attention to the anemic number of competitors in Production and Revolver.

[Alan550]

As far as participation is concerned ( ICORE vs USPSA)  they could add another classification of Open Revolver and remedy about half of the complaint.  ICORE has such a class, and that may explain the discrepancy in participation numbers.

[benos]

I like the idea of a 6 rd limit because not only would it put 6 and 8 rd revolver shooters on the same playing field, (eliminating one more arms race), but more importantly (to me), I think it would return the sport closer to its roots. Meaning - shooting skill is more important than gun capacity.

Basically, over the years, as gun capacity increased course designers just started sprinkling more targets around the stages/positions. I hate that.

be

[spook]

AMEN

[Chuck D]

6 round limits would only put the emphasis back on shooting skills if we had course design that would allow this to happen. Going back to the very first post by xcount....are revolver shooters spending the vast majority of their time shooting....or performing standing reloads?

[Flexmoney]

I hate standing reloads.  I don't like the arguement of, "it's the same for everybody (in this case, in the division)"...

But, if you choose to shoot a wheel gun, aren't you also choosing everything that goes with that?  Shouldn't a shooter embrace the differences of the wheel gun?  Love it's challenge?  

[Duane Thomas]

"I would like to believe that USPSA had a vision of the FGN being more than a match of downloaded Limited raceguns, but that seems to be the preference that the customers have, and management is going to pay attention to the anemic number of competitors in Production and Revolver."

I don't think 72 Production shooters at the first-ever Factory Gun Nationals was "anemic." Less than Lim-10, sure, but still pretty darn good. And yeah, okay, 19 Revolver shooters - but that's more wheelgunners than have been at a Nationals in.....since when? Ever?