Singlestack Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 I just don't get the box thing! Where did that come from? Why is it good? Do we need to use scales too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 Kath, OK, I'll submit your suggestion to the GA but only if I can tell them your home number and address. There'll be a lot of people wanting to find you ...... The box was originally conceived to measure the concealability of a gun and the measurements are based on a 1911 with iron sights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 both of the revolver shooters are going to be pissed, too. vince, i like the idea of having only one rule book. lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 I don't think much of the box. I don't like anything that stiffles innovation. The box certain seems to bring about some "innovative" ideas. The "box" is an artificial goal, however. It is innovation to a rule, not innovation toward practical means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 People complain we've abandoned our origins due to the Classic Target, but IPSC still maintains the Metric Target and we've honoured our origins for years with the Standard Division box and we maintain the "behind the hip" rule. We're as pure as it gets. The box only limits innovation in Standard Division to items which allow the gun to remain concealable, another part of our origins. Open Division removes all limits except mag length. The guys shooting Modified still use the box and they have scopes, ports and compensators fitted to their guns to boot. What's been stiffled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 I think a proposal like this would have a lot of merit. Primarily the one to finally get rid of the odd differences between the same (Limited and Standard). Before you guys zero in with your hatred on the *behind the hip* rule, everyone who ever has had to comply with IPSC holster position knows that all it involves is sliding your holster backwards a bit and (!!!!) moving all your mag pouches behind "the bone". I consider the mag pouch repositioning a much bigger issue than the holster repositioning. The box rule would affect all those shooting 6 inchers in Limited. Vince, how would you hope to get buy-in on this from "the world" (where everyone in Standard will have to spend 150+ US$ to upgrade their mags), and from USPSA (where the 6" shooter, though few in number, will raise major stink, accompanied by the people who, mistakenly, think they need new holsters and position them like in a carry situation? And please, can we unify PF at the same time???? It would be so nice but it seems so hopeless... --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 Detlef, The PF is a non-issue. It's only 5 point difference and it'd be easier to go down than up, as lower helps the competitors. That's 5 less points to worry about at chrono, thank you! I've run this idea past many regions and so far none have told me I'm crazy. Well, at least not on this issue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 I think all of us who feel strongly about this issue should send a note to their RD. This may raise the awareness to the point that is necessary for triggering an action. Remember, however, that your proposal (minus the L10 part) was already under consideration when the 14th ed. originally came out. In fact, it "was" in the 14th ed that went before the GA in Quincy, wasn't it? I wasn't there, but it may be useful to address the issues that caused it to fall back then... --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmshtr Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 I actually agree with Vince on the behind the "pelvic girdle" for Limited. Why would you want your gun forward of it, anyway....Limited, Limited 10, Open, or otherwise? Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but it's not faster having the gun in some precarious forward position. Look at some of the fastest "first-shot" shooters and their holster positions.....Eric Graufell, Todd Jarrett, Travis Tomasie, JJ Racaza, Rob Leatham, Max Michel, Jr....the list goes on and on. Trust me, put your holster on the side and have the gun at the same angle as your forearm when it's relaxed. Then practice this way. In the end, your draw will be faster and, more importantly, more consistant. As far as the Divisions go. Leave Open and Limited alone, make Limited 10 into Single Stack (sorry CA), and only change Production to NO internal modifications other than polishing the feed ramp (sorry 1.5lb LDA shooters). AHHHH....that feels much better. Bombard away! Phil Strader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Vince, We're as pure as it gets. Since when is purity a goal? What's been stiffled? You didn't read my post very carefully, did you? (for shame) What I was saying was that the goal of the innovation (as it stands) is to "fit the box". This is what I had in mind: http://sviguns.com/swpn/swpn.html If purity is the goal...THAT gun, and "the box", are anti-pure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Thats exactly what I don't get about the box. Like, thats a carry gun? I think it must be to heavy. We must have a weight limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 (here it comes Phil.) I would like to see Limited 10 as a Glock Only Division. - $400 gun that works. - $35 for a couple of extra mags - Major pf recognized (keep the .400 caliber rule) Actually, I'd like the mags limited to eight rounds. That will promote accuracy. Make the shots...or make a standing relaod. (A true 8 round limit...none in the pipe to start off.) Limited 8...it works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Vince, what a great idea. A world wide L10 or S10 division. What can I do to promote it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 Hi Spook, Thanks for your enthusiasm but there's nothing to promote yet. It's just my proposal which needs to be considered by IPSC & USPSA. As usual, I just thought I would throw out a "feeler" to BE Forum members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Vince: Here we go...Yes on the IPSC box w/o the mag needing to be in the gun. No on the holster position. Limited/Standard is a race gun division...like it or not. No one carries a heavy dust cover STI/SV. We now have a true carry gun division in Production....lets finally admit the long known fact that a Standard/Limited gun is a highly advanced race gun sans scope and comp. The rest of the World need not buy new mags, maybe just change the base pads for additional capacity? Besides a L10 type division for the other Regions may just be around the corner....Australia is about to get "worked over" just like the U.S. and Canada did as far as mag capacity are concerned although I'm certain you are already aware of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 If the Box is in play, what do we do with the [perfectly legal in Lim-10 at the moment] 6" long-slide autos? Yeah, I know it is a small fraction of our population, but... I [in general] hate to write rules that makes perfectly legal equipment investments obsolete... Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 If you want to consolidate the rulebooks then go with the rules that are the least restrictive of the bunch. If IPSC allows 126 mm mags and USPSA allows 140's go with the 140's. Lose the box as it is BS. This is a sport or game not real tactical training. Sorry but anyone that thinks this is a martial art should go play paintball, they shoot back there! I doubt if USPSA and IPSC will ever have one rulebook too many differences to overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dunlop Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 The 6" gun is the travesty! It should go and go soon before its a major hurdle. Its not like they can't be shortened to comply. Getting rid of the box would be like getting rid of the pole in the pole vault, sure there are easier ways to clear the bar, and heaps higher at that, but its the pole that defines the game! P.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Phil, are you saying the box "defines the game!" I would hardly think so. No box here in the US, don't see how we are missing out on much. Please enlighten me if I am missing something. I would have to say there is nothing Standard about my Limited gun, kind of like there is nothing stock about a stock "NASCAR" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 17, 2003 Author Share Posted January 17, 2003 We have a number of limitations in our sport, and the box is merely one of them. It's just an easy way to conduct 3 measurements simultaneously. It's a go/no-go gauge and the US uses one for Production Division! Currently you need to test with a mag inserted, but I propose we do the test with no mag inserted so that 99% (?) of guns comply. If we abandon the box, fine, but then shouldn't we also abandon other criteria like the 140mm/170mm mag limits too? Do they "define the game"? What's inherently wrong with a 150mm double-stack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 I think Bruce has a point. I thought the box rule now has the purpose to 'limit' capacity. You can throw in a 140mm rule to limit capacity somewhat, but that's not neccesary if you limit the number of rounds in advance. Short: Why put any dimensional limits on a gun that can only hold ten rounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 17, 2003 Author Share Posted January 17, 2003 Spook, Asked and answered. See my reply to Kath on 15 January where I explained: "The box was originally conceived to measure the concealability of a gun and the measurements are based on a 1911 with iron sights". Also see my opening post where I suggested continued use of the box for Standard (Limited), but not for L10. The 140mm rule would apply to both Standard and L10, but L10 would also have a fixed round count, as it does now. (Edited by Vince Pinto at 3:01 am on Jan. 17, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 17, 2003 Author Share Posted January 17, 2003 Let me try a different presentation: Standard (Limited): 1) Check compliance with box but without magazine inserted. 2) Box therefore limits the size of the gun only (original concealabilty) 3) No round count limit, but 140/170mm would apply. 4) Equipment position behind the hipbone (original concealability). Limited 10 (no change): 1) No box. 2) Any size or length gun complies. 3) 10 round limit (so, yes, we could actually drop the 140/170mm limit) 4) Holster position freestyle. Is this clearer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbear38S Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Limted (Standard) NO box. NO restrictions on holster and mag pouch positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 I'm with kbear38S all the way. I would protest loudly if they try to use the box or move the holster/mag pouch position. I think most USPSA shooters would. I also don't think most USPSA shooters give a rats patootie about IPSC rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now