Production And L-10 Mag Capacity

[mcoliver]

A high-capacity Production division would turn into a Glock vs. CZ/TZ race. Yawn.

Don't forget the Para 9 lda.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

There's an easy way to deal with the various issues raised in this thread, at least in respect of competition: Observe IPSC rules.

Good course design which limits the number of rounds required from a single position to 9 and the maximum number of rounds required for the longest course of fire to 32 and which requires at least 4 steps between target arrays, serves to eliminate perceived "inequities" with equipment, particularly magazine capacity.

Sure, I realise no matter how you cut it, a 10+1 round guy must reload more often than a 17+1 round guy, but so what? Reloading and shooting on the move are fundamental elements of IPSC shooting and, frankly, if they're a problem for you, what the hell are you doing shooting IPSC in the first place?

I choose to shoot a G21 (13+1 rounds) in IPSC Production Division because I prefer the larger frame, but the reason I can't beat David Sevigny using a G17 (17+1 rounds) has absolutely nothing to do with magazine capacity.

And TriggerT, my hat goes off to you, Sir. You choose to shoot a single-stack in L10 because you prefer the feel of that gun and you don't moan and whine about the next guy having a larger magwell. We need a bit more of this spirit in IPSC.

[Chuck D]

While I'm all for using IPSC rules (the bruises I took from the mere suggestion that ALL regions use the same rulebook STILL have not healed fully) the problem still exists that...

Course design is a SUBJECTIVE entity...rules written in black and white are NOT a subjective entity.

Further clarification...course design, no matter how it's laid out is open to interpretation whereas loading 10 rounds only into a magazine isn't. It's as simple as that.

I would dare to say that course design rules/policies/procedures/guidelines are the second most "broken" rules in the history of the game.

Loading and firing more that 10+1 in L10 and Production is a violation that's MUCH easier to correct than course design will EVER be.

What we have works....

[warpspeed]

I don't think the bill will be allowed to sunset this year, look for some sort of Congressional extension until after the election.

Congress can't "extend" it w/o Dubbya's signature.

[Vince Pinto]

Course design is a SUBJECTIVE entity...rules written in black and white are NOT a subjective entity

IPSC Course Design rules are indeed written in black and white:

1.2.1.1 “Short Courses” must not require more than 9 rounds to complete and no more than 2 shooting locations.

1.2.1.2 "Medium Courses" must not require more than 16 rounds to complete and no more than 3 shooting locations. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.

1.2.1.3 "Long Courses" must not require more than 32 rounds to complete. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.

What part of "Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view" above is open to interpretation?

However if there are "course designers" out there in IPSC "Neverland" who think that merely requiring a competitor to sway, squat or lean from one port to another port without having to move their feet somehow overcomes the "single location or view" portion of the rules above, let me know right away, and we can spell it out in words understandable by a child repeating nursery school for the 3rd time.

[Flexmoney]

Sure, I realise no matter how you cut it, a 10+1 round guy must reload more often than a 17+1 round guy, but so what? Reloading and shooting on the move are fundamental elements of IPSC shooting and, frankly, if they're a problem for you, what the hell are you doing shooting IPSC in the first place?

All things being equal...the shooter that has to do an extra reload will lose. That is just basic.

[Chuck D]

It seems that once again i'm being "taken to task" for stating the obvious.

Not EVERY course designed around the globe follows "to the letter" the rules and/or intent of either the IPSC or USPSA rulebook and/or guidelines in as far as course design is concerned. This leaves much "latitude" for interpretation ESPECIALLY in creating/setting up courses of fire at the local level. In Level 3 and above matches (IPSC C.O.F. approval necessary) this isn't a problem BUT just how many of the general IPSC Population participate in such tournaments verses the number of members/participants that participate on a club level.

What ALL participants MUST adhere to is the "load 10 rounds maximum" in a magazine in L10 and Production Division here in the United States. We have NO wiggle room here of the type that exists when people create and set-up/run COF's that don't follow the "black and white " rules found in an IPSC or USPSA rulebook.

This concept is SO simple I can't seem to understand why it needs explaining. If for a second Vince or anyone else thinks they can 100% regulate COF design all across the globe...well....... best of luck.

You can take all the "extra steps" you wish before you reload, simple fact of the matter is that the ones whom do so because their choice if equipment hold less ammo than his/her competitor is at a disadvantage. If this were not the case we would not have seen the 45 acp round literally being driven out of Limited Division by the 40 S&W. If it were "so simple" to stay competitive with magazines that hold less rounds of ammo than why haven't we seen a Production Division winner on a Global level using factory 10 round mags? If I'm to believe Vince's statement...as long as we follow the COF guidelines provided by IPSC (guidelines I support by the way) shooters would not NEED 17 round magazines for their Glocks. They could use and WIN at the upper levels of competition with 10 rounders EVEN if the remaining competitors of like skill levels used 17 rounders.

It's time to see things as they are. If the playing field is as level as some think they are THEN we'd see the "big guns" using gear that would support that theory. Truth is that every round you can stuff into the gun matters and THAT theory is proven by observing what the guys whom win bring to a match.

Current Production rules in the U.S. eliminate the advantage gained when a competitor with 17 round capability encounters course design that tips the scale in his/her favor. It also allows firearms of varying capacities to compete EQUALLY so we'll see a variety of different manufacturers instead of Production Division becoming a Glock and Para-LDA haven. Variety is a GOOD thing ESPECIALLY when looking to grow your sponsor base.

[Guest Larry Cazes]

I believe that what we are talking about here is FOCUS. It is a fact that if I can focus on running as fast as possible between shooting positions without having to divide my attention to doing a reload as well, that I can definitely get there ready to engage the next target quite a bit quicker.

[Chuck D]

I beg to differ....

The original topic concerned itself with the need (real or perceived) to re-adjust the magazine capacity limits for L10 and Production Division if the AWB is allowed to sunset.

The topic then took an interesting turn in the direction that if we had "good course design" similar to the IPSC outline then the factor based upon the amount of ammunition a shooter could physically squeeze into their magazine would become a non-issue.

It's a position held by some, discounted by others (I'm in the catagory that doesn't buy into the theory that you can reload on the move just as quick as you can shoot and move without replacing the mag in the process) and I attempted to highlight a few "concrete" examples of how and why the "it doesn't matter" theory is flawed.

I look forward to "re-focusing" back on the original subject posted in the very beginning...should we re-evaluate the situation if the AWB is allowed to sunset.

Count me in the NO category.

[Vince Pinto]

OK, I'm willing to admit that I'm as thick as two planks of wood, so please forgive my ignorance in asking this stupid question: If every round counts, why is Limited the only division in the USA which has a "restricted capacity" counterpart?

In other words why, as Mr. R. Mills often asks (but nobody ever answers), isn't there an Open 10 division and, say, a Revolver Standard 6 division and/or a Revolver Standard 7 division etc.? Surely the argument put forward by David Olhasso that the "restricted capacity" of Production Division allows for far more guns and calibres to be competitive also applies to Open division? Wouldn't an Open 10 Division see a resurgence in populariy of 40s and 45s?

And doesn't anybody shoot (or want to shoot) Open Division in NY, NJ, CA, MA and the other 10 round States, which apparently will not change their laws even if the AWB is allowed to sunset this year?

IPSC has no divisions with a specific round count, so I'm trying to understand the reasoning and rationale behind the narrow focus on Limited. Can someone please educate me, preferably in words of one syllable or less?

[Flexmoney]

OK, I'm willing to admit that I'm as thick as two planks of wood, so please forgive my ignorance in asking this stupid question: If every round counts, why is Limited the only division in the USA which has a "restricted capacity" counterpart?

Can someone please educate me, preferably in words of one syllable or less?

Vinnie, maybe you are "as thick as two planks of wood", but you have been around enough to know one thing...American shooters love that old, worn-out hunk of steel with the hundred year old design...here's your one syllable or less...

1911

[Chuck D]

O.K. I'll give it a shot.

Both L10 and Production Divisions were designed to enable shooters to purchase new equipment from their local gun shops that comply with the laws of their localities.

The divisions were also designed around the theory that the equipment rules should be similar enough to allow IDPA shooters to "cross over" and try at least some USPSA/IPSC matches.

The key element was to attempt to grow the membership and/or attempt to "woo back" some of the members that left because of the real or perceived "arms race" in IPSC shooting.

Glocks, 1911's of various manufacturers (Kimber,Smith,Colt,STI/SV/Para etc..) all ship from the factory with a 10 round magazine.

Not many gun shops stock a 3000 dollar full blown Open gun, IDPA doesn't allow you to use one and the "arms race guys/gals left IPSC because of the costs of owning one.

Keeping in mind the "theory" of why the two divisions were developed in the first place, it would make no sense to "limit" all divisions to 10 round only until AFTER a decision has been made regarding the AWB.

We in the U.S. may have to rethink mag cap limits if the AWB isn't repealed in the near future.

USPSA has done an exceptional job in both creating and supporting both L10 and Production Divisions REGARDLESS of the endless attacks and second guessing thrown out into cyberspace.

Faithfully submitted in more than one word syllables,

Chuck "the termite" DiSalvo