USPSA multi-gun considerations

[ErikW]

This is a thread for considerations you would like to see the USPSA address as it completes the new rulebook.

Mixing IPSC and Classic targets on a stage: allowing this would be helpful for distinguishing between paper targets engaged with particular guns. E.g., my stage could specify Classic for rifle and IPSC for pistol.

Currently, the rifle and shotgun scoring rules allow for double-value steel targets. Don't change this, as it helps the stage designer keep the hit factor up to something reasonable and gives more points for the more time burned up on long-range rifle targets.

As long as we do not have scoring software that handles multi-gun stages, at least explain the workarounds. Basically, designers can allow only one gun the power factor recognition of full paper targets and must limit the other gun(s) to A-only (or double A) targets (steel, frangibles, and paper hardcovered all but A zones).

[rhino]

The nonsense about not having more than one loaded gun in your possession at a time needs to go (unless it already is).

[mactiger]

Erik has hit the major nails right square on the head in this thread. There must be some way to score a multi-gun stage as such.

Double value steel targets was another sticking point in our rules discussion--I believed, and still do, that they are a valuable aid to long gun course designers. It's really tough to have enough steel, pigeons, etc., to make up the point differences in a big match, especially for the shotgun stages. Rifle and pistol are easy to balance, but shotgun is another beast.

Interestingly, the current "classic" target evolved from (I think this is right) IPSC rifle target, which may have seen some limited use. Since we don't have classifiers for rifle or shotgun, allowing their use alongside metric targets for long gun stages would be a good thing. Not only could they serve as a visual marker, their different shape and scoring zone sizes and shapes will present a challenge at distances. I bet they'd make a good slug target at about 40 or 50 yards.

Rhino, I believe the board is working on the multi-gun thing right now. I just wish they'd hurry up.

Troy

[jkmccoy]

USPSA needs substantial work in developing some workable and useful 3-gun rules. In addition to the requirements regarding grounding a weapon (covered in another thread) and the prohibition against posession of more than one loaded weapon (covered by Rhino and Troy). There are some serious problems in scoring multi-gun stages.

A major problem is that every stage must be designated as either a rifle, pistol, or shotgun stage. That means results for that stage are figured into the overall score for one weapon. Doesn't really impact the calculation of the aggregate scores, but it does mean that the final results for pistol (for example) may include a multi-gun stage. The real problem comes in trying to score targets in a multi-gun stage that may have been engaged with different firearms by different shooters and thus may represent hits with different power factors.

As an example - on a rifle/pistol stage there is a paper target that a shooter could engage with either the rifle or the pistol. Because most shooters are using a minor power factor rifle and a major power factor pistol B,C,D hits on this target will receive different scores depending on which weapon was used.

Another example - a paper target on a shotgun/pistol stage might be engaged with either firearm. Shooters using a pistol with minor power factor ammo will get fewer points for B,C,D hits on that target than shooters using their shotgun or a major power factor pistol.

Neither of these is a serious problem for a clever stats guy. Both situations occurred last year at the Texas State 3-Gun match (and will doubtless occur again this year). In the first example we used scorecards that indicated which hits were with the rifle and which were with the pistol and I used the "additional penalty points" function to subtract points for non-A hits with a minor power factor firearm. In the second example I changed hits to increase the points for non-A hits made with the major power factor firearm.

More serious problems arise from the addition of divisions that are not recognized by current scoring programs. We now have a "Tactical" division. That doesn't appear in the current version of EZScore.

My plan for upcoming 3-gun matches (until development of a really functional program for scoring 3-gun matches) is to score rifle, pistol, and shotgun as completely separate matches and to calculate the aggregates for various divisions using an Excel spreadsheet. The advantage of this approach is that it allows equal weighting of each weapon even if the round count is different. I think that this is a more fair means of evening the importance of the various firearms than artificially inflating the point value of some targets.

Cheers,

Kelly McCoy

[ErikW]

On a stage that has paper targets and multiple guns, if the competitor engages a previously engaged target with a different gun, the rule about "if the RO can't score the target, reshoot" should not apply. Say IPSC T1 requires two rifle hits and IPSC T2 requires two pistol hits. Shooter engages T1 with rifle, T2 with pistol, then re-engages T1 with pistol. The (likely) smaller caliber rifle hits could be obliterated by the (likely) larger caliber pistol hits. This is possible with a confused shooter or with an unsportsmanlike shooter making up for a miss or non-engagement with his first gun.

Then there's the opposite case, a target that is not engaged with the specified gun but is engaged with the wrong gun. (E.g., confused shooter forgets it with the rifle but later plugs it with the pistol.) The RO should score misses even if he didn't notice the failure to engage.

The course description's scoring section must specify which targets are to be scored with which gun, or give the shooter the option of which gun to use (excepting shotshells on paper).

No course may require that a paper target be engaged with more than one gun. This helps avoid the multiple caliber scoring issues. (E.g., slugs on top of rifle.)

[jkmccoy]

All stage descriptions should read "engage all targets as they beome visible." (Partly my opinion, partly adherence the the admonition that IPSC/USPSA shooting is freestyle.)

If a shooter fails to comply with the stage description then they may (should) incur penalties. In the examples I was discussing there was no direction in the stage description regarding which weapon should be used. It is possible to score stages where the choice of weapons to engage some targets is up to the shooter.

Cheers,

Kelly McCoy

[jhgtyre]

The course description's scoring section must specify which targets are to be scored with which gun, or give the shooter the option of which gun to use (excepting shotshells on paper).

In the examples I was discussing there was no direction in the stage description regarding which weapon should be used.

I would love to see this happen. Why should the shooter have the weapon dictated? Simple rules that prohibit certain, specific, choices would take care of most situations. No shotshells on paper, no slugs or rifles on steel within 50 yards, etc...

-ld

[ErikW]

A 3 gun match will become a de facto 1 gun match if you allow engagement with any gun. You are a genius if you can design every stage such that most people use 2 or 3 guns when they have a choice. Even doing one stage is a feat.

[Gary Stevens]

Rhino,

I believe the rule is no more than one loaded "handgun", not weapon.

This rule is repeated in the rifle and shotgun rules.

This would allow you to possess one of each if the stage required it.

[bgary]

I think we have already dealt with that one.

The issue was not about having more than one loaded handgun (5.2.7 and 10.3.9 in the red book). The issue about multi-gun stages was 6.1.3, which says that a match "include(s) only one type of firearm (e.g., handgun or shotgun).

We have dispense with that by passing a motion that says (paraphrased), "in a tournament (i.e., a combination of two or more matches), 6.1.3 may be waived to allow multi-gun stages."

So... that part is done. But... what still remains, at least at the moment, is the notion that a "tournament" (e.g, a 3-gun competition) is "two or more component matches". What I see being suggested here is that we consider a 3-gun competition to be a "single match" with a "single division" for all guns. Conceptually, I get that, but it should not be ignored that that approach is (IMHO) a significant structural change to the way matches are currently done... and, parenthetically, would make a USPSA 3-gun match very different than an IPSC 3-gun tournament.

I don't think any of that is a deal-breaker. But, I worry about what other rules we would have to revise, change or write to make that work. And, the clock is running out on getting this done for the 2004 season.

Bruce