NEW USPSA multi-gun rules

[bgary]

News flash -

The USPSA Board has recently approved a new set of rules specifically to allow Multi-gun competition.

I expect that they will be up on the USPSA website within the next day or so. They will also be up on the Area-1 website as soon as I get them to the webmistress.

They largely consist of modifications and extensions to the existing rules, to make multi-gun stages legal for the first time in USPSA. They also include some course design guidelines and scoring guidelines, in order to ensure that USPSA multi-gun stages are consistent with the heritage and principles of USPSA competition (accuracy-power-speed, and safe, fair, fun competition).

Many of the inputs and ideas came from these forums, in the thread I started a month or so ago. To all those who contributed their thoughts, I thank you and USPSA thanks you. You have made a difference... and, hopefully, we have demonstrated that we were listening.

I am on my way home from Europe right now, and won't see email for about 36 hours, but if the rules are not up on the website by, say, 8pm Pacific time on Thursday, drop me an email and I will do what I can to get a copy out.

We have adopted these as a "provisional amendment" to the official rules, which means they can be used in a match, but they may also be changed as the need comes up. What that means, especially, is that over the next year we are going to be very interested in getting your feedback about what works and what doesn't, so... let us know.

And... because I know someone will ask, I don't know if these rules will be used at the 2004 3-gun Nationals - that is the President's decision. I do know that the Board moved "heaven and earth" to get these written and approved in time to give him that option, should he decide to use them.

Bruce

[uscbigdawg]

Bruce,

Thanks to you and the BOD on the effort. I know that many folks are interested to see the resolutions/compromises that were made.

Great job!

Rich

[kimel]

And here they are (from the Area1 web page). Thanks to Bruce and Peg for posting these so quickly and a huge thanks to the BoD for busting your buns to get these done!

[Gary Stevens]

Ditto's on the moving heaven and earth part. These rule modifications have been the most frustrating thing I ever stumbled into.

Let me say one thing though, the BOD worked hard on these and the other rules, but no one and I mean no one worked any harder than Bruce. He has the ability to work the words and also forsee the unintended consequences better than most people I know. Certainly better than this humble BOD member.

Bruce, take an "AttaBoy", you earned it.

[BDH]

Bruce (and BOD and everyone else that contributed), thx for the effort. I'll pull 'em and start getting used to them so I am ready for Reno....

[mactiger]

I'll add my kudos to Bruce and the entire board for getting these knocked out. Great job, guys!

I'd also like to encourage all you avid 3 gunners out there to make comments and suggestions--these rules are provisional, so they can be adjusted and changed to meet the need of the customer-YOU.

Again, wonderful job.

Troy

[Barrettone]

Hey Guys,

One question comes to mind...We talked about it previously, but the new MG rules don't seem to address it. If a competitor can be required to carry two guns, but not have to use them simultaneously...What if the competitor starts a COF by shooting his rifle, then transfers to the handgun and slings his rifle for later use in the COF (or simply has a start position of handgun in holster, and rifle loaded and slung, safety on) and is proceeding through the COF. His muzzle on the rifle is liable to break 180, and a possible DQ. They don't address slung rifles, conditions, etc...Did I miss something???? To me, it seems that this could pose a problem!!! Please advise fellow jedis.

Jeff

(new call sign Obi One)

[outerlimits]

now all we need is the stage descriptions to determine where all the questions will come from. gonna be interesting, but i can't wait for reno...

[Nate]

Thanks BOD. This hard work is improtant to the game. I know it is here somewhere, but where in the rules is the new tactical division addressed?

[Barrettone]

The rules posted on Area 1's webpage are only meant to address multi gun. The new long gun rules document, including tactical, is a much more extensive document, and should be made available soon. There are some USPSA policy issues that are holding its release. We'll get them soon enough.

Jeff

[mactiger]

Hey Guys,

One question comes to mind...We talked about it previously, but the new MG rules don't seem to address it. If a competitor can be required to carry two guns, but not have to use them simultaneously...What if the competitor starts a COF by shooting his rifle, then transfers to the handgun and slings his rifle for later use in the COF (or simply has a start position of handgun in holster, and rifle loaded and slung, safety on) and is proceeding through the COF. His muzzle on the rifle is liable to break 180, and a possible DQ. They don't address slung rifles, conditions, etc...Did I miss something???? To me, it seems that this could pose a problem!!! Please advise fellow jedis.

Jeff

(new call sign Obi One)

I'd think that at present, the 3 Gun Nationals stages won't be requiring you to carry your rifle slung in any fashion. This is an area that the new rules don't cover (nice catch) , and I'm sure it will be addressed during the one-year provisional period. But, in other (USPSA) matches that require carrying a slung rifle, this will certainly be an area of concern.

Be sure to email Bruce Gary and let him know, in case he hasn't kept up with this due to travel.

Troy

[uscbigdawg]

Bruce,

If we have suggestions, do you want us to contact MV or our Area Director?

The supplemental rules look good, but want to check some of the other cross references. I do have a small suggestion on MG 8.3.6. I understand the intent of the rule. However, for the sake of stage maintenance, and expediting shooter times, how about allowing another RO on the stage with the competitor's "buddy" to clear 'abandoned' firearms? This would facilitate resetting of the stage expeditiously.

Just a thought.

Again, great job.

Rich

[kimel]

I can see how having others clear out "abandoned firearms" would speed things up but I would have concerns about either sweeping the folks down range (shooter, RO and CRO) or breaking the 90/180 clearing into a berm. So, my buddy breaks the 90/180 with my shotgun...does my buddy get DQ'd?

If I lay my rifle/shotgun down and the muzzle is aimed more-or-less downrange I have faith that just laying there it isn't going to discharge. But when someone goes and picks it up and starts dinking with it to clear it out...welllll....then I start to worry.

And, being typically paranoid about the loaded status of a firearm I would still want to clear them myself...presumably over in the safety area.

However, I have heard that some matches do this sort of thing so how do they handle it?

[Vince Pinto]

HI guys,

Another issue to consider (which has not yet been addressed), is Rule 9.6.2 which allows an RO to authorise a competitor's delegate to accompany the scorer downrange, so that targets can be verified while the competitor is still shooting.

In view of the fact there will likely be "abandoned guns" in play, the possibility of a scorer or a competitor's delegate passing in front of a loaded gun during the process must be considered.

While it's probably not critical to deem that Rule 9.6.2 is "Not Applicable" for MG matches (given that the RO must specifically authorise the activity, and that "pre-scoring" is usually limited only to long COFs), I think it would be worthwhile to at least highlight the issue in the provisional rules as an "aide-memoire" for Range Officers.

Postscript: A small issue of semantics. The term "abandoned" seems inappropriate. Perhaps "grounded" or another similar word would be better.

[mactiger]

Postscript: A small issue of semantics. The term "abandoned" seems inappropriate. Perhaps "grounded" or another similar word would be better.

I voted for "cast away" or "flung to the ground", but it didn't fly.

[mactiger]

On a serious note, I'm glad to see that the process of examining and discussing the rules has begun. Just make sure that your Area Director is hearing you...

Troy

[George]

Nice job Bruce, I know others noodled it out too, but you definitely deserve a big thanks.

IMHO, L, T & O as the only divisions recognized simplifies life quite a bit. Nice going. This allows EZ-Winscore to be used as is and settles a lot of small issues concerning handguns.

I like the way a conduit for allowing Heavy Metal as a division was left to the discretion of the match organizers, very nice indeed!

Stage Designation is a good workaround for the PF dilemma and once again, my kudo's to a very elegant way around the mountain.

All in all it looks like this dog will hunt now and I hope it gets to do just that in Reno next month, cause that's were I'm going. See ya all there!

--

Regards,

[Neil Beverley]

I've only had a chance for a quick look through so far but I noted that MG 2.1.3 has left out buckshot. The rule talks about "defined as" and so it could be construed that by not including buckshot it isn't permitted.

I agree with Vince that "abandoned" is not the best word to use. It jumped out at me as I looked through the rules.

How about requesting/using/requiring gun pits or bunkers for the "grounded"guns? If small bunkers could be built at appropriate points on a stage using sandbags (or something else suitable) it would significantly increase safety and perhaps even make course design that much easier.

[GENE S]

On that 8.3.6 ruleing, any reason you can't state in the course description

that you must clear each firearm before you put it down and move onto

the next ???

This would make the range much safer. I've seen this done in steel

shooting where several shooters were shooting in a team effert.

After each shooter shot. the gun was cleared and placed on the

table befor her/she moved away alowing the next person to run

up the mark and load his/her gun and start.

Always thing safty first. You can't stop and bring back a bullet

that has left the gun.

Gene

[bgary]

What if the competitor starts a COF by shooting his rifle, then transfers to the handgun and slings his rifle for later use in the COF (or simply has a start position of handgun in holster, and rifle loaded and slung, safety on) and is proceeding through the COF.  His muzzle on the rifle is liable to break 180, and a possible DQ.

I didn't know how to write something that *cleanly* addressed this, so I left it alone. It is no different from right now in a rifle match... there is nothing in the rifle rules right now that addresses slung rifles. In theory, a rifle stage under the current rifle rules could require you to start with a slung rifle, run 30 yards downrange with the rifle slung, then deploy it and start shooting. There is no rule that prevents it, but... I think course designers would be able to see that it is a potentially Bad Idea because of the reasons you cited.

So, rather than invent something that specifically allows it or specifically prohibits it, I left it the same as in the rifle rules... not specifically addressed.

Bruce

[bgary]

I know it is here somewhere, but where in the rules  is the new tactical division addressed?

It is addressed in section D(iii), which says that the competition divisions for a multi-gun match will be whatever divisions are currently defined as USPSA tournament divisions. In the [upcoming] USPSA tournamen rulebook, those are Open, Limited and Tactical.

Bruce

[bgary]

Bruce,

If we have suggestions, do you want us to contact MV or our Area Director?

Both!

;-)

Bruce

[bgary]

I do have a small suggestion on MG 8.3.6.  I understand the intent of the rule.  However, for the sake of stage maintenance, and expediting shooter times, how about allowing another RO on the stage with the competitor's "buddy" to clear 'abandoned' firearms?  This would facilitate resetting of the stage expeditiously.

8.3.6 is about the procedure for clearing the stage. The goal is to make it clear that during the COF, the *shooter* is responsible for the handling and condition of any and all guns used on the stage.

This is probably the topic that we spent the most amount of time talking about. We are all aware the allowing someone else to clear guns would facilitate faster stage clearance, but, it just seemed to open too many cans of worms. For example:

• lets say your buddy drops your abandoned rifle while you are still "in" the course of fire. Is he DQd? Are you?
  
• What happens if your big rival in the match knocks your abandoned rifle on the ground while you are still "in" the course of fire. Are you DQd?
  
• What if someone who is clearing an abandoned gun launches a round while people are downrange?
  
• etc
  

There are no nice-neat-clean answers to those things, so... at least for the provisional phase, I thought it was better to leave *all* the responsibility resting clearly and unambiguously on the shoulders of the shooter.

Bruce

[bgary]

Another issue to consider (which has not yet been addressed), is Rule 9.6.2 which allows an RO to authorise a competitor's delegate to accompany the scorer downrange, so that targets can be verified while the competitor is still shooting.

In view of the fact there will likely be "abandoned guns" in play, the possibility of a scorer or a competitor's delegate passing in front of a loaded gun during the process must be considered.

It has been considered, in both MG-8.1 (pre-staged firearms) and MG-10.5.3 (abandoned firearms), both of which say that stages must be configured and firearms (either staged or abandoned) must be left in such a way that "no person shall be required or allowed to pass in front of the muzzle" of a staged or abandoned firearm.

The course description must specify the safe direction for any firearm abandoned during a stage. If the firearm is left pointing in an UNsafe direction, it will be considered a violation of 10.5.2 (the 180) or 10.5.5 (sweeping).

As an aside, it was interesting to note during this process that we do not appear to have an existing rule that says it is illegal to point a gun at someone else. If, for example, an RO or other person finds themselves downrange of a competitor, there appears to be no rule that says the shooter cannot point his gun at them, providing he does not break the 180 in doing so... although I suspect a case could be made that it could be considered Unsportsmanlike ;-)

Bruce

[bgary]

Postscript: A small issue of semantics. The term "abandoned" seems inappropriate. Perhaps "grounded" or another similar word would be better.

I thought about that.

In common usage, a "grounded" weapon is one that you have set down, which is perfectly legal under 10.5.3 (and subsections).

I wanted to draw a distinction between that, and a firearm which you have set down and then moved away from, which is not currently legal under 10.5.3

Rather than blur the meaning of grounded, I proposed a new term. And, in point of fact, from a "practical" perspective the shooter *is* "abandoning that firearm in favor of subsequent firearms.

Bruce