NEW USPSA multi-gun rules

[bgary]

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.

Hi, Neil!

Probably a good catch. The distances for both birdshot and buckshot in the shotgun rules are both 5m, but by not mentioning buckshot I have left an ambiguity.

In truth, I should have left out the specific distances and referred only to the firearm-specific rules themselves, as those are the authoritative documents that define the distances. But in that the concept of a minimum distance, violation of which results in a DQ, is new to the rules I wanted to underscore both the differences, and the fact that they differed depending on firearm type.

The fundamental goal, though, is merely to point people *to* the appropriate shotgun rule where the definition is made, so that we don't run into a case where we have conflicts between the rulebooks by having definitions made in each place.

Bruce

[bgary]

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.

We talked about this a lot. Some on the USPSA Board felt that a requirement to have cradles, barrels, other physical devices should be included. And, I agree, making it Really Hard to leave a gun pointed in an unsafe direction would raise the level of safety. But some also raised the issue that making such devices *required* would be prohibitively expensive for small clubs, and/or too constraining on stage design, and might ultimately be ignored anyway. We're trying to avoid writing rules that are so onerous that they get ignored out of the gate.

So, the approach we took was to make a requirement in MG-8.1 and MG-10.5.3 that the stage description must specify safe direction for any staged or abandoned firearms, and say (in MG-10.5.3) that "props, markings or other devices may be used to indicate or control the safe muzzle direction of an abandoned firearm."

So... if a club wants to build bunkers or barrels or whatever and use them, they can, and that is encouraged. If, instead, they want to put a table facing the berm, and indicate that the rifle (or whatever) is to be left between two tape stripes facing the berm, they can.

And, ultimately, it is still the shooter's responsibility to ensure that the firearm gets left facing in the right direction.

Bruce

[bgary]

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. 

The provisions of MG-10.5.3 require that if you move away from an "abandoned" firearm, it MUST be unloaded.

Whether the shooter does this by dropping a mag and racking out the last round, or by shooting the last round into a target, or whatever, is up to him or her.

But it was important to ensure that if the shooter is moving away from a position where he/she is in direct control of the firearm, it must be unloaded before he/she moves away from it.

Note, too, that it is NOT required that the slide be back, the bolt be open, or whatever. It just must be EMPTY, which means no round in the chamber, and no rounds in an inserted magazine, mag-tube or fixed mag. If, when the gun is later cleared, a live round comes out, that will be a DQ under MG-10.5.3

And, in an attempt to take a belt-and-suspenders approach with regard to safety, that is also the reason for requiring that an abandoned gun be left pointing in a direction that will not allow people in front of the muzzle, and requiring that no one but the shooter may handle it, under RO supervision... so that even if a round *is* left in the gun, it will be pointed in a safe direction, and nobody will be touching it until the RO tells the shooter to do so.

Bruce

[Flexmoney]

Nicely done.

[uscbigdawg]

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for the info. Here are some possible answers to your scenarios:

lets say your buddy drops your abandoned rifle while you are still "in" the course of fire. Is he DQd? Are you?

Haven't seen this happen in a 3-gun match, but understand the concern. I would say that since the rifle/shotgun/pistol are all abandoned/ground in a 'safe' manner (i.e. on a table, bench, chair, etc.) that it would be analagous to handling it in a safe area and would be inhibitive to dropping. However, the concern is valid and unfortunately don't have a clear answer.

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?

Unsportsmanlike conduct on your rival, he's DQ'ed, and the stage is scored. The 'clearing' RO should be paying attention to this as the only people that would be uprange of the shooter and on the stage would be the 'clearing' RO and your buddy clearing your gun. The RO should definitely be the first person to the grounded/abandoned firearm. Too, I have yet to see our sport degrade to this level.

What if someone who is clearing an abandoned gun launches a round while people are downrange?

You're DQ'ed for abandoning a loaded firearm. Your buddy and the other RO change their drawers.

Just some thoughts.

Rich

[Jim Norman]

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

I would think that it could be handled under unsafe gunhandling, but there are problems withthat. I am being safe, the guy that is ahead of me for whatever reason and should not be downrange of me is the one that is essentially the unsafe person on the range, DO you DQ the RO for running past the shooter?

Suppose the RO "Thinks" the shooter is going to run an extra four steps because eveyone else did and finds himself ahead of a shooter that saw an opening and stopped dead to take advantage and cut enough time to win. Is the Shooter DQ'd?

Interesting question that can apply across the board, P, R, S and MG

Jim

[Vince Pinto]

Bruce,

Firstly, my compliments on keeping up with all the questions. At least now you know what's it like being a "Rules Guru" - appreciated by most, hated by a few, but everyone has a comment to make, or a question to ask

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 ;-)

This is an issue currently being considered by the Rules Committee as we attempt to issue a Rule 11.8 interpretation of the definition of the word "Sweeping", which is currently defined in the Glossary as "Allowing the muzzle of a firearm to point at any part of any person's body". This effectively serves to expand Rule 10.5.5 to include persons other than the competitor.

However consider a COF where you're required to place your loaded handgun on top of a table. Now imagine that the RO on the timer asks you to stand back and cross your arms while another RO goes downrange to reset a popper which has just blown over. Now let's say that RO walks in front of your loaded gun, which is sitting there on the table, quietly minding it's own business. If you read the current sweeping definition literally, the competitor is (arguably) subject to a Match DQ. Of course an RO worth his salt wouldn't let such a thing occur, but we try to cover all the bases.

Obviously we don't think issuing a Match DQ under those circumstances is justified but, more topically, a similar incident might occur in respect of an "abandoned" gun during a MG stage. While no decision has yet been made, the current amendment to the definition of "sweeping" being considered is: "Sweeping - Allowing the muzzle of a firearm to point at any part of any person's body while the firearm is actually being held in the hand(s)".

The beauty of the above proposed amendment is that if a MG match does allow someone other than the "competitor-in-progress" to clear an "abandoned" gun, the person doing the clearance would be subject to the Match DQ for Unsafe Gun Handling.

Please let me know if the above works for you in respect of MG matches, so that I can report back to my committee.

[uscbigdawg]

The beauty of the above proposed amendment is that if a MG match does allow someone other than the "competitor-in-progress" to clear an "abandoned" gun, the person doing the clearance would be subject to the Match DQ for Unsafe Gun Handling.

This is where the RO steps in to prevent this. Otherwise who would volunteer for something like that?

Rich

[Sterling White]

Is there or could there be a circumstance where the shooter re-holsters a loaded pistol to finish a multi-gun stage during a COF?

[uscbigdawg]

Sterling,

By the book, I imagine that this is okay, so long as you don't break the 'halo' rule of the muzzle.

A stage design concern popped up in conversation the other day. If you have a stage where you switch guns, go in a direction away from where you have grounded your initial firearm (and not in front of the muzzle), then have to grab the grounded firearm again for additional targets and that second position is more than a meter away you have to empty your initial gun and then reload it for the rest of the stage. That's a little messed up, but understand it.

Bruce - was there discussion (I'm sure there was) on something to the effect of, as long as all the 'abandoned' firearms are empty at the end of the course of fire, that it was alright? Just curious. Again, great job!

Rich

[ErikW]

In theory, a rifle stage under the current rifle rules could require you to start with a slung rifle

Not unless there's a new division that requires a sling on the rifle.

[Flexmoney]

2.1.4 Impractical Behavior

...Competitors shall never be required to re-holster a handgun during the course of fire.

(key word is "required", it is allowed as an option 5.3.3/8.5.2)

[bgary]

At least now you know what's it like being a "Rules Guru" - appreciated by most, hated by a few, but everyone has a comment to make, or a question to ask 

Vince...

You *do* recall that we've met, don't you? And, worked on the handgun rules together for, what, better part of a year?

Bruce

[Neil Beverley]

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

Hi Bruce

"Abandoned" propbably is the best word to describe the action but it doesn't read well.

There certainly aren't many one word alternatives. The only one I came up with that sounded a possible was "relinquished".

[Vince Pinto]

You *do* recall that we've met, don't you?  And, worked on the handgun rules together for, what, better part of a year?

Yes, of course, and how could I ever forget you? You're the guy with the crewcut from Louisiana, right? Or are you guy from Minnesota with the Lutefisk?

I was only alluding to the fact that you've become "the point guy" (and possibly later "the whipping boy") for the MG Rules, just as Neil and I have respectively for Shotgun and Handgun rules.

Capish?

[bgary]

I was only alluding to the fact that you've become "the point guy" (and possibly later "the whipping boy") for the MG Rules, just as Neil and I have respectively for Shotgun and Handgun rules.

Yeah.... although from my perspective this is nothing new. Having been on the USPSA Board through three rulebook revisions, I'm fairly used to being "on the sharp end of the stick" for member feedback.

And, I would not have taken on the task of attempting to draft a first set of rules for an entirely new form of USPSA competition, except that I think that being on the sharp end of the stick is the *right* place to be for USPSA's elected representatives.... if we aren't listening to and responding to member interests and issues, we aren't doing the job as far as I'm concerned.

Bruce

PS - I really *did* wonder whether you knew who I was. For the last several months, there have been a number of times that, in response to a comment, you have suggested that I read the rulebook... and, perhaps this is a bit arrogant, but I actually think I am more familar with the contents of the rulebook than 95% of the shooters out there... heck, I have actually had *dreams* about some of the rules. ;-)

[MasterLefty]

Bruce,

I do not compete in multi-gun matches, but our club has a strong contengent of 3-gun style matches.

Based on the Texas 3-gun for the last two years, I will start suggesting that we work on revising WINEZScore to handle multiple power factors guns within a single stage.

I understand why the provisional rules are written to work within our current confines of the US scoring program, but it severely limits what we can do in course design. (We are a freestyle sport, let the competitor figure out how/what they need to do on the stage. )

Kenny

[bgary]

Kenny --

I agree - the ideal solution for Multi-Gun is to tweak EZWinScore so that it handles multiple firearms on a stage. But there are a couple of complexities that proved to be too much to handle for this go-round, including

• We're already up to our elbows revising EZWinScore to include the 2004 changes to the handgun, rifle, shotgun and tournament rules. We (USPSA) can't make the rules effective until the scoring program complies with them, so... to take on multi-gun at this time would effectively mean that we don't do *any* of the new rules this year.
  
• And, in candor, scoring hits by firearm on a stage implies complexity that we (USPSA) have not yet had to implement on the range: things like, having scorecards that keep track of which targets are rifle and which are pistol; training ROs so that they score things correctly; etc
  

So, the choices we had for 2004 were, either "jury-rig" the multi-gun stuff so that we could try it out within the constraints of what EZWS can do, or put multi-gun matches off until EZWS can handle them, or... throw the concept of PF out of USPSA, which... well, that's sort of one of the foundations of the sport ("accuracy-POWER-speed")

Given those choices, we chose the first - try out a "jury-rigged" version of multi-gun this year, get feedback about what works and what doesn't, and then address the things we need to do to EZWS, NROI training and other things to make it a permanent part of the USPSA game.

Bruce

[MasterLefty]

Gary,

This is a start and from here we can start fine tuning everything.

If you would like, I can have our statistician send you a sample of our multi-gun score sheets. We have been using them for the last 2 years, at the Texas State 3-Gun, without incident.

The lag is the software. I told our stats guy I would create an Access database to run next year's match if we did not have a revised EZScore.

Currently we have entered data as follows: if was a pistol agg stage with rifle, you just use the extra penalties to deduct for the minor rifle (non A hits). Rifle agg stage with pistol is a 'bear' . You have to convert C's to A's and then subtract if it is too much.

When the scoring program is fixed, we will no longer have to use the multi-match setup and then everything will fall into the single match definition and there will not be individual gun/match results. We just need a switch to define whether it is a pistol only match or multi-gun.

Keep up the good work,

Kenny

[Vince Pinto]

PS - I really *did* wonder whether you knew who I was.  For the last several months, there have been a number of times that, in response to a comment, you have suggested that I read the rulebook...

I don't recall doing that but, if I did, my sincere apologies. You were a valuable and highly respected member of the IPSC Handgun Rules Committee, and it was both a privilege and a pleasure working with you.

And I'd have no hesitation in working with you again in the future. Anybody who has an open mind and who makes rational arguments to support his case like you is always welcome on the team.

[Jim Norman]

This is an issue currently being considered by the Rules Committee as we attempt to issue a Rule 11.8 interpretation of the definition of the word "Sweeping", which is currently defined in the Glossary as "Allowing the muzzle of a firearm to point at any part of any person's body". This effectively serves to expand Rule 10.5.5 to include persons other than the competitor.

Vince,

Please be very careful tinkering with this one. As this reads, it is virtually impossible to have a holstered pistol. I know that you have expressed an opinion that the current exemption for sweeping on the draw should be removed and If I undertood you correctly, You'd like to make the wording the strict interpetation, The muzzle can nevere cover any part of a person's body. I understand your desire for safety, but if youwere todo that, we'd eliminate most holsters and all but a very strict standing start.

As for "sweeping" another competitor or RO, It is a problem. If the Shooter is moving diagonally across a stage and suddenly stops, the RO could pass him. Who is at fault? the RO? The Shooter?

The shooter did nothing wrong. You shouldn't DQ him, THe RO was the one that crossed infront of the gun. I would prefer that the "Grounded Weapons be left til the shooter returns and clears it. You just asign an ARO to "guard the position" till he does. Properly laid out the "Grounding BUnker" will be at the side of the range and there should be no compelling reson for anyone to cross.

As for going down range toreset a down steel, just have the competitor stand easy with the weapon positioned tothe side berm.

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

Please be very careful tinkering with this one. As this reads, it is virtually impossible to have a holstered pistol.

The subject at hand has absolutely nothing to do with holstered pistols or sweeping on the draw.

As for "sweeping" another competitor or RO, It is a problem. If the Shooter is moving diagonally across a stage and suddenly stops, the RO could pass him. Who is at fault? the RO?  The Shooter? The shooter did nothing wrong. You shouldn't DQ him, THe RO was the one that crossed infront of the gun.

Yes, I know. If the RO runs past the competitor, the RO messed up and Rule 8.6.3 applies. Moreover, since it's not the competitor who committed a safety infraction, the reference to Section 10.3 in Rule 8.6.3 will not apply.

As for going down range toreset a down steel, just have the competitor stand easy with the weapon positioned tothe side berm.

Yes, I know. See my earlier post where I said "Of course an RO worth his salt wouldn't let such a thing occur, but we try to cover all the bases".

I would prefer that the "Grounded Weapons be left til the shooter returns and clears it.

So do I, but it's important to provide for a "What if" in the rules, so that the matter is handled the same everywhere, as opposed to different ROs possibly treating an identical incident differently.

[Sterling White]

Thanks for clarifying my earlier question. Here's another question...hypothetically speaking - could competitors see a multi-gun stage whereby the shooter starts with a pistol then re-holsters, picks up a shotgun or rifle - engages targets then grounds the firearm, and finishes the COF with the pistol?

If so, would the grounded rifle or shotgun need to be empty and chamber open before acquiring the pistol?

[jkmccoy]

Bruce,

I applaud your work and the work of all the other BOD members in getting these provisional rules together so that we can actually shoot 3-Gun matches. These rules will go a long way towards promoting USPSA 3-Gun shooting and with some tweaking over the next year I'm sure we can put together a really functional set of rules.

However, I do have some problems with some parts of the provisional rules and I'm going to lobby strongly for immediate changes (since they are just provisional rules anyway and not full-fledged published-in-a-book rules)...

The current set of provisional rules place some very stringent limitations on multi-gun course design (D.v, D.vi, D.vii). Since what the shooters all seem to want is multi-gun courses I think it is in the best interests of USPSA to allow the greatest possible flexibility in stage design (especially multi-gun stages). I'd like to suggest some modifications that will allow greater flexibility in stage design while maintaining the intent of the rules. I understand that the BOD was working to develop a set of rules that would provide stages that could be scored using the current version of WinEZScore. However, it is possible to score multi-gun stages correctly using the current software with some work-arounds. As Kenny said, I would be happy to share with you copies of the scoresheets we've used the past two years at the Texas State 3-Gun and I'd be more than happy to discuss the way I've kluged WinEZScore to make it work. The rules changes I suggest will allow matches where the scorekeeper is willing to make the work-arounds to have much greater flexibility in stage design. It will still allow matches to be run where the scorekeeper isn't willing to go to such lengths. PLEASE do not limit stage design simply because our software does not easily allow scoring of some stages. The rules MUST be written because they are the right rules, NOT because they are dictated by the scoring program.

D(v) - currently mandates (in essence) that the designated weapon for a stage is determined by which weapon accounts for more the majority of the stage points. This severely restricts the design of stages where a shooter is allowed to choose which weapon is used to engage which targets (some of the most fun 3-gun stages). My suggested revised version:

D(v) For scoring purposes each stage will be designated as either a "rifle" "pistol" or "shotgun" stage and that designation will be clearly published in the stage description and the match booklet. It is suggested that the designated firearm for each stage be based on the firearm likely be used to account for the majority of points for most shooters

D(vi) - currently mandates that all shots will be scored with the power factor of the designated firearm. Although this is the reality of how the hits are entered into EZWinScore it is NOT a useful rule. My suggested revised version:

D(vi) Each shot fired in a multi-gun stage will be scored according to the declared power factor of the firearm used to fire that shot.

D(viii) - Suggested revision:

When it is not possible to properly score "B" "C" and "D" hits to reflect the declared power factor of the firearm used (as required by D(vi)) stage designers must use only "A-zone only" targets for the non-designated firearm - followed by the list of allowable targets and the suggestions as currently in the provisional rules.

I suggest that these revisions will still allow most clubs to conduct good 3-Gun matches within the current capabilities of WinEZScore, but will not restrict the stage designs at scores where we are already working around the inadequacies of the software.

Cheers,

Kelly McCoy

[kimel]

Good suggestions Kelly. It will be interesting to see how this provisional rule set gets worked out. It might just provide a template for all future rule revisions.

D(vi) Each shot fired in a multi-gun stage will be scored according to the declared power factor of the firearm used to fire that shot.

Does this mean that the CRO/RO will now have to recall, over the course of fire, which gun was used to make which hits on which target? That could get dicey. My memory sucks and I would sure hate for anyone to depend on it for their score. And it happens fast enough that even if the score keeper had a stage diagram and they were taking notes they could still get lost.

Let's say a shooter engages a target at long range with the rifle and then once they move up range and get closer they realize they have a miss on that target so they make it up with a different gun. Which power factor do we use?

Another scenario: shooter is engaging targets with their rifle and after firing one shot on a target requiring two hits, the rifle jams/breaks/squib/whatever. They switch to another gun to finish engaging that target. Which power factor do we use?

Well shot up targets could be difficult, not impossible, but difficult to score and determine if the hit was from a.308 rifle, a pellet of 00 buckshot or a 9mm/38 Super without some real scrutiny. Steel targets aren't a problem here because knocking down a steel target = 1A.

Cheers!

Kevin