Bianchi Rule Changes

[BigDave]

Okay folks, lets have it out. Here is the deal though: if you vote, you must qulify your answer by posting below.

This pole is open to those who have shot Action Pistol and those who have not. If you currently shoot AP and you'd like to see things remain the same, fine, vote NO and tell us why? And, vice versa. Or, if you never shot, but would like to see rule changes that would support the equipment you already own (as one example), vote YES (if you must) and tell us why.

Also, if you know of someone who shoots Action Pistol, but who has never visited be.com, get them on here and let their voice be heard.

A simple yes or no won't do it here folks. This is way too important. Tell us why!!!

[Kingman]

I think some changes are in order. Not on line with what they are trying to do, but after talking to one of my friends and hearing the payour schedule, obviously they have some problems.

I feel like if you win your classification at a match of this size then you should at least get a payout equal to your entry fee.

Second for a match this size to have as small of turnout as they are getting something serious needs done. Has anyone involved in setting up and promoting ever had a marketing 101 class. I have never once seen an advertisement or mention of this match by the NRA in any publication to try to promote it.

Third NRA does not support its clubs that host this type of shooting well enough to get a good grass roots movement rolling. This is not a rule change, but a policy change.

Fourth what difference does prone really matter. Its called action pistol. I see nothing wrong with using your ability to do an action to shoot better.

Fifth if they are trying to get ipsc(other specialization) shooters involved then they need to know about it.

Sixth even though I helped operate a club that had action pistol matches I have no idea how they create their classifications.

vent done.

[brentm]

rule changes yes but...

changes to date....NO

changing prone shooting was the wrong move, i think restricting some distances say prone only from 25y would have provided enough of a change...without so dramatic results.

changing metallic sights was right

i think a first step would have been to loose the barricade wings - straight away lower scores...but look at all the pistols who could have competed.....tons!

i still think AP is difficult because of the closeness of scoring increasing self pressure of failure/success than the difficultly of the shooting...but the rules reduce that

some of my thoughts...Brentm

[SRT Driver]

Many comments regarding the rules change have been voiced. One well known AP and PPC shooter is in favor of the change to "let the best shooters rise to the top." Fine. And " AP needs to be more of a SHOOTING event."

Where does it say in the "Shooting Bible" that thou must stand tall and proud then fire ye shots in rapid sucession with no support? Shooting is being able to hit the target.

AP is the only NRA sport that did not dictate shooting position for all courses of fire, until recently. This added a bit a creativity to the equation. That is why I was drawn to it. It was different.

"Arms race" was another.

When was the last "gimmick" introduced to AP? 1991?

Here is some food for thought regarding technology and "gimmicks." If BE didn't put that test tube sized Aimpoint on his revo in the 80's and Jerry Barnhart didn't shoot the '90 USPSA Nats with a dot would the US military have Aimpoints on their rifles or SWAT teams have them on their MP5's? Maybe, maybe not. But there is something to be said for technology. Dots allow them to hit their targets faster than their opponents. Is that bad?

Or should we all stand shoulder to shoulder like Redcoats (Sorry Jimmie ) and bang away?

[rhino]

I am ambivalent about the rules changes since I shoot in metallic sights and the recent changes do not affect me. In a strange new world where I would ever shoot an unlimited gun, it would be set-up for USPSA Open Division, so the thing with the barricade wings wouldn't really matter to me either. And I don't go prone unless someone is shooting AT me, so I don't really care about that either.

Given that, I'm not sure the rules changes are a bad thing per se, but it's obvious the way the matter is being handled by those who control the sport is lacking in diplomacy to say the least. It foolish to the point of being pathetic to alienate the current participants if you're trying to increase numbers.

[Flexmoney]

I don't know which way to vote...cause I don't know the rules or the changes well enough...

Here are my thoughts..fwiw:

- Open guns should be wide-freakin-open. Anything goes. Push the envelope. (Then again...I could see myself shooting an IPSC Open gun...but, not building a dedicated Bianchi gun.)

- There ought to be a place for guns like the traditional 5in. 1911...and Glocks. There are sooooomany out there that they need to have a place in any pistol shooting game. (without starting in a hole)

- Each division of guns ought to have their own little bit of recognition/prizes. Nobody is going to show up with thier plain-jane 1911's and Glocks if they have to go up against a dedicated Bianchi Open gun (or a dedicated 6in tack-driver 1911 shooting power pills)...for the overall.

- (might be my USPSA roots here) Solve the shooting problem any way that works. If you have time to go prone...and that works for you...have at it. If you want to latch hold of a baricade...go for it. I hate dictation. Tell me what needs to be done..then let me loose to do it, however I see fit. Who knows...I might come up with the next "best way" to shoot a gun.

[JimmyB]

I'm all in favour of the rules being changed, but not the way that the NRA have done it.

1 Prone shooting. You are given an objective to achieve (say knocking down 48 (easy!!) plates). So you practice doing that until you can, then they decide that the way you achieve that isn't right and tell you to do something different.

2 Wings, Mover mounts etc. We use technology every day to make our lives easier, so why don't we do it with our sport? Maybe we should all use blackpowder, so that we can't be accused of "buying" a victory.

3 Stock/production class. This is a really tricky one and I don't know how it would work, but it seems bizarre that you can have a standard 6" 686 competing in the same class (as far as I can remember) as a fully tricked-up Custom Shop 1911, built to meet the rules of the class. I don't know the solution, but surely if it were governed by the people who actually compete in the matches, something fair would arise?

I'm a little unsure about the logic of catering the matches for IPSC shooters who don't have mover bases and shrouds, I have 1 gun, a revolver built for AP. When I used to shoot IPSC matches, I used the same gun. I didn't expect IPSC to change the rules because of that, it was my choice to do it. Changing the ruling on equipment in the hope that some people "might try it" seems to me like a shot in the dark (no pun intended).

Sorry to go on, but I love Bianchi Cup and I want to see it thrive, but I think they're strangling it.

[SRT Driver]

John Bianchi presented a problem. The problem was solved, mostly.

Same problem but now you can't use a pencil.

The problem eventually will get solved again but it will take more time.

[SRT Driver]

The issue is that Bianchi is a heads up match. It says in the rules that "all classes compete together." Given that there is one Bianchi Cup and one set of problems to solve, the sport has evolved into what it is.

Now, with the advent of the Metallic Sight (Stock), and Production classes is it the NRA's aim to increase sponsorship dollars by "making" other less specialized equipment and positions more common in other sports more competitive for the 'Cup and not just their championships?

Meaning that sponsors will pony up $$$$ if their shooters have a chance to win and increase their sales? Open class Bianchi pistols are a small market but 1911, revolver, and others are much larger.

[Dirty Steve]

Unlimited applies to the gun. Not the manner in which it is shot. It's only a class. Otherwise you cloud say well it's unlimited so I chambered it in 224 BOZ. Yeah it penetrates mild steel and traveles 2,400 fps but, "Hey" it unlimited right? Makes sense?

The rule change effects everyone not just a few. No one complained when stiock guys could no longer touch the barricade. I mean it's stock so we should be restricted in the way we shoot, right? It's not that big of a deal. Don't like it. Fine shows you don't have what it takes to step up to a challenge. Had they said everyone but Doug and Bruce can no longer have wings, mover mounts, ect. That would be unfair. But changing the rules for everyone is not unfair. So suck it up and drive on or step off the field and take up knitting or something.

Metallic, Stock and unlimited are all the classes we need.

I voted and thought I should justify it as asked.

Dirty Steve, Out.

[JimmyB]

Unlimited applies to the gun. Not the manner in which it is shot. It's only a class.

OK, so if you ban the use of wings and finger grips, are you not then changing the way in which it's shot?

What has got to most people is the way in which the rules were changed, not the changes themselves.

[Alan550]

Got to use an old analogy here: The NRA knows how to boil a frog! Put a frog in a boiling pot and he'll jump out. Put him one a pot of water at room temp, turn on the heat, and by the time he realizes what's up, he's too weak to jump out.

They're taking away the equipment a piece at a time, just like the gun-control people are trying to do with guns overall. Take away the prone this year, then it's the wings, next on the agenda is the mover adjustments. Each time, somebody will say "Well, I don't have it so it doesn't bother me." Sooner or later, we'll all have to find a shooting sport that doesn't limit the so-called "equipment race" to have our fun.

And again, I don't see IPSC/USPSA changing their rules to accomodate AP shooters.

Alan~^~

[Dirty Steve]

Jimmy B. You stated, "OK, so if you ban the use of wings and finger grips, are you not then changing the way in which it's shot?" Yes, you are changing the way it is shot. You can still have all the do dads on the gun you just can't use them. Come on let's be real for a minute. Clamping a pistol onto a barricde is like using a ransmo rest. It PROVES NOTHING OF A SHOOTERS SKILL. It proves he knows how to clamp on a barricade. Nothing more.

Alan- Yeah your right shooting a pistol shouldn't be a game of skill it should be left to the person who finds the most ways of tweakng thier gun to bend the rules in order to win or stay competitive. The top few guys will win regardless of the eqiuipment. Due to skill not becuase of equipment. The remainder rely on equipment to stay in the running.

DID ANYONE HEAR THE STOCK GUYS COMPLAIN WHEN THEY COULD NO LONGER TOUCH THE BARRICADE WHILE SHOOTING OR GO PRONE NOWHERE OTHER THAN THE 50YD LINE ON THE PRACTICAL. NO. THEY SUCKED IT UP AND DROVE ON...

I can not wait to see the 2005 rule book...

[JimmyB]

Come on let's be real for a minute. Clamping a pistol onto a barricde is like using a ransmo rest. It PROVES NOTHING OF A SHOOTERS SKILL. It proves he knows how to clamp on a barricade. Nothing more.

OK, if it's that easy how come there weren't 100 or so perfect 480's with 48 x's on the barricade?

I think you might be over simplifying things here.

[gm iprod]

I voted no, meaning the changes they have done so far as Open Guns are concerned.

It is no longer Open, it is restricted. If someone wants to go prone on the plates at 10y they hey get to it. I just want to watch that. I can't do that and still actually shoot the plates. Too much middle to overcome.

But I went prone where ever I could.

Barricade with wings is a whole different skill. It is a test in sight picture, trigger control and patience.

They should have left everything as far as the guns is concerned and made the target smaller, or outward gauge the shots. I kept a set of targets that I shot a 1908 on (it was my first score over 1900), I rescored them using outward gauging and it went back down to 1886 and I lost a whole parcel of X's. When Doug and his cohorts shoot 1920-192X on that system and there is a tie, then we can change. Althoug shoot offs are awesome for seeing who handles the mental game better.

Go back through the previous posts in many threads on this subject and you will find no less than twenty perfectly sensible modifications to the four matches. All would have kept the status-quo as far as equipment is concerned.

The ISU guys get four years to get to grips with any major equipment change. We get 6months, the only people who are greatly disadvantaged by these inane changes are the regular guy, who the NRA proports to represent. Doug and many of the top ten, have the backing and the available resources to adapt to the changes best. It's what man of them do for a living.

I go to work to keep my family properly and have enough left over to shoot.

Now the introduction of Metallic sights, (open guns with no comp or optical sight) which really made all the STOCK guns that were not stock legitimate, and the promotion (as far as there has been) of production, is a very good idea. It meant that you can just turn up with anything that is sitting in the safe, and have a fair and honest go.

SRT please expand

John Bianchi presented a problem. The problem was solved, mostly.

Same problem but now you can't use a pencil.

The problem eventually will get solved again but it will take more time.

PS how long did his speach go for, and who won th esweepstake for the best guess

[SRT Driver]

GM,

My point was:

John Bianchi came up with a match to test the "best of the best" by invitation only back in the late '70's. The problem was how to put up a decent score.

Originally, John Bianchi put up $50,000 or so to the first shooter to break 1900, I think. Meaning, tough problem.

Over time, changes in technique and equipment made the "impossible" possible, a score of 1920 - not "just" 1900. It took over ten years to do reach that goal. Now it is the norm with Doug K winning eight times. A 1920 is still hard, but not impossible. Problem solved.

The NRA has now changed the rules and how we solve the problem. The analogy was similar to a math test in school. The professor knows you can solve the problem, you have done it before, so the challenge is to arrive at the solution without a pencil to do any work or mark the test sheet. Take away a tool (prone, wings etc)

The problem is the same. The solution is the same. The path to the solution is different, which will take time.

We know the answer. Now, we have to mark the answer sheet.

[BigDave]

SRT - very good analogy, very good

[Dirty Steve]

JimmyB, Of course I am over simplifying it. My point is wings add a mechanical advantage for the shooter. Gloves that add a mechanical advantage are prohibited and no one cares becauase they skipped that path and went to wings something not secifically prohibited. Wings don't toatlly ecxlude technique. However most scores would go down dramatically with out the use of wings. I am refering to the typical shooters here not the top percentile shooters. All I am saying is make it a shooting contest. But that seems to be an out date concept on a lot of folks.

As far as the way the rules were changed. They were changed by the governing body the same way it has always been done. The poll shows a 50/50 split sounds like asking everyone could have resulted in the same situation.

Again any one know of a stock gun shooter that complained when they were not allowed to touch the barricade or go prone? I asked this questions many times but never have gotten a ,"Yes" answer. Know why? Cause stock/metallic gun shooters know it's a skill thing to win not a test of gadgetry that makes a shooter good or great. Gadgets are a crutch plain and simple. I'm all for optics but just for those that can not see clearly.

So hey, lets just practice more! And drive on. The folks that practice the new rule changes will win; those who choose not to will loose. This is not rocket science here folks. History has taught us those who can adapt will survive those that don't die off. They question is, Are you a survivor or not?

Dirty Steve, Out

[JimmyB]

So hey, lets just practice more

I'd love to, but I suspect that it is a bit more difficult for me than it is for you.

[benos]

Originally, John Bianchi put up $50,000 or so to the first shooter to break 1900, I think.

Actually it was $10,000, and the only reason I know that is because I lost it to Mickey Fowler, even though we both broke 1900 for the first time in the same match, but he broke it "sooner."

(I can only speculate that "they" didn't want to fork out $20,000, so "they" invented "sooner.")

Poor me.

be

[AikiDale]

Bummer! I don't suppose he offered to split with you?

[SRT Driver]

BE,

Thanks for the clarification.

Was it the 15.03 HF El Prez that was $50k or something else?

I thought some spectacular feat was a $50K award.

[GrantJ]

Once again we seem to be missing the point. The rules change is supposed to attract new shooters, but at what cost. History show us that this is not likely to happen, but in the mean time we stand to loose the very core of our supporters.

I did a little research today and came up with some interesting numbers. My information goes back to 1988 when we had 229 competitors, 1989 - 234, 1990 - 210, 1991 - 215, I have no results for 1992, 1993 - 209 and in 1994, the first "World" shoot we attracted 188 shooters. The question should be, "what happened in 1993 to seriously reduce the numbers attending the Cup. From there on, the numbers have been dropping off, with the exception of 1998 when we got back to the 200 mark.

I have my own thoughts that I will not make public at this time. What do you think could have caused this downturn. I will give you a hint, it has nothing to do with the so called arms race.

GrantJ

[Dirty Steve]

The down turn could be from a number of things cost, travel, gun grabber demonizing the sport, other activites came in to being. Heck golf has had a big down turn as well as all shooting sport not just ours.

I blame it on those damn video games and liberals.

[BigDave]

I, for one, don't like guessing games...

AWB was in 1994, but that shouldn't be it. When did they add Stock class and then limit those who shot in Stock not to go prone (excpet at the 50) and touching the Barricade?

Grant - I don't think anyone, even the NRA and the AP board, seriously thinks that simply changing the rules is going to attract new shooters. But, using logic, you would have to admit that if the rules were such that you allowed more and different guns than you had previously, you have, in turn, opened your self to a potentially larger audience. Woudn't you agree? Rule changes are only one piece of the puzzle.

I still want to know this: given the attendance at the Cup, and participation in AP in general over the past 10 years - do you think leaving the rules as they are (or were, if you're still tender to the prone issue) is key to making the sport attractive to new shooters?

I think, maybe, what the BoD and NRA is asking is for the current shooters to, for lack of a better analogy, "take one for the team". It (the changes) may not be good for some individuals, but they may just save this sport. You have to admit that angle does exist and isn't unreasonable.