Equipment position

[benny hill]

The rule book is like the liberal's in washington, they think that they have to tell you how to do everything & that no one is capable of doing anything on their own. When you go to a pistol stage w/ the proper equipment, wear it where the hell you want, the same for the other gun's as well so long as the equipment is the same. Different battle's { stages} require wearing different equipment at different places so long is is legal for your class. We need a lot less rules & a lot more common sense.

[Vince Pinto]

The rule book is like the liberal's in washington, they think that they have to tell you how to do everything & that no one is capable of doing anything on their own. When you go to a pistol stage w/ the proper equipment, wear it where the hell you want, the same for the other gun's as well so long as the equipment is the same. Different battle's { stages} require wearing different equipment at different places so long is is legal for your class. We need a lot less rules & a lot more common sense.

As one of the "Liberals" responsible for removing the common sense from the rulebooks, I'd love to hear your views in greater detail.

If I understand you correctly so far, you want a free-for-all with the position of competitor equipment, right? If so, what else?

[Flexmoney]

Well...now that that nut has been cracked...

As far as equipment goes...I agree with Benny...if it is legal for your Division, put it where you want it.

As an RO, this isn't something I want to spend time policing. As a competitor, I couldn't care less if my competition wants to slide some gear around..or take some on and off.

I'd like to see this rule removed.

(let's leave the "what else" for another thread...equipment is on topic)

[jhgtyre]

I agree. The location of a few mag pouches, holster, et al is not going to bother me. If people want to move it let them.

-ld

[Jim Norman]

I will throw my thoughts intot he ring as well.

I agree with Benny and Kyle.

Besides if you keep moving your equipment around you may just wind up screwing yourself. If I have my holster and mags where they are, I know where they are. If I move them every other stage, they just mignt not be where I think they are next time.

As to making changes to the "Whatever Else", I also agree with Kyle, new thread.

Jim Norman

[Wakal]

Preach on, Bruthah Benny

Although we could take digital snapshots...front, left side, right side, rear...of each competitor, and hand them out to each RO. "Now, before you let the competitor start, you must ensure that all their gear is in the same place it is on the pictures..."

This is a shooting sport, not a dress-up sport (otherwise we would be Cowboy (in)Action Shooting)...

Alex

[Vince Pinto]

OK guys, firstly a bit of history. The subject rule has been in existence since before Adam gnawed on the apple that fateful day and said "Yes, dear" for the first time.

The reason for the rule was that the founders of IPSC believed that when you turn a corner in real life and suddenly encounter The Bad Guys, you don't have the luxury of time to adjust your equipment - you've got to perform on demand and in the "personal configuration" you happen to be in at the time, and they made this part of the basic criteria.

A similar item is the "behind the hip bone" rule, which alludes to the concept of concealed carry and which survives to this day in 3 out of 5 IPSC Divisions (but only in USPSA PD).

Anyway, being a self-declared "purist" who likes many of the original concepts, I disagree with all of the comments above, but that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. If you object to the rule and think it's outdated, by all means take it up with your AD or RD.

I'll be the guy on the other side of the fence tossing brickbats your way, no matter how much you try to hurt my feelings by calling me a Liberal.

You see the next logical progression will be competitors wanting to adjust their guns from stage to stage. For example, for a table start I'd want to use my 3" slide racking lever, but for a stage with a shooting barricade, I'll use my T-bar racker. Of course if I'm shooting Open and it's a short course with the targets "up close and personal", I might like to remove my scope.

Come to think of it, why can't I bring four guns in different configurations (which all qualify for my Division), and use the best one for each COF? Just imagine - this would be yet another step towards the Formula 1 car racing thing. You know - he with the deepest pockets has a better chance of winning.

And the list goes on ......

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

Your last post really makes me wonder....

I won't get into the fact that you choose to take a critique of a rule in a personal manner.

I am not going to discuss the pros and cons of your "purist" ideals.

I do, however, find your "sky is falling" response to this rule rather disturbing. You have stated (often enough) that you come here to get feedback.

The feedback (from guys that really do care about this sport) is crystal clear.

[Jim Norman]

If all the stages were surprise stages, then a fixed position for equipment, though unenforcable would make some sense. You'd wear it opne way that was either comfortable or with in the rules or both and that would be that. You wouldn't know that the next stage required prone.

However, we have walk-throughs to aquaint us with the upcomming task. Similar to a mission breif and trainning up for a specific take-down. We use the equipment best suited to the job at hand. In the case of our competition, I agree we need to limit the changing of the configuration of the actual firearm and its attachments. THat keeps the money out of the picture, but moving a holster from one position to another to protect future generations doesn't cost anything. I think we can easily format the rules so that one is allowed and the other is not.

As an aside, if concealed carry is the criteria, then by all means do so, shoot from concealment. In the winter here a lot of shooters do it rather than freeze. A few hardier souls still take off jackets and sweaters to shoot then hurriedly redress at teh end of the COF. In real life I suppose we should say that you have to wear the coat, rain jacket sweater etc that you showed up in for all stages as well?

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

I won't get into the fact that you choose to take a critique of a rule in a personal manner.

But you have indeed gotten into the fact by commenting on it. When Mr. Hill (who I can't ever recall being in this particular forum before), compares the rulebook (an inanimate object), to being "like the liberal's (sic) in Washington" (actual people), then what other conclusion do you expect me to reach other than his comment means "the rule writers are like the Liberals in Washington"?

I do, however, find your "sky is falling" response to this rule rather disturbing.  You have stated (often enough) that you come here to get feedback. The feedback (from guys that really do care about this sport) is crystal clear.

Yes, the feedback from three people here is crystal clear but, despite my position on the Rules Committtee, I too am entitled to my opinion.

I took the trouble of giving you the background to the rule, in a light-hearted manner, I told you I don't agree with you and the other two dissenters (not "you're wrong, I'm right", as others often tell me), I suggested a remedy, and I tried (apparently unsuccessfully), to give you what I believe is a legitimate "bigger picture" perspective.

When, through this or other forums, I'm advised of an anomaly, ambiguity, error or inconsistency with a rule, I take it directly and immediately to the Rules Committee for action. However this particular matter is nothing more than one of many "I don't like Rule NN.nn" views but, in such cases, there's nothing for me to correct.

Finally my post does not attack anybody personally, nor do I suggest that people take up another sport if they don't like the way things are in IPSC, nor do I suggest that anybody has a particular political affiliation. I'm dealing with the issue and, in this particular case, my views on the issue differ to yours.

I hope this clarifies.

Similar to a mission breif and trainning up for a specific take-down. We use the equipment best suited to the job at hand.

But that is the exactly point I'm trying to make. I agree that if you are given a known scenario, you will adjust your equipment to suit, but you would adjust all of your equipment, including which firearm(s) to use, and what attachments will be required, right? For example, you'd fit a flashlight to your gun for a "dark room entry". In IPSC terms (if permitted by the rules), you'd do likewise, but you'd also probably like to fit a wider slide-racker to give you a faster pick-up on a table start.

The topical reference here are MG stages. When you know you need, say, a shotgun and a handgun to complete a given stage, you prepare accordingly, and this means you won't bother with a rifle or any related equipment.

This is why I see merit in, and fully support, the argument to make an exception in respect of the MG rules, by virtue of the fact that you have up to three firearms (and a whole bunch of related equipment to consider). However I don't agree that the "MG rules exception" should result in an amendment to the underlying, single discipline rules when used for a single firearm match.

And that's my opinion - not a decision.

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

You mis-quoted Benny here:

"the rule writers are like the Liberals in Washington"

He said : the rule book...

Don't hate da player...hate da game.

Yes, the feedback from three people here is crystal clear

I count FIVE. But, I have a calculator handy here on the desk for such purposes.

Thanks for quoting the history and origin...letting us know what the founders believed. It's might be important to note that many of the founders of IPSC have moved on to other things. (I hear that IDPA is thinking about updating their rule book.)

[Jim Norman]

I think that it should be comparatively easy to write a rule that says in effect :"You may adjust, move or reconfigure your equipment that is used solely to carry your firearm and spare magazines/speedloaders to suit the particular stage design. No part of this rule should be interpeted to mean that you may in anyway reconfigure, add to or remove from your firearm any sighting device, slide racker, sling, bipod, shroud, shield, grip enhancement, light, extended magazine release or any other similar item named or un-named."

I will leave the actual wording to more literate people than I.

As I stated, you would set-up your gear based upon the misson brief. I think we have all agreed on that point. Remember, this is a game. Scores are kept on paper with a pen and a clock. I fail to see why we can't make rules that address the needs and wants of the participants. As was stated, the original sport required you to shoot as if you were carrying concealed, whether or not you chose to do so.

I still wonder, what is the position on removal of a heavy winter coat prior to a COF assuming that the competitor wore said coat for the first stage? Same applies to summer, I start the day in long pants and at lunch due to the heat, go from long pants and long sleeve shirt to shorts and a "T"-shirt. Does that fit into reconfiguring my equipment? At what point do we make the logical split?

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

Coat?!?!?

If we talk about coats, that will get us so far off track that we will never get a straight discussion going.

People don't actually consider coats as part of their equipment do they?

[Jim Norman]

Flex,

I agree, they do not, BUT I a state that to illustrate the absurd. If I can't move my holster, whay can I take off or add a coat? It will affect how I shoot won't it? And isn't that the reason that has been stated for not allowing the adjusment of holster or mag carrier position?

[Wakal]

Vince attacks Benny Hill, Grandmaster, top-tier 3-Gun Shooter, and world-class gunsmith, who Vince "...can't ever recall being in this particular forum before..."

Most of Benny's posts are in the 3-Gun forums, with a fair sprinkling in the Gunsmithing forum (imagine that?)...but the last time he posted in the USPSA/IPSC Rules forum was...well, Mar 31 2004, at 07:30 PM. You may not remember, but he has been visting

Too much coffee this fine morning, my rules-guru friend? Please calm down and don't take it all in such a personal fashion. If you blew a gasket the world would be a much darker and less...enjoyable...place.

You are, of course, quite correct as far as Handgun rules go.

USPSA 14th edition

5.3.5

Unless specified in the written state briefing, or unless required by a Range Officer, the position of holsters and allied equipment shall not be moved or changed by a competitor during a competition.

Shotgun rules, as we noted my other thread, are exactly the same:

Shotgun Rules (as currently posted)

5.2.5.3.

Unless specified in the written stage briefing, or unless required by a Range Officer, the position of allied equipment must not be moved or changed by a competitor during a match. Any belt, or belts, intended to be used at any time during a match, must be worn for the start of each stage of the match. This rule is not intended to prevent a cartridge belt being moved around the body to allow easier access to cartridges during a course of fire

And the rifle rules...say NOTHING about wear of equipment.

Hmmm....

So a multi-gun match is worse than I thought. A competitor under the current rules must wear their pistol holster and all allied equipment...AND their shotgun allied equipment. Whew, since I tend to use my 771's for AR magazine holders anyway, I would have been safe for rifle rules (if there was one, which there isn't...). But back on topic...according to the current rules, a multi-gun match competitor (lets say, Open) MUST wear her holster and pistol mag pouches AND her shotgun speedloader "Qweek-draw" pouches ALL THE TIME. Even on pure rifles stages.

Hmmm, I say..again....

How about a rule in the Provisional Multi-Gun Rules (second edition) that says "Pistol rule 5.3.5 and Shotgun Rule 5.2.5.3 are recinded for the duration of the match."

Alex

PS Just a weird thought (hey, you don't get much else out of me, sorry)...by "allied equipment" does that mean that I have to have FOUR magazines in my FOUR mag pouches on EVERY stage, or can I leave one out on one stage and carry three magazines in four pouches...legally?

AW

[George]

I can see where the rule came from, but I agree with Benny that as long as it’s legal gear, I don’t care where it is and how much of it there is at any given time. Gear doesn’t make the difference when it comes right down to it. Robby and Mikey are gonna kick my butt no matter where my, or their gear is positioned and that’s pretty much that.

--

Regards,

[benny hill]

I think after this topic on so many rules that no one can keep up with them, I see why there are other 3-gun matches that draw many more shooters than a uspsa match will. We need to make sure the 3 gun's are legal in class, wear what the hell we want, were we want & the best man win's.

[Jim Norman]

Would it be discussing religion if I were to say "AMEN"

[Larry White]

Ever notice that every thread about rules turn into a cluster. Could that be because the rules have turned into a cluster? Production is the only div. that requires equipment location, there is no 3 gun production division. A COF is a problem to be solved by the shooter. The shooter has a course discprition, and a walk thru to decide how to solve the problem and thats includes choosing the equip. needed. I don't care what stage 1 or 3 are, if stage 2 is a 8 rd speed shoot I don't need 4 speed loaders, 2 belt racks & a forearm band to solve the problem. The rule is bad, Kill it. Larry

[rhino]

Apparently common sense has been successfully squeezed out of our sport by gratuitous rule-making. rule-changing, and complication-inserting. I'd blame the Euro contingent, but it would be redundant.

[Vince Pinto]

Hmmm. You boys have been busy while I've been taking my weekly nap.

You mis-quoted Benny here:

Um, no Sir. I know what he wrote, but I believe he means something different. If you criticise the rule book, you're actually criticising the rule writer. For example, if there was a book called, say "Celsius 7-11" (about a convenience store in Sweden), written by Mr. Hugh Jarse, and you think the book is a load of bollocks, then you're actually criticising the writer, n'est ce pas?

I still wonder, what is the position on removal of a heavy winter coat prior to a COF assuming that the competitor wore said coat for the first stage?

The subject rules deal with competitor shooting equipment - it does not deal with garments.

Vince attacks Benny Hill, ....

Absolutely not. I quoted him but I did not attack him or anybody else. Bad Alex. And I just changed my intravenous drip to unleaded

How about a rule in the Provisional Multi-Gun Rules (second edition) that says "Pistol rule 5.3.5 and Shotgun Rule 5.2.5.3 are recinded for the duration of the match."

That's essentially what I've been saying, but all you need to do for consistency with the other rulebooks is print the MG Rulebook with the words "Not applicable" next to the rules which don't apply. Hence when you use the MG rulebook, you can move your shooting equipment around to your heart's content (single gun rules are a separate issue).

... by "allied equipment" does that mean that I have to have FOUR magazines in my FOUR mag pouches on EVERY stage, or can I leave one out on one stage and carry three magazines in four pouches...legally?

The rule refers to "the position of holsters and allied equipment", not what's inside them. If you were required to have every holster and mag pouch "occupied" at all times, this would preclude table starts and the like.

[Vince Pinto]

..... there is no 3 gun production division.

Um, yes there is (for IPSC now, and shortly for the USPSA too, when the new Tournament Rules are released). Now that Multi-Gun Matches are being held, and a (provisional) Multi-Gun Rulebook is being drafted, the generic term "3-Gun" is confusing when used on it's own.

A "3-Gun Tournament" means you shoot three separate, standalone matches, in one of 5 Tournament Divisions (one of which is Tournament Production). Your match result in each component match is combined at the end to give you an overall Tournament result (and yes, one of those match results could be zero if you DQ in one of the component matches).

A "Multi-Gun Match" means you shoot a single match using up to three guns per stage, dependant on the stage requirement. Being a single match, if you DQ in any stage, it's all over for you, just as if it was a regular "handgun only" match.

I hate to belabour the above points, but the semantics are important in that people are getting confused when using the wrong term (it's like the guys who refer to "Standard Division as "Stock Division" or "Stock Class" - the latter two involve bovines).

[Jim Norman]

My wish list for equipment placement and if this crosses threads into standalone I apologize, but this discussion really addresses both and you really can't discuss one without the other.

I think that semantically we need to address what we call the collections of stages that we shoot.

I think that the 3-gun Tournament should be a thing of the past with the advent of the MG rules.

Multi Gun: You run a MATCH, you shoot one, two or three guns on each stage and when done, you have a match winner, (In each division of course)

Three-Gun: If you run a rifle only match, fine, same for pistol and SG. But you cannot combine that with any other match, each stands on is own. When you use more than one gun in a competition, it is MG and those are the rules that should be applied. You run three separate matches for Rifle, Pistol and SG, fine, but they are just that, three separate matches. No tournament prize. You get a first place rifle, pistol and SG shooter that may or may not be the same person. You can run these on the same day or over three or more days at more than one club. I would suppose since we have to call this something, 3-Gun is as good as anything, but it is at odds with the rest of the 3-Gun world which is generally a "tactical 3-Gun"

When you want an OVERALL winner, it just became a MG match and those are the rules that apply. You can run this match on multiple days at multiple clubs on different ranges. The winner is The WINNER, (in each Division) and a DQ puts you out of the match, you can't DQ on a rifle only stage and continue anywhere else as this is a MATCH. You can have all the stages as standalone or you can use multiple guns on some or all stages.

As to the rules for equipment. I would like to see the MG and stand alone rules match. No need to learn two sets of rules for equipment. Scoring will be different at least for now and will need a thread of its own to discuss. But how equipment is carried and what we can do with it should not change, I can move my gear in MG, I should be able to do the same in stand alone. This with in the constraints of the Divisions, that is, if a division in standalone says holster behind the hip only, then if that division is shot in MG, the holster, when worn should be behind the hip. I can put it on or take it off as the stage requires in MG. If there is not requirement as to placement in the stand alone, then I can wear it when and where I want in MG and in Standalone.

As to the carried or worn equipment being filled, i.e., If you are wearing a holster does there have to be a pistol in it?, If you have a mag pouch does it have to have a magazine in it.

That should be covered in the rules as:

RULE XXX.xxx.xx While you may (or may not) adjust the position of your holster, mag pouches, etc. any holster or Mag pouch or etc, that is worn will (will not) be required to be filled with the requisite equipment at the start of the COF, except that the first magazine to be loaded into any firearm used on the course of fire may come from the carried supply, thus leaving no more than one such carrier empty. This rule in no way will preclude a table or drawer start for pistol in that if such a start is specified, the pistol need not be in the holster and if a magazine is to be staged for loading on the clock the course description may specify a position other than the mag carrier and that mag may come from the mags carried on the shooters person.

RULE XX.xx.xx Equipment for a particular type of firearm in MG not required for a given COF is not required to be worn during that COF. Example, if there is no pistol on a COF, you are not required to wear any pistol equipment, holster belt, mag pouches, however any equipment retained must comply with XXX.xx.xx above.

I would specifically address kneepads, elbow pads, and gloves as well as coats. The first three are "Shooting equipment" and since as has been stated, if you turned the corner you would not adjust your gear... shouldn't that apply equally to everything else? I mean don't we want to keep "Practical" here? If we decide that these items are not covered, lets be specific. Otherwise there is always room for a discussion of rules while we should be shooting.

Jim Norman

[Neil Beverley]

Apparently common sense has been successfully squeezed out of our sport by gratuitous rule-making. rule-changing, and complication-inserting.  I'd blame the Euro contingent, but it would be redundant.

I think the distinctions are somewhat ... silly. And they seem to only matter to people on the other side of the water.

Rhino

I have to say I'm a little surprised at your two separate comments from threads in the USPSA/IPSC Rules forum. Usually I've seen your comments as being more measured and reasonable, and certainly often amusing.

For the record the IPSC Shotgun Committee, of which I was the Chairman, consisted of just 3 members, nobody else was daft enough to want to give up their life for 15 months. One committee member was from the US, one from the Philippines and the "Euro contingent" consisted of me.

I note an inbalance in so many of the discussions on these forums.

• It is a fact that there are many rules that have been improved.
  
• There are rules that have been fixed because there was previously a problem.
  
• Some old rules have been deleted.
  
• Some necessary new rules added.
  
• The handgun, shotgun and rifle rules have been aligned as much as possible to make them more consistent.
  
• IPSC has created IPSC tournament rules which didn't exist before. (even if you don't like them, some do and there was nothing there before)
  

I do not hear anyone arguing why certain rules are better because of the recent changes and yet the overwhelming consencus is that there has been substantial improvements.

On the other hand we see heated debate and some personal criticism about a VERY small percentage of the rules.

Why so some people spend so much time looking for what they don't like but don't spend the same amount of time on what they do like?

I joined this forum to listen to, and canvas for, ideas. I joined the USPSA for the same reason. I corresponded with a number of people around the world on a one to one basis to seek feedback. I put my life on hold, as most of the committee members did, as we strived to achieve an end result. My family life suffered, my work suffered, my shooting (ability) suffered. It has cost me personally several hundred dollars (US) in actual money spent.

On the plus side I have met or otherwise got to know some very nice people whom I have grown to like and respect immensely. In the main it has been a privilege and a pleasure despite the pain.

Vince and I had some fairly heated debates on what we thought to be right. We both won and lost some but we never lost respect. We still don't always agree but we both still absolutely try to do what we think is best for the sport AND NOT what is best for us as individuals. If you find Vince and I agreeing on a point on these forums it is not because we blindly follow each other, ask the other committee members, nobody would ever accuse us of that.

IPSC shooting has a particular flavour. It is not UIT. It is not 3 position rifle. It is not IDPA. It is not PP1, or PP2. It is not some hotchpot of things that can be done with a firearm. IPSC shooting is, unashamedly, IPSC shooting. You don't take a cricket ball to a baseball match. There are a number of nuances in the rules that result in IPSC being IPSC. There are a lot of things that are fun to shoot and I too would enjoy them. There a lot of things that can be done with targetry and within a C of F that are also fun but many of these things are not IPSC.

My HUGE fear for the sport is that without defining rules IPSC will lose it's identity. If the rules are too loose then we will see all sorts of interpretations creep in. In the US, in Europe, in Australasia, in Africa. East coat. West coast. Soon there would be no "IPSC" shooting as such. We would end up with a mongrel sport. No consistency. No definable sport. The International Hotchpot Shooting Confederation. It wouldn't happen this year or next, but gradually over the years and then we could see ourselves sitting in bars talking about the good old days when we used to shoot IPSC. I've personally witnessed some of this drift. Other stuff is still fun but I rather like and prefer IPSC and it's provided an excellent challenge for very many people. I'd like it still to be around in 10 years time. My 2 cents worth of perspective on the possible future if it slips too far.

I will continue to fight for good rules. I will continue to listen to sound and measured arguments. I will continue to be receptive to reasonable constructive criticism. It all goes with the (unpaid) job.

"Blame"? "Euro contingent"? Do either of these terms really belong in the BE Forums in the context used.

And I'm going to totally ignore that fact that Vince is an Australian living in Hong Kong.

[Vince Pinto]

Apparently common sense has been successfully squeezed out of our sport by gratuitous rule-making. rule-changing, and complication-inserting.  I'd blame the Euro contingent, but it would be redundant.

Rhino: Your comments noted. I assure you I will pass them on, verbatim, to the entire Rules Committee, from Mike Voigt down.

Neil: An excellent post, which reminds me of the words of Theodore Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."