Proposed Multigun rules Posted for comment on uspsa.org

[Religious Shooter]

And please reread this thread and tell me where you came to the conclusion that I am:

It's not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be, especially since you keep ignoring the sentence saying the RO is the final authority on whether the plate was hit or not.

[bikerburgess]

How about something like this

8.4.23 Unlike Poppers, metal plates are not subject to calibration or calibration challenges. If a scoring metal

plate has been hit but fails to fall, self-indicate, or overturn, the Range Officer shall determine whether the plate is functioning as designed. If found to be defective, the Range Officer shall declare range equipment failure and order the competitor to reshoot the course of fire, after the faulty plate has been rectified. The Range Officer shall be the final arbiter as to whether the plate is functioning as designed

Edited June 28, 2012 by bikerburgess

[frag316]

And please reread this thread and tell me where you came to the conclusion that I am:

It's not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be, especially since you keep ignoring the sentence saying the RO is the final authority on whether the plate was hit or not.

Sorry, I got confused with all of the back and forth. I've edited it.

[frag316]

How about something like this

8.4.23 Unlike Poppers, metal plates are not subject to calibration or calibration challenges. If a scoring metal

plate has been hit but fails to fall, self-indicate, or overturn, the Range Officer shall determine whether the plate is functioning as designed. If found to be defective, the Range Officer shall declare range equipment failure and order the competitor to reshoot the course of fire, after the faulty plate has been rectified. The Range Officer shall be the final arbiter as to whether the plate is functioning as designed

I don't get what you're trying to say here--isn't this the original line from the proposed rulebook? You haven't added anything to support your argument.

[barrysuperhawk]

In my humble opinion, Heavy Metal should be a full single stack rules .45, an open sight, 20 round maximum [no barney bullets] .308+ rifle, and a NEVER MORE THAN 8 round, 12 ga. PUMP shotgun.

Heavy metal is akin to an IROC race or Single Stack class in USPSA. it is an intentionally limited division where all of the competitors are shooting as close to exactly the same equipment as it is possible to be.

Hi-cap .45's offer advantages even when downloaded to 8 or 10 rounds. Glock 21's can be discarded hot at many matches because of the trigger safety, but a functional 1911 grip safety is not taken into account? Requiring everything to be "behind the seams" sounds like a good idea too.

Red dots DO offer advantages over iron sights when affixed to a rifle. Consider the percentage of the rifle shots in the average match that are under 200Y, where a red dot is a tremendous advantage over irons, compared to the percentage over 200Y. If 95% are under 200, then the dot shooters have an advantage. Want to shoot a red dot, that's fine, theres a class for you, it's the same class as the 1 to whatever optic shooters, and I hope the speed advantage up close makes up for the lack of magnification...

I have shot what amounts to heavy metal for over 20 years, since before it was even regularly called he-man. Back when it was "Soldier of Fortune" matches up at a buddy's farm, and having to run 100y up a hill before shooting your rifle was a common stage design feature. I don't think "relaxing the rules so everybody can play" does anything good for the class. With more competitors and bigger prize tables come the gamers whose only concern is how much the rifle they are going to win is worth when they sell it. Having the strictest possible rules may tend to discourage some of the gaming, and return the focus to the shooting, and I am all for that.

Edited July 4, 2012 by barrysuperhawk

[Lead-Head]

This string is an example of why USPSA rules are a pain for 3-gun. The discussion goes on and on about the rules and their intracacies. 2-3 pages of rules is enough for any match. Maybe less. Particialrly since those of us from KY are not strong readers.

[Vespid_Wasp]

3) The way I read the appendices, you can't use a gun like the Saiga or the Akdal Mk 1919 (detachable magazines) in any division but Open. Why is that? As long as the gun meets the other requirements for Tactical or Limited, what's the difference if it has a detachable mag if the mag meets the capacity requirements?

This would basically necessitate a mag fed shotgun to be competitive. Mag fed shotguns belong in open in my opinion.

[MarkCO]

This string is an example of why USPSA rules are a pain for 3-gun. The discussion goes on and on about the rules and their intracacies. 2-3 pages of rules is enough for any match. Maybe less. Particialrly since those of us from KY are not strong readers.

I would say it is more a referendum on "concensus" rules as opposed to rules written by one person. Do you want a ruleset that covers all the bases, or a ruleset that is an outline and the MD fills in the blanks as they see fit at the time? Gamers are much more common in 3 gun now (not criticising, just is) and when the rules and "intricacies" as you call them are undefined, that leads to inconsistency. There are certain ROs that run their stages "their way" regardless of the ruleset, as a veteran shooter, you just know and accept. But what about the "new" shooters that are coming to 3 gun? What do we tell them? For the most part, the MD/RMs at the majors make the right calls based on long track records of experience and education in the sport.

I agree that it is not going to happen...one concensus ruleset for majors...but I also agree that a consistent framework for new clubs (small matches, local level) to get started is much better than the hodgepodge of rules out there that many local clubs "new" to the game are coming up with. A functional ruleset with a robust scoring program and the gray areas minimized is a huge benefit to a new match.

To some degree, we have to divest ourselves from applying this ruleset to the veteran 3 gunners shooting majors (or even running long standing local matches) who "know" how it all works. The applicability and relevance is to the new shooters and new matches. Answering the "intiricacies" in this ruleset makes for better prepared shooters overall when they get to a major, even with slight rule tweaks that the outlaw majors employ.

[Lead-Head]

This string is an example of why USPSA rules are a pain for 3-gun. The discussion goes on and on about the rules and their intracacies. 2-3 pages of rules is enough for any match. Maybe less. Particialrly since those of us from KY are not strong readers.

I would say it is more a referendum on "concensus" rules as opposed to rules written by one person. Do you want a ruleset that covers all the bases, or a ruleset that is an outline and the MD fills in the blanks as they see fit at the time? Gamers are much more common in 3 gun now (not criticising, just is) and when the rules and "intricacies" as you call them are undefined, that leads to inconsistency. There are certain ROs that run their stages "their way" regardless of the ruleset, as a veteran shooter, you just know and accept. But what about the "new" shooters that are coming to 3 gun? What do we tell them? For the most part, the MD/RMs at the majors make the right calls based on long track records of experience and education in the sport.

I agree that it is not going to happen...one concensus ruleset for majors...but I also agree that a consistent framework for new clubs (small matches, local level) to get started is much better than the hodgepodge of rules out there that many local clubs "new" to the game are coming up with. A functional ruleset with a robust scoring program and the gray areas minimized is a huge benefit to a new match.

To some degree, we have to divest ourselves from applying this ruleset to the veteran 3 gunners shooting majors (or even running long standing local matches) who "know" how it all works. The applicability and relevance is to the new shooters and new matches. Answering the "intiricacies" in this ruleset makes for better prepared shooters overall when they get to a major, even with slight rule tweaks that the outlaw majors employ.

Well put Mark. I like the "gamer" part of matches. Trying to squeak out every extra second and seeing more than one way to shoot a stage appeals to me, so i like the short list of rules. Personal preference.

As far as new shooter go, my experience has been that new shooter have seldom read any of the rules, much less a booklet full on them. By the time they know the difference betweem IMGA and Benning rules, they are not new shooter anymore.

[Chuck Anderson]

The problem with trying to squeeze all that "gamer" part out is it's very inconsistent. If I go to a match and start on stage 1 and the RO says I can't do something, it should be the same for the guy who started on Stage 6. But it's often not. I've also seen more grief from MD's making decisions that were perfectly in the rules but people didn't think were. A perfect example of this a shooter who during a 3GN event shot a slug on a steel target at close range. MD said he stayed in the match. A couple competitors called the MD for the match they were using the rules from. That MD said it should have been a DQ. The MD on the ground was right, the MD on the phone wrong. That particular match dealt with slugs on steel at close range in the stage description, not the base rule set. In this case there was nothing about it in the stage description, and nothing in the rule set. The only option was to allow the shooter to stay in. Same match the MD wanted to not DQ a shooter that committed an act specifically listed in the rules as a DQ because he didn't think (I agree with him) it was unsafe. If he had left him in though, someone who did complete the match without DQ'ing would have finished behind him. Same match he gave a shooter a hit that wasn't supported by any rule set I've ever read. Short rule sets are easy to read but consistency from call to call suffers.

Personally, I would rather game every bit I can out of the match and staff. But I also want everyone else to be able to do the same stuff if they think of it. The match win should be based on your skill and ability, not your ability to bluff an RO with tales of what other matches do.

[barrysuperhawk]

Nevermind..

Edited July 5, 2012 by barrysuperhawk

[frag316]

Is Ozark an Outlaw match?

[Fenrir]

Well it might have been mentioned earlier in this thread the reason I feel USPSA rules are always much longer is because they are trying to create the same rule set for an USPSA Multigun match no matter which club or staff is running it. Its written not only for the shooter but for the ROs, and MDs running the match so they will know HOW an USPSA multigun match should be run.

[Chuck Anderson]

Is Ozark an Outlaw match?

It's run under a variation of IMGA rules instead of USPSA.

[Dan Sierpina]

Why are the Heavy divisions so different? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply allow the optic on the rifle, and keep shotgun and pistol specs the same?

[frag316]

Is Ozark an Outlaw match?

It's run under a variation of IMGA rules instead of USPSA.

See, here's where the USPSA rules help. Even the current version of the Multigun rules say that shooting slugs inside the minimum distance prescribed in the book is an instant DQ. It even has guidelines for setting up faultlines to keep from being inside the distance.

[Nik Habicht]

Well the guy writing the rules wrote:

I tried to get it in the new rules to be able to pull your holster from the belt or the belt altogether with a pistol in it but was out voted.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=140406&view=findpost&p=1672733

The guy who has been shooting 3 gun for a long time thinks it is OK. But the other BOD members (who haven't been shooting 3 gun as long... or at all?) voted the rule down.

Sure... Endersby has taken it to heart that pistol only and MG matches are different. But how about the other voting BOD members?

I might be o.k. with that, if the pistol is then treated like a long, i.e. it has a chamber flag inserted.....

Other than that, I don't want to be swept by a pistol muzzle....

[ziebart]

I don't like being swept either, but we are being swept when the pistol is bagged you just don't see the muzzle. I know I've opened plenty of bagged/cased pistols and had them faced the wrong way.

[frag316]

+1

Here's a true test--if a competitor dropped their bag with a pistol in it and then picked it up, is that a DQ? My answer would be "no," but that proves that we only care about safe handling when the pistol is visible.