Legal Targets...

[Flexmoney]

I think we are approaching a point which I have been formalizing in my head few quite a few weeks now.

When I get some spare keyboard time...I'll share.

[Vlad]

Vince, no matter if I disagree with you, I always said that I do admire the work and effort all of you put into this sport. I can appreciate the cooking without liking the soup. Beside, that last post of yours showed that you have a real sense of humor.

Shred, an STI can be a fine defesive gun, but was it this or this?

Vlad

[shred]

Not enough info in the article, but his latest classifiers were shot in Open...

[Vlad]

Not enough info in the article, but his latest classifiers were shot in Open...

I know I own more then one gun. Maybe he does too, Though if he doesn't I have to give that man points for something. He either shot the gun at point blank with no sight picture or he took the time to turn on his dot and if he did the second he must be getting his pants specially made to fit his big brass ones in there and not ring like a church bell when he walks

Vlad

[geezer-lock]

Back when we still called this informal sport “combat shooting” most of the then popular handgun competitions did not work from a holster, those that did, did not incorporate any movement and nobody fired at multiple targets. Reloads were done off the clock. Certainly there was nothing like multiple movers or falling steel. There were some police agencies that used a small version of the FBI Hogan’s alley, but for the most part the training and competitions were static events and the closest thing to a race gun belonged to the Army Marksmanship Unit. “Practical” in 1978 emphasized draw, multiple hits on multiple targets and movement.

The question that needs to be addressed is: what does “practical” mean in IPSC and USPSA in 2004? After I wrote the above paragraph I went to the rule book and on the fourth page discovered this sentence:

“You see competitors draw from holsters, negotiate obstacles, use different positions to engage multiple targets, make reloads and generally shoot the course with more speed and precision than you thought possible.”

Sounds pretty practical to me, especially when compared to the way we did it before. No mention of make or model of pistol, style of holster, magazine capacity, sights, caliber, power factor or what the target looked like. What makes it practical is what the SHOOTER can do. Think, Plan, React, Move, Engage, Repeat.

What’s hard about that?

Be safe, have fun...shoot to win

geezer

[Neil Beverley]

There is always a danger with the written word that what you mean is not what is read.

I’m not hankering for a complete return to the old days of “practical”. And my comments about who the sport belongs to were a figurative representation of what IPSC shooting is about. Of course the sport “belongs” to the shooters of today. Not me, not Vince, not the readers of this forum, not Europe, not Australasia, not to the Americas. IPSC is there for everyone who shoots it. But we have a responsibility to those who want to shoot it in 10 or 20 years time. We should also strive to maintain a consistency across the world.

If a majority of shooters involved in IDPA voted to abandon tactics and at the same time adopt Comstock scoring is it still IDPA?

And this is really where I’m coming from. How much can we let slide before IPSC shooting isn’t IPSC shooting any more.

How can anyone take that position and yet not cringe at the Open division?

Vlad, that’s an unfair inclusion. You haven’t a clue what I think about Open Division. I’m certainly not going to slag off anyone who shoots any particular division. They exist. They are a fact. I will welcome any shooter who comes with a smile.

Actually I don’t believe that IPSC is “practical” now. To the hobby shooter it is questionable how “practical” it has ever been. I have a LEO friend who has been shot at for real more than once. He opened my eyes to “practical”. There are many old discussions about the issue of “practicality”. IPSC is a sport. All that is certain in any shooting sport is that if you practice shooting a gun you are better than if you don’t.

My lengthy post was in answer to a question asked by Garfield. He asked a fair enough question about why I believe in certain things.

I’m not trying to defend or promote “practicality” per se, that’s not the issue, I’m trying to maintain the flavour, the style of IPSC shooting. If I shot IDPA I would equally argue to keep that as intended. Likewise I don’t want to see skeet become DTL. My references to the origins and to practicality are only relevant in this conversation in response to maintaining a certain consistency in the sport for the future.

I surely hope you’re not referring to me when you make reference to “those who tell new shooters to shut up”. That’s not my style at all. If you or anyone else has read that into any of my postings your are misunderstanding my comments.

I’m going to make a real effort to make my next post less than 10 words!

[Vlad]

Not me, not Vince, not the readers of this forum, not Europe, not Australasia, not to the Americas. IPSC is there for everyone who shoots it. But we have a responsibility to those who want to shoot it in 10 or 20 years time. We should also strive to maintain a consistency across the world.

That is a laudable goal, but perhaps if we are concerned about the future generations, we should concentrate on making sure that they can own firearms and use them in real life practical situations. I'm sure that folks wanting to shoot practical games 20 years from now will be able to figure out what that means to them and for that matter to look at history and see what we where doing. I'm assuming that they will be smart enough to figure it out. It might be presumtious of us to assume that we know what will be practical 20 years from now, when it is evident what what was so 20 years ago is no longer true today. People have pointed out that holdsters where not in use at the begining of IPSC and perhaps 20 years from now implanted laser will be the norm, though I sure hope not. We should let the future take care of itself and not sacrifice the present for it.

Personally my guess is that IPSC will be outlawed in most places long before then. I really hope that I am wrong.

Vlad, that’s an unfair inclusion. You haven’t a clue what I think about Open Division. I’m certainly not going to slag off anyone who shoots any particular division. They exist. They are a fact. I will welcome any shooter who comes with a smile.

My apologies, you are correct. It is indeed unfair for me to assume that I know what you think of some divisions. However it also seems unfair to me that we argue what is practical in target presentation and which kinds of movers are practical and which aren't when the most basic piece of equipment used in this sport has evolved so far past any pretense of practicality. It seems to me that if one really wants to start correcting IPSC towards the practical end of the spectrum we should start arguing if the Open division should exist. Clearly no one want to do that so I maintain that the only practical aspect left in IPSC is the testing of skills with practical applications. Towards that end we should strive to find the targets and presentation which best test and train those skills. This is not to say that we should strive for practicality but we must admit that it is unlikely that we will return to what the game was years ago.

I surely hope you’re not referring to me when you make reference to “those who tell new shooters to shut up”. That’s not my style at all. If you or anyone else has read that into any of my postings your are misunderstanding my comments.

Again, my apologies for not being clear. My temper is running a bit hight because of a combination of comments made by a number of people recently. You just happened to catch most of it because of your "belonging" comment which is what I really objected to. However browsing this single thread will allow you to see exactly what I am talking about, the sarcastic attitude and low opinions which some forum members have of those outside a community of elders. And let me repeat that I make no generalizations, as many many of the sports elders are amazing folk who do not hesitate to help and welcome all comers. I also should make clear that I use the term elders loosly, age having not that much to do with it.

vlad

[JT Johnson]

Arguing about what the definition of practical is, was, or should be does absolutely nothing. Both the “dinosaurs” and the “modern” practical zealots both miss the point. Are upside-down targets or texas stars practical? Will Colonel Cooper think my field course is practical?

They both test your shooting ability to hit the damn target as fast as possible. It is time to have a funeral and bury practical. What we are currently doing is a sport to get the best points divided by time. You can call it practical with whatever definition you want, but your deluding yourself if you do. Just set-up the targets so the shooter is challenged.

I believe that IPSC/USPSA will not be around in the future with the current political climate of the world. This sport has the opportunity to introduce many people to shooting and change non-gun owners’ opinion of firearms ownership, but we are currently throwing away this opportunity we won’t have in the future.

I know this post will probably rub most everybody the wrong way, but I feel that we have to change our current course or inevitably lose our sport in the not to distant future. I really enjoy spending a Sunday outdoors, socializing with other shooters, and trying to compete at my highest level. I just hope I’ll be able to continue my favorite form of recreation.

Josh

[Dead Buff]

After this semi-complete thread drift I need some perspective.

Lets stick to the rules as they are and keep the targets we have. The only tweaking that is still needed and that will remain are reletivly small safety issues (like the filp-the-cartidge-and-play-catch moves, etc - NOT HERE, go read and comment in the other thread(s)).

If, example above, tennis will be played on jumping castles with over ripe pumpkins it won't be tennis any more, no matter how big the vote to change. It will be a new thing-a-majig. Tennis will remain tennis (maybe a new name though...)

Bottom line: Stick to IPSC as is. Don't make it more or less practical. Keep it as is NOW. It currently has the biggest growth it ever had!!!! Freeze the crux in the rule books, loose 0.1 or 1% if even of the moaners and keep the sport alive.

W.r.t target presentation: Keep it sensible (if not practical). My clay-in-a-PT or the PT infront of the clay will only make a difference in the quality of the CoF. Since I strive for quality matches that test ALL levels of competitions in ALL divisions I will probably only use a TS at a fun shoot but not an IPSC match. I like to have serious fun.