StealthyBlagga Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 The draft rules were published for comment in July, and I sent in my (extensive) critique. However, I've seen no discussion here or on the USPSA forum. Is this being discussed somewhere else? Please, God, not Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darqusoull13 Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 I sent in some comments but I never heard back. I haven't seen anything being discussed but there's not much in the way of USPSA multigun in my area unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 Discussing a ruleset for matches that don't happen and you won't be attending seems pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted September 11, 2017 Author Share Posted September 11, 2017 A lot of my comments were related to WHY we don't currently use USPSA MG rules at our local matches. I've heard nothing back either - I emailed an extensive spreadsheet of detailed suggestions to the "feedback" email address and followed up with copies to two members of the BOD... still just crickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishop414 Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 Mike Foley seems to respond a lot on other sites. Email the boss directly and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted September 11, 2017 Author Share Posted September 11, 2017 I was really hoping to avoid that. After this long in charge, Foley should not have to be dealing with stuff like this himself. The system should work better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 As long as classifier revenue is rolling in, and our game does not add to that pile, don't expect multigun to be much of a priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_pinto Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Who did you all send your feedback to? Most of what we received were grammatical errors and clarification comments that are being worked.. If you all have any comments or questions, shoot to me at area4@uspsa.org and we'll make sure to get them addressed. The consensus is that it's been pretty quiet since the drafts were released, but I want to make sure we address comments.. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted September 23, 2017 Author Share Posted September 23, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, mike_pinto said: Who did you all send your feedback to? Most of what we received were grammatical errors and clarification comments that are being worked.. If you all have any comments or questions, shoot to me at area4@uspsa.org and we'll make sure to get them addressed. The consensus is that it's been pretty quiet since the drafts were released, but I want to make sure we address comments.. Mike Mike I sent it to the feedback email address (multigunrules@feedback.uspsa.org) on August 4th. Receiving no acknowledgement of receipt, I then sent it to YOU (area4@uspsa.org) on August 18th... did you receive it? As I still had no acknowledgement of receipt, I then sent it to my AD (Area 2) on August 30th - again, no response. After starting this thread, I reached out to Mike (president@uspsa.org) and Troy (DNROI@uspsa.org) on September 12th. I got no acknowledgement from any of these people that my input had been received. I nearly concluded that my emails were somehow being flagged as spam, but then I received a couple of curt emails from Troy scolding me for daring to ask because, apparently, the initial request for input made it clear no individual correspondence would be entered into. I replied that I was only following up because I had no indication my input had been received, and that I did not think it unreasonably onerous for USPSA to use an "out of office" type auto-reply to acknowledge receipt. Now that you are telling me that you have received no significant input, I am really concerned my emails have fallen into a black hole. I would be grateful if you could investigate and let me know. If my input got lost, I can only assume other folks' input may have also disappeared. That would be very disappointing, because there is A LOT wrong with the draft rules as written. I am going to IM you my personal cellphone number so you can call me if our collective email systems cannot be relied upon. Thanks Richard Edited September 23, 2017 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_pinto Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Sorry about that. It might be getting flagged as you suspect. I was in the final throws of my Area Match so it may have been missed in th shuffle, but I will Check again. If anyone sends the comments to me, if you wouldn’t mind following up here, I’ll make sure to be on the lookout just in case it does go into a black hole. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan 45 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 I'd really like to see a national organization that exists by, of, and for the shooters to succeed at 3 gun. But the USPSA rule book is way too thick to keep myself and all my attention deficit 3 gun friends interested. As a match director, I refuse to be tied to a huge set of rules that prevents me from doing what I want to do- even if it's dumb. (note- don't confuse dumb with stupid. Stupid results in a safety issue, dumb results in the participants calling the MD names and not coming back.) I started reviewing the 88 pages of rules and striking out what is, in my opinion, unnecessary. So much of section 1 and 2 needs to be solely handled at the range level, not the rule book. Delete everything from 1.1.2 through 1.1.7. Delete everything from 2.1.6 through 2.2.6, and 2.2.8. Delete all of section 4. The rule book is written as if it's intended to be able to be used by a complete novice to the shooting sports as a foundation to run a match. And no rule book, no matter how wordy, is a substitute for experience. The rule book smells so much of big government, which is ironic considering the participants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted September 25, 2017 Author Share Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) Bryan I agree with you 1000%, and that is the essence of what I sent to USPSA. There are lots of rules that needlessly tie the hands of the 3-Gun MD/RM because they were a copy/paste from the handgun rules (freestyle engagement, target policy etc.). There are also unforced errors like internal contradictions, inconsistencies between multigun and PCC rules etc. In fairness to USPSA (and why I put so much work into preparing my feedback), outlaw match rules are built on the foundation of USPSA rules - the reason I can run my match with a 5-page rule book is that I don't have to spell out things like range commands, scoring policy, safety protocols etc. Without this common baseline, competitors and match officials would not know where they stand on a host of important issues. We experienced practical shooters sometimes forget this when we decry the size of the USPSA rulebook. I hope all experienced MDs can take a few minutes to put their thoughts down in an email so we can all contribute to making USPSA MG rules more to our liking. A lot of 3-gunners say they wish there was more standardization of rules across the country, and USPSA is probably the only organization capable of making this a reality. The trick is to standardize what needs to be standardized, while allowing MDs the flexibility to create interesting shooting events outside of the straitjacket that is the current rules document. Personally, I'd like to see a lot less prescription when it comes to stage design and equipment divisions... let us do our own thing under the umbrella of USPSA guidance on safety and competitive equity issues. Edited September 25, 2017 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 As the person who actually is putting his fingers to the keyboard on the MG Rules rewrite, I assure you you have been heard. Look at your timeline above ... The Iron Sight Nationals were in progress during these comments. Several of us on the committee were actively engaged in running that match. 1 - Stealthy ... Mike P did send your comments to the entire committee for review and consideration. 2 - I spoke with Mike F, Troy, and Carl Schmidt and emphasized we really need to get these rules finished and finally published. Pete and Mike P weren't at the Iron Sight, but I know they are aware and as eager as I am to get this finished. 3 - I promise that as soon as I receive input from those above me on the committee as to what they want done on the various recommendations we received, I will incorporate them into the document and prepare it for the BoD to approve and order published. I've been working this project for 2 1/2 years now ... There's not a single person in the sport who wants this off my desk more than me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted October 12, 2017 Author Share Posted October 12, 2017 Thanks for the update, and for your hard work on this document. We look forward to seeing the fruits of your labor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 The new USPSA rules were accepted by the BoD and have now been posted to the USPSA Rules page: https://uspsa.org/viewer/RifleShotgunMultigunRules.pdf (These went into effect 1 Jan 2018.) Happy New Year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davsco Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 anyone know or care to share what all got changed? that would be real nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darqusoull13 Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 They allowed the inclusion of PCC to any division, presumably as a separate division. Tactical+PCC maybe? I might not be reading it correctly so hopefully there's a bit of an explanation regarding PCC. They explicitly prohibit suppressors in all divisions so I wont be running these rules in any match I host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noexcuses Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 it would be nice to get a clarification on the PCC rules. Almost looks like it would be a fourth gun, so instead of a 3 gun match, now it would be a 4 gun match. Hope I am reading it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishop414 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 It does say specifically, "4th gun and not to be a substitute". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louu Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 It kinda pisses me off that they will go through all the trouble of writing rules but won't print a rule book like the handgun one. I'm not going to print all that out, put wheels on it and pull it around with me at the range. I would love to use this rule set at my matches this season but if they won't publish them properly I will just stick to the much shorter FN rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragoon Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 I was just reviewing the January 2018 Rule book and I noticed that in Appendix D4 (Heavy Metal Tactical Division) there seems to be a contradiction. Item 3 (Minimum caliber / Cartridge), under Handgun, it lists .429 / 44 Special. But in item 6 (Minimum Caliber for Major), again under Handgun, it lists .40 / 10mm. I'm guessing one might just be a typo but which is correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted January 12, 2018 Author Share Posted January 12, 2018 I think it depends on whether the match is using Time Plus or Hit Factor scoring... Time Plus = .44+, Hit Factor = 40/10mm. The difference is historical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Sierpina Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 On 1/8/2018 at 7:05 PM, Dragoon said: I was just reviewing the January 2018 Rule book and I noticed that in Appendix D4 (Heavy Metal Tactical Division) there seems to be a contradiction. Item 3 (Minimum caliber / Cartridge), under Handgun, it lists .429 / 44 Special. But in item 6 (Minimum Caliber for Major), again under Handgun, it lists .40 / 10mm. I'm guessing one might just be a typo but which is correct? Major and Heavy Metal are not interchangeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1chota Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 On 1/8/2018 at 5:05 PM, Dragoon said: I was just reviewing the January 2018 Rule book and I noticed that in Appendix D4 (Heavy Metal Tactical Division) there seems to be a contradiction. Item 3 (Minimum caliber / Cartridge), under Handgun, it lists .429 / 44 Special. But in item 6 (Minimum Caliber for Major), again under Handgun, it lists .40 / 10mm. I'm guessing one might just be a typo but which is correct? "Major" refers to power factor. Heavy Metal Tactical Division is just that: a division. apples and oranges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) On 2018-01-08 at 6:05 PM, Dragoon said: I was just reviewing the January 2018 Rule book and I noticed that in Appendix D4 (Heavy Metal Tactical Division) there seems to be a contradiction. Item 3 (Minimum caliber / Cartridge), under Handgun, it lists .429 / 44 Special. But in item 6 (Minimum Caliber for Major), again under Handgun, it lists .40 / 10mm. I'm guessing one might just be a typo but which is correct? This was a typo ... It will be corrected at a later date. However: - Line #6 ONLY applies in a Hit Factor Scored match to begin with - Even if some RL wants to say his .40 made major, it still would not qualify for the Division minimum caliber of .44 (.429) as stated in line #3 Again - It's a typo. We are keeping a list of such small items and will make corrections later in the year. Edited January 18, 2018 by Schutzenmeister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now