Proposed 2005 Uspsa Multi-gun Rules

[bgary]

Hi, all

The latest draft of the USPSA multi-gun rules is now in front of the Board for review. While we are on a fast-track timeline to put these in place before the 2005 3-gun Nationals, we want to give members a chance to review and comment, and see whether there are any glaring gaps or problems.

My goals in this revision were pretty simple:

-- remove as much of the "stupid stuff" as possible, and

-- bring USPSA closer to the IMGA type of multi-gun, while

-- defining rules that can be used from club-level to Nationals, and

-- preserving the unique D-V-C aspects of USPSA competition

The draft can be found at

http://3gunrules.com/secure/multi-gun-2005/

username = "uspsa",

password = "multigun"

There are three different documents there:

-- a summary of changes from the 2004 rules

-- the 2005 rules in their current PROPOSED form

-- an "annotated" version, showing the language

that was added, changed or removed.

*IF* you are interested in multi-gun competition, would you mind looking at those docs in the next few days, and giving us the benefit of your insights?

Please feel free to post comments here, and/or forward comments directly to me (area1@uspsa.org), as well as your own Area Director if you are in another Area.

Thanks in advance!

Bruce

bruce.gary@verizon.net

PS - *many* thanks to "George" for setting up the web-space to make these docs so accessible...

[Paule]

Unsuccessful logging onto the section. Current USPSA Username and password did not work for me.

[Larry White]

Paule, Bruce gave you the password and login in his post above.----Larry

[Wakal]

MG 5.2.5.3

After much discussion with someone-or-other, I like this too: Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis; however, in a multi-gun course of fire the course description must define which targets are to be shot with which type of firearm.

Because, as a course designer, I can say "engage all targets as visible" on a combined rifle/pistol stage (for example), and if the competitor wants to engage targets one meter downrange with rifle, or one hundred meters downrange with a pistol, it is their choice. Ah, freestyle solutions to shooting challenges...

And I really like the enhanced target value supplement! But who the hell is "San Angelo?"

Alex

[outerlimits]

MG 5.2.5.3  

After much discussion with someone-or-other, I like this too: Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis; however, in a multi-gun course of fire the course description must define which targets are to be shot with which type of firearm.

Because, as a course designer, I can say "engage all targets as visible" on a combined rifle/pistol stage (for example), and if the competitor wants to engage targets one meter downrange with rifle, or one hundred meters downrange with a pistol, it is their choice.  Ah, freestyle solutions to shooting challenges... 

And I really like the enhanced target value supplement!  But who the hell is "San Angelo?"

Alex

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i can't imagine RO'ing a shooter and trying to discern what targets they engaged with what weapon.

[bgary]

I can say "engage all targets as visible" on a combined rifle/pistol stage (for example), and if the competitor wants to engage targets one meter downrange with rifle, or one hundred meters downrange with a pistol, it is their choice. Ah, freestyle solutions to shooting challenges...

Yes and no.

We're not throwing the door open, quite yet, to totally "freestyle" shooting. Note that in the rule you quoted it said that "the course description must specify which targets must be shot with which type of firearm." This means that, just like Superstition Mountain and Rocky Mountain and the others, the course descriptions will likely say "shoot T(x) thru T(x) with pistol, put pistol in the box, pick rifle up off the table, and engage remaining targets as they become visible."

However (!), it *does* open the door to a modicum of freestyle, in that a course designer *may* say something like "shoot T(x) thru T(x) with pistol. T(z) must be engaged with Rifle. Targets T(y) thru T(y) may be engaged with either pistol or rifle"

This is a good first step towards the type of freestyle y'all enjoy down there in that San Angelo place... but we aren't there [yet]. I *like* the idea of totally freestyle courses, but we're still "experimenting" with multigun, and need to get some good multi-gun experience under our belts (as shooters, as ROs, as course designers, as match directors, etc) in order to find the best balance between "what shooters want" and "what works across all of USPSA".

I'm hoping there won't be much of a difference between those two things, when we're done experimenting. Give it a little time. Aren't these rules a lot better than last years? Isn't that an encouraging trend?

Bruce

[Vlad]

It looks good to me but I do have two "problems". Take these with a grain of salt as I am not known for my multigun prowess

MG 1.2 The 40 round limit I think is way to low. With everyone having at least on working 40rd AR mag it means that there will never be any rifle mag changes.

MG 5.1.7 Does that mean that in tactical if my scope breaks, I can't remove it and use the iron sights? A number of rifle configurations include quick detach scopes which need to be removed to use the iron backups. Perhaps we can say that if a scope is removed it can not be reattached for the match. I would even say for the stage only, as in the "practical" world you might be able to repair gear between events.

[n2ipsc]

MG 5.2.5.3

... if the competitor wants to engage targets one meter downrange with rifle, or one hundred meters downrange with a pistol, it is their choice ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like it. Personally, I'm confused by anything with a buttstock - get rid of those puppies soonest and go after that 200yd steel with my race gun...yahoo!!

[bgary]

MG 1.2 The 40 round limit I think is way to low.

Note the word "should". That 40-round limit is a recommendation, to help keep stages manageable. It is not (at this time) a hard constraint.

MG 5.1.7 Does that mean that in tactical if my scope breaks, I can't remove it and use the iron sights?

Correct - and that's no different than the existing rifle rules. There is some gray area in my mind - you could argue that part of your gun was "broken", and there are provisions for fixing it (as long as it is the same configuration, the "fix" doesn't give you a competitive advantage, etc). But, fundamentally, the idea is that your gun should be in "the same configuration" for the whole match.

Bruce

[alma]

I say stick with the 40 round limits per gun. That is plenty on a Rife course with long shots on steel. I really dislike anything that approaches 30 rounds with a shotgun. It just gets ridiculous and the stages become more about finding places to shove extra ammo than shooting.

I also really like the prestaging area where you could potentially have someone make ready with all 3 guns before they come to the line. This should do a lot to help hurry these matches up.

Thanks Bruce!

[3GunF1Guy]

MG 5.2.5.3  

Because, as a course designer, I can say "engage all targets as visible" on a combined rifle/pistol stage (for example), and if the competitor wants to engage targets one meter downrange with rifle, or one hundred meters downrange with a pistol, it is their choice.  Ah, freestyle solutions to shooting challenges... 

And I really like the enhanced target value supplement!  But who the hell is "San Angelo?"

Alex

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the reasons that you can't do that is the major and minor scoring rules with the san angelo scoring. You know, minor pistol major rifle, what is what on whitch target. Who would keep track of what target got shot with what gun? I think we should give the rules a try.

Scott Peterson

[cking]

Rules sound good, The kludge with EZScore is awful. Just fix the program. Plus make it so you can change the scoring for different zones and steel values. EZScore should become freeware and source code should be available then you have good program for free!!!!!!

[Sterling White]

Loading a 40 round mag. to capacity usually means 39 otherwise disaster could happen. Don't think its an issue as they read.

[wgnoyes]

... EZScore should become freeware and source code should be available then you have good program for free!!!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its written in Powerbuilder, which is anything BUT free.

[Rob Boudrie]

There are problems wiht making EzWinScore free:

1. Powerbuilder co$t$ real ca$h.

2. You lose all control over the quality of the program out there if all sorts of "independent" versions start springing up.

3. The source code becomes available to other sport shooting organizations which are competing with USPSA for members, clubs, sponsors. etc. (ie, market share). Even if these other organizations did not do that directly, verious clubs and independents would.

But....

If you have your own Powerbuilder development environment, and are willing to volunteeer to work with USPSA, offer your services. If you're accepted as a volunteer developer, you will have source code access under a confidentiality agreement.

[bgary]

The kludge with EZScore is awful. Just fix the program. Plus make it so you can change the scoring for different zones and steel values.

**IF** we can demonstrate to the USPSA Board that there is sufficient interest in multigun to warrant doing so, I believe the Board would be open to investing (it takes a non-trivial amount of money) in the development of a multi-gun specific version of EZWS, which does the things we want the way we want them.

What we have to do *first*, though, is

--put some rules in place that have a chance of being stable for a while

--prove them out on the ground by shooting a *lot* of matches

--tell our Area Directors how great this "new" multigun game is

Bruce (that last one is easy for me ;-)

[Wakal]

One of the reasons that you can't do that is the major and minor scoring rules with the san angelo scoring. You know, minor pistol major rifle, what is what on whitch target. Who would keep track of what target got shot with what gun? I think we should give the rules a try

Thanks, but been there done that. For those who don't know me, I've been the match director for the Texas State 3-Gun for the last two years, and a stage designer/builder/CRO for that match the first year San Angelo ran it

(...where is that "Sure I'll do it, I'm an idiot" emoticon...)

If the RO can't tell the difference between a .223 hole and a .38 hole, it is time for a new RO (or Lasik). Same goes for a .30 and a .38! We have been doing "freestyle" combined stages for three years now. The best example was last year's pistol/rifle/shotgun combined stage. Some folks used all three weapons, some folks only used a pistol, some folks used two... The RO just has to be on the ball when scoring targets. All of my RO's are sharp, dedicated, hard working folks...

We have been running our combined stages freestyle as much as possible given safety considerations (9 yard steel isn't that safe with a rifle, nor is 1 yard clay birds (on steel stands) at 1 yard). Three years, 400 shooters, no problem. Of course, a lot of that is our stats guy...did I mention that our scoring is usually COMPLETE five minutes after the last shot is fired?

And yes, Mr. Fishing For Compliments, this is a VAST improvement over the first iteration of the rules

Alex

[ap3]

This is a very good first start. I am not sure about the "San Angelo" method of scoring, but I am a big supporter of hit factor rather than time adjusted. If this method is a first step then I am willing to give it a try.

The biggest hold up with running 3gun matches is turning over shooters, and so prestaging and 3rd party clearings is a BIG help.

Having heavy metal is just pure fun.

In the end grounding hot guns might actually be safer.

Last but not least I always thought the rules about barrel and magazine length for shotguns were simply stupid, so I am glad you didn't adopt them.

Good job Bruce. I am sure if these rules work out we will see future revisions.

[bgary]

Mr. Fishing For Compliments

Hey, that PM wasn't "sucking up". It was... um.... "righteous indignation".

Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

Bruce

(It was either that or compare you to my wife, who just got (A:) a lovely new house and (B:) pretty much carte blanche to decorate it to her liking... and now wants new furniture, too.)

[n2ipsc]

Mr. Fishing For Compliments

(It was either that or compare you to my wife, who just got (A:) a lovely new house and (B:) pretty much carte blanche to decorate it to her liking... and now wants new furniture, too.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Accessorizing" is chromosomal - and immutable... "Honey, I found this nice doorknob on sale and I need a new house to go with it..."

Said schema, is, of course, "nicety" based accessorizing - as opposed to "needs-based" accessorizing... "Honey, I picked up this cool trigger off the trinket table and I need a new race gun to make it work..."

[Alan Meek]

Bruce,

Lets give it a go, great work to all who contributed.

Alan

[Religious Shooter]

Sorry, I can't resist... I gotta beat a dead horse.

Screwing around with the #'s...

To review, for thrown targets the max point value is 10 pts. Since it is a disappearing target there can be not be any penalties for missing or ignoring the target. So 10 pts is 10 pts.

10 points per second.

On reloading stages (AKA a stage where you have to reload the shotgun after engaging the thrown target)...

Say it takes you on the average .75 secs to engage a flipper. And it takes you on the average 1.25 seconds to reload a shell. So in a stage where you engage a flipper and you need to reload afterwards you are taking .75 + 1.25 = 2 more seconds to engage that target.

Points per second that means 10 points / 2 seconds = 5. 5 HF.

In other words a HF of 5 is the "break-even" threshold for an average Limited/Tactical shooter. If you have a 5 HF stage, engaging and hitting that bird with the above skill level (2 seconds) is the same as skipping that target altogether.

For example:

Skipping the Target:

example 1: 50 points / 10 secs = 5 HF

example 2: 100 points / 20 secs = 5 HF

example 3 (>5 HF): 60 points / 10 secs = 6 HF

example 4 (<5 HF): 40 points / 10 secs = 4 HF

Engaging and HITTING the target:

example 1: (50 + 10) / (10 + 2) = 5 HF

example 2: (100 + 10) / (20 + 2) = 110/22 = 5 HF

example 3 (>5 HF): 60+10 points / 10+2 secs = 70/12 = 5.83 HF

example 4 (<5 HF): 40+10 points / 10+2 secs = 50/12 = 4.16 HF

Example 1 and 2 shows that if you engage and hit the target, you get the same score if you skip the target ---- 5 HF is the "break even" for a 2 second skill level with 10 point targets.

Example 3 shows that with a 6 HF, you would be a sucker for engaging the target. If you skipped it you get a 6 HF. If you hit it you get a 5.83 HF. At 6 HF you are above the 5 HF "break even" point. Any stage that has a HF greater than 5... skip them.

Example 4 shows that below the "break even" point (<5 HF) it sorta is worth engaging the target.

BUT, since there is risk involved --- you can miss the target and/or you can fumble the load --- the actual HF where you should go for that thrown clay target is less than 5 HF. It maybe 2... 3... or 4. It all depends on your risk aversion.

What it all boils down to is that you really need a low HF stage to make it worth your while to shoot those flippers with the 10 point max valuation of the thrown targets.

To me 3 HF is where I would engage thrown targets. Barring mental or equipment screw-ups I don't think I have ever shot a 3 HF stage with a shotgun.

Stage-design-wise you would need to either have 1) a 3 HF or less stage or 2) require no reloads (less than 9 targets for the stage) to make 10 points work.

I don't see why we don't allow 20+ point thrown targets.

[bgary]

Four thoughts, no particular order:

1) All the examples you cite could be equally applied to a "drop turner", with [arguably] equal validity. There are cases where it is "worth" shooting a drop turner, and cases where it is not. Each shooter has to decide where that point is, based on the stage design, his/her own skills, his/her own *awareness* of those skills, etc. Part of the thing that makes this sport great (IMO) is that it is about tradeoffs, and which tradeoffs you decide to make has an impact on your score.

2) The concept behind *not* penalizing misses on thrown clays is the same as it is for not penalizing misses on other "disappearing" targets. The idea is that there is a finite window of opportunity for hitting the target, and once that window is past, the shooter canNOT choose to re-engage the target - it isn't available anymore. That makes this type of target "different" from other types of static, appearing or moving targets, where there are later opportunities. It has always been a part of USPSA/IPSC scoring that penalties don't accrue for targets that "no longer present a threat". In our more PC mode, there aren't penalties for targets that you can't shoot at. I [my opinion] don't have a problem with *not* accruing penalties for not shooting thrown clays.

3) Should a thrown clay be "worth more points"? Perhaps... and you may note that we're headed that direction. Until now, thrown clays were worth (at most) 5 points. If the new rules get passed by the Board, we will have *doubled* the potential value, and thrown clays will be worth (at most) 10 points. I'd call that progress. You may call that not-enough-progress. I'm OK with that.... and, as with the rest of the rules, we'll be paying attention to feedback throughout the year, and trying to improve things based on what we hear.

4) As you note [implicitly] in your examples, whether or not a thrown clay is "worth shooting" is as dependent on stage design as it is on inherent point value. If a stage designer wants shooters to shoot the clay, he/she can set up the stage so that it is a compelling opportunity, or so that the hit-factor is sufficiently low to make it irresistable, or... other things. In the same vein, I'd also note that some of the assumptions in your examples are...um... less than universal? For example, saying that it takes .75 seconds to shoot the clay and 1.25 seconds to reload is not necessarily a given.... what if the clay is launched by a popper in an array of other targets... and you can shoot "other stuff" while waiting for the clay to appear? What if the stage has movement after the clay appears, and the incremental time to reload that one additional shell is zero? As noted above, those factors *might* reduce the "time spent shooting the clay" to [near] zero, and would do nothing but *increase* the shooter's hit factor on the stage. ymmv.

Bottom line is... I think what we're doing is better than it was last year. If it isn't good enough, we'll make it better in the next rev. But can we at least give this a fair try?

Bruce

[Religious Shooter]

Bottom line is... I think what we're doing is better than it was last year. If it isn't good enough, we'll make it better in the next rev. But can we at least give this a fair try?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely. It's 100% better than what we had. Just think of my commentary as directed towards Version 3.0 (2.0 being the current proposed version).

But... we gave 5 points a try and it doesn't work. IMHO, 10 points won't work either.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...448&hl=flippers

If reloads are required I'm predicting that 3-4 HF stage and lower is needed for the average (i.e. me) Lim/Tact shooter. The 10 point will work on most stages that require no reload.

I'm pretty much 100% sure that this issue will need to be revisited. 10 points doesn't work well.

Hopefully the membership will give you and the BOD feedback on this specific issue.

1) All the examples you cite could be equally applied to a "drop turner", with [arguably] equal validity. There are cases where it is "worth" shooting a drop turner, and cases where it is not. Each shooter has to decide where that point is, based on the stage design, his/her own skills, his/her own *awareness* of those skills, etc. Part of the thing that makes this sport great (IMO) is that it is about tradeoffs, and which tradeoffs you decide to make has an impact on your score.

I'd argue that pistol and shotgun reloads are two different animals. In one second you can reload 21 rounds in a Lim/Tact Para. It requires .75-1.25 seconds to reload just one shell in Lim/Tact shotgun.

After your nine rounds, in shotgun a reload is needed for each shot you take afterwards.

In pistol only one reload is needed and you have up to 21 rounds to solve the problem. The time cost of engaging a drop turner for 99% of the time is the transition and the actual shot. Very, very rarely will a reload be needed to solely engage one pistol target.

In a reloading shotgun stage its 100%. You need to reload every time for every shot after your first 9.

2) The concept behind *not* penalizing misses on thrown clays is the same as it is for not penalizing misses on other "disappearing" targets. The idea is that there is a finite window of opportunity for hitting the target, and once that window is past, the shooter canNOT choose to re-engage the target - it isn't available anymore. That makes this type of target "different" from other types of static, appearing or moving targets, where there are later opportunities. It has always been a part of USPSA/IPSC scoring that penalties don't accrue for targets that "no longer present a threat". In our more PC mode, there aren't penalties for targets that you can't shoot at. I [my opinion] don't have a problem with *not* accruing penalties for not shooting thrown clays.

I agree with you 100%. I'm not recommending nor suggesting that we should have mikes or FTE's on thrown targets.

3) Should a thrown clay be "worth more points"? Perhaps... and you may note that we're headed that direction. Until now, thrown clays were worth (at most) 5 points. If the new rules get passed by the Board, we will have *doubled* the potential value, and thrown clays will be worth (at most) 10 points. I'd call that progress. You may call that not-enough-progress. I'm OK with that.... and, as with the rest of the rules, we'll be paying attention to feedback throughout the year, and trying to improve things based on what we hear.

Let me provide the first feedback on 10 points... it doesn't work well either.

4) As you note [implicitly] in your examples, whether or not a thrown clay is "worth shooting" is as dependent on stage design as it is on inherent point value. If a stage designer wants shooters to shoot the clay, he/she can set up the stage so that it is a compelling opportunity, or so that the hit-factor is sufficiently low to make it irresistable, or... other things.

Stage design can only do so much. For YEARS we've had the 5 point rule. And yet 100% (or a very close to it ) of the time, using a Lim/Tact shotgun on a reload required stage, thrown targets weren't worth engaging.

In the same vein, I'd also note that some of the assumptions in your examples are...um... less than universal? For example, saying that it takes .75 seconds to shoot the clay and 1.25 seconds to reload is not necessarily a given.... what if the clay is launched by a popper in an array of other targets... and you can shoot "other stuff" while waiting for the clay to appear?

I'd argue that the 2 seconds (actually it's probably even more) is an average number.

My .75 figure actually doesn't have any wait time built in. I'm estimating that .75 is the transition from a static target to a thrown target. .30 is an average time for a pistol transition. An extra .45 secs is reasonable to account for the extra difficulty in tracking the moving target.

Look at the baddest man on the planet with a shotgun on the third listed video.

www.Multigun.com

The stage has a portion like you said --- 1) shoot popper that engages the flipper... 2) shoot other stuff and 3) come back to the now flying clay.

From what I can see the baddest man on the planet is doing about .75-1 second transitions from a stationary target (between an elapsed time of 39 to 40 seconds on the video) to the thrown target.

It also looks like his reload for this particular stage is at ~1 second per shell --- 31 seconds he starts to reload... 37 seconds he breaks the shot ==> 37-31=6 seconds ===> 6 shells reloaded / 6 seconds = 1 second per shell. He blazes in the earlier set.

It looks like he is doing ~1.5-2 seconds for the combination of reloading one shell and shooting a flying bird. 2 seconds for a regular joe is a very good time.

Furthermore this stage is an example that 10 points doesn't work well.

32-33 shots (say 32). 4 flying birds at 10 points. The baddest man on the planet did it in about 35 seconds. If this was a USPSA match he would have gotten:

(28 x 5) + (4 x 10) = 180 points

180 pts

===== = 5.14 HF

35 secs

If he had skipped the birds he may have saved (4 x 2) = 8 seconds. He would have had a 35 - 8 = 27 second run:

(28 x 5) = 140 (he doesn't get the 40 points for the clays)

140 points

======= = 5.18 HF

27 secs

If he had skipped the clays vs. shot it like he was running on all cylinders (like he did) he would have gotten about the same score.

The same score! All that risk (of missing and fumbling) for little or no reward.

What if the stage has movement after the clay appears, and the incremental time to reload that one additional shell is zero? As noted above, those factors *might* reduce the "time spent shooting the clay" to [near] zero, and would do nothing but *increase* the shooter's hit factor on the stage. ymmv.

You are 100% right. Given all those factors 10 points will work. But I challenge anybody to design such stages for the average shooter and say that it was 1) easy to design and 2) fun.

Anyways take the above as a commentary on version 3.0 (e.g. the next version of the rules). I just had to put another 2 cents on the matter.

[MattBurkett]

Quick question - what is allowed with bipods? Can you take them on or off or use different ones?

thanks!