New Ipsc Rules?

[EricW]

2. Bring PF in line with IPSC in all divisions

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IPSC is amenable to doing so, I believe. I don't think anyone has their heart set on 160.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just an FYI...

Lowering the PF to 160 for open was proposed by USA at the Philippine World Shoot General Assembly in 1999. It was voted for and the rest of the world is now using 160 except the country that proposed it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was unaware of who proposed it, but even if it was MV, it was a bad idea then and still is today. (sorry Mike)

[wide45]

International Standard/Ltd: merge them. keep the box, allow 140mm magazines. Use the USPSA gauge for 170mm and 140mm mags.

I am in favor of this. Reasonable compromise might be to take effect after 2 years. I'd prefer no restriction on holster/mag holder placement.

[Nik Habicht]

International Standard/Ltd: merge them.  keep the box, allow 140mm magazines.  Use the USPSA gauge for 170mm and 140mm mags.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does that do to people wanting to continue shooting their 6" fat free Limited guns?

[wide45]

QUOTE(shred @ Sep 3 2005, 11:09 PM)

International Standard/Ltd: merge them.  keep the box, allow 140mm magazines.  Use the USPSA gauge for 170mm and 140mm mags.

*

What does that do to people wanting to continue shooting their 6" fat free Limited guns?

They knew that 6" barrels would not fit the box, and that there was always a strong possibility that the Box could become a requirement.

Give them 2 years.

[shred]

Btw, I looked over the new rules and didn't see anything very objectionable in them. I don't know if the USPSA BOD is interested in further editing the USPSA versions of currently unchanged rules.

One I'm thinking could use work is the match-purchased-factory-ammo one. It's a good idea, but implementation is a bit ugly. "we reserve the right to chrono anybody anytime" keeps people from building super-shorties, but also makes it a huge risk for ordinary competitors to rely on the particular lot of match ammo you get being OK in your particular gun, should the MD decide to chrono you anyway.

[Merlin Orr]

QUOTE(shred @ Sep 3 2005, 11:09 PM)

International Standard/Ltd: merge them.  keep the box, allow 140mm magazines.  Use the USPSA gauge for 170mm and 140mm mags.

*

What does that do to people wanting to continue shooting their 6" fat free Limited guns?

They knew that 6" barrels would not fit the box, and that there was always a strong possibility that the Box could become a requirement.

Give them 2 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh NO! I luv my fat free.... The two years would make it much easier to live with should that happen....

[Nik Habicht]

QUOTE(shred @ Sep 3 2005, 11:09 PM)

International Standard/Ltd: merge them.  keep the box, allow 140mm magazines.  Use the USPSA gauge for 170mm and 140mm mags.

*

What does that do to people wanting to continue shooting their 6" fat free Limited guns?

They knew that 6" barrels would not fit the box, and that there was always a strong possibility that the Box could become a requirement.

Give them 2 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmmm, I've been in the sport only since May 2001 ----- and I had no clue that there was a strong possibility that the box could become a requirement. I remain opposed to rule changes that outlaw a previously legal piece of equipment or a previously legal modification (Vanek trigger job in PD), especially if they have a financial impact on the shooter. As far as I'm concerned, it's more important for the divisions to remain stable, than it is to align them with IPSC.......

[Flexmoney]

Going with a box rule for Limited would mean killing the 6in guns, I think (I don't know the proper size of the gun offhand).

I don't think we want to do that. Nobody should have to build a new gun because the rules off'ed their pride and joy...for no great reason.

The 6in. guns haven't taken over the game, so there is no argument that they are superior...just shooters choice.

Going with a box would allow quite a few other things Like...welding on an extended dust-cover to a Caspian frame...getting rid of the "500 guns or components"...allowing the ribbed Limited gun for anybody that prefers it...etc.

Maybe there is some way to do both?

[.40AET]

I wouldn't be opposed to the box being added if the dimensions were changed. If the box would accomodate the 6" guns and the current basepad configurations that most US shooters use, it would be less painful.

The box sucks if everyone would need to buy all new basepads or a new gun.

[moverfive]

2. Bring PF in line with IPSC in all divisions

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IPSC is amenable to doing so, I believe. I don't think anyone has their heart set on 160.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just an FYI...

Lowering the PF to 160 for open was proposed by USA at the Philippine World Shoot General Assembly in 1999. It was voted for and the rest of the world is now using 160 except the country that proposed it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was unaware of who proposed it, but even if it was MV, it was a bad idea then and still is today. (sorry Mike)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you explain why that is a bad idea. Just want to make sure I understand this one. Again again, under IPSC Open is a mininum of 160pf and Non-Open is basically 170pf. Is that right? If so, why is a 160pf a bad idea?

For me and most Open shooters, we are going to run above 160pf (actually 170pf) in order to ACTUALLY use all of those wonderful holes and fancy comps on our guns.

[EricW]

, under IPSC Open is a mininum of 160pf and Non-Open is basically 170pf.  Is that right?  If so, why is a 160pf a bad idea?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not Practical. Name a defensive besides sub-9mm cals, 9mm, 38 special, and some real oddball loads where the PF of load that you would actually use for defense is that low. Even 125gr. 357 mag is around 168PF IIRC. 160 is just a wussy, girly man load.

[shred]

Going with a box rule for Limited would mean killing the 6in guns, I think (I don't know the proper size of the gun offhand).

I don't think we want to do that.  Nobody should have to build a new gun because the rules off'ed their pride and joy...for no great reason. 

The 6in. guns haven't taken over the game, so there is no argument that they are superior...just shooters choice.

Going with a box would allow quite a few other things  Like...welding on an extended dust-cover to a Caspian frame...getting rid of the "500 guns or components"...allowing the ribbed Limited gun for anybody that prefers it...etc.

Maybe there is some way to do both?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 6" guns is the only thing that keeps me from being a huge box fan. It makes everything so simple.. "fit the box? no comp? no scope? = good to go" (I prefer the box w/o magazines-- use a gauge for them). A timed phase-in would help, but the problem is guns that aren't shot a lot last a long long time. Maybe they could notch the box for 6" slides or see if they pass while wearing a 5" slide or make them shoot L10 or have a no-box, but must be factory-profile or something. 6" is stretching "practicality", but then again we aren't exactly "practical" most of the time anyway.

[Georg Moskopp]

, under IPSC Open is a mininum of 160pf and Non-Open is basically 170pf.  Is that right?  If so, why is a 160pf a bad idea?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not Practical. Name a defensive besides sub-9mm cals, 9mm, 38 special, and some real oddball loads where the PF of load that you would actually use for defense is that low. Even 125gr. 357 mag is around 168PF IIRC. 160 is just a wussy, girly man load.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eric,

I agree, that a 160PF 9mm load is a kind of a whimp load from a practical point of view.

But there are other points you should consider, which are behind the change from 175PF to 160 in IPSC in 2004:

- Legal issues for reloaders in many countries

To get the 175 PF with the "spaghetti-sieve" barrels one had to load most open calibers far over SAAMI/CIP pressure limits. And this is illegal in most countries where reloading is allowed. (Not to mention what would happen, if an accident occurs with such a reloaded ammo. Who would be held responsible? IPSC for having PF's only to achieve with overloaded ammo???)

- Safety issues

Together with the PF change, the minimum bullet weight for major PF in OD was introduced. Together with the drop to 160 PF the observed trend towards "light and hot" loads in OD should be changed.

I don't know how many times you had the "fun" to RO a shooter with such loads. I had it a lot of times and my fellow RO camerades had it too. The 10m distance we had at that time for steel targets were just ridiculous. The splatter of a 95 grain bullet (or even lighter) with a 175 PF on a popper is horrible! Not to talk about the cratering on the metal surface...

Personally, I as a RO like the 160 PF in open and I would bet all the others who suffered severe scratches from 95 grain splatter to.

Just my 2 Cents.

Georg

[BritinUSA]

Another thing to consider in the 160PF debate:

The World Shoot; A lack of ammo which affected the OPEN shooters far more because of the nature of the customisation that occurs with Guns/Barrels. We are much more likely to see commercially loaded .38 Super ammo at 160PF than we are at 165-170. This is due to the liability issues etc.

I would much rather have a 160 PF if we could get commercial ammo that made that in the majority of guns and that ammo was then available at World Shoots. I could then test the ammo here, purchase in the foreign country where the WS was at and not have to worry about all that airport travel mess.

Everyone else is using 160, why aren't we ????

[EricW]

Hi Georg,

I thought the current minimum bullet weight was 120 gr (112 gr in the US) now, so the 95 gr. bullet splatter was a non-issue. I haven't had a chance to download the rulebook, so I could be wrong. I'm not advocating a return to 175 PF, but 165 or 170 (my preference) is what I would call "practical." It's a pet-peeve of mine, it won't affect how I load my ammo at all. I'll still be showing up with 180 to 188PF ammo like I normally do, except when I accidently put the junk ammo in the range bag...

====================================================

I'm not sure that people are exactly understanding the issue here, so I'll try to explain it again. USPSA is granted a waiver by IPSC to have its own rulebook. That waiver expires with the January release of the new IPSC rulebook. The discussion here, is what to change in the *NEW IPSC RULEBOOK* so that it is compatible with what's going on in USPSA. Without another waiver, the Jan. 2006 IPSC rulebook will become the USPSA rulebook. The existing, 2004 USPSA green rulebook will become defunct as of January.

We need to be constructive and prompt with our feedback to the Area Directors, otherwise a lot of Production and Limited shooters are going to be making some unpopular and expensive adjustments.

[EricW]

Another thing to consider in the 160PF debate:

The World Shoot; A lack of ammo which affected the OPEN shooters far more because of the nature of the customisation that occurs with Guns/Barrels. We are much more likely to see commercially loaded .38 Super ammo at 160PF than we are at 165-170. This is due to the liability issues etc.

I would much rather have a 160 PF if we could get commercial ammo that made that in the majority of guns and that ammo was then available at World Shoots. I could then test the ammo here, purchase in the foreign country where the WS was at and not have to worry about all that airport travel mess.

Everyone else is using 160, why aren't we ????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, you sold me on 160PF in Open. Limited/Std should still be 170 to 175, IMO.

[Georg Moskopp]

Hi Georg,

I thought the current minimum bullet weight was 120 gr (112 gr in the US) now, so the 95 gr. bullet splatter was a non-issue.  I haven't had a chance to download the rulebook, so I could be wrong.  I'm not advocating a return to 175 PF, but 165 or 170 (my preference) is what I would call "practical."  It's a pet-peeve of mine, it won't affect how I load my ammo at all.  I'll still be showing up with 180 to 188PF ammo like I normally do, except when I accidently put the junk ammo in the range bag...   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are absolutely right Eric. The minimum bullet weight is 120gr in IPSC NOW, but it had no limit before 2004 and this was the time of schrapnelled RO's...

Georg

[moverfive]

, under IPSC Open is a mininum of 160pf and Non-Open is basically 170pf.  Is that right?  If so, why is a 160pf a bad idea?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not Practical. Name a defensive besides sub-9mm cals, 9mm, 38 special, and some real oddball loads where the PF of load that you would actually use for defense is that low. Even 125gr. 357 mag is around 168PF IIRC. 160 is just a wussy, girly man load.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although said you are now sold on this power factor level, I still want to reiterate - most shooters are not going to shoot at that 160 pf level if they don't have to.

I always thought lowering the power factor from 175 was one of the better things USPSA has done from both a safety and an equipment preservation perspective. But most shooters today want to run their guns around the 170pf level - and not just to ensure they are above the minimum, but because the guns run better at that level. That is why I think lowering the pf level to 160 will not cause most shooters to change their current load. And why I don't see where something like this will have any negatives......only positives if it allows ammo to be more readily available.

[shred]

If you want to be sure you pass a chrono at 165, you'd better be close to 170. Even for a 160 chrono, you want to be in the mid-upper 160's. I see no reason to shoot a 170+ PF if the limit is 160 though. I hear 'my gun runs better at 175' a lot, but it sure doesn't work that way for me, and I usually beat those people

[moverfive]

I'm not sure that people are exactly understanding the issue here, so I'll try to explain it again.  USPSA is granted a waiver by IPSC to have its own rulebook.  That waiver expires with the January release of the new IPSC rulebook.  The discussion here, is what to change in the *NEW IPSC RULEBOOK* so that it is compatible with what's going on in USPSA.  Without another waiver, the Jan. 2006 IPSC rulebook will become the USPSA rulebook.  The existing, 2004 USPSA green rulebook will become defunct as of January. 

We need to be constructive and prompt with our feedback to the Area Directors, otherwise a lot of Production and Limited shooters are going to be making some unpopular and expensive adjustments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As others have said, I don't see anything 'objective' in the IPSC rulebook. But the only thing I keep saying about potential rule book changes and trying to take this sport in different directions - do not take the sport and fun out of the game. Most people shoot IPSC for the fun aspect as opposed to "practical" aspect. And I think more folks enjoy shooting the type of stages you typically find at state championships much more than the short, low round count stages like a classifier and at higher level matches. Meaning, as Wally Arida (of the now defunct GunGames magazine) used to say - if you leave my match wanting to shoot more, I didn't do my job.

My point is - for any rule changes and/or changes to drive the direction of the sport, I hope our directors understand and keep in mind WHY many shooters shoot IPSC and WHY many shooters shoot disciplines like IDPA. Each are very different and therefore the reasons to shoot IPSC need to be protected.

[shred]

One other thing that I discovered at the WS is many places don't have the monthly club-match scene like we do in the US. In Europe, for example, there's a championship of here or there almost every month, so lots of those shooters just go country to country shooting 'major' matches.

"Set it up Saturday morning, shoot it and tear it down by 3:00" is pretty foreign (sorry) in a lot of places.

[Chuck D]

The time to implement the IPSC box in Limited Division has come and gone. It SHOULD have been done when the box rule was first passed...not when USPSA members have invested in 6 inch Limited Guns. This viewpoint is especially painful for me because from the very beginning, I have advocated a "one rule book" policy regarding the shooter's equipment.

I have since adopted the stance that once a USPSA member has made a significant investment in NOW legal gear...rules changes should NOT preclude him or her from using their gear unless a safety issue is raised.

We need rules stability FAR more than we need a "unified" rule book.

[Jim Norman]

I'm not sure that people are exactly understanding the issue here, so I'll try to explain it again.  USPSA is granted a waiver by IPSC to have its own rulebook.  That waiver expires with the January release of the new IPSC rulebook.  The discussion here, is what to change in the *NEW IPSC RULEBOOK* so that it is compatible with what's going on in USPSA.  Without another waiver, the Jan. 2006 IPSC rulebook will become the USPSA rulebook.  The existing, 2004 USPSA green rulebook will become defunct as of January. 

We need to be constructive and prompt with our feedback to the Area Directors, otherwise a lot of Production and Limited shooters are going to be making some unpopular and expensive adjustments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What we need is NO Changes for five years. IPSC rushed outthe last book and has had 3 sets of " Clarifications" that are now being accepted into yet another new rule book. Care to gues who has to pay for the 15,000 plus rulebooks we will need to print because we rush into things? Right the 15,000 members of USPSA. I think we can find more important things to do with the money.

Now, that said, What we need is a waiver, PERIOD. We get our own book, we keep it until WE decide WE need or WANT a new book. I am tired of a bunch of foreigners dictating to us what we are allowed to do. WHo made them boss anyway?

Rant Off

OK, really we need to think, just what do we really want changed? I listed a few early on in this thread. No upper limit on NS hits, give me back the inverted target, leave US production alone. No box for Limited for reasons stated here by others. PF 165 across the board, except Production which will remain 125. I am OK with Metal Penalty Targets.

JIm Norman

[Skywalker]

One other thing that I discovered at the WS is many places don't have the monthly club-match scene like we do in the US.  In Europe, for example, there's a championship of here or there almost every month, so lots of those shooters just go country to country shooting 'major' matches.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry for the thread drift guys.

Shred,

this happens because here in Europe we don't have the facility of many ranges. Here in North Italy we have no more than 4/5 ranges on a widhtspan of 600 Km, and a shooting club with its own range to host weekly matches is more unique than rare (and nobody that I know of here...).

OTOH, here in Italy we have 12 to 16 yearly league matches, all of them being 10 stages 180+ rounds starting from early april and ending mid october: roughly 1.5 match per month. We don't get many (if any) club match to shoot, we all start competing at big matches.

[Flexmoney]

I went thru the proposed new IPSC rule book. Below is what I found on the first pass. I am sure I missed plenty. And, these would be in addition to USPSA's current rule versions (which I haven't went thru, but would want to keep).

Blue shows my ideas for changes or additions.

Strike through Strike through show wording that I would eliminate.

Bold is the new wording that IPSC is looking to add...if I caught it all

Green is the rational for my suggestions.

--------------------------

1.1.5.1 Level I and Level II matches are not required to comply strictly with the freestyle requirements or round count limitations. However, every effort possible should be made by match organizers to build freestyle stages.

Reasoning: All major matches should lead by, the freestyle, example. The added wording above is just an attempt to stress the importance of freestyle in our sport...which is a fundamental part of what we do.

1.2.1.1 “Short Courses” must not require more than 8 rounds to complete. and no more than 2 shooting locations.

1.2.1.2 Medium Courses must not require more than 16 rounds to complete and no more than 3 shooting locations. Course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view

1.2.1.3 Long Courses must not require more than 32 rounds to complete. Course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.

Reasoning: 8 rounds from a position fits the 8 round guns we have that show up at matches...not forcing a standing reload...which rewards accuracy. Also, allows 8 round revolvers to “have a chance” in Production.

The location wording needs eliminated, as it flys in the face of "freestyle" and it just isn't definable anyway, nor enforceable.

2.1.8.4 Classic Static paper targets (i.e. those which are not activated) must not be presented at an angle greater than approximately 60 degrees from the vertical.

Reasoning: No need for this rule for targets with heads. Having this rule removes options from stage designers...especially at the local level for those that have to setup the morning of the match. For the “turtle targets” limiting the angle to 60 degrees (10 and 2 o’clock) ensures that the A-zone is always on the vertical

4.1.3 Penalty targets must be clearly marked or be of a single color different from scoring targets. Penalty metal targets in the general size and shape of authorized paper targets may be used. Penalty metal targets do not have a non scoring border. Metal penalty targets will score a maximum of one penalty, regardless of the number of times hit.

Reasoning: I don’t know that we have a huge need for these metal penalty target in the shape of paper targets...we seem to be able to get a similar shooting challenge from simple painting them as hardcover. But, if we do have them, then scoring them with more than one hit becomes problematic.

4.3 would need to have a reference to “Penalty metal targets in the general size and shape of authorized paper targets”...as mentioned in 4.1.3 ???

Reasoning: This is just a housekeeping issue. All targets should be covered in the above section.

10.2.11.1 If the request is approved by the Range Master, a minimum of one procedural penalty, up to a maximum penalty of 20% of the competitor's points “as shot” (rounded up to the nearest whole number), will be deducted from the competitor's score. For example, if 100 points are available in the course of fire and the competitor actually scores 90 points, the special penalty is a deduction of 18 points. However, the Range Master may waive any or all procedural penalties in respect of a competitor who has a significant physical disability prior to the competitor making his attempt at the course of fire.

This seems in need of clarity. The idea is nice enough. But, the Range Master needs some clarity to base a call on. We are going from having a vague rule with two choices, to a vague rule with three choices.