IPSC Rifle - rules need updating

[SweetToof]

As the US arm of IPSC, USPSA has made it's own modifications to the pistol part of USPSA, but how about a revamp of the IPSC Rifle rules?

 

Over the last 2 decades there has been tons of progress made in the AR/M4 shooting world, but the current IPSC Rifle rules do not really reflect the current gear or uses of the AR15. Specifically, everyone that uses an AR in their profession uses a LPVO, red dot, or similar but the IPSC rifles divisions for semi auto guns are basically Open, and then Irons with no bipods. For all intents and purposes, Irons on rifles are dead, with their sole use being backups in case optics go down. And with modern tech improving optics constantly, that is becoming less and less likely when using high quality gear.

 

As for the matches them selves, recent world shoot had very few close range targets, pretty much zero SOTM, and it looks like there was nothing in the way of decision making as far as attacking a stage. IE there was 1 way to do it, and every shooter did the same thing. The round count on each stage and current rule set make weapon manipulation pretty much not a thing. Honestly the match looked boring as hell, and those type of stage attributes are exactly what we hate to see at pistol matches, yet the damn WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS look like level 1 club match stages to me. IMO it is not a truly thorough test of a shooter's abilities, and I would guess those on the world stage would agree.

 

Better COF's, updated equipment rules, and maybe a magazine limit (to force some reloads) would provide something I think a lot of US shooters would be into. Recent numbers say there are 17 million AR15's in the US, making it the most common gun in the country.Right now the only competitive outlet for Carbines is 3 Gun, and it's loosing popularity. I think shotguns and time+ scoring are the reasons why. Applying the same concepts of testing one's skills that we do in Pistol matches, I would love to see a better way to test who the best AR shooters in the world are. 

 

Interested on your thoughts.

[HCH]

I’ve shot a couple carbine matches and always enjoyed them. I think hit factor scoring and some reasonably sized, reasonably distance steel were utilized carbine matches could be more popular. 

[ClangClang]

Quote

Better COF's, updated equipment rules, and maybe a magazine limit (to force some reloads)

 

I don't know enough about IPSC Rifle to really give an informed position on this, but I would probably argue with your last point. The surging popularity of high-cap divisions in USPSA leads me to believe that most people don't want mag limits. Fast is fun.  I'd rather see no limits, or at least a "practical limit" (I dunno, maybe 35 to take regular PMAG with baseplate?) and then use the COF's to allow competitors to choose the right equipment. You can easily make a stage where a big stick would be disadvantageous like low ports or a VTAC board with challenging angles.

 

Quote

Right now the only competitive outlet for Carbines is 3 Gun

 

2 gun matches are exploding. In fact, there are several monthly options, all within 2-3 hours of you. Thurmont MD, Shadow Hawk WV, etc. I believe I recall seeing some 2 Gun in PA as well. Not to mention Run N Gun biathlons and Tactical Carbine matches.

Edited December 17, 2019 by ClangClang

[SweetToof]

24 minutes ago, ClangClang said:

 

I don't know enough about IPSC Rifle to really give an informed position on this, but I would probably argue with your last point. The surging popularity of high-cap divisions in USPSA leads me to believe that most people don't want mag limits. Fast is fun.  I'd rather see no limits, or at least a "practical limit" (I dunno, maybe 35 to take regular PMAG with baseplate?) and then use the COF's to allow competitors to choose the right equipment. You can easily make a stage where a big stick would be disadvantageous like low ports or a VTAC board with challenging angles.

 

 

2 gun matches are exploding. In fact, there are several monthly options, all within 2-3 hours of you. Thurmont MD, Shadow Hawk WV, etc. I believe I recall seeing some 2 Gun in PA as well. Not to mention Run N Gun biathlons and Tactical Carbine matches.

 

High cap divisions certainly are popular, but there are still reloads in USPSA Pistol matches. Mag length forces even open shooters to reload, where in IPSC Rifle there are 60 round mags allowed and effectively eliminate reloading. I also am a production shooter and like the division for many reasons, one of which is the locap part. For the sake of short courses, I would suggest maybe 15 rounds in the mag, there by most stages would have at least 1 reload, some would be 2. That is if you stick to the 32 round maximum round count. I also like the idea of keeping just 2 divisions. 

 

2 Gun is interesting and I was not aware of those matches by me, so thanks for that, and I'll have to check them out. I'm throwing my idea out because IPSC Rifle (with hit factor scoring) is the closest thing to what I really want.

[TonytheTiger]

Following, interesting thread.

 

I too was a bit underwhelmed when I watched the rifle WC videos. I get that the pace is a bit different than a 3 gunner is used to because the hit factor scoring doesn't reward hosing, but the stages themselves didn't do much for me.

 

I like the idea of rifle matches but in my area there aren't enough ranges with the space to really make an all rifle match worth it. Just like a 3 gun match it would end up being 90% bay stuff and 10% or less over 100yds. And PCC now has the monopoly/spotlight on all things bay oriented.

 

If I've learned anything from the last couple big threads about 3 gun it's that 5 guys on this forum are going to have 5 diferent opinions. For instance, I like giant mags and have no problem with time plus scoring. I'd still attend your match though.

[Barcode1337]

Hit factor is what drew me to USPSA. I despise time+. A rifle-centric game with hit factor certainly would be interesting.

Maybe I need to dust off those USPSA multigun rules and refresh myself.

[Schutzenmeister]

4 hours ago, Barcode1337 said:

Hit factor is what drew me to USPSA. I despise time+. A rifle-centric game with hit factor certainly would be interesting.

Maybe I need to dust off those USPSA multigun rules and refresh myself.

The USPSA Rifle, Shotgun, and Multigun rules provide for using EITHER traditional HF scoring OR Time Plus.  Your match may choose either, but you must the same scoring system for the entire match.

 

I'd be curious to see someone set up a match and run the same stages on two days ... One day with Time Plus, the other with HF (Comstock) scoring.  It would be interesting to see folks' reactions ...

Edited December 18, 2019 by Schutzenmeister

[SweetToof]

16 hours ago, TonytheTiger said:

Following, interesting thread.

 

I too was a bit underwhelmed when I watched the rifle WC videos. I get that the pace is a bit different than a 3 gunner is used to because the hit factor scoring doesn't reward hosing, but the stages themselves didn't do much for me.

 

I like the idea of rifle matches but in my area there aren't enough ranges with the space to really make an all rifle match worth it. Just like a 3 gun match it would end up being 90% bay stuff and 10% or less over 100yds. And PCC now has the monopoly/spotlight on all things bay oriented.

 

If I've learned anything from the last couple big threads about 3 gun it's that 5 guys on this forum are going to have 5 diferent opinions. For instance, I like giant mags and have no problem with time plus scoring. I'd still attend your match though.

 

Space could be an issue at some clubs, but most clubs have at least 2 100+ yard ranges. The clubs I shoot USPSA matches at have at least 4 bays that are 50-75 yards, and with small steel or mini paper targets, you could create scenarios for precise shooting with a little creativity. But I agree, there are more ranges with space for pistol matches.

 

My overall point is that I think that IPSC is dropping the ball when it comes to world class Semi Auto Rifle competition, and USPSA has an opportunity to change that. Part of this is that they have the semi auto divisions competing in the same matches as "Manual" and "Manual Action Lever Release" divisions, and I would guess that is what's slowing down the stages. They aren't using bolt guns either, they use these very odd pump-action AR's in "Manual", and the "Lever" isn't like a Marlin U.S shooters are used to, it's an odd bolt-release button. Basically a design work-around to create a gun that can be bought by civilians in certain European countries (from what I understand). 

 

But just imagine shooting a USPSA PCC Championship where the divisions are PCC Open, PCC Pump, and PCC Bolt-release. Sounds like a great way to get boring stages from a semi auto point of view.

Edited December 18, 2019 by SweetToof
clarification of IPSC rifle divisions

[TonytheTiger]

Agreed. I'm kinda curious why USPSA multigun never gained traction.

[Barcode1337]

14 minutes ago, TonytheTiger said:

Agreed. I'm kinda curious why USPSA multigun never gained traction.

 

I think I read somewhere on here that folks prefer 3gn and other 3 gun rule sets because the USPSA multigun rules made things move too slow because they were overly safe (very rough paraphrase from my faulty memory).

Since USPSA seems to have been doing a fair bit of revamping and revitalizing in recent years (from what I've heard) it would be interesting if they tried to expand on the multigun stuff.

 

18 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

I'd be curious to see someone set up a match and run the same stages on two days ... One day with Time Plus, the other with HF (Comstock) scoring.  It would be interesting to see folks' reactions ...

This would be quite interesting, I've thought of it a bit myself - converting my USPSA scores to IDPS's time+ at some point, somehow. I tend to smoke my club at USPSA, but do mediocre with IDPA (not a lot of heat at my club), so it would be curious to see.

[SweetToof]

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/12/2021-ipsc-pcc-world-shoot-is-coming-to-polk-county-florida/#axzz68UDNt2xw

 

Recent news indicates that Universal Shooting Academy in Florida is hosting the 2021 PCC World shoot. The article quotes Frank Garcia mentioning that many Rifle shooters have came out to PCC matches rather than pistol guy switching over to PCC. To me this shows that there is a large group of people that want rifle competitions. PCC itself has become very popular very fast, and maybe USPSA-style Rifle Caliber Carbine matches would be popular as well.

 

 

[perttime]

There was recently an attempt to introduce a Modified (or something) Rifle Division in IPSC. Low pewered optics, no silly multiple bipods. Something along those lines. It never got far enough to have a chance. Not sure what exactly happened. Perhaps people didn't want an explosion of a zillion different divisions, as has happened with Pistol.

[ziebart]

IMHO the "problem" with USPSA multigun is too little too late.  Many outlaw matches means that everyone has a different way of doing things and are unlikely to change to one national organization. The other "problem" was the requirements for formally trained ROs. Not as easy as only might think to get the USPSA MG endorsement. Even when you do get it there isn't an annual refresher so it's too easy to fall back on the pistol ruleset. Lot's of heartache over those ROs who are well intentioned but don't know how competitors coming from other matches may feel some sort of way.

 

 

[SweetToof]

On 12/21/2019 at 5:45 PM, ziebart said:

IMHO the "problem" with USPSA multigun is too little too late.  Many outlaw matches means that everyone has a different way of doing things and are unlikely to change to one national organization. The other "problem" was the requirements for formally trained ROs. Not as easy as only might think to get the USPSA MG endorsement. Even when you do get it there isn't an annual refresher so it's too easy to fall back on the pistol ruleset. Lot's of heartache over those ROs who are well intentioned but don't know how competitors coming from other matches may feel some sort of way.

 

 

 

I could see the BOD wanting to lump USPSA Rifle in with multigun, but I don't think it needs to be. Here's a suggestion that would require very little added in the way of management from the BOD.

 

My thought is that we start a USPSA Carbine ruleset. Basically copy the current USPSA rulebook and keep the verbatim safety rules for PCC. The rules regarding stages stay the same, probably push the distance out for minimum range of steel targets. Keep 32 rounds as maximum  Same paper targets, metric and classic. Major-only scoring with power factor established to keep standard 55gr .223 as a baseline. Same scoring zones as pistol. Stage designers get creative and basically adapt USPSA stages to rifles (easier said than done). I personally like the idea of adapting the IPSC Pistol rules regarding round count with the Small, Medium and Large field courses, but the current mix of stages at most Majors works out pretty well without those rules.  Divisions are a bit of a debate, but I have some ideas.

 

 

Open Carbine

- Anything goes obviously. Current Open division rifles slide right in without modification.

- Barrel length whatever you want, same rules regarding SBR's as current PCC rules.

- Magazines only loaded to 30 rounds. (This might be up for debate, but I see it as the equivalent of Open Pistol division)

 

Limited Carbine

- 1 piece of glass, magnified or not.

- Backup/offset irons allowed.

- Any muzzle device that fits within an agreed-upon dimension. (current IPSC rifle rules have this specified already) Most traditional .223 muzzle breaks are allowed.

- any barrel length. Again, see PCC sbr rules.

- no Bipods

- any magazine length, but may only be loaded to 20 rounds in mag. The point of this is to force some gun manipulation as a part this sport.

 

The goal of this division is more along the lines of USPSA Pistol Production, rather than Limited. A place for "real" guns.

 

 

 

[TonytheTiger]

That would work. Just make sure the division equipment rules don't deviate too much from 3 gun rules or you'll alienate a huge number of potential shooters. 

[perttime]

I hate it when rules make you use magazines that are not fully loaded. For the "Limited" division, 30 round magazines are long enough to monopod the rifle on the magazine - and 30 rounders is what people mostly have.

[HCH]

On 12/26/2019 at 4:12 AM, perttime said:

I hate it when rules make you use magazines that are not fully loaded. For the "Limited" division, 30 round magazines are long enough to monopod the rifle on the magazine - and 30 rounders is what people mostly have.

 

Meh. I hate arbitrary magazine length requirements that make everything technical and expensive. 

[2Xalpha]

First of all happy new year! 

 

Sorry in advance, this is going to be a bit long. 

 

On 12/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, SweetToof said:

Over the last 2 decades there has been tons of progress made in the AR/M4 shooting world, but the current IPSC Rifle rules do not really reflect the current gear or uses of the AR15.

Didn't know that. If you want to know what scopes etc. tactical dudes will be running tomorrow, look at what the Open divisions guys run today. (Except 1.5 meter tall bipods, that is).

 

On 12/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, SweetToof said:

Specifically, everyone that uses an AR in their profession uses a LPVO, red dot, or similar but the IPSC rifles divisions for semi auto guns are basically Open, and then Irons with no bipods.

Practical rifle shooters used red dot sights in competitions way before they became popular with "professional users". The same with LPVO's. IPSC shooters were the first to use 1-4 sights, 1-6 sights and 1-8 sights at large scale. Basically what you see in Open.

 

On 12/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, SweetToof said:

For all intents and purposes, Irons on rifles are dead, with their sole use being backups in case optics go down.

Shooting fast with irons at intermediate range is so difficult and so different that it deserves its own division. Not comparable to shooting rifles with any kind of optics.

 

Keeping an irons division in IPSC Rifle does not hurt, but adding a red dot division does. True competition iron sights used in IPSC Rifle are good to go on 300 m targets. Can't say the same for red dot sights. Opening up for a red dot division will effectively put a 100 or 200 m distance limit on IPSC Rifle matches, not because the red dot limits the mechanical accuracy of the rifle itself, but because of poor contrast and that the dot becomes larger than the target at long distances, making it hard to aim. Those who want a red dot division in IPSC Rifle have never shot with a red dot in a true IPSC Rifle match, and I urge them to show up and try it in Open. Decent LPVO's are so affordable these days, so cost is not an argument. Red dots belong on a PCC.

 

On 12/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, SweetToof said:

And with modern tech improving optics constantly, that is becoming less and less likely when using high quality gear.

It is a fact of life that sometimes sights still fail, mounts come lose, etc. Most Open division shooters have a side mounted red dot in addition to the LPVO, and the red dot can thus work as an emergency backup sight, at least on short ranges. This is the most practical setup in my opinion. The Tac Ops approach of using side mounted irons is plain stupid. Those types of iron sights are unusable on anything above 50 to 100 m, and will snag on ports and stuff.

 

On 12/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, SweetToof said:

As for the matches them selves, recent world shoot had very few close range targets, pretty much zero SOTM, and it looks like there was nothing in the way of decision making as far as attacking a stage. IE there was 1 way to do it, and every shooter did the same thing

You are correct that it is often difficult to design a rifle stage with lots of options, and that is because you get much fewer options as a stage designer once you put some of the targets at long distance. Same with adding more targets. You can see this on pistol matches as well. To alleviate this, the required round count balance for IPSC Rifle differs from IPSC Handgun. This helps. Designing a good rifle stage is thus a stage design issue, not a rules issue, and you are welcome to design better stages and show us how it's done. 

 

On 12/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, SweetToof said:

The round count on each stage and current rule set make weapon manipulation pretty much not a thing. Honestly the match looked boring as hell, and those type of stage attributes are exactly what we hate to see at pistol matches, yet the damn WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS look like level 1 club match stages to me. IMO it is not a truly thorough test of a shooter's abilities, and I would guess those on the world stage would agree.

I don't think they agree. Hosting a level 2 rifle match can be a damn lot of work, mostly because you have to walk much longer to score targets. I can't begin to imagine how much work it is to host a level 4 or higher match. Comparing the World Shoot to a level 1 club match? Not what they want to hear.

  

On 12/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, SweetToof said:

Better COF's

Up to the stage design. Really, we should talk more about stage design, not rule changes. I really mean that. We should have more interviews with top shooters talking about stages they've shot at big matches, and what they think made them good or bad. One thing to keep in mind is to make sure the shooting challenge fits the level of the shooters.

 

On 12/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, SweetToof said:

Updated equipment rules

Short answer: The rifle divisions do not need any major changes. Basically everyone shoots Open today with about similar rifles and the same cartridge. Wonderful! The winner of the Open division is the best shooter. The winner of the World Shoot is therefore the best rifle shooter in the world! Can't say the same for handgun where there are so many silly hider divisions now, and in some divisions you get a scoring advantage for getting lucky choosing the right caliber for that match.

 

Do I want equipment changes? Long answer:

1) It was a mistake to allow detaching bipods during a match, which I think became a thing in the 2010's. Before then, from my understanding, it was common to say that that everything attached to the rifle at the start of the match needed to be attached during the whole match. It was a lot of discussion, and they had an opportuniy to get it right and keep a level playing field. The rule is still the same (5.1.8), but the practice has changed. For that matter, it was also a mistake to allow multiple bipods. The result? Everyone has to drag a bunch of bipods to a match to be competitive, bacause "what if" some stage becomes easier with a 2 meter bipod? 3 meter bipod? Jokes aside, now all top Open shooters need to bring prone, kneeling and standing bipods (1.5 meters), and of course bipod extensions so that lengths can be adjusted and tweaked on the go as you prepare for the stage.. Making an interesting stage design just became much harder. By the way, if you are looking for a versatile, quick adjust bipod, I can recommend the "Primos Trigger Stick Gen3 Tall Bipod". Now EVERYONE needs to have it.

 

2) I want simplification by having only three divisions that are very distinctly different. Open, Standard and Manual. That is, removing one division, and not adding a single one. No one shoots Manual Standard. If you want a medal, shoot this one, cause no one else will come. On the World Shoot they needed RO's to register in the division, filling up during the match until the last day, just to fire a shot into the berm so they could get enough starters. Thus, by gaining division recognition, a few Manual Standard shooters managed to rob 8 Open shooters (top 8 instead of top 16) from getting a chance to compete at the Shoot-Off.

 

3) Manual should remain as a separate division. The I in IPSC stands for International, a unified competition ruleset around the world.

 

On 12/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, SweetToof said:

maybe a magazine limit (to force some reloads)

It is already possible for the stage designer to include mandatory reloads on short courses (1.1.5.2). Reloading with an AR not so much fun in my opinion, but its a skill I would like to se tested more often. Beware that the stage hitfactor will go down, so that may be a reason it is not seen very often.

 

On 12/17/2019 at 6:44 PM, SweetToof said:

I would love to see a better way to test who the best AR shooters in the world are.

In my world there is no better way to test practical rifle marksmanship than a well balanced IPSC Rifle match (1.2.1.6). By that metric, Jarkko Laukia from Finland is currently the best rifle shooter in the world. If you start adding a separate ruleset for US shooters and having divisions differing from those used internationally, it will only become harder to perform at the international scene. Not just divisional differences, but foot faults, pre-walkthroughs, dry firing, sight pictures, ..

 

On 12/17/2019 at 8:29 PM, HCH said:

I’ve shot a couple carbine matches and always enjoyed them. I think hit factor scoring and some reasonably sized, reasonably distance steel were utilized carbine matches could be more popular. 

Agreed. It is important to adjust the shooting challenge to the audience. The stages on the World Shoot may not be representative of what you will see on a club match.

 

On 12/17/2019 at 9:17 PM, SweetToof said:

For the sake of short courses, I would suggest maybe 15 rounds in the mag, there by most stages would have at least 1 reload, some would be 2. That is if you stick to the 32 round maximum round count. I also like the idea of keeping just 2 divisions. 

Short courses in IPSC Rifle are maximum 10 rounds already, so 15 would get you through without a reload. Anyway, it is not the way to go if you want to increase stage hit factors. Reloading AR mags are also generally not as easy as reloading pistol mags. Also remember the RO now has to count makeup shots to catch cheaters. It is doable, but still a thing that would need to be added to the list of RO responsibilities.

 

On 12/18/2019 at 4:31 PM, SweetToof said:

Part of this is that they have the semi auto divisions competing in the same matches as "Manual" and "Manual Action Lever Release" divisions, and I would guess that is what's slowing down the stages. They aren't using bolt guns either, they use these very odd pump-action AR's in "Manual", and the "Lever" isn't like a Marlin U.S shooters are used to, it's an odd bolt-release button. Basically a design work-around to create a gun that can be bought by civilians in certain European countries (from what I understand). 

Manual shooters are not really slowing down the stages. Manual division fires 1 round per target instead of 2, giving comparable stage times for equally skilled shooters, or sometimes even lower stage times. The lever release division is not really a thing. It was a last ditch resort that went through the system without assembly approval in an effort to avoid these monstrosities getting banned in the UK. They got banned anyway, so thankfully we don't have to care about having a special division for these creations called "lever release" rifles anymore. Put them in Open.

 

Bolt action rifles are alive and well. In the Norwegian Rifle Championship this year 1st and 3rd place went to bolt rifles, 2nd place was taken with a pump. Straight pull rifles are popular in the UK, and I'm building one myself right now. As said, the I in IPSC stands for International. Having a Manual division makes for an opportunity to travel internationally and compete against others with manual rifles, regardless of firearm laws.

 

On 12/21/2019 at 6:08 PM, perttime said:

There was recently an attempt to introduce a Modified (or something) Rifle Division in IPSC. Low pewered optics, no silly multiple bipods. Something along those lines. It never got far enough to have a chance. Not sure what exactly happened. Perhaps people didn't want an explosion of a zillion different divisions, as has happened with Pistol.

One thing is for sure, adding more divisions dilutes the competition aspect of the sport. Back in the days when men were men, there were no divisions, and the winner was the winner. Following the Handgun World Shoot now is annoying when all the best guys are spread over "their own" divisions, so everyone gets a medal. I would love to follow Max Michel, Ben Stoeger, Eric Grauffel and all the other big guys competing against each other! That would be so much hype!

 

The proposed Modified division had so much noise around it. Only 1x red dots was one suggestion. Only LPVO's with max 4x was one. Or only max 6x (dubbed "the Swarovski 1-6 Z6i division"..). Fixed magnification only was another. Fixed magnification with backup irons (but only cowitnessed, not side mounted!), etc. Lots of arbitrary suggestions with no one agreeing. In a few years such divisions would maybe be outdated anyways because of improvements in the optics industry, giving everyone affordable 1-10x LPVO's? Who knows. The divisions should strive to be timeless in my opinion.

How much innovation has really happened in the Handgun Open division since 1993? Almost nothing, the guns are about the same.

 

On 12/25/2019 at 5:17 PM, SweetToof said:

My thought is that we start a USPSA Carbine ruleset. Basically copy the current USPSA rulebook and keep the verbatim safety rules for PCC. The rules regarding stages stay the same, probably push the distance out for minimum range of steel targets. Keep 32 rounds as maximum  Same paper targets, metric and classic. Major-only scoring with power factor established to keep standard 55gr .223 as a baseline. Same scoring zones as pistol. Stage designers get creative and basically adapt USPSA stages to rifles (easier said than done). I personally like the idea of adapting the IPSC Pistol rules regarding round count with the Small, Medium and Large field courses, but the current mix of stages at most Majors works out pretty well without those rules.

It depends on what you want to accomplish, I guess. If you want a PCC match with rifles you may be onto something. However, if you want a true rifle match with varied distances have a look at the international rifle rules. They are a stable, unified ruleset developed over the years sorting out many things you maybe haven't thought of.

 

Major only scoring with .223 as a baseline is actually a pretty good suggestion.

 

On 12/25/2019 at 5:17 PM, SweetToof said:

 Divisions are a bit of a debate, but I have some ideas.

 

- Any muzzle device that fits within an agreed-upon dimension. (current IPSC rifle rules have this specified already) Most traditional .223 muzzle breaks are allowed.

The muzzle brake rules are a joke! People are using the same brakes in IPSC Open and Standard, so what is really the point of having the rule? For example SJC Titan is one of the most effective brakes, and is used in both Open and Standard. The only brakes I know are too large are the JP tank brake and the TE Titan Open, but the latter can easily be turned down a millimeter or two in a lathe. So my conclusion is that limiting comp size are not really limiting neither the effectiveness or concussion of a compensator. So what's the goal? If you want to have flash hiders only, state so. But ruling what constitutes a flash hider and what is a muzzle brake.. Welcome the range lawyers! One alternative could be to have like a "production list" of approved compensators, or just keep it simple and say everyone has to use a $9 A2 flash hider.

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by 2Xalpha