USPSA -> IPSC Equipment Rosetta Stone?

[StealthyBlagga]

My USPSA club wants to start running regular IPSC matches. Of course, most of our regulars only have USPSA gear so we need an easy way to educate them on what needs to be changed on their guns and gear to comply. I am familiar with the differences myself, but am hoping a "Rosetta Stone" document already exists so I don't have to create one myself. If anyone has one they can share (or a suggestion of where to look on the internet), it would save me a lot of work. Thanks in advance.

[MikeBurgess]

I will be interested to see how that goes for your club, looking around the clubs I shoot at 90%+ would need new or different gear. 

 

Single Stack/Classic and Revo are about the only ones that wouldn't need major reworking of gear, Open is the closest real division but still most would have to relocate mag pouches and or holsters, and leave their big sticks at home, even then probably half would have to change bullet weight to make major. 

 

[MikeyScuba]

A quick glance and IPSC Open is 120gr minimum 160pf.  I didn’t know IPSC was lower major pf. And the max mag length is 1.25mm shorter.

[Southpaw]

Just curious, what are they hoping to gain from this or what's the advantage to it? Some IPSC style stages could be good to mix things up, but if going 100% with IPSC rules a lot of existing guns and gear wouldn't be allowed. None of the guns I normally shoot for USPSA would be legal for IPSC.

[HI5-O]

Big things I see (besides equipment) are you can’t do sight pictures, have to stay within the shooting areas, and in-service training with the RO’s. Would doing IPSC style matches keep the club from having to pay USPSA activity fees?

[StealthyBlagga]

2 hours ago, Southpaw said:

Just curious, what are they hoping to gain from this or what's the advantage to it? Some IPSC style stages could be good to mix things up, but if going 100% with IPSC rules a lot of existing guns and gear wouldn't be allowed. None of the guns I normally shoot for USPSA would be legal for IPSC.

 

I'm not driving the change - as a former IPSC competitor and an IROA RO, I've just been asked to help and offer advice. I think the goal is to create a different flavor of match - more technical, lower round counts etc. - and potentially look toward hosting international matches at some point in the future. Having had considerable experience with both formats, I must say that I think the change would do us good.

 

1 hour ago, HI5-O said:

Big things I see (besides equipment) are you can’t do sight pictures, have to stay within the shooting areas, and in-service training with the RO’s. Would doing IPSC style matches keep the club from having to pay USPSA activity fees?

 

Yup, we have a pretty good grasp of the various conduct, stage design etc. differences. What I am hoping for is an easy guide to what needs to change for USPSA gear to be IPSC-legal. If such a document is not readily available, I will have to put one together. I'm just trying to avoid reinventing the wheel.

 

I don't know about the activity fee question - I'd assume not as USPSA is IPSC's US affiliate, but that is above my pay grade. In any case, I doubt this would be a factor in the decision.

[BritinUSA]

There are significant differences in Production and Production Optics divisions that will likely render your proposals dead on arrival. For Limited, the box has to be used with a magazine inserted, so if your competitors only have 140mm magazines then they will need shorter magazines or base pads and likely different magwells.

 

Open is the least affected but even then magazine lengths do not have the 1.25mm leeway.

 

I think the idea of using IPSC-style stage design at a USPSA match would be a less intrusive way of of doing this.

 

The 3 - 2 - 1 ratio of small - medium - large stages should work easily, using the IPSC targets exclusively. Ditch the fixed-time and virginia-count stages too.

 

i think there was a write-up in Front Sight about the division differences but i think this was back in 2014. Much has likely changed since then.

Edited December 2, 2020 by BritinUSA

[Southpaw]

1 hour ago, StealthyBlagga said:

I'm not driving the change - as a former IPSC competitor and an IROA RO, I've just been asked to help and offer advice. I think the goal is to create a different flavor of match - more technical, lower round counts etc. - and potentially look toward hosting international matches at some point in the future. Having had considerable experience with both formats, I must say that I think the change would do us good.

 

Understood, thanks.  I would definitely be interested in mixing up stage designs and doing some more IPSC like stages.  I don't see why they can't do that at USPSA matches so as to not mess with equipment rules.  I just think they're going to have a heck of a time trying to get people on board with, and enforce, some of the IPSC specific rules and equipment requirements.

[SGT_Schultz]

8 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

There are significant differences in Production and Production Optics divisions that will likely render your proposals dead on arrival. For Limited, the box has to be used with a magazine inserted, so if your competitors only have 140mm magazines then they will need shorter magazines or base pads and likely different magwells.

 

Agree.  I'm not sure who is behind such a change at the OP's club but I cannot imagine it will be well received by their customers once they find out about 90% of their stuff is either flat illegal or will need major changes.

 

 

[perttime]

How would a hybrid, with USPSA gun rules and IPSC for the rest, go down? With USPSA and other powers that be?

[BillChunn]

If it were my club, with all the investments made in my gear for PCC and CO divisions, I'd find some where else to shoot.  But that's just me....

 

BC

[Schutzenmeister]

@StealthyBlagga

 

@BritinUSA is correct.  I was the one who wrote the article for Front Sight several years ago ... Even updated it once.

 

I heard the occasional thanks, a lot of indifference, and some mild hostility for my efforts.  In the lead up to the Florida WS another US IROA and I tried to get someone to host a L3 IPSC match as a warm-up ... No takers.

 

If I can still find a copy of the article I'll email it to you.  But as @BritinUSA said, it's a little out of date now.  The two rule books have grown further apart since then.

[DirkD]

15 hours ago, MikeyScuba said:

A quick glance and IPSC Open is 120gr minimum 160pf.  I didn’t know IPSC was lower major pf. And the max mag length is 1.25mm shorter.

170 Power Factor for Standard, and Classic for Major.

In Standard what we call Limited the mags are 126mm and have to fit the box like production guns do, in Open the mags are 170mm.



 

[StealthyBlagga]

12 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

There are significant differences in Production and Production Optics divisions that will likely render your proposals dead on arrival. For Limited, the box has to be used with a magazine inserted, so if your competitors only have 140mm magazines then they will need shorter magazines or base pads and likely different magwells.

 

Open is the least affected but even then magazine lengths do not have the 1.25mm leeway.

 

I think the idea of using IPSC-style stage design at a USPSA match would be a less intrusive way of of doing this.

 

The 3 - 2 - 1 ratio of small - medium - large stages should work easily, using the IPSC targets exclusively. Ditch the fixed-time and virginia-count stages too.

 

i think there was a write-up in Front Sight about the division differences but i think this was back in 2014. Much has likely changed since then.

 

11 hours ago, Southpaw said:

 

Understood, thanks.  I would definitely be interested in mixing up stage designs and doing some more IPSC like stages.  I don't see why they can't do that at USPSA matches so as to not mess with equipment rules.  I just think they're going to have a heck of a time trying to get people on board with, and enforce, some of the IPSC specific rules and equipment requirements.

 

3 hours ago, perttime said:

How would a hybrid, with USPSA gun rules and IPSC for the rest, go down? With USPSA and other powers that be?

 

I don't disagree that the IPSC shooting challenge could be recreated within USPSA rules (e.g. use IPSC targets exclusively, follow 3-2-1 stage design etc.), but I think the goal is to create a match with a more distinctive flavor. As mentioned, the "do/don't do" decision is above my pay grade... I have just been asked to source a Rosetta Stone document.

[ChuckS]

4 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

Agree.  I'm not sure who is behind such a change at the OP's club but I cannot imagine it will be well received by their customers once they find out about 90% of their stuff is either flat illegal or will need major changes.

 

 

The OP's home range is Rio Salado. Many of the locals have shot IPSC matches and a couple have won at the IPSC World Shoot. I am guessing that they will get though this OK.  

[StealthyBlagga]

3 hours ago, BillChunn said:

If it were my club, with all the investments made in my gear for PCC and CO divisions, I'd find some where else to shoot.  But that's just me....

 

BC

 

4 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

Agree.  I'm not sure who is behind such a change at the OP's club but I cannot imagine it will be well received by their customers once they find out about 90% of their stuff is either flat illegal or will need major changes.

 

 

 

This will be an experiment for sure, and the market will tell us if it proves popular. Fortunately, we run matches both days of every weekend in the month, plus evenings during the week, so the USPSA diehards will still have ample opportunity to stay in their comfort zone.

[ChuckS]

Just now, StealthyBlagga said:

--- snip --- I have just been asked to source a Rosetta Stone document.

That will be handy! I think there was a thread here that tried to do that. It may of been back when the first US IPSC nationals happened. 

 

Later,

Chuck

 

PS: As a stopgap, have them read the IPSC rulebook.  

[StealthyBlagga]

2 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

@StealthyBlagga

 

@BritinUSA is correct.  I was the one who wrote the article for Front Sight several years ago ... Even updated it once.

 

I heard the occasional thanks, a lot of indifference, and some mild hostility for my efforts.  In the lead up to the Florida WS another US IROA and I tried to get someone to host a L3 IPSC match as a warm-up ... No takers.

 

If I can still find a copy of the article I'll email it to you.  But as @BritinUSA said, it's a little out of date now.  The two rule books have grown further apart since then.

 

Mike: Thanks - I already have your excellent Front Sight articles from November 2012 and January 2013. If you have something more to share, I'd love to see it.

[ChuckS]

The 3-2-1 ratio may be welcome due to the primer situation! 

[StealthyBlagga]

4 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

PS: As a stopgap, have them read the IPSC rulebook.  

 

Thanks for that... you brightened my day immeasurably

[StealthyBlagga]

2 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

The 3-2-1 ratio may be welcome due to the primer situation! 

 

Indeed - several of us agreed that the ammo drought makes this a good time to try this initiative. Quality>Quantity.

[Schutzenmeister]

9 minutes ago, StealthyBlagga said:

 

Mike: Thanks - I already have your excellent Front Sight articles from November 2012 and January 2013. If you have something more to share, I'd love to see it.

 

PM sent ...

[SGT_Schultz]

2 hours ago, StealthyBlagga said:

 

 

This will be an experiment for sure, and the market will tell us if it proves popular. Fortunately, we run matches both days of every weekend in the month, plus evenings during the week, so the USPSA diehards will still have ample opportunity to stay in their comfort zone.

The change in shooting challenge is welcome and not an issue.  But I'm not going to spend money to buy new pistols that are IPSC compliant.

 

None of my Production or Carry Optics pistols comply and some the changes I've made to them are irreversible (stippling or silicon carbide grit(

[Sarge]

20 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

The change in shooting challenge is welcome and not an issue.  But I'm not going to spend money to buy new pistols that are IPSC compliant.

 

None of my Production or Carry Optics pistols comply and some the changes I've made to them are irreversible (stippling or silicon carbide grit(

For sure. 

[StealthyBlagga]

23 minutes ago, SGT_Schultz said:

The change in shooting challenge is welcome and not an issue.  But I'm not going to spend money to buy new pistols that are IPSC compliant.

 

None of my Production or Carry Optics pistols comply and some the changes I've made to them are irreversible (stippling or silicon carbide grit(

 

I am sure that will be true for some, but I'm equally sure that others will already be compliant, or able to become compliant with little/no investment in new gear. The purpose of the Rosetta Stone is to make this as painless and accessible as possible.