2006 / 2007 Rulebook

[GeorgeInNePa]

Anyone stop to think, No Wavier, no Limited Divisoiin, No Limited-10, No US Production. No Multi-Gun?

Given how the US Standard team pretty much threw new basepads onto their Limited magazines to become 'standard', and how the US Production team pretty much filled thier magazines to full capacity to switch to IPSC production, I'm not thinking there's a big loss of divisions there. Maybe SS & L-10 would be lonesome, but somebody would take care of them. There are some other rules differences, but they aren't huge or insurmountable, as seen by the latest World Shoot results.

I've shot a few international matches and want to do more. They're fun and test a lot more skills than run-n-hose-for-32-rounds that we get here too often.

But.. if push came to shove.. the rest of the world could pretty much care less if USPSA left. They don't need us anymore. We gain a lot by being able to go all over the world and shoot, and more of us should take advantage of it. Foreign travel and guns? What could be better?? Go to Europe this summer for ten days, hit two National championships on successive weekends and have 4 days to tour around..

We shouldn't be demanding a waiver, we should be requesting one. Nothing wrong with that. We have different laws and rules, other countries have different laws and rules and get their own waivers. Why not be polite about it?

95% of the shooters in USPSA will never travel to an international match, they gain nothing. It's not even that they can't, many don't want to. I would say that most of USPSA could care less about the rest of the world.

Europe? For 2 weeks? Not me or anyone I know.

Sure, let's request a waiver, I'm all for being polite. Then what should we do if we don't get one? You saw the blow up over the last few days over the mere discussion of getting rid of some of our divisions. What will happen if we have to follow IPSC rules and they just go away? I think there will be people starting up more sports, like IDPA did when they decided to shoot the way they wanted to.

It's a lose, lose.

USPSA with IPSC, losing members to whatever comes along next.

USPSA without IPSC, losing members to the new IPSC region in the USA.

Why can't IPSC just leave the rules alone for a little while? Maybe there should be a "core" rule book, with the understanding that each region can finetune the rules as needed to fit their region.

[caps]

What difference does it make if USPSA were to just use IPSC Rules? A BIG difference!

Production in the US, 10 rounds, I can shoot a 9mm, a .40 or a .45

Production in IPSC:No round limit, I shoot a 9mm or I am not competative

Production in the USPSA, I shoot using a standard holster, IPSC, a race holster

USPSA, I can refinish my gun, IPSC, I send it to the original factory or let it rust.

Limited-10 Opps sorry not in IPSC at all, not even a similar division, it just is not there

Single Stack Same as L-10

Standard vs. Limited: Not as big a difference, but still there. I can toss all my basepads and get my magwell milled to fit. Probably a few other items, but I currently don't care, my gun works in L-10 and Limited here. IPSC, I have to make changes.

Power factors are slightly different, not a big problem, but still a difference. Bullet weights, another difference. Some of you would have a few thousand or more unusable heads if we were to switch.

IIRC the divisions were never part of the "compliance" deal - I did a search but couldn't find the thread where that comment was posted. As far as the other stuff goes, if you don't like any of the rules in the other sections, why not just apply for a waiver from USPSA from those rules for your club, the same way USPSA applies for a waiver from IPSC? Seems fair to me.

[caps]

IIRC the divisions were never part of the "compliance" deal - I did a search but couldn't find the thread where that comment was posted.

Woohoo. I finally found the thread but the search thingy is real slow today:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=83597.

[Paul B]

I would personally not want any kind of split between USPSA and IPSC. In fact I'd like to see IDPA rolled back in also.

What really concerns me is the rules "activism" that I'm seeing in IPSC. If you visit other forums you can see new rules being "hatched" everyday and they are being hatched by the very people who have the power on the Rules Committees to actually propose them. While not a rubber stamp there are many individuals who have become very adept at making their case to the IPSC leadership. I'd rather have a rules moratorium for a long period of time so we don't have to argue about this stuff all the time.

Surprisingly IDPA is a pretty good example. In spite of the fact that there was a lot of discussion (and still is) about the so called shortcomings of the rules, they don't change the rules very often.

What I see now is an activisim in IPSC rules that will probably require a new book at least every other year and I don't want that.

[Vlad]

-->

QUOTE(Paul B @ Dec 22 2005, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What really concerns me is the rules "activism" that I'm seeing in IPSC.

You are not kidding! The other day they were having a thread to see if people wanted NS targets to be scored by scoring zones. Amazingly common sense prevailed.

[PhilTerry]

I assume we are using the usual wingnut definition of activism - that is - when somebody makes a decision that differs from our view of the world.

[Jim Norman]

As the first person banned from the not so Global Village for disagreeing with the powers that be. Notably arguing the points of fact that there are things we do HERE in the US that work, why not try them...

It doesn't surprise me that there are those in IPSC, in the rules committees that want to see USPSA go away as a separate rulebook. Personally I was accused of being a xenophobe by one of the top people. Interesting that that is a crime, but being a USaphobe isn't!

I have to agree with Vlad, USPSA as IPSC, we lose, USPSA w/o IPSC, we lose, USPSA with a waiver, we at least stalemate.

What we need is rules stability. We cannot keep changing how the game is played every year or two. Look at the uproar over in AP. NRA evidently has changed the rules 3x in as many years. A whole new organization started and a second is forming.

We neither need or want this. What we really need is a way to bring more people into what we do and that may mean a 6th division, reducing the divisions and adding categories, doing both. I don't know, what I do know is we should not knee jerk the changes and we should set a fixed period of time between rule changes. Again agreeing with Vlad, A one year period between adoption and implementation of the new rules, then a 5 year period of acceptance where the rules stand.

This way we can get back to shooting and promoting the sport and finding sponsors for matches and shooters and fighting the enemy at the gates. Remember 2008 is only 22 months away! All hail her royal highness, unless we get our act together.

OK, Sorry for the rant

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah!

[Vlad]

I assume we are using the usual wingnut definition of activism - that is - when somebody makes a decision that differs from our view of the world.

Well yeah. I have my own personal opinions about what game I want to shoot being forced to change it by someone who's view of the world is different then mine is unpleasent. I dont think that there anything wrong with that. I really dont to keep an open mind about my preferences in a hobby. This isnt about religious tolerance towards my neighbors, or racial harmony. This discussion is about the rules of a game I participate in as a hobby.

I am perfectly able to absorb new ideas, evaluate them, and then accept them or reject them based on their soundness through the filter of my experience and preferences. I really dont need someone in power to make changes for me, without consulting me. It isnt like these changes are being proposed to the membership, debated and then voted upon. There something VERY wrong with having rules books which the membership only sees as they are about to become official. I could live with rules that where decided on by consensus of the IPSC shooters, but the current activism by various people in IPSC "power" is troubling and after the number of really bad and unwaranted changes last time, I am THRILLED that USPSA has a modified book which goes through a second revision.

[Chuck Anderson]

The funny thing is xenophobe is exactly the word that I was thinking before I came across Jim's last post. Whethet I shoot internatioally or not, I like the idea of being a part of an international organization. I've met Vince, and while I don't agree with all of his opinions, I didn't see tiny little horns sprouting from his head. If USPSA wants to split from IPSC and have it's own rules, fine, have a vote and see if that's the case. My bet is very few people would vote that way, or even care. I think the issue is blown greatly out of proportion by a few, extremely, vocal people on the internet.

As far as international shooters, we probably get a couple hundred different ones in the US a year. Is that a huge number, nope. But it's probably more than the number of US shooters that travel outside the country. I think this is a good thing because it lets everyone know how we do things, and we get to see how they do things. Split from IPSC and we just become a big stagnant, inbred organization that will just keep flogging the same 32 round field courses till we get bored and go home.

[Jim Norman]

What we need is rules stability. We cannot keep changing how the game is played every year or two. Look at the uproar over in AP. NRA evidently has changed the rules 3x in as many years. A whole new organization started and a second is forming.

The game has not changed - you just don't like two rules so you keep nagging about them forever here (and at the IPSC List before it totally self-destructed) and you use those two rules as an excuse to predict the end of the world as we know it. The real problem is that you simply can't accept any view other than your own.

The game has changed. Yes some of the changes have little effect so it could be said that there is no change, but a change is a change, no matter how small. We used to count all the hits on a N/S, for reasons as yet to be made clear, that is no longer the case. True enough, very few top shooters will hit a N/S more than once, let alone more than twice, but there is much more to USPSA shooting than the top three shooters, there are a lot of middle D shooters where the third hit on a N/S makes the difference between who pas for the first round after the match. We can no longer invert the "Metric" target, Why? It was said that a target would never present that way in the "Real World" it can and does, just crawl towards someone and ask which way the paper representation of that would look. Admittedly the "Classic" presents a problem, it is a symmetrical shape with an asymmetrical center. You can't tell where the A-Zone is. Then again, you also can't tell at the ninety-degree line either. So this rule did nothing to solve a problem, it just removed an option. IPSC gave us the traveling warning. Minor infraction on Stage One, mark it on your card, no penalty, do it again and we charge you a procedural. Suppose that the warning is given on a Short course, but the penalty is accessed on a long course, not a big deal, but reverse the situation, get a warning on the long course, but the penalty on a short! 10 points is a much bigger hit on a 45 point COF than it is on a 160 point COF. This could easily flip the match results between two close competitors. Thankfully, USPSA saw fit not to include this provision in our rules. So the game is changing, it has changed more in IPSC than here, but it is changed. I am not opposed to change, I am opposed to change simply for the sake of change.

If you think the courses at your matches are boring or dull, then design some better ones, this is not a rules issue. If there is a safety issue and the current rules don't in the opinion of your local group cover the issue, then it should be addressed, but it should be approached with the open mindedness that you or I could be wrong, there may be a rule that already covers the situation, or the situation may not really be what it is at first thought to be.

No Chuck, I can and do regularly accept things that are not my own view. What irks me is that there is and was no reason to make these changes. No problem existed and nothing was corrected because of those particular changes. Further no valid logical reason was ever put forth for making those changes.

They were not safety related nor were they driven by widespread legal concern and they did nothing to enhance competition. Ergo they are bad or at best unnecessary changes.

Changes to the rules should be required to meet at least one of the foregoing. There should be a major competitive problem, that is, there is some hole in the rules that allows an unfair advantage that is not skill related to enter into the competition, there should be widespread legal problems that disallow some portion of our game to the vast majority of the world, or there should be and this is actually the number one reason, there should be a safety issue that needs to be addressed before it becomes to late.

Currently the one with whom many disagree would like to ban: Loaded gun table starts or drawer starts, eliminate any exemption for sweeping even with a holstered gun while rising from a chair, eliminate the one meter rule from the gun pointing past the 180 while holstered effectively issuing a DQ to anyone that bends forward while rising from a seated position with a production rig, would remove rear fault lines from shooting boxes where the competitor is forced to go prone, would mandate that everyone assume exactly the same start position, even when the WSB only says standing in Freefire Zone because the freestyle portion of the COF begins at the start beep, and so on. We would not have Three-Gun, Your .40 cal would be useless in Production, Open would be done away with. All of these ideas spring from one place, not the USPSA and moreover they spring from one person, the IPSC Secretary.

You are right, I do disagree with a couple of rules and this is why. The sky may not be falling, but large chunks of it are pretty shaky unless we as a group keep a close watch on those that make the comment "If I were King of IPSC..." Because they are the ones driving certain changes that appear to be directed against the USPSA.

I admit to being controversial at times, often opinionated, and may be seen as combative at times. I am not an obstructionist. If someone will demonstrate the logic of a position, I will accept it, even if I don't like it. At our matches I regularly agree to reduce the level of skill required on certain COF's because we have some people that have VERY high skill sets and we have others that have lower levels of certain skills. There are however certain points beyond which we simply don't go. In other words, some would reduce to the Lowest Common Denominator, which would mean we just shoot 50-foot bullseye.

OK, I have said my piece and I may get hammered for some parts of it. No personal attacks are intended or to be inferred from any of my comments.

Merry Christmas to all and to all an good night

Jim Norman

Edited December 23, 2005 by Jim Norman

[Singlestack]

No bickering, whining, or antagonistic tones will be tolerated.

[chuckw]

All of these ideas spring from one place, not the USPSA and moreover they spring from one person, the IPSC Secretary.

No personal attacks are intended or to be inferred from any of my comments.

I believe you.

[wgnoyes]

... We used to count all the hits on a N/S, for reasons as yet to be made clear, that is no longer the case. ..

Actually, the one AND ONLY logical excuse I ever heard for that rule change was over on the USPSA forum from (I believe) Neil Beverly and he made the case that in some places, they shoot shotgun buckshot at paper. You fired a single blast and scored (hopefully) 2-alpha on the shoot target but you then had the quandry of, if the round strayed into the noshoot, do you really count all the .30 holes in the white? I don't know if that is REALLY the source of the rule change, but that is the scenario I seem to recall being presented as an argument for it and its the only reason I ever heard that made any sense.

[ima45dv8]

... We used to count all the hits on a N/S, for reasons as yet to be made clear, that is no longer the case. ..

Actually, the one AND ONLY logical excuse I ever heard for that rule change was over on the USPSA forum from (I believe) Neil Beverly and he made the case that in some places, they shoot shotgun buckshot at paper. You fired a single blast and scored (hopefully) 2-alpha on the shoot target but you then had the quandry of, if the round strayed into the noshoot, do you really count all the .30 holes in the white? I don't know if that is REALLY the source of the rule change, but that is the scenario I seem to recall being presented as an argument for it and its the only reason I ever heard that made any sense.

Actually, that sounds reasonable and as such should be included in the Shotgun rules, but only in the Shotgun rules. No place for it in Pistol, IMO.

[caps]

Actually, the one AND ONLY logical excuse I ever heard for that rule change was over on the USPSA forum from (I believe) Neil Beverly and he made the case that in some places, they shoot shotgun buckshot at paper.

I was sold on the new rule because of the 2-2-2 formula. We count best two on scoring targets, a maximum of two misses and "worst two" on no shoots. What's wrong with that?

If we want to count every hit on a no shoot, then we should count every hit on a scoring target too coz I wasted extra time to get them. We should also count all stray shots that hit nothing as misses, with no upper limit.

I don't care which way we go, but it should be all shots counted or we retain the current limits across the board. Singling out no shoots for special treatment just doesn't make any sense.

[Vlad]

Actually, the one AND ONLY logical excuse I ever heard for that rule change was over on the USPSA forum from (I believe) Neil Beverly and he made the case that in some places, they shoot shotgun buckshot at paper.

I was sold on the new rule because of the 2-2-2 formula. We count best two on scoring targets, a maximum of two misses and "worst two" on no shoots. What's wrong with that?

To the people who have seen this before I appologize, this is actually a misconception a lot of people have so it doesnt hurt to repeat this.

Nothing, if it was true. However it is not. We dont engage targets with 2 shots, we engage them with sufficient rounds to score. The rule book only requires 1 shot per target, and not even that on disapearing targets. By convention MOST courses of fire require 2 shots per target, but pleanty of stages don't, including the a LOT of the classifiers, some of which require as many as six shots per target. To make matters worse imagine a NS target that obscures 2 different targets. Even in the 2-2-2 model, you may still get 4 shots on the NS.

I actually dont care THAT much about the 2 per NS rule, except as an example of a rule that doesnt serve a purpose and which actually can make make a real scoring difference and allow someone who put 4 holes in NS targets to win over someone who only put 3 holes in NS targets all other things being equal. If you want an example of that PM me and I'll explain it further, I just don't want to beat this horse into pulp. This equine isnt only dead, it has been enbalmed, burned, and spread into the winds, but its floating ashes still leave a bad taste in peoples mouth and in some ways it is still an example of bad rule making.

Edited December 24, 2005 by Vlad

[Jim Norman]

Ok, Let's review.

Hits on a NS. In Shotgun, you shoot Buckshot, you should know where your gun is patterned. Let us visit once again the daring days of yesteryear, when out of the dark the masked villan takes the lovely school marm hostage, all you have is your trusty scattergun loaded with OO-Buck. You take your best shot. You really want to have no pellets in the lovely miss who you hope will thank you for saving her life in the particular way of the old west...

On the other hand, one pellet skimmed her ear, she still loves you, you saved her from a worse fate and her long hair will cover the slightly dinged ear lobe. Maybe a second pellet hit, but she is not scared for life, she is still thankful.

OK, You are a lousy shot and dumped all nine pellets square into the new school marm. Think that the penalty should be the same as two pellets?

The scenario I laid out for pistol was this: All hits on NS should count, think of it in the roots of the sport, Practical Shooting, Defensive Shooting. We have three things that can happen to a round once it leaves the gun in real life. The best thing is that it can hit the target (Bad Guy)m the next best thing really is that it will travel down the road, and impact a brick wall or a tree and no bystanders will be injured, the worst thing is that the round will hit a non-combatant. Now why should we count all the hits on the NS targets that we see? My take is that they represent the hits on the innocent bystander way down the street. Maybe there would be a house with a window and someone inside? Our "Miss" might strike that person. So I say, a miss that misses everything is one that hit the brick wall or tree, the hits on the NS targets are the misses that hit an innocent. Our rules state that all targets are impenetrable so just scattering more NS targets won't work, we could never be sure which hits occurred from shoot throughs and which were virgin hits. So I say count all the hits on the NS targets in order to enforce accuracy.

Why only count two hits on scoring targets? Simple, I'll explain. We use what is known as Hit Factor Scoring, or Points per Second. We predetermine how many points a stage will be worth and we have already decided that two D hits is sufficient to remove a target as a threat, anything less (a miss) gets us a 10 point penalty which you could say represents the damage that that un-neutralized bad guy did to us. Also, if we were to count all the hits on shoot targets, how would you score the match? and remember this is a game, we are keeping score on paper, not with body bags. Lets open up the scoring, I get to the end of a COF really fast and just empty a mag or tow or three in to the last target as fast as I can, the more rounds I shoot he more points I get. I am bigger than you and I can carry 150 pounds of ammo, I simply stand there and melt my gun down, but by George I win because I shoot more A's, way more A's than you did. But is that the game, or even a game that we are or want to play?

So if this helps someone to understand my point, great, if not Oh well.

Merry Christmas

Jim Norman

[caps]

We have three things that can happen to a round once it leaves the gun in real life ........... and remember this is a game, we are keeping score on paper, not with body bags.

Sorry Jim but I still don't buy it, and one reason is coz your argument shuffles all over the place from "real life" to "it's a game".

If we go the "real life" route, if I only need 2 hits to fubar a bad guy, then I only need 2 hits to fubar a hostage. If we go the "it's a game" route, which is what it's really all about, then if we limit the scoring upside by 2, we should limit the penalty downside by 2, for misses and no shoots.

The other thing is what percentage of total no shoots used in a year are hit more than 2 times? My wild guess is 2% or less, so why all the heartache?

Happy Holidays to all.

[Jim Norman]

The other thing is what percentage of total no shoots used in a year are hit more than 2 times? My wild guess is 2% or less, so why all the heartache?

Happy Holidays to all.

If you are correct and less than 2% of all NS targets get three hits, then the rule is meaningless and as such loses it's raison d'etre. We should not make rules that have no or negligable effect.

One of the problems that occurs with this rule and with many others is that they fail to take nto account the race for 4th-D. I agree that TJ, TGO, or any of the top are unlikely hit a NS three times, heck they are unlikely to hit one one time!, but there are the run of the mill, I'm here to have fun and see who pays for the beer shooter that the extra hit can make a difference.

Picture a stage with an array that lloks like this: T-NS-T-NS-T

Three shooters get two -alpha on each target, and each shooter also gets 4 NS hits. HOWEVER Shooter #1 has three NS on the first on the left target and only one on the second, Shooter # 2 gets 2 NS hits on each and Shooter # 3 gets all his NS hits on the second NS.

In the days BEFORE (the new Rulebook) all of these shooters got the same score 30 points for the hits and 40 points of penalty. Today (With the new rules) shooter #1 gets 30 penalty points, Shooter number 2 gets 40 and shooter number 3 gets 20! And people say this doesn't make a difference, that the rule has no effect.

Jim Norman wishing every one a Merry Christmas and NS free New Year

(Editors Note: Thank you John for catching my error, shooter #3 under the new rules does get only 20 points penalty. You are coorect and I have amended the last line of this post to clarify the scoring difference between the old rules and the new.)

Edited December 24, 2005 by Jim Norman

[johnhurd]

and shooter number 3 gets 40!

I think ya meant 20 right????

[wgnoyes]

I was sold on the new rule because of the 2-2-2 formula. We count best two on scoring targets, a maximum of two misses and "worst two" on no shoots. What's wrong with that?

Rather than rehash what has already been said elsewhere, I'll just refer you to this link:

http://www.uspsa.org/forums/index.php?show...findpost&p=1481

Oh, and here's a link to the actual point of Neil Beverly when he brought up the shotgun no-shoot problem, along with my response with an illustrative graphic of the effect of the 2-max noshoot rule.

http://www.uspsa.org/forums/index.php?show...findpost&p=1468

And I'll allow others to continue to beat upon this and possibly the other favorite hated rule to their heart's content. Not that I don't agree with them, I do: those two rules suck. But I also know they're in the rulebook now with support from the BOD and they're not going anywhere. Besides which, the 90-degree rule has a NROI-reviewed workaround, anyway.

Oh, and no one else seems to have returned the greeting, so I will. Jim Norman: Merry Christmas to you, too!

[PhilTerry]

Bill

Would it not have been more appropriate for these exchanges to have taken place on the USPSA forum rather than here?

[wgnoyes]

Short answer: no. As you can see at the top of your screen, the forum naming structure is "Brian's Forums... Maku mozo! > Shooting Sports Discussions > USPSA/IPSC Rules" (Emphasis added.)

Edited December 24, 2005 by wgnoyes

[LPatterson]

//Thread Drift//

I hate any rules that are not safety related.

//Thread Drift Off//

[Vlad]

//Thread Drift//

I hate any rules that are not safety related.

//Thread Drift Off//

Well then I want to shoot a beta-mag AR pistol in .22LR with laser sights, red dots, target seeking bullets, (and this thing in the grip that tells time), in production.

Oh and I want to be able to shoot all my rounds at the closest target, no shoots included, with the gun mounted on a body gyro stabilizer like in Aliens.

We do need a few more rules besides the safety ones