IPSC & USPSA rulebooks

[Jim Norman]

Is the Florida Open a USPSA or an IPSC match?

Jim Norman

[GeorgeInNePa]

Is the Florida Open a USPSA or an IPSC match?

Jim Norman

From the major match calendar at USPSA.org:

Major Match Calendar

Starting Date Match Location

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

2/17/06 Florida Open

Level I Pending Frostproof, FL

[Jim Norman]

You are helpful as long as you don't touch my gun.

Re-up your RO status, we need more people out there.

Come down to Old Bridge and shoot our Pocket Gun Match.

Thread Drift Mode Off

Jim Norman

[Jim Norman]

Jim,

I shoot USPSA matches. I use the USPSA rule book. I will do so, and inform the clubs in the Ohio Section to do so, until I hear different from USPSA.

Remember, IPSC had a new book out before, we (in USPSA) continued under the Red book, however, until the green book was printed and mailed.

I don't think there is anything to get worried about.

Flex,

I just wanted somebody else to say " I SHOOT USPSA MATCHES"

Thank You!

That is what I shoot too! USPSA! And I expect that is what I will be shooting this Sunday. I said it before and I will say it again, We need time after the final adoption of the new IPSC rules to see what effect they have on us. I think we should lag by one year and set up our bylaws so that that is the RULE.

Jim

[lim10gm]

We don't need no stinking IPSC dudes to tell us how to run USPSA.

[wgnoyes]

Jim, as Troy McManus said to you sometime back on the USPSA forum, take a chill-pill and settle; it's all good, man.

Our tuesday night club just shot its first match of the year last night. It was run with USPSA rules. And, we even had a competitor shoot single stack division. Yes, just one, but he did ask for it.

[shred]

We don't need no stinking IPSC dudes to tell us how to run USPSA.

Yeah, especially not those two IPSC dudes on the IPSC rules committee. Voigt and Amidon.

[Jim Norman]

We don't need no stinking IPSC dudes to tell us how to run USPSA.

Yeah, especially not those two IPSC dudes on the IPSC rules committee. Voigt and Amidon.

It is that fact that gives me hope. Mike and John will be pulling for us, I hope.

But I understand lim10gm being concerned. There are more than a few people in positions of power in IPSC that would like to see USPSA go away as a separarte rule set. There are a few members of USPSA that don't see a problem with that either.

Our Matches will continue to run as USPSA under the 2004 USPSA rules until we are directed otherwise.

Jim Norman

[chuckw]

I just wanted somebody else to say " I SHOOT USPSA MATCHES" Thank You! That is what I shoot too! USPSA!

I bet the guys in Mexico shoot MPSA matches and the guys in Canada shoot CPSA matches and the guys in Russia shoot RPSA matches etc. etc. but every one is still shooting under IPSC rules. I'm willing to bet if there was a court case over IPSC rulebook copyright infringement, there's no way the changes in the USPSA rulebook are enough for it to be ruled a different document. Let's get real here!

Edited January 4, 2006 by chuckw

[Jim Norman]

Why is it that no one seems to "get it" our waiver allows us to have the different divisions that we have. USPSA Limited, not greatly different, but still different than Standard. We do not recognize Modified. We have Limited-10, IPSC? Not there. Production, we have it, they have it, BUT ours is vastly different. We do not allow "Race Holsters" they do, we only allow 10 rounds, thanks to the "Ban" This while many other arguments can be made pretty much eliminates any gun other than a 9mm from competitiveness in IPSC, but allows people in USPSA to shoot .40's, 45's and 9mm.

There are a few other differences and hopefully a few more will be added this go around.

Would a court hold it to be different? I don't know and frankly, I don't want to find out. But whether a copyright infringement lawsuit could be successful or not is not really the case and whether the people in Russia shoot RPSA or IPSC is not the question, So far as I know, they use the IPSC book as written, we here in teh US have not, do not and should not. We have our own game that is allied with and translates well when required, but it is a bit different due in large part to the variety of our Divisins which are not found in IPSC.

Anyone here in favor of the Single Stack Division to help grow the sport? Not in IPSC, but it is here in the USPSA.

So what will I do this weekend? I will help run a USPSA tutorial Friday Night and shoot a USPSA match on Sunday.

Jim Norman

[Alan Meek]

Question,

Would this thread had been better over on USPSA's forums?

[PhilTerry]

Would this thread had been better over on USPSA's forums?

At last a useful comment on this subject!

[GENE S]

Hay, that guy that shot single stack, did he win ?

[Jim Norman]

The title of htis particular forum is:

"Shooting Sports Discussions > USPSA/IPSC Rules"

Doesn't that seem to indicate that a discussion where people are wondering what the status of the USPSA RULES is should be welcome? Where should we discuss USPSA RULES? IDPA? Hi-Power?

I won't argue that this could ALSO be discussed on teh USPSA website and forums, but that hardly precludes its discussion here. At least so long as we keep it generally on track and always civil.

Jim Norman

[PhilTerry]

The title of htis particular forum is:

"Shooting Sports Discussions > USPSA/IPSC Rules"

Doesn't that seem to indicate that a discussion where people are wondering what the status of the USPSA RULES is should be welcome? Where should we discuss USPSA RULES? IDPA? Hi-Power?

I won't argue that this could ALSO be discussed on teh USPSA website and forums, but that hardly precludes its discussion here. At least so long as we keep it generally on track and always civil.

Jim Norman

Jim

The difference is I would expect USPSA BOD members to visit and read the USPSA forum whereas I know for certain that at least two current members of the USPSA board have never and will never visit this forum.

[bgary]

Can't speak for others, but... I'm here just about every day, and only rarely check in on the USPSA forums.

Bruce

[Flexmoney]

I think it would be best, in instances like that, to find out why the rules differ. One organization or the other likely had a reason for the change.

Wouldn't be best to look at the situation, then decide to merge with the best rule? Not just to default to one organization or the other? And, aren't there instances where it makes sense for the rules to differ?

[Jim Norman]

Both Flex and Chuck are making sense here.

We need to work together. A main obstructoin to that is that a lot of people in IPSC are not especially friendly towards anything American. They will take a different tack, just because it came from here. This is not limited to IPSC/USPSA, just watch the news and do some reading.

I agree that what we need are the BEST rules. regardless of where they come from. I also agree with Flex in that there are times where we just need to say this is different here and this is how we do it.

Anyone what the "Classic" mandated? How about the two-headed target? or no shooting while moving? or any of the other regional differeences? Anyone want to do away with the 6 divisions thet we use here in USPSA? or even make the change in productin so that all of your .40 cal productin guns are scap iron?

So all this being said.

We continue with the 2004 Rules till told different and we hope that the new rules will be presented in a manner that allows review prior to adoption so that we minimize the problems that were experianced last go around.

Jim Norman

[shred]

Anyone what the "Classic" mandated? How about the two-headed target? or no shooting while moving? or any of the other regional differeences? Anyone want to do away with the 6 divisions thet we use here in USPSA?

...

I also agree with Flex in that there are times where we just need to say this is different here and this is how we do it.

I think that's the point. None of those up there are required by the IPSC rules, yet some regions do them anyway for their own, usually legal, reasons.

Take a look at what you can and can't do in Germany at the moment some time-- it's most of that list.

All necessary amendments to the IPSC Rules and restrictions as required by German Firearms Law and as presented in the German IPSC Rule Book, announced in the briefing(s) or posted at the Stats Office are binding and acknowledged by all competitors as part of the match rules.

But, we can't go around setting a precedent of "we want to do it our own way, so damn it, we'll do whatever we want".. five minutes of that and half the world is shooting .380 and 9x18 and .22 and airsoft IPSC because it's what they want to do (check out the GV forums.. lots of proposals to do just those things keep getting shot down)

[Jim Norman]

But, we can't go around setting a precedent of "we want to do it our own way, so damn it, we'll do whatever we want".. five minutes of that and half the world is shooting .380 and 9x18 and .22 and airsoft IPSC because it's what they want to do (check out the GV forums.. lots of proposals to do just those things keep getting shot down)

And they should be "Shot Down" the IPSC rule book should be "essentially" the rule book, BUT that having ben said, I think that the USPSA rules make more sense. We allow more divisions and have fewer ambiguities. My opinion of course.

You CAN shoot Standard here, you cannot shoot L-10, Limited or SS there. Our Production allows more guns and calibers than IPSC.

If IPSC adopted USPSA rules it would be a better world, not likely to happen.

So that leaves us with a slightly modified USPSA set of rules, one that levels the Power Factors, includes our divisions and eliminates or modifies certain ambiguous rules.

Other regions have similar problems. Canada has a 10-round rule, Fine by me. (Actually it isn't, I would much rather we eliminate gun laws and have crime laws. but that is an entire different rant and thread.)

Anyway, It has been said that there are things being worked on, so maybe we will just have to wait a bit and see what shakes out this time. Thankfully, this time we should be back to a three year cycle for revisions. Maybe, unless that gets changed again.

Jim Norman

[chuckw]

A main obstructoin to that is that a lot of people in IPSC are not especially friendly towards anything American. They will take a different tack, just because it came from here.

As near as I can tell, you're the only person who keeps playing the "IPSC hates Americans" card, and it's getting real old. Who are these people and how about some actual quotes?

[bgary]

the "IPSC hates Americans" card

I hate to overgeneralize, but.... the differences between IPSC and USPSA are sometimes about philosophy, sometimes about history, but never about nationalism. At least, not that I have ever seen, and I've been involved in the rules process for about 4 years now.

Take, for example, the issue of whether a shot is "overtime" at 5.00 seconds or 5.31 seconds. Back when we all used to have Timed Fire stages, the IPSC rules were silent on what constituted an overtime shot. That became problematic with electronic timers, because even if you "broke" the shot legally at 4.99 seconds, the timer might continue to pick up sound (or echo, or whatever) and display a time greater than 5.00 seconds. So, NROI issued an interpretation that said that if the time was 5.30 seconds or less, it was a legal shot; if the time was 5.31 seconds or more, that was an overtime shot. This gave range staff an objective and fair and consistent way to deal with the situation. That ruling has been in force for years in the US.

Notably, in 2000 or 2001, IPSC decided to get rid of Timed Fire stages entirely. No discernable reason why - it was argued in the GA that if a club (or region) did not want to run Timed Fire Stages, they were under no obligation to do so - they could just ignore Timed Fire. That solution apparently did not meet the needs of certain regions, so IPSC got rid of Timed Fire entirely.

That created an interesting situation for USPSA. We have Timed Fire classifiers. We have historically user Timed Fire in a variety of standards. And we did not see a particularly great reason to lose that part of our heritage. So, we kept Timed Fire in the USPSA rulebook.

That (again, hesitating to overgeneralize) is a frequent pattern: IPSC changes something, as fits their needs; USPSA then needs to evaluate the change and determine as best it can whether or not the change serves the members of USPSA. In some cases it does, and we adopt the change. In others it does not, but it does not create enough of a "problem" to go to war over, so we adopt the change. In still others, it *does*, in our opinion, change something fundamental about the way the game is played in the US, and we write an "exception" in the US rulebook.

I would *love* for the IPSC rulebook and the USPSA rulebook to be the same, in theory. But in practice, IPSC has developed a pattern of adopting new rules (and/or changing the intent of rules through "interpretations") on a yearly cycle... which means that every time they change something we have to figure out if it is a good change or not, and either adopt it (changing the way the game is played in the US), or not adopt it (adding one more difference between our rulebooks).

I would like to see the game remain consistent with its roots. And I would *really* like to see our rulebook remain stable for more than 12 months at a time. Both of those desires seem to be at odds with the direction that IPSC is going, and... the best we can do is try to lead the IPSC rules conversations in what we believe is a productive direction, and create US rules that deviate from IPSC rules when we believe that an exception best serves the members of USPSA.

The "perfect" solutions are to either have IPSC stop changing things, or to have USPSA adopt and accept those changes in their entirety. Neither of those solutions are optimal for *both* parties, so we find ourselves in the state we're in.... on divergent paths.

Bruce

[Sam38]

Well that settles that.

True and probably for the best. But I think we should adopt the new IPSC rules that make sense. I see no reason why we need a 10 round limit for USPSA Open shotgun; the IPSC rule is much better.

Sam

[diehli]

Well that settles that.

True and probably for the best. But I think we should adopt the new IPSC rules that make sense. I see no reason why we need a 10 round limit for USPSA Open shotgun; the IPSC rule is much better.

Sam

Write a letter to the BOD to consider it for future iterations of the USPSA Rulebook.

[Neil Beverley]

Phil,

IIRC, when the 2004 rulebooks came out, timed fire courses were again included, to address concerns from USPSA members on the rule committees.....

Nik

You're only right in part. Actually IPSC didn't completely drop Fixed Time and we maintained FT in IPSC Shotgun and Rifle although it was dropped from HG for a while.

When we went through the huge excercise of aligning the 3 disciplines where we could it made sense to bring FT back to HG in line with SG and R. Of course Mike, John and at that time Bruce were in support of such a change.