Uspsa Match Ammo Rules

[MikeFoley]

This is really not that hard. All get checked at the chrono. If the lowest PF useing PD ammo that gets to shoot at major is 162.9 or what ever everyone that makes 162.9 or above with any ammo is major FOR THAT MATCH ONLY.-----Larry

This seems fair IMO. I doubt very seriously most shooters could tell the difference in 162 vs. 167. I am pretty sure there would be no difference in their scores either. Anyone recall when PF was 180? I am as guilty as anyone for cruising at the PF floor, I made 166 at Nats, 165 at KY3G, and nothing over 170 all year long. If I had gone minor, I would have been at fault. Maybe PD could load 3-4 loads at PF for the most common guns/barrels and label them with different stock numbers and then the competitors could preorder one of each and chrono them, then choose the 1 of 4 loads that make it in your gun, just like you would for your own reloads. This still puts the burden on the shooter to make it by enough to account for variables.

Edited March 8, 2006 by fomeister

[Bigbadaboom]

All competitors have identical choices and options available.

That doesn't fly. For reasons already mentioned and because it doesn't keep the rules the same for everyone. You can't favor one type/brand of ammo and allow them a break on power factor guide lines. It's like saying "Only Springfield Armory single stacks can have bull barrels in SS division for whatever reason." Your statement also says "If you want a break on the power factor restrictions then buy this ammo or tough luck. You have the option to buy this type of ammo." It kind of takes the "Fair" out of "Fair Market".

[omnia1911]

Wait until someone wins their class, possibly a gun, shooting match ammo that didn't make the 165PF, but scored major anyway. Be prepared to beat back the attacks from the person who finished in 2nd place.

Will the competitors have access to the actual chrono readings for the "match ammo" competitors, or will we just see the major/minor tag in the scoring program?

[Rob Boudrie]

Wait until someone wins their class, possibly a gun, shooting match ammo that didn't make the 165PF, but scored major anyway. Be prepared to beat back the attacks from the person who finished in 2nd place.

Will the competitors have access to the actual chrono readings for the "match ammo" competitors, or will we just see the major/minor tag in the scoring program?

Even if available (I would provide that info if asked when I am running a match, though it is not part of the published results), the information will not provide the information you seek. The "verification" measurement used to confirm the competitor is indeed using match ammo is a straight average of 3 rounds. A shooter whose first 3 chrono rounds measure 163 might, for example, make 165 on the "best 3 of 8" measurement allowed under the full chrono procedure.

[Crusher]

Personally I think the offering of PD and the partnership with USPSA is worthwile to those who need the service.

Additionally if I am bested in a match by someone shooting a PD round that is is allowed a waiver (regardless of what that ammo chronos at) from the "chrono man" and I use my reloads at a 171 PF and I lose, it was NOT PF that beat me it was A BETTER SHOOTER.

Wait until someone wins their class, possibly a gun, shooting match ammo that didn't make the 165PF, but scored major anyway. Be prepared to beat back the attacks from the person who finished in 2nd place.

Will the competitors have access to the actual chrono readings for the "match ammo" competitors, or will we just see the major/minor tag in the scoring program?

You will NEVER see me BEDWET on that one, but hey, "to each his own"

Edited March 8, 2006 by Crusher

[Rob Boudrie]

We have had this issue for a LONG time, just in a different form:

Consider the following:

Shooter "A" and "B" enter a match. Shooter "A"'s gun has a tight bore and is nice and fast. Shooter "B" has a very old gun and a slightly loose bore with a distinctly lower velocity. Both are shooting identical loads which will chrono at 167 out of "A"s gun and 163 out of "B"s gun.

The match uses a "house gun" to chrono and grants a pass if the ammo makes major (giving a second chance with the shooter's gun if the ammo does not make power factor). Shooter A and B both make major in the "house gun."

The two cases are very similar - in both the "match ammo" and "house gun" case, the ammo made major out of a gun other than the shooters and that was used as a basis for confirmation of the declared power factor. Interestingly, we never heard complaints about the "house gun" concept.

[Bigbadaboom]

We have had this issue for a LONG time, just in a different form:

Consider the following:

Shooter "A" and "B" enter a match. Shooter "A"'s gun has a tight bore and is nice and fast. Shooter "B" has a very old gun and a slightly loose bore with a distinctly lower velocity. Both are shooting identical loads which will chrono at 167 out of "A"s gun and 163 out of "B"s gun.

The match uses a "house gun" to chrono and grants a pass if the ammo makes major (giving a second chance with the shooter's gun if the ammo does not make power factor). Shooter A and B both make major in the "house gun."

The two cases are very similar - in both the "match ammo" and "house gun" case, the ammo made major out of a gun other than the shooters and that was used as a basis for confirmation of the declared power factor. Interestingly, we never heard complaints about the "house gun" concept.

I've never heard of the "House gun" concept. Is it a standing rule?

[Rob Boudrie]

I have seen "house guns" used in numerous matches, with the consent of NROI. I will ask for a formal ruling on the matter.

Rob

[Larry White]

House gun or match gun went away long ago, because of the same reasons being talked about here. We could bring up the ballistic pendlum too but this is about todays rules and todays issues.-----Larry

Edited March 8, 2006 by lkytx

[XRe]

I've never heard of the "House gun" concept. Is it a standing rule?

No.. it's used at some matches as a way to speed up the match process. No need for the competitor to stop at the chrono, unless they don't make major in the house gun. Frankly, I think anyone who volunteers up a gun to be the "house gun" is insane - as is the guy operating it....

I fully appreciate wanting to make sure that everyone is scored as the PF they actually make at the chrono. Having been bit by the "you're minor by less than 1 PF" thing, it's a bit of a sore spot, for me. The lack of availability of approved match ammo for my racegun is also bugging me - cause I still have to worry about shipping ammo around...

But - here's the thing. We all know it's problematic to get large quantities of ammo to a match. For many of us, it's not a huge deal, cause we don't go to matches we have to fly to. Fair enough. For some, though - and for some large matches - you can't fly with the quantity of ammo that you need to shoot the match. You can try to ship it ahead of time via UPS or something - if they lose your ammo, or the hotel loses it, etc, you can't shoot the match. This is further complicated if it's an international match, cause you can't easily ship the ammo in, either.

In order to help alleviate this condition, USPSA has found a vendor willing to produce ammo for our sport to be shipped to the match for you. IPSC is taking similar steps. In order for that business venture to be successful, it must offer a product that the market wants - ie, ammo as close to the PF floor as possible, while still leaving some margin, in a configuration that will feed and work in the widest range of guns possible. Inevitably, this also means that what makes Major in some won't in others - or will be so hot in others that no one will use it.

For various reasons, people won't use this ammo service if there's any chance that they will not make Major. If people don't use it, the business venture fails, and so does the ammo service. So, they make efforts to insure that the ammo will make Major in the most guns possible, and make a stipulation in the rules to waive the ones that don't, assuming that they're pretty close to the way the loads chrono'ed in a "house gun" - this is to insure that someone doesn't buy the match ammo, and then sub in some 150PF puff loads that *look* like the match ammo. Someone might win like that, true.

Keep in mind that this is not "optimal" ammo for anyone's gun. It's using a slower powder (most assuredly, for liability purposes) than most of us would use, so it's going to shoot firmer. It may or may not be as accurate as your pet load in your gun. You only get one choice of bullet weight, too.

So... is it that huge a deal if someone uses this program, makes 163.5 PF, is scored Major, and wins? We all keep talking about how shooting minor isn't *that* huge a difference in terms of the recoil of the gun or in being able to shoot quickly, and that the shooter is the biggest element in play, not the equipment. Can we, as a forum community, honestly say that we think 1.5PF was a major (pun intended) factor in that shooter's win?? What if the shooter has a faster bore, or shoots a 6" gun, and makes 173PF??

Why not wait a season and see what shakes out following the Nationals? There'll be plenty of data gathered there as to who made what, and how all this shakes out. Perhaps one possible solution will be the introduction of another load (even though it complicates things) for "slow" guns, or something. If the membership uses the program, and it's profitable for PD, they may be willing to do such a thing. Then, you have a choice of loads, and we can return to regular chrono procedures for this ammo, potentially.

Let's think about it another way. Say the big match is right next door to you, so travelling with or shipping ammo is not of any concern. You have the option of buying match ammo from PD, knowing that you'll be scored Major PF regardless of how it chronos. Or, you can take your own handcrafted loads. What would you do? Personally, I'd take my own stuff - I'm certain it shoots clean and soft and I know the accuracy potential already.

Yes, rules are rules, and I'm usually the one on the soapbox screaming that out. In order to enable this sort of service to the shooter, and allow greater participation in matches that occur outside a shooter's general geographic region, this seems to be a worthwhile compromise. In the grand scheme of things, it seems a pretty small thing to put up with, to me....

[kevin c]

Personally I think the offering of PD and the partnership with USPSA is worthwile to those who need the service.

Additionally if I am bested in a match by someone shooting a PD round that is is allowed a waiver (regardless of what that ammo chronos at) from the "chrono man" and I use my reloads at a 171 PF and I lose, it was NOT PF that beat me it was A BETTER SHOOTER...

In your described case, that may very well be true, but the case I am concerned about involve two shooters with minor PF's, one using match ammo (and it doesn't have to be PD, they're just the ones providing the ammo at this time), and the other who brought his own, or perhaps even brought the same ammo as the match version, but outside the match ammo service. The two could have identical times, and identical hits (say, half A's and half C's), they could even be twin brothers sharing the same gun, but the one with official match ammo will get 90% of the available points, but the other, scoring minor with the same PF/same ammo, will get only 80%. The new rules just gave the shooter with match ammo 12.5% more points for an identical performance.

For you (and me, since I plan on using my ammunition, which I feel suits me and my gun better than the current match version) it may not matter. But it does for the guy who went minor. Don't go minor, then? I agree, but I think nobody should be allowed to go minor and get major scoring.

I think the service is promising too, but I have (and maybe I am in the minority here) a big problem with the rules covering it. They are not fair to all competitors as they are written now. That is not PD's fault, it is not Rob's fault, it, IMHO, is a decision that was made by the organization to support the new idea, but that has an unintended consequence that can affect the order of finish in a match, that has nothing to do with match performance, which is the only important thing that should really effect the order of finish.

[Rob Boudrie]

House gun or match gun went away long ago, because of the same reasons being talked about here. We could bring up the ballistic pendlum too but this is about todays rules and todays issues.-----Larry

I don't remember that there was ever a rule which officially supported the "house gun" concept - people just sort of "did it" and nobody complained.

[shred]

I don't remember that there was ever a rule which officially supported the "house gun" concept - people just sort of "did it" and nobody complained.

In the 2001 rulebook it was allowed.

US 5.6.4 ... Ammunition may be tested using the competitors firearm or a test gun of the same caliber as the competitors..

Now it's not :

5.6.3.1 Ammunition must be tested using the competitor’s handgun.

Given the huge amount of complaining and "rules are rules" comments when I suggested we actually apply a scientific measure to the PF calculation and actually use the correct significant digits so as to not minor people that actually shot Major PF even though the chrono-calculator says 164.999, I'm very amused at the "who cares about 1 or 2 PF?" comments. If it's not a big deal, why do we have all the stupid language about "164.999 isn't 165" in the current rulebook?

[Bigbadaboom]

I see this turning into an issue at a large match if even one top shooter uses PD match ammo and wins rather any other top shooters minor or not. If it is formally requested that their chrono results be shown and they are below 165 there will be people screaming foul. My shooting is my shooting and I am responsible for my skills. I can't blame someone else chronoing minor and getting scored major on my bad performance but if I'm #2 and they are #1 by .10ths of a point and I gave the performance of my life while they chronoed minor and got scored major while I was strictly held to 165 I would make it an issue.

I'll say it again; "The rules have to be the same for everyone."

[Rob Boudrie]

If one accepts the premise that the program is not viable without a power factor provision, the question becomes:

Which is better for our membership? Having a direct-to-match ammo program with the power factor rule, or not having a program?

It is not accurate to say the rules are not the same for everyone. To say that "different rules apply" is like claiming that the rule "retention straps, if present, must be used" is a rule that is only applied to some competitors. Everyone is subject to that rule, even if their holster does not have a retention strap.

There is room for legitimate debate on the rule, but this choice of term is like insisting on using the definition "Assault weapon" for a semi-auto gun ... if accepted it allows those on one side of the debate to start the discussion with an a-priori assumption built right into the question.

[shred]

If one accepts the premise that the program is not viable without a power factor provision, the question becomes:

I think the debate is we don't accept the premse, assuming the "power factor provision" is the "you don't have to make PF at the chrono" exception.

The value of a match ammo service is in getting hard-to-find ammo where you need it. The PF-exemption shouldn't be needed to sell that. I also note that the hardest-to-find ammo and most-likely-to-need-an-exception; Open ammo, isn't available. Why not?

Even IPSC (whose rule I don't agree entirely with) has a "we reserve the right to chrono you anyway and score you according to the PF you make" provision.

[XRe]

I'm very amused at the "who cares about 1 or 2 PF?" comments. If it's not a big deal, why do we have all the stupid language about "164.999 isn't 165" in the current rulebook?

Permit me to amuse you some more For my part, what I actually said was "is it that big a deal", and was intended within the context of the question that Rob asks that I quote below.

The rulebook has to make some differentiation, at some cutoff point, between Major and Minor. Thus the language you describe. Chrono'ing itself has a lot of holes in the process that can lead to unfair treatment of the competitor. The rules only require that the chrono stay consistent within 5% when tested once per day during the match - which can be a swing of up to 10PF, depending on the bullet weight and velocity. That means that, if you're running 125s at 170PF, it only takes a 3% negative error to make you hit 164.9. Are all chronos in common use at matches accurate to < 2-3% for every sample? They don't require the chrono to be calibrated in any way. They don't make any note of lighting conditions changing throughout the day - any match using a chrono without a chrono coffin is subject to this effect. They don't make notes of procedures to operate the chrono itself to insure consistent reading.

Then look at 5.6.3.11 - if the chrono breaks along the way, we trust those who haven't been chrono'ed, but still use the chrono'ed values for everyone else. How is that fair to those who have been chrono'ed?? Someone who's shooting minor ammo might win, and never be known <gasp!>

I understand the need for power factor, and what it gives us, overall. I understand the need for the rules to draw a line in the sand as to what's considered Major and Minor. But all the hubbub over a policy to allow an alternate method to determine Major for those who choose to use this ammo service - when the conditions being complained about exist in the current system - seem slightly silly and pedantic to me...

I tend to think that we should clean up the chrono rules some to insure that we're using a chrono that has, in some way, been calibrated against a known standard in the environment it's used in, and then tested against that standard more frequently during the match. The chronos used should be accurate enough as to not cause huge differences in the competitor's results, either - ideally, 1% or less. There should be rules as to what equipment will constitute a match chronograph setup, etc... I've always tended to think this, BTW...

If one accepts the premise that the program is not viable without a power factor provision, the question becomes:

Which is better for our membership? Having a direct-to-match ammo program with the power factor rule, or not having a program?

This is basically what I was getting at - the ammo service program can't really succeed if there isn't some provision. Do we want this service or not? I see it as a good thing that should allow more folks to go different places and shoot. Maybe other folks don't...

Maybe the folks doing all the bitching would like to propose a different solution that would allow a match ammo service program to work?

The value of a match ammo service is in getting hard-to-find ammo where you need it.

In some areas of the world, yeah, that's definitely true. Here in the US, finding, say, 9mm or regular .40 is pretty easy in most places - or within an hour's drive, anyway. Long .40, you can't find that of course. I don't really see a reason for most US shooters to use this service for US matches, unless it's to help avoid the need to travel with ammo or ship it ahead of them. My guess would be that, if there's a chance of going minor... they probably won't bother and will figure out some other way...

The PF-exemption shouldn't be needed to sell that. I also note that the hardest-to-find ammo and most-likely-to-need-an-exception; Open ammo, isn't available. Why not?

Sounds like they started with the relatively easy/safe things?? They'd need to be able to supply several loads that in no way resemble what would legally be considered "safe" - .38 Super, a rimless .38 Super variant, 9 Major, maybe 9x21. It's quite likely that PD has decided this isn't real safe for their business, and wants to avoid the liability stuff (even though a lot of Open loads are safer than some of the .40 loads running around out there... ).

Even IPSC (whose rule I don't agree entirely with) has a "we reserve the right to chrono you anyway and score you according to the PF you make" provision.

It will be interesting to see how successful both programs are after this first year - the theories on how well they'll do will have some data to back them up or disprove them, either way, eh??

[Larry White]

Sure we want this program, and we want it to work. Sure there has to be a tolerance for pf, but if that ammo is in use at a match the tolerance should apply across the board. ------Larry

[shred]

In some areas of the world, yeah, that's definitely true. Here in the US, finding, say, 9mm or regular .40 is pretty easy in most places - or within an hour's drive, anyway.

This is one of my points. Assuming factory ammo is available at or near the match site, why does PD ammo get a free chrono pass and the others not?

My guess would be that, if there's a chance of going minor... they probably won't bother and will figure out some other way...

You mean like everybody else that buys or brings ammo?

I'm all for a match ammo service, but.. we've either got rules that apply to everybody's ammo manufacturer equally or we don't.

[.40AET]

Maybe the folks doing all the bitching would like to propose a different solution that would allow a match ammo service program to work?

No problem:

Keep the Match Ammo program and keep the standard chronograph procedure and make it applicable to everyone at the match. The people who choose to buy the PD ammo should have to buy a sample package and find out if it makes PF in the gun that they plan on using in the match. If it does then order the ammo and go to the chrono stage happy that they will make PF. [No free pass for anyone]

All this talking got me interested. I called PD and ordered a sample package for testing. I can hardly wait to get it.

[omnia1911]

If the match ammo program needs some leeway in the chrono procedures to work, apply the same leeway to everyone's ammo.

I don't understand why you wouldn't do this.

If the match ammo leeway is being used simply to encourage use of the program, I couldn't think of a worse idea.

Edited March 9, 2006 by omnia1911

[XRe]

My guess would be that, if there's a chance of going minor... they probably won't bother and will figure out some other way...

You mean like everybody else that buys or brings ammo?

Sigh.... I give up. You're missing my point entirely.

I'm all for a match ammo service, but.. we've either got rules that apply to everybody's ammo manufacturer equally or we don't.

In other words - if, in fact, some "insurance" is required so that competitors feel safe in buying ammo thorugh the match ammo service, and such a thing is necessary to insure the survival and sustainability of such a program... You're not all for it. Or, put another way, you don't really feel a match ammo service is all that important - at least, not here in the US (assuming one agrees that for a match ammo service to be successful financially, a "free chrono pass" would have to be granted to a competitor who chooses to use it).

[kevin c]

OK, now we're getting a little heated here. Let's not assume too much.

The bottom line as I see it is that some folks really like the idea of a match ammo service and some of them feel that the ammo, as it makes PF now, and the new rules, as currently written, are needed to make it a success. Others have issues about how those rules will effect some competitors in an unequal fashion scorewise, not about the idea of a match ammo service itself.

The rules are in place and the ammo is available. I won't be using it, but that is my personal decision. The new rules will NOT affect MY score at a match where the service is available, it MAY affect the score of a few using the service, and that MAY affect where I finish in the standings. I'll congratulate those ahead of me in the standings, because they shot better than me. I'll not be grousing if some ahead of me used match ammo that chrono'd 163 in their guns vs. my ammo at 168 in my gun, same as I wouldn't expect somebody at 172 to complain that I beat them with my 168 ammo. My ammo should be major and my score would not have changed regardless. But that's not to say somebody with 164 ammo who was required to score minor won't feel, or say, that it is unfair to finish behind somebody with the same hits who gets a match ammo exception to being scored minor. But we'll have to wait and see what happens.

The issue being discussed is a potential one. The rules haven't been in effect long enough to demonstrate a real problem yet. This thread was started by me to see how people felt, and what might need to be done in case a real problem does occur (maybe nobody will chrono minor with the match ammo...). The first paragraph above summarizes what I have gotten from the responses and my thinking in response to your comments (and thank you for giving them). We've had rules that affected finish in majors before (L10 and Production ten vs eleven rounds in the mag at LAMR, for instance). The rule got changed in response to the demonstration of a real problem. We'll see if a problem actually comes up, and whether USPSA will respond if it does.

Edited, supposedly for clarity...

Edited March 8, 2006 by kevin c

[driver8M3]

Maybe the folks doing all the bitching would like to propose a different solution that would allow a match ammo service program to work?

No problem:

Keep the Match Ammo program and keep the standard chronograph procedure and make it applicable to everyone at the match. The people who choose to buy the PD ammo should have to buy a sample package and find out if it makes PF in the gun that they plan on using in the match. If it does then order the ammo and go to the chrono stage happy that they will make PF. [No free pass for anyone]

All this talking got me interested. I called PD and ordered a sample package for testing. I can hardly wait to get it.

that seems like a pretty reasonable procedure to me. it also seems like most people that use the ammo service will test it first anyway. does anyone really want to show up at a major match using ammo that they've never tried in their gun? i know i wouldn't. Edited March 9, 2006 by driver8M3

[omnia1911]

Nothing will hurt attendance at a match more than potential competitors feeling that they are coming into a game that doesn't have a level playing field. That is the supreme task of match coordinators. Any potential loss of participation due to ammo shipment problems is secondary, in every case.