"bipsc" Clarifications

[shred]

Shred,

You make an excellent point. I will review our stage results and see how they finish up. One concern would be Production vs Open HHF. An Open HHF of 10 could be a Prod HHF of say 4 or 5, same stage, same day different shooter, same class.

Jim

Yeah, my analysis was almost entirely on Open scores, and not even that many of them. Limited and Production HHFs will generally be lower.

Then the question is: do Ltd and Prod shooters prefer the lower HFs of 'combined' stages, or are they happiest in higher HF ranges?

I have no idea how to get Revo HFs above 5 unless they never have to reload..

[mpolans]

I agree with the thought of having more stages emphasizing accuracy and not pumping up the round count just because it's there. Someone mentioned how it wouldn't be hard to kill IPSC as a reason not to change the status quo. But consider what has happened over the last 10-15 years. Back in the pre-high cap days, we used to have lots matches shot with a variety of firearms. The various flavors of 1911s were still king, but some folks were shooting S&Ws, CZs, Hipowers, etc. Even in the early days of high caps, we had a healthy mix of Paras, STIs (still McCormick frames back then), Caspians, P-9s, and a few S&Ws. The sponsors were out in droves, supporting the matches and sponsoring teams to help popularize the sport. I saw directly how this influenced things when a couple members of Team Springfield came to Germany to shoot the first European Bianchi Cup back in the day. It was pretty cool.

Now, what do we have? 90%+ of all shooters in Open or Limited shoot ONE design (STI/SVI). Much of the industry support, outside of STI has left or is a shadow of its former self...why should they, when their guns aren't being used? Many might say, "so what, we don't need no stinkin' fancy prize tables..." but it's not just about that. It's about having the backing of the industry to help grow the sport by producing off the shelf competitive guns, helping the sport out with some political muscle, and helping the sport out by publicizing it by showcasing their pro shooters.

[XRe]

Now, what do we have? 90%+ of all shooters in Open or Limited shoot ONE design (STI/SVI). Much of the industry support, outside of STI has left or is a shadow of its former self...why should they, when their guns aren't being used?

My understanding is that this is a large reason why we formed the Production division, and why we're giving SSD a go, as well. L-10 is competitive for some things, if folks want to do more mods to their guns, but...

[shred]

10-15 years. Back in the pre-high cap days, we used to have lots matches shot with a variety of firearms. The various flavors of 1911s were still king, but some folks were shooting S&Ws, CZs, Hipowers, etc. Even in the early days of high caps, we had a healthy mix of Paras, STIs (still McCormick frames back then), Caspians, P-9s, and a few S&Ws. The sponsors were out in droves, supporting the matches and sponsoring teams to help popularize the sport.

Hmm.. In the Jan/Feb 1991 Front Sight I've got here, there are exactly two ads out of 35 for non-single-stack 1911 pistols and parts, one for a Glock 17 recoil rod and the other for 7-shot Baumann revolver kits. The very top guys were running P9's, but it looks like pretty much everybody else was single-stackin 15 years ago.

Although... in the Jan/Feb 1990 edition, there's an ad for the Llama M-87 (no, really) "the ultimate comp pistol". 15-round 9mm with a full profile compensator on the front. Iron sights, natch. That is something I'd like to see..

[mpolans]

Hmm.. In the Jan/Feb 1991 Front Sight I've got here, there are exactly two ads out of 35 for non-single-stack 1911 pistols and parts, one for a Glock 17 recoil rod and the other for 7-shot Baumann revolver kits. The very top guys were running P9's, but it looks like pretty much everybody else was single-stackin 15 years ago.

Although... in the Jan/Feb 1990 edition, there's an ad for the Llama M-87 (no, really) "the ultimate comp pistol". 15-round 9mm with a full profile compensator on the front. Iron sights, natch. That is something I'd like to see..

I'm not one for advocating rules that impede development, I really miss the old days of singlestack open guns. Doing more mag changes with an open gun was fun.

[Flexmoney]

Hey...you can do those mandatory mag reloads if you design them into a standards.

[RIIID]

Hey,

Anybody up for a major Standards match, say 10 to 12 stages.

Rich

[Ron Ankeny]

Anybody up for a major Standards match, say 10 to 12 stages.

I would be, but I don't think that's what the thread is all about.

[tightloop]

Damn Ron, that was 14 pages ago, how do you remember what it is about...

[JFD]

If the industry wants to sell us guns, then they should make something we want to buy.

Introducing a division to entice industry support is a backwards approach.

Look how many folks were all excited over the new double stack Springfield that has yet to be introduced. It's not USPSA's fault that Springfield shot themselves in the foot.

[Chuck Anderson]

I'm not a fan of trying to make matches "tactical". I shoot a 3-Gun Tactical match once a month. I do it because I get practice with my shotgun. I don't do it because it teaches me to be tactical. In fact I'm normally ragged on for not being tactical enough. Although this normally consists of shooting the targets too fast. There are routinely calls at this match that make no sense, along with course design that at best is not "tactical".

I shoot IPSC because it challenges me. I enjoy shooting long targets, small targets, moving between targets etc. I also enjoy a good hoser stage. There's nothing wrong to me with throwing a 32 round course with no target past 10 yds into a match. The problem that I have is with matches like the 2002 Area 1 where there was not a shot past 12 yds the whole match. A whole match of hose fests only tests a small range of skills. The guy who can slap the trigger and run a short distance the fastest wins. Keep the one hoser stage but throw in some tests of other skills as well. An 8 round stage doesn't have to be a stand and shoot. Engage a steel and one target from the start and move somewhere else for the rest. There's ways to make them more difficult than 4 targets at 10 yards from one spot.

For those ranges that don't have 50 yard bays, there's still easy ways to make shots difficult. Throw in smaller targets. Hard cover or No-Shoots covering up parts of the targets. Use US Poppers instead of Poppers. The 20 yd head shots at Area 2 last year gave several people fits, even some of the big names.

Maybe it's selfish to want stages in the US to help prepare our top shooters for international competition. How about just wanting to continue to challenge our US shooters. How difficult is it to hit an open target at 5 yds. Moving, akward positions, whatever. Every shooter should be able to do this. Unless there is some challenge, no one gets better. If you have a match with 5-32 round field courses with all open targets, guess what, you've got a club that's really good at ONE skill.

[EricW]

I'm not a fan of trying to make matches "tactical".

Chuck,

Nor am I, but it's a marketing issue. Until someone successfully redefines the offending props as the "Tactical Star" and the "Windmill O'Ninja" we're going to be branded "evil" by the competiton.

[Chuck D]

"I shoot IPSC because it challenges me. I enjoy shooting long targets, small targets, moving between targets etc. I also enjoy a good hoser stage. There's nothing wrong to me with throwing a 32 round course with no target past 10 yds into a match. The problem that I have is with matches like the 2002 Area 1 where there was not a shot past 12 yds the whole match. A whole match of hose fests only tests a small range of skills. The guy who can slap the trigger and run a short distance the fastest wins. Keep the one hoser stage but throw in some tests of other skills as well. An 8 round stage doesn't have to be a stand and shoot. Engage a steel and one target from the start and move somewhere else for the rest. There's ways to make them more difficult than 4 targets at 10 yards from one spot. "

AND:

"Maybe it's selfish to want stages in the US to help prepare our top shooters for international competition. How about just wanting to continue to challenge our US shooters. How difficult is it to hit an open target at 5 yds. Moving, akward positions, whatever. Every shooter should be able to do this. Unless there is some challenge, no one gets better. If you have a match with 5-32 round field courses with all open targets, guess what, you've got a club that's really good at ONE skill."

Well Said....Thank you !!!

[Loves2Shoot]

I'm not a fan of trying to make matches "tactical". I shoot a 3-Gun Tactical match once a month. I do it because I get practice with my shotgun. I don't do it because it teaches me to be tactical. In fact I'm normally ragged on for not being tactical enough. Although this normally consists of shooting the targets too fast. There are routinely calls at this match that make no sense, along with course design that at best is not "tactical".

I shoot IPSC because it challenges me. I enjoy shooting long targets, small targets, moving between targets etc. I also enjoy a good hoser stage. There's nothing wrong to me with throwing a 32 round course with no target past 10 yds into a match. The problem that I have is with matches like the 2002 Area 1 where there was not a shot past 12 yds the whole match. A whole match of hose fests only tests a small range of skills. The guy who can slap the trigger and run a short distance the fastest wins. Keep the one hoser stage but throw in some tests of other skills as well. An 8 round stage doesn't have to be a stand and shoot. Engage a steel and one target from the start and move somewhere else for the rest. There's ways to make them more difficult than 4 targets at 10 yards from one spot.

For those ranges that don't have 50 yard bays, there's still easy ways to make shots difficult. Throw in smaller targets. Hard cover or No-Shoots covering up parts of the targets. Use US Poppers instead of Poppers. The 20 yd head shots at Area 2 last year gave several people fits, even some of the big names.

Maybe it's selfish to want stages in the US to help prepare our top shooters for international competition. How about just wanting to continue to challenge our US shooters. How difficult is it to hit an open target at 5 yds. Moving, akward positions, whatever. Every shooter should be able to do this. Unless there is some challenge, no one gets better. If you have a match with 5-32 round field courses with all open targets, guess what, you've got a club that's really good at ONE skill.

I agree 100%

[geezer-lock]

OK, we have been thrashing around with this for several days without having any clue if a real problem exists. There is no real consensus of what is wrong with the current state of COF’s in USPSA. Undoubtedly there are many opinions but absolutely no hard data. Even if we had a poll in the BEnoverse the numbers are too small to do much more than stimulate more argument.

The facts as I see them are:

The IDPA rule book for the last nine years has carried a screed by Bill Wilson about “The great failure of IPSC to remain practical” which is illustrated by saying, “Sometimes these stages are called silly names like “Revenge of the Green Men from Mars.” The latest version of the IDPA rulebook has eliminated the anti-IPSC bias.

On the 10th anniversary of the founding of IDPA, USPSA ran a nice article about Bill Wilson in Front Sight.

In the same issue of the magazine Ron Avery telling us that we are “headed in the wrong direction” with “watered-down IPSC”.

A few pages later in the same issue is an article about the Louisiana Gator Classic featuring photos of a stage called “Space Invaders”.

Is it any wonder that I am having “déjà vu all over again”.

David C

[bayoupirate]

First let me say that I've only been playing this game for 3 years now.

and No one has ever taught me or explained to me what "tatically correct" is????

I wrote the Louisiana Gator Classic article and I'm sure a run down of the stages and descriptions might lead some to say that BIPSC is alive and well in Louisiana, but they'd be wrong. Like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, a hoser stage is fun, a match full of hoser stages becomes pointless. Same goes for the 20 yard head shots. It's a challenge and will seperate shooters by skill level, but a match full of 20 yard head shots and a sliver of a head remaining on a moving target or flying steel plate racks is no fun either.

What anyone who designs stages or acts in the capacity of Match Director must do is to strike some balance of stages that will test a variety of skills. This will allow shooters with the best range of skills to have an advantage over those who might be specialist in two or three.

The Space Invaders stage Name was more inspired by those ameoba shaped P.C. targets than the actual video game. The stage could have be named Turret Gunner, Bunker Blaster, or any other military/tactical name.

There was also a stage, mentioned in the article, called "Boudreaux Strikes Back".

Bubblegum name and stage description, but the shooting challenge it gave the shooter was great!

We often use Western/Cowboy themes. Are they BIPSC too??

[Coach]

Why don't we focus with what is right about USPSA? Shooting is fun and challenging, the safety record is completely amazing, the organization appears to be growing, technology is improving.

More people shooting is a good thing. USPSA shooters are great gun handlers and that is important. Even if we are not all GM's and cannot shoot flys at fifty yards, the gun handling and marksmanship of the group is pretty good and improving I think.

Let's continue the discussion of the direction we need to go, but I don'tthink the sport is as bad off as some people say.

What is practical is a tricky question. How many of us can beat anyone who has the drop on us with a gun. If my gun is holstered and someone has me in the surrender postion and I try to draw and shoot him before he shoots me. Is that practical or suicide?

[ipscbob]

Wow! Funny to see how much a thread can stray from it's original intent in 5 pages. Very sad, though, to see that USPSA management has decided to try to appeal to the tactitions of the shooting community. I am dismayed and confused by what they hope to achieve. As an engineer with a foot in the marketing world, I learned a long time ago that you can never appeal to everyone. You must identify your target market and cater your approach to it. By appealing to the tactical crowd, they will alienate the people who shoot IPSC/USPSA for the sole reason that it is a fun diversion from their stressful everyday lives. Whether they realize it or not, this market has been their bread and butter for a long time. This issue is not about how hard a shooting challenge the stages are, our local matches have 30-35 yard targets at almost every match. it is about an organisations overall philosophy. Do we really want to return to IPSC's roots of 500 to 1000 tactically oriented shooters who are in law enforcement or other related occupations? If we do, the sport will suffer for it. Lets be careful what we wish for, we may get it!

Edited March 28, 2006 by ipscbob

[Ron Ankeny]

Very sad, though, to see that USPSA management has decided to try to appeal to the tactitions of the shooting community.

What's that about or dare I ask?

[EricW]

Ron,

It's something that came up in yakking with Ron Avery - which I mentioned about 83 posts and 2500 views prior to now. I think if you look at the way the new Singlestack division has been handled in conjunction with how Front Sight has had a least one issue, that I would term "marketed toward the tactical set," that it's a pretty reasonable conclusion that USPSA has made some changes in its marketing strategy.

I haven't yakked with anyone at USPSA about it directly, and I guess I probably should have before I posted that, but I don't feel like I jumped to any wild-eyed conclusions based on current events.

As much as I hate to admit it, "Tactical" sells. Paint it black, OD, or digital desert camo, and it will fly off the shelves.

FWIW...

[ipscbob]

Very sad, though, to see that USPSA management has decided to try to appeal to the tactitions of the shooting community.

What's that about or dare I ask?

Yup...Eric is right on the money. USPSA's current marketing strategy, based on the latest front sight and their handling of the singlestack division, appears to be geared toward bringing in shooters from IDPA and other more tactically oriented shooting sports. I see this as a bad direction for the sport in the future. I like USPSA for what it is today and won't continue to participate if it becomes IDPA lite.

[Merlin Orr]

Even if USPSA's current marketing strategy is geared toward bringing in shooters from IDPA and other more tactically oriented shooting sports - this based on what we are seeing in the provisional SS division - Is this not a good thing? We already have divisions for every gun shot excepting the Dillon Mini..... Are we afraid that we are going to have all classes shooting from behind barrels with retention reloads? I don't think so. We have created a class for SS guns with rules no stiffer than those already in effect for Production. Actually the rules appear, to me anyway, to allow a lot of liberties that are verboten in Production.

[Gregory_k]

If the industry wants to sell us guns, then they should make something we want to buy.

Introducing a division to entice industry support is a backwards approach.

Look how many folks were all excited over the new double stack Springfield that has yet to be introduced. It's not USPSA's fault that Springfield shot themselves in the foot.

I had one of those sprinfield high cap 1911 in 45. After my 3rd frame I sold the pistol back to the dealer for gear for a dillion 650. The pistol could not handel factory 230 hard ball AE or Blazzer or PMC. Springfield fixed the frame every time no questions asked. STI is just a way better pistol.

The pistol was ok to get me started into ipsc, but it is not the gun for ipsc. 575 for the gun plus mags vs 1300 for a sti is the only selling point I can see.

[ipscbob]

Even if USPSA's current marketing strategy is geared toward bringing in shooters from IDPA and other more tactically oriented shooting sports - this based on what we are seeing in the provisional SS division - Is this not a good thing?

Nope. This is definitely NOT a good thing. There are changes happening already that I see as negative. The latest issue of front sight, which my member dues paid for, is an example. For years I looked forward to it showing up in the mail. Now I feel insulted by it.

[Chuck D]

Started shooting IPSC in 1982...became a member of USPSA in 1987. IPSC /USPSA was NEVER overrun by L.E. shooters as ipscbob states (at least in my neck of the woods). L.E. types usually showed up a time or two...got their heads handed to them by the regulars and either decided to practice more or stay home. To say a return to IPSC's roots will hand the sport back over to L.E. or Tactical types is an incorrect statement.

What some (including myself) advocate is a return to realistic shooting challenges instead of stages that utilize "carnival" type props or the invasion of the "up close and wide open" target placement that favors speed over all other shooting skills.

Strike the balance without becoming another IDPA.

If USPSA's attempt is to woo IDPA shooters by emphasing the "tactical" aspect of practical shooting ... it will be as dismal of a failure as the 25,000 members by 2000 initative.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Chuck D