The New Ipsc/Uspsa Relationship

[EricW]

Man...this has to be a some kind of time/distance record for drifting a thread.

[Jim Norman]

A point here.

WE ALREADY SHOOT UNDER USPSA RULES!

The US has a dispensation that we have our own rule book. look at your latest book, there are rules and there are US. rules.

Now all we will have to deal with is the US rules.

IPSC will never have Muti-Gun. IPSC in much of the world is a rich man's sport. Here it is a blue color sport. We own guns. we like guns. we allow "the masses" to have guns. In many places you cannot own a gun, shoot it out doors. reload or even recover your brass. You are limited in the number of rounds you can buy or have. You can't have the calibers we have. If it was a military cartridge you can't have it.

I say that haveing USPSA be the umbrella under which all action shyooting is undertaken in the US is a good thing. you want to shoot the amoeba at Frank's, fine, if I am free next year I just might and if it is run under IPSC Rules, OK by me, but as for the every day match and the US in general, let's be proud of who we are. Let's shoot USPSA in the US, not IPSC.

Oh and by the way, I think it just might be time to revive the cry "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"

Jim

[shred]

FWIW, IPSC has multi-gun... though there are few places to do it and they don't get 'sanction' or whatever. They're a few years behind in the 3-gun department, but catching up.

Anybody that shoots USPSA could go shoot an IPSC match tomorrow with almost no preparation-- changing mag bases for Limited maybe and tweaking their PF if they so desire.

I see what hoops some of those people go through to shoot anything close to IPSC and it's impressive. I've also been told that IPSC shooting is some places the only 'reason' the authorities allow to own a major caliber pistol. Sure it blows compared to the US, but those guys are actively pushing to get more and more gun rights and ownership in more and more places, which is a good thing in my book.

[Gary Stevens]

Shred wrote:If they go whole-hog and adopt the IPSC divisions, that could get really entertaining; though the 10-round limited folks won't be so happy.

If it is advertised as an IPSC match it will be completely IPSC with their divisions, rules, bullet weights, power factors, warnings, etc. If it is advertised as a USPSA match it will have the USPSA divisions, rules, bullet weights, power factors, etc. One will not impact on the other. Those folks shooting USPSA will still have 10 round limits in Production, those shooting IPSC will have magazine capacity in Production.

Gary

[GeorgeInNePa]

Hmm I'll try. Basically the proposed position of USPSA is that it will be running BOTH IPSC and USPSA matches within the US. The IPSC matches will be run under IPSC rules, the USPSA matches under USPSA rules. USPSA will run a number of qualification matches which will be used for World Shoot slots. Those matches will be level III and ran under IPSC rules.

Local clubs will have an option as running under either of the rule sets. Bruce Gary hints that separate regional, sectional, area, and national matches will "logically" evolve over time.

After thinking about this for a while, I'm ok with this I guess. The only thing is, I don't see how there will be two sets of matches, especially the majors. There just aren't enough clubs and RO's to go around.

There hasn't been a Pa. State Championship since 1994. There hasn't been a Mid-Atlantic Section Championship for 2 years (none this year again). There almost wasn't an Area 8 Championship this year because the larger clubs are burnt out.

It will be one or the other.

I agree that is will tell the board what the membership wants, USPSA or IPSC.

[chendersby]

To answer the question of how many shooters in the US as compared to the rest of the world, We have more RO's in the US than the next largest region has members.

And to clear up the Olympic thing. I do not think IPSC really thinks thay will get us into the olympics. What they are looking for is recognition from the governing organization for all international sports, that IPSC is a legit sport. The only way many countries can participate in IPSC will be if it is recognized.

[shred]

To answer the question of how many shooters in the US as compared to the rest of the world, We have more RO's in the US than the next largest region has members.

Um, no. We have 605 certified ROs as of March 6 [update: that may just be this year.. BOD minutes not clear.. anyway..]. There are I think 5 regions (the US being one) that pay IPSC headcount for the max of 2000 members. I doubt they're _all_ overpaying just to get more votes at the GA.. oh wait, they don't.

Last time this came up over on the GV (go over and ask, it's fun! ), I think the PTB's claimed the US wasn't bigger than the next two or three put together or something similar

[Nik Habicht]

To answer the question of how many shooters in the US as compared to the rest of the world, We have more RO's in the US than the next largest region has members.

Um, no. We have 605 certified ROs as of March 6 [update: that may just be this year.. BOD minutes not clear.. anyway..]. There are I think 5 regions (the US being one) that pay IPSC headcount for the max of 2000 members. I doubt they're _all_ overpaying just to get more votes at the GA.. oh wait, they don't.

Last time this came up over on the GV (go over and ask, it's fun! ), I think the PTB's claimed the US wasn't bigger than the next two or three put together or something similar

Shred,

I'm pretty sure that's 605 new ROs this past year --- since there's a reference to 28 classes. Last time I checked classes were usually 20+ students.....

[Skywalker]

For those interested, it is my understanding that IPSC is trying (hard) to get recognized by General Assembly of International Sports Federation (G.A.I.S.F.), not by the Olympics Committee.

My humble opinion is that if IPSC gets worldwide recognized as a sport, this would only make easier its practice and acceptance.

BTW, IPSC doesn't mandate the use of classic targets only.

In the rulebook there are Metric and Classic targets, as well as Pepper and Classic poppers, and you're free to use whichever you like most.

You can even use a mix of them in your match (but do not mix them in the same stage).

They provide a different shooting challenge, and I happen to like diversity (in shooting ... of course ... ).

Edited April 26, 2006 by Skywalker

[Cjblackmon]

The whole Olympic coversation evolved from my answering a question about the Florida Open and why Frank Garcia uses the Amoeba Targets. Not that the USPSA/IPSC collaboration was moving towards the Olympics, that just took off by itself. I have yet to get my Front Sight Mag to read the article.

What are the major differences in rules between IPSC and USPSA that everyone dislikes so much?

[Gary Stevens]

Simply take your rulebook and compare all IPSC divisions with USPSA divisions. Also you can look at each rule that has a US rule below it and compare them.

Gary

[Vlad]

For my part, I take issue with some of the changes which are in the USPSA book and came from the IPSC one. But those aside, in my opinion, the current BIG differences are the divisions differences and the warning system. There a bunch more small ones, some more important then others.

[38superman]

The whole Olympic coversation evolved from my answering a question about the Florida Open and why Frank Garcia uses the Amoeba Targets. Not that the USPSA/IPSC collaboration was moving towards the Olympics, that just took off by itself. I have yet to get my Front Sight Mag to read the article.

What are the major differences in rules between IPSC and USPSA that everyone dislikes so much?

Pardon me, but if you are referring to my post, I was not asking why Frank uses the classic target.

I was trying to make a point.

I see no reason why we couldn't move a little closer to IPSC by adopting the classic targets in the US.

I see no real advantage in one style over the other, thus it would cost us nothing to do so.

I used the Fla Open as an example of a major match where they are already used.

[Cjblackmon]

The whole Olympic coversation evolved from my answering a question about the Florida Open and why Frank Garcia uses the Amoeba Targets. Not that the USPSA/IPSC collaboration was moving towards the Olympics, that just took off by itself. I have yet to get my Front Sight Mag to read the article.

What are the major differences in rules between IPSC and USPSA that everyone dislikes so much?

Pardon me, but if you are referring to my post, I was not asking why Frank uses the classic target.

I was trying to make a point.

I see no reason why we couldn't move a little closer to IPSC by adopting the classic targets in the US.

I see no real advantage in one style over the other, thus it would cost us nothing to do so.

I used the Fla Open as an example of a major match where they are already used.

I know that you weren't asking about the classics, I was agreeing with you and putting the "why" as a "sidebar" comment. I was just addressing where the Olympic conversation came into play and how a lot of people took my post the wrong way.

[johnhurd]

The word I heard was that IPSC was demanding that we only use the "Classic" Target

When that happens I am done............

[Cjblackmon]

The word I heard was that IPSC was demanding that we only use the "Classic" Target

When that happens I am done............

Cmon, they're not that bad.

[38superman]

The word I heard was that IPSC was demanding that we only use the "Classic" Target

When that happens I am done............

You obviously feel strongly about it, but I don't understand why.

What exactly is your objection to the "turtle" target?

Tls

[Paule]

Seems like most of the recent Olympic sport additions require the wearing of baggy clothes and talking like a valley girl. Probably not a fit for USPSA/IPSC!

If chess and checkers, i.e. draughts, can be recognized as international "sports" (I thought they were board games?), IPSC shouldn't be much of a stretch for them.

[Wakal]

What exactly is your objection to the "turtle" target?

Although some may argue that the Turtle is slightly more anotomically correct, I think the Turtle lacks a head

My own personal feelings about the Turtle Target...it is a transparent ploy to attempt to make action shooting "politically correct." I am not politically correct. Even the VPC understands that the Turtle target was designed as a mere ploy to "look nicer" than a real target with a head...not an upper scoring zone, a HEAD... No kidding, even VPC (a group not known for their factual accuracy) figured out exactly what we were doing when we set up the Turtle!

http://www.vpc.org/studies/goldfour.htm

Just change basepads? Umm...nope. It is too bad that I can't shoot IPSC Standard with my Limited gun, no matter what nonsensical thing I do to the basepads. My spiffy $2,500 super-trick Benny Hill STI is a 6"...

Now, all that said...

I like Open, think Limited 10 is pointless, and think that Production should be "fill up your mags" (the whole "10 round" thing for both L10 and US Production is another silly attempt at political correctness ).

So...

I'd vote to merge the sport that Americans invented back into the American sport. Open is good to go, I'd give up the 6" STI in trade for 140mm magazines and unrestricted magazine pouch positions in Standard, and in Production I'd give up the 10 round mag limit in trade for REAL holsters instead of Production guns in race rigs. But no "CZ85-II" need apply

And...

IPSC keeps the actual numbers of shooters per region secret. I am fairly sure that the US has half of the world's IPSC shooters and have never been proven wrong. Attacked, yep, I get that a lot from the Royal IPSC Crowd (every time I bring it up; they refuse to prove me wrong though). But heck, there are regions that admit to only 12 members They are all nice guys, though

Alex

[johnhurd]

I do not subscribe to PC, I am old enough to have earned that right. The "turtle" is my line in the sand.

I could care less how they do it in the rest of the world!

And the olympics get real!!

[tightloop]

I am with Leroy....+1

[Crusher]

Can I still refer to the U.S. poppers as "Baby poppers" or will I be "labled" for such action/words.

hehehe ho PC is that............"baby poppers"

[38superman]

Okay, having read the VPC article I now have a little more insight.

The classic target in and of itself is just as good as any other target.

We shoot at cardboard and steel.

The shapes are not important to me as long as they are presented uniformly to all competitors.

I do understand now that the classic target carries a lot of political and emotional baggage.

I am for whatever helps us promote and grow the sport but I don't see IPSC ever being accepted to the Olympics.

It will always be seen as a sport that glorifies deadly force and simply not palatable.

Self defense has been inherent in the laws of man and nature since the dawn of time.

Survival is a basic instinct.

If others want to condemn us because the sport has martial roots, that is their problem.

That having been said, there are IPSC members trying to participate in countries that don't have such enlightened views regarding firearms.

If "turtles" help them keep their guns at their side and their political enemies at bay, maybe a little compromise is not such a bad thing.

Tls

[ChuckS]

I am with Leroy....+1

Who is Leroy?

Thread related stuff:

I hate the classic target, the a-zone is too small.

I like the classic target, the small a-zone makes me aim better.

Edited April 26, 2006 by ChuckS

[scorch]

I real think having two rule books is REAL confusing to most people that don't read it often and pick up thier rules from people on the range. I heard and seen this happen time and time again, People quoting the wrong rule for a US match or OLD rules. My .02 is print TWO rule books 1 for USPSA rules and 1 for IPSC rules.