The New Ipsc/Uspsa Relationship

[Steve J]

Ameripsc

Religipsc

Olymipsc

Thats hilarious.

Yes. Very clever, David.

[Flexmoney]

So I repeat my question, how will we be disaffiliated?

Gary

I'm sure they will let ya know.

[Steve J]

IPSC has props like this

MANNIX STAGE

ALEX STAGE funny but video is not that good

and our hi cap buts get beaten by people like this with single stack mags

JETRO STAGE

Hey. The MANNIX stage has a Texas Windmill with targets with the heads cut off.

[omnia1911]

As Captain Kirk said in The Wrath of Kahn, "I like to think there are always alternatives".

Gary

Yes, but one of the alternatives is defeat. The possibility of defeat is a great motivator.

When I play chess I plan out several of my next moves, along with several moves that my opponent might make. Otherwise, it may be the IPSC BOD saying "checkmate".

[Gary Stevens]

Perhaps there are other folks who also play chess.

Gary

[GeorgeInNePa]

I think you are missing a crucial point, the IPSC rulebook will be used in total, without any US rules for all IPSC matches. No waiver, no US rules, all IPSC all of the time for all IPSC matches.

So I repeat my question, how will we be disaffiliated?

Gary

Set aside this new idea of running IPSC style matches under the IPSC rulebook in the USA.

USPSA is grated a waiver from IPSC to run USPSA style matches under a different set of rules than IPSC. USPSA is seeking an extention of that waiver. Without that waiver, USPSA would have to use the IPSC rulebook. If USPSA refuses to do so, it could loose its affiliation.

The part you are missing is that we won't need a waiver anymore. We are going to run IPSC matches, using the IPSC rulebook without the USPSA exceptions.

USPSA matches will be run under USPSA rules, which happen to use the USPSA modified IPSC rulebook. IPSC won't have anything to do with USPSA matches.

[JD McDorce]

The part you are missing is that we won't need a waiver anymore. We are going to run IPSC matches, using the IPSC rulebook without the USPSA exceptions.

USPSA matches will be run under USPSA rules, which happen to use the USPSA modified IPSC rulebook. IPSC won't have anything to do with USPSA matches.

That was my read on The Resolution, with one effect being to leave the decision up to the local clubs which type of match that they choose to host. While this effects Level I matches, it will be interesting to see what kind of encouragement there will be for Level II and higher matches within the United States under IPSC rules.

One item that Gary alluded to in a previous post is the manner in which local matches are advertised. It has certainly been the norm that many clubs list their local matches as IPSC matches, with the common understanding that since the club is located in the U.S., U.S. rules will be used. It would seem that now IPSC means IPSC and USPSA means USPSA. While I expect that it may take a bit to get it all sorted out, there is certainly an opportunity for surprises for those who assume.

[omnia1911]

I think you are missing a crucial point, the IPSC rulebook will be used in total, without any US rules for all IPSC matches. No waiver, no US rules, all IPSC all of the time for all IPSC matches.

So I repeat my question, how will we be disaffiliated?

Gary

Set aside this new idea of running IPSC style matches under the IPSC rulebook in the USA.

USPSA is grated a waiver from IPSC to run USPSA style matches under a different set of rules than IPSC. USPSA is seeking an extention of that waiver. Without that waiver, USPSA would have to use the IPSC rulebook. If USPSA refuses to do so, it could loose its affiliation.

The part you are missing is that we won't need a waiver anymore. We are going to run IPSC matches, using the IPSC rulebook without the USPSA exceptions.

USPSA matches will be run under USPSA rules, which happen to use the USPSA modified IPSC rulebook. IPSC won't have anything to do with USPSA matches.

So, you believe that USPSA is now going to engage in the same duality that Bruce Gary has been complaining about some clubs engaging in; real IPSC matches and USPSA/wildcat matches, much like the clubs having real USPSA matches and off the books wildcat matches? Interesting view.

If we don't need a waiver anymore, why are we seeking to get an extention into 2007?

Edited April 27, 2006 by omnia1911

[Bigbadaboom]

I think that some of the folks replying to this thread should read the article "Prior" to posting.

The whole target issue........isn't........an issue. IPSC can use either target. They don't "Have" to use the classic target.

IMHO it will work as long as we keep IPSC and USPSA matches separate and don't try to combine them into one match.

It would be like having two seperate action shooting sports. You could shoot a USPSA match at your club one weekend and then shoot an IPSC match the next at the same club.

It would be good for our sponsors and gun builders. I, for one, would build a "Modified" gun ASAP. Those who want to shoot "Production" with their standard capacity mags can do so.

I see it as giving us more "Choice". I just can't see the down side "if" it is done properly. Keep USPSA and IPSC seperate within the U.S.A. and it's a good thing.

OH YEAH!! It will allow us to loosen up the USPSA rule book (No more Resolution) and vary even farther from those aspects of IPSC that we don't agree with which is another plus to me.

Edited April 27, 2006 by Bigbadaboom

[geezer-lock]

I am hopeful that as the Front Sight becomes available more folks will see that this really is an opportunity for the clubs willing and able to carry through.

IF you have the people and resources I think there is money (and membership growth) to be made here with very little effort. Consider this:

On the 1st weekend of the month you set up and advertise a USPSA match, shoot, have fun, then leave everything set up. Replace the metric targets with amoebas, move the TX* out and put in five poppers (or whatever). Now go advertise a IPSC match for the 3rd weekend. It might be the same crowd with different guns and a few new shooters or out-of-towners but you would have attendance.

I have seen this work in a USPSA/IDPA sort of switch over.

Just a thought,

David C

[omnia1911]

My understanding is that this idea is in its proposal stage and that the USPSA BOD has given Mr. Voigt the go ahead to approach the IPSC BOD with it.

It's a ballsy move on the part of USPSA. USPSA sends a lot of money IPSC's way, but IPSC wants uniformity.

I'll be waiting on the edge of my seat to see what the IPSC BOD has to say.

I thought that some of USPSA's arguement for having its own rulebook was based on section 4.9(1)of the IPSC constitution.

4.9

It is recognised that circumstances may arise which force a Regional Directorate to take action which may be in violation of the Constitution. Such action would fall into one of two categories:

(1) Action taken in order to comply with the laws or with legal precedent pertaining in that Region; or

(2) Action taken on a voluntary basis for any other reason.

(3) In respect of action falling within (1) above, no Region shall be subject to censure or suspension. The Region shall inform the Executive Council of the action taken and the reasons therefor;

(4) In respect of action falling within (2) above, the onus shall be on the Region to demonstrate to the Executive Council that the action taken was reasonable in all the circumstances;

If USPSA starts running IPSC rulebook matches, doesn't that negate the 4.9(1) position and force USPSA to rely on 4.9(2), which has a higher threshold?

[Vlad]

I don't think that 4.9.1 was ever the answer, with the possible exception of production and L10 capacity regs. What could it possibly have to to with the removal of the traveling warnings?

[Genghis]

Ameripsc:

Religipsc:

Olymipsc:

Let the games begin,

How about:

RealIPstIC: Tactically correct rules. If the squad votes that a stage "would get you killed in the real world," then the stage is thrown out. If a technique would do the same, then the shooter zeroes the stage. Carry gear. Timer not used at all. All stages are blind. One FTN is a DQ, terminates your membership in the club and USPSA, and your stage mates get to divide up your gear.

MallNinjIPSu: Camo, battle dress, or martial arts attire. Style points awarded comprising 50% of the points for each stage. Military (or military-style) weapons are the rule, including Class 3, crew-served weapons, and explosives. Throwing stars, nunchaka, and similar weapons can be used on targets. Average of 50 - 75 targets per stage, mostly chargers which come at you one at a time. Rules are provisional, pending approval by Jim Carrey and John Candy's estate.

[with apologies to John Amidon] BIPSC: Shooters must wear costumes, for instance '80s garb a la Saturday Night Fever, Happy Days dress, leisure suits, or ballet shoes. All guns modified by Simunitions so they shoot out a pink flag that says, "Bang!" While not shooting, all squadmates must use pom poms and cheer the shooter on. Shooter gets his choice of music playing while he shoots.

DIPStIC: You can only be selected for this track by a vote of your squad mates.

[edited to correct typo]

Edited April 27, 2006 by shred

[GeorgeInNePa]

I think you are missing a crucial point, the IPSC rulebook will be used in total, without any US rules for all IPSC matches. No waiver, no US rules, all IPSC all of the time for all IPSC matches.

So I repeat my question, how will we be disaffiliated?

Gary

Set aside this new idea of running IPSC style matches under the IPSC rulebook in the USA.

USPSA is grated a waiver from IPSC to run USPSA style matches under a different set of rules than IPSC. USPSA is seeking an extention of that waiver. Without that waiver, USPSA would have to use the IPSC rulebook. If USPSA refuses to do so, it could loose its affiliation.

The part you are missing is that we won't need a waiver anymore. We are going to run IPSC matches, using the IPSC rulebook without the USPSA exceptions.

USPSA matches will be run under USPSA rules, which happen to use the USPSA modified IPSC rulebook. IPSC won't have anything to do with USPSA matches.

So, you believe that USPSA is now going to engage in the same duality that Bruce Gary has been complaining about some clubs engaging in; real IPSC matches and USPSA/wildcat matches, much like the clubs having real USPSA matches and off the books wildcat matches? Interesting view.

If we don't need a waiver anymore, why are we seeking to get an extention into 2007?

I don't see what the problem is with clubs running USPSA and "outlaw" USPSA-style matches, as long as they keep them seperate and advertise them correctly. It's no different than running USPSA and IDPA and other matches at the same club.

If clubs are going to run IPSC and USPSA matches they will need to advertise and run them correctly.

As far as the waiver, it seemed to me that they need it to get this system off the ground and get the IPSC qualifier matches set up.

That was my read and this is all my opinion.

[cliffwalsh]

Set aside this new idea of running IPSC style matches under the IPSC rulebook in the USA.

USPSA is grated a waiver from IPSC to run USPSA style matches under a different set of rules than IPSC. USPSA is seeking an extention of that waiver. Without that waiver, USPSA would have to use the IPSC rulebook. If USPSA refuses to do so, it could loose its affiliation.

All this does is give matches an alternative. I wish there were a few IPSC matches before the worldshoot. Our matches in the US ( I know there are a few exceptions) do not hold a candle to them in the accuracy department. I will shoot the IPSC matches if I am able.

Edited April 27, 2006 by cliffwalsh

[EricW]

Just read the article. What's all the fuss about again?

==============================================

Good work USPSA. Job well done.

[Sixgun]

Just read the article. What's all the fuss about again?

==============================================

Good work USPSA. Job well done.

I don't get it either, seems like a win / win to me.

Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but other than some differances in Division (Modified and Production for example), and "The Box", doesn't it basically come down to equipment positioning? I'm fairly certain I could shoot a USPSA match with IPSC positioned holster and mag pouches, and no one would say anything.

Besides I think a higher round count in Production just may be fun......It might cause me to actually purchase a Production gun, instead of just playing in Limited.

Ray

[Vlad]

Well .. and not L10, and not SS, and lots of us like the 10rd limit for production as it lets the field be more open.

But, we will have to wait and see. I think this could work out, but it also has some dangers associated with it.

[omnia1911]

Running IPSC rules matches in the USA is not a big issue with me, other than the funding aspect. USPSA had the right to run these kind of matches all along. The fact that they are making this part of their proposal to IPSC is kind of ho hum to me. The important issue is the challenges that USPSA's proposal makes to the IPSC constitution. This is where I will be interested in seeing how the IPSC BOD responds.

[Jim Norman]

As I see it we can run:

USPSA pistol, shotgun, rifle, 3-gun and multi-gun

OR

IPSC pistol, shotgun, rifle and 3-gun (no Multi-gun in IPSC)

OR

"Outlaw" matches such as our "tactical Challenge" match run once a year in October. Our rules, our scorig system and a boat load of fun. or like the many 3-gun (read use more than one gun on a stage) matches run throuhout the country every year.

USPSA is looking to become a sort of Umbrella Organization under which all of these matches can be run and advertised.

IPSC would still be available, perhaps in its "pure" form (whatever that is) while USPSA can now remove some of the dumber rule changes that IPSC pushed through.

No warnings traveling from stage to stage, no mandatory 32 round cap, maybe we go back to calling a 8 round one position COF a "Speed-Shoot"

Maybe we go back to scenerio based stages, maybe not.

We remove the two hit max on a NS. We do away with the no stationary target past the ninety degree line rule. We get to keep US Production where the caliber is only one criteria since you can be competitive here with a .40 or even a .45, while in IPSC you have little choice but to use a high cap 9mm.

We get to keep L-10 and SS.

If there is an IPSC Match nearby, you can shoot your modified gun IF you want to. Simple, add a Doctor sight to your Glock 17C, a magwell and some standard capacity mags.

I see this as a VERY POSITIVE move.

Kudos to the BOD and to Mike

Jim Norman

[omnia1911]

As I see it we can run:

USPSA pistol, shotgun, rifle, 3-gun and multi-gun

OR

IPSC pistol, shotgun, rifle and 3-gun (no Multi-gun in IPSC)

OR

"Outlaw" matches such as our "tactical Challenge" match run once a year in October. Our rules, our scorig system and a boat load of fun. or like the many 3-gun (read use more than one gun on a stage) matches run throuhout the country every year.

USPSA is looking to become a sort of Umbrella Organization under which all of these matches can be run and advertised.

IPSC would still be available, perhaps in its "pure" form (whatever that is) while USPSA can now remove some of the dumber rule changes that IPSC pushed through.

No warnings traveling from stage to stage, no mandatory 32 round cap, maybe we go back to calling a 8 round one position COF a "Speed-Shoot"

Maybe we go back to scenerio based stages, maybe not.

We remove the two hit max on a NS. We do away with the no stationary target past the ninety degree line rule. We get to keep US Production where the caliber is only one criteria since you can be competitive here with a .40 or even a .45, while in IPSC you have little choice but to use a high cap 9mm.

We get to keep L-10 and SS.

If there is an IPSC Match nearby, you can shoot your modified gun IF you want to. Simple, add a Doctor sight to your Glock 17C, a magwell and some standard capacity mags.

I see this as a VERY POSITIVE move.

Kudos to the BOD and to Mike

Jim Norman

IPSC would still be available, perhaps in its "pure" form (whatever that is) while USPSA can now remove some of the dumber rule changes that IPSC pushed through.

This is an essential part of USPSA's position with IPSC.

It would be nice if USPSA granted its affiliated clubs the same operational freedoms in running their USPSA matches, as USPSA is asking of IPSC in the proposal.

Excerpts from the proposal:

" its sole recognized affiliate for the United States region, The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA)"

"needs to deviate in several and various ways from the IPSC rules for the conduct of shooting competitions within the United States"

"in no way represents a violation of the IPSC Constitution or the affiliation agreement currently in effect between USPSA and IPSC".

Sweet deal for the clubs, if they could swing it.

[pskys2]

A "Sanctioned" IPSC match, ?North American Champs?, was run once at Quincy a few years ago, using IPSC rules. Area 3 did it one year in the early '90's. Course the rule books have evolved quite a bit since then.

My take is USPSA is wanting to sanction IPSC matches that use the IPSC Rulebook without the USPSA additions. It seems they want those clubs doing so to get Activity Credits, etc... for running the matches, and why shouldn't they. And by making it officially known, it wouldn't come as a sudden suprise and shouldn't be an issue with USPSA members as a whole.

This should be helpful to those planning/preparing for World Shoots. And an interesting experience for the rest of us. I take it is Not Required, so it will be a choice by the organizers. As long as it's posted in advance, great.

Gear Up and shoot!

[Flexmoney]

It should be interesting to see how this plays out. Our BOD is a bunch of gamers. (And, I mean that as a compliment.)

[JFD]

IF I read it correctly, and I see several folks have read it the same way, we get our own rule book for USPSA. That seems like a good thing.

While I think IPSC matches could appeal to some because they're different, I don't know how long this appeal would last. I'm thinking only a handful of US shooters shoot the World Shoot, so I can't see how the IPSC part of this deal can be successful.

The only negative I can see is if a regular USPSA match decides to switch to an IPSC match, then almost nobody shows up. Everyone loses in that situation. I'm not about to spend a dime on extra equipment to make my guns legal for an IPSC match, and I'd imagine I'm not alone. Hell, I've got over $700 invested in USPSA-legal extensions for my 2 Limited guns, so forget about making the mags IPSC-legal.

If anyone cares to check out the thread on the new trigger rule interpretation, I think it would be fair to say those folks aren't interested in IPSC Production rules. Some may not like our(USPSA) 10 round Production limit, but it most certainly does open up the division to most any gun at all. I still say that was a REALLY good idea from the BOD.

I'm not really sure how USPSA can say there will be 3 IPSC matches held. What matches would switch to IPSC? Sure the Florida Open might jump on the IPSC bandwagon, but what other matches would? By definition, no sectional or area matches could be held as IPSC matches, as these are all USPSA matches. If USPSA has to spend extra money for those matches, then they have to worry about the membership freaking out.

I guess I'm in the "wait and see mode" right now.

[BritinUSA]

I'm not really sure how USPSA can say there will be 3 IPSC matches held. What matches would switch to IPSC? Sure the Florida Open might jump on the IPSC bandwagon, but what other matches would?

If I'm reading it right, the team selection process has to be based on three IPSC matches. I am sure they will have no problem finding organisers for those matches. I agree that Florida would most likely jump straight, perhaps a couple of Areas may host 2 Area matches, one IPSC and one USPSA to meet the criteria.