Vince Pinto Posted November 24, 2002 Author Share Posted November 24, 2002 Omnia1911, Or we could remove the word "unloading" from 10.3.2.1, right? And you are incorrect in saying "A shooter can only unload his gun, during a course of fire, after receiving the command of the RO". See 10.3.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 24, 2002 Author Share Posted November 24, 2002 Dowter, The rulebook available for download from the IPSC website incorporates the new revisions. However if you just want a list of the revisions alone, send me an email and I'll send you a copy. No, unlike with the rest of the world, USPSA adoption of IPSC rule revisions is not automatic. (Edited by Vince Pinto at 12:53 pm on Nov. 24, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Quote: from Dowter on 9:27 am on Nov. 24, 2002 Could someone point me in the direction of a page that lists all the changes/possible changes. Also, if IPSC makes a rule change, does that automatically mean that USPSA gets the same rule change? How exactly does that work out? To find the rule changes, go to the USPSA members page, scroll to the bottom of the page, click the link "2002 World General Assembly Agenda", then click "2002 Proposed 14th Edition Handgun Rules". It is a PDF file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 11:13 am on Nov. 24, 2002 Omnia1911, Or we could remove the word "unloading" from 10.3.2.1, right? And you are incorrect in saying "A shooter can only unload his gun, during a course of fire, after receiving the command of the RO". See 10.3.5. It seems to me that the main disagreement between the IPSC version of 10.3.2.5 and the USPSA version, US10.3.2.5 is that USPSA wants to keep the responsibility of the handgun with the shooter at all times. If the range commands are changed slightly, IPSC can no longer claim that the responsibility has shifted to the RO by him giving the "gun clear" declaration before the hammer is dropped. Dropping the hammer insures that a live round is not in the chamber, whether it occurs as a result of shooter, or RO error. If the hammer drops on to an empty chamber, then the RO gives the "gun clear" declaration. If the hammer drops onto a live round, then the RO repeats the "unload and show clear, hammer down" command, then makes the "gun clear" declaration. This sequence will always keep the responsibilty for any potential AD with the shooter. I'm against removing the word "unloading" from 10.3.2.1. If you are suggesting that because the RO gave the command to "unload and show clear" he is somehow responsible for any ADs that may occur before the gun is holstered makes no more sense than the RO being responsible for any ADs that may occur during the COF because he gave the shooter the "load and make ready" command. (Edited by omnia1911 at 6:08 pm on Nov. 24, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 12:49 am on Nov. 24, 2002 Another issue is the maximum round count for a COF. USPSA has no maximum limit, and argues that course designers should be allowed totally creativity. IPSC has a maximum 32 round limit and argues that if we had no limit, then we'd conceivably see 100 round COFs. These might be fun if you have sufficient magazines and enough girth to carry them (I'm OK but God help guys with revolvers!), but what about the majority? This one required a little more thought, Vince. I agree with you that the IPSC version of 1.2.1 is good. USPSA is dealing with the issue of membership growth and the desire of its constituency for higher round counts in the stages. The USPSA Bylaws have a provision that allows for clubs to have 2 "USPSA Recognized" matches a year. These matches primarily utilize the rules and guidelines published by the corporation. Maybe USPSA could adopt the IPSC version of 1.2.1 and allow those clubs that want to have high round count stages to make use of the "recognized match" feature of the USPSA Bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Vince: I would LOVE to see IPSC adopt USPSA's rules for Standard division in regards to holster placement,magazine placement and overall length of the magazine (140mm). We now have a TRUE carry gun division in Production and the long overdue realization that a Standard division pistol is a RACE gun sans compensator and optic. Let the rest of the world move the gun to a more comfortable position, allow 140mm mags and deep six the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 25, 2002 Author Share Posted November 25, 2002 Omnia1911, Putting aside the differences between USPSA and IPSC rules, why is a shot fired by a competitor into the back berm unsafe? In other words, why is it more unsafe during unloading than firing the same shot 60 seconds earlier? (Edited by Vince Pinto at 8:35 pm on Nov. 24, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 25, 2002 Author Share Posted November 25, 2002 Chuck D, Boy, you really know how to make a persuasive argument. How can the rest of the world possibly resist? I'm sure everybody won't mind buying new holsters and basepads to make 140mm (or new magazines)! BTW, did you ever wonder why IDPA grew at the expense of the USPSA? Do you think holster position had anything to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 8:24 pm on Nov. 24, 2002 Omnia1911, Putting aside the differences between USPSA and IPSC rules, why is a shot fired by a competitor into the back berm unsafe? In other words, why is it more unsafe during unloading than firing the same shot 60 seconds earlier? (Edited by Vince Pinto at 8:35 pm on Nov. 24, 2002) I don't believe it is more unsafe, but IPSC has determined that a discharge fired into the back berm while loading and reloading are unsafe too. Why zero in on just unloading? I thought your arguement with was the fact that the RO declared the gun clear and a round went off when the hammer was dropped, so why punish the shooter. You feel that it is the ROs fault for mistakenly saying "gun clear". If you change the commands, as I stated, that arguement goes away. (Edited by omnia1911 at 10:59 pm on Nov. 24, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 25, 2002 Author Share Posted November 25, 2002 The difference is that a discharge during loading, reloading or while clearing a malfunction means your finger was on the trigger when it shouldn't have been. During unloading, you're required to pull the trigger. And did you know that the USPSA used to follow the IPSC theory and rule until one day, a prominent shooter of the day (sorry, his name escapes me), had a discharge into the back berm during unloading. The RO did not DQ him and merely asked him to do it again. Ten minutes later the guy decided to DQ himself, and the matter took on a life of it's own and became an issue. Eventually the USPSA varied IPSC protocols and this is, to the best of my knowledge, the reason for most, if not all, differences. For example, Production Division was first introduced at the General Assembly in Cebu in 1999. The US delegate voted in favour of it at the GA but, after returning home, the USPSA decided to change everything. Ditto with Standard and Limited. Anyway, yes, we can change the wording of the unloading rules, and there are other variations on that theme, however both camps agree that we should not change range commands because they've been imbedded into the memories of tens of thousands of members in 70 regions. This is why we're considering a number of administrative possibilities (i.e. maybe changing a rule instead of changing the commands). BTW, this should not be construed as USPSA bashing. I just wanted you to know the history because, as the saying goes "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". (Edited by Vince Pinto at 3:07 am on Nov. 25, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 3:04 am on Nov. 25, 2002 During unloading, you're required to pull the trigger. (Edited by Vince Pinto at 3:07 am on Nov. 25, 2002) You're required to pull the trigger during the COF while engaging targets and we give out DQs for safety violations. I guess that I don't see any difference between those violations and one that occurs when unloading. Both violations occur after receiving a command from the RO that results in having to pull the trigger. I think the shooter should still be responsible for his gun at all times. Aren't there some liability issues that come into play when responsibility for the firearm shifts from the shooter to the RO as you feel it does under 10.3.2.5? I think we can arrive at a workable solution to our differences on this and eventually have a single rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 I did notice that a rule similar to 10.3.2.5 did not exist in the 7th edition rule book, but US10.3.2.5 did in the form of US8.05. Many times USPSA is ahead of the curve, when it comes to safety, with IPSC reluctanly following suite. JMO :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 25, 2002 Author Share Posted November 25, 2002 Yes, you can pull a trigger during a course of fire and there is no penalty unless the shot satisfies the criteria for an AD as described in 10.3.1.1 (i.e. over a berm, into the ground within 3 metres etc.) or if it occurs during movement (i.e. finger in trigger). If you have an AD during unloading, you still get a DQ under IPSC rules. The only difference is IPSC will not DQ you for a shot in safe direction during unloading. If you want to talk liability, that's another story but, do you honestly believe if a discharge during unloading caused a death or an injury, it would be treated any differently whether it occurred under IPSC or USPSA rules? The Court couldn't care less about our rules. They would only apply the laws of the land. If our rules mattered in respect of legal liability, I'd write a rule right now which said "All injuries and/or deaths occurring during IPSC matches are subject to a maximum penalty of $10 and 45 minutes of community service". Bada-bing. Anyway, I don't expect you to accept my arguments but at least you know what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Vince: As far as your holster goes, all you need to do is MOVE it forward, if you wish to. Same story with the magazine holders. I do this ALL the time when I shoot the IPSC Canada Nationals and the occasional Provincial championships. Base pads, wow, if you wish to you can spend between an extra 15 to 35 dollars on a base pad bepending upon manufacturer and material used. On the other hand U.S. based shooters can spend 60 plus bucks on a new 126mm magazine,modify the mag well so one can insert it completely and if your lucky not spend weeks tuning the damn thing to get it to hold the required # of rounds and feed correctly ( something I've experienced as well). No cost involved in moving your holster and pouches and minimal costs involved in converting 126mm to 140 mm mags if the shooter wanted to. IDPA growth by the way had NOTHING to do with holster position......but that's another argument for another time and place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Vince: Not for nothing buddy buy YOU asked for input. I offered it...sorry if it offended you. Maybe the "rules committee" should poll the Standard division competitors around the globe on the issue. That's the only TRUE way to find out what the "people" want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 "How can an A.D. during the unload and show clear function that strikes the berm be deemed unsafe"? This is how. At our local INDOOR range a shooter, while unloading and showing clear discharged his firearm. The round struck the backstop, broke apart and pieces of his projectile struck me in my left leg, chest and the side of my head. I removed a section of the jacket from just above my left ear with a pair of tweezers. A larger section of the bullet struck and broke my ear muffs. Needless to say, I sent him home for the day. If your dumb enough to have your finger in the trigger guard or better yet, remove the mag and NOT emove the round from the chamber....you have no business being on the range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 hmmm, Chuck, and a similar round in the backstop during the course of fire would not have done that harm? Very weak argument....your indoor range is plain not safe for IPSC! Or do you hide behind armor cover while RO'ing the shooter until he's done? I agree with Chuck that holster position is a total non-issue in LImited vs. Standard, you just move the holster a bit. Indeed, the base pads AKA magazine length AKA magazine in gun during box test yes or no, is the single biggest issue in consolidating Limited w/ Standard Div. I would tend to favor Limited over Standard as it is written now, but many shooters will have to spend lotsa money to catch up either way it goes. That's probably why no consolidation took place, or will take place any time soon. Sigh... --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 25, 2002 Author Share Posted November 25, 2002 This thread is an example of the problem. It's always a case of how and why IPSC is wrong and how and why IPSC should change to the USPSA rule, holster position or whatever. I have not once said USPSA is wrong - just different. Vive le difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Vive le difference! amen to that. on the DQ with the gun going off. Liability wise, I don't want to RO if the shooter doesn't have to responsibility for his gun...at all times. We are splitting hairs here...but I would want the extra bit of difference that the USPSA rules give. Keep ALL the responsibilty on the shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Quote: from Flexmoney on 3:30 pm on Nov. 25, 2002 Vive le difference! amen to that. on the DQ with the gun going off. Liability wise, I don't want to RO if the shooter doesn't have to responsibility for his gun...at all times. We are splitting hairs here...but I would want the extra bit of difference that the USPSA rules give. Keep ALL the responsibilty on the shooter. I agree with Flexmoney. When you live in a litigious society, like we do here in the USA, subtle differences matter in helping one keep his butt from being sued off. Why make it easier for a plaintiff do that with a rule like 10.3.2.5 that shifts responsibility to the RO, when it should always be the shooter's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 12:11 pm on Nov. 25, 2002 This thread is an example of the problem. It's always a case of how and why IPSC is wrong and how and why IPSC should change to the USPSA rule, holster position or whatever. I have not once said USPSA is wrong - just different. Vive le difference! Have you forgotten my post about 1.2.1? I came pretty close to agreeing with you on that one, though I'm not fond of 1.2.1.4. Fortunately it is only a recommendation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 25, 2002 Author Share Posted November 25, 2002 I've conducted RO courses for IROA in 8 different regions and the first thing I say to the huddled masses sitting in front of me is: "This is the IROA Range Officers Seminar. If you're looking for the Timer Holder Seminar, that's down the hall next to McDonalds". If we had more Range Officers and fewer Timer Holders, this issue would be a non-issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 10:35 am on Nov. 25, 2002 Yes, you can pull a trigger during a course of fire and there is no penalty unless the shot satisfies the criteria for an AD as described in 10.3.1.1 (i.e. over a berm, into the ground within 3 metres etc.) or if it occurs during movement (i.e. finger in trigger). If you have an AD during unloading, you still get a DQ under IPSC rules. The only difference is IPSC will not DQ you for a shot in safe direction during unloading. If you want to talk liability, that's another story but, do you honestly believe if a discharge during unloading caused a death or an injury, it would be treated any differently whether it occurred under IPSC or USPSA rules? The Court couldn't care less about our rules. They would only apply the laws of the land. If our rules mattered in respect of legal liability, I'd write a rule right now which said "All injuries and/or deaths occurring during IPSC matches are subject to a maximum penalty of $10 and 45 minutes of community service". Bada-bing. Anyway, I don't expect you to accept my arguments but at least you know what they are. My understanding of the rules is that a discharge during the unloading process does not fall under the AD rule (10.3.1), but under the Unsafe Gun Handling rule (10.3.2), therefore, a match DQ being given to a shooter is not dependent on where the round went, but is given soley for the round being discharged during one of the three actions specified in 10.3.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Quote: from Vince Pinto on 4:29 pm on Nov. 25, 2002 I've conducted RO courses for IROA in 8 different regions and the first thing I say to the huddled masses sitting in front of me is: "This is the IROA Range Officers Seminar. If you're looking for the Timer Holder Seminar, that's down the hall next to McDonalds". If we had more Range Officers and fewer Timer Holders, this issue would be a non-issue. (I'm the one in the back of your class with my hand raised.)What do you mean by that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 25, 2002 Author Share Posted November 25, 2002 You want fries with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now