use of substitute handgun

[A33435]

Hello everyone,

i am attending IPSC standard division with a glock 35. According to rule 5.2.6. when my gun becomes unserviceable or unsafe during a match i could ask the RM to use a substitute handgun.

In that case i would have asked to use my glock 34 for the remaining stages. The stages i had already shot could be scored as minor.

But according rule 5.2.6.1 that would be not allowed because the substitute gun has to be the same caliber.

These are the rules and i can not use my G34 as substitute. I think the use of my G34 should give me benefit and therefor not allowed. For me it's not very clear what it could be.

Anyone?

DVC

Adrie

[Patrick Sweeney]

Adrie,

This one definitely falls into "Sweeney's Third Axis of Competition:"  Clarity and Fairness are antagonistic.

Yes, it would be possible to define a method whereby a substitute firearm of a different caliber and configuration could be allowed and not introduce an unfair advantage.  To do so would take two or three pages of the rule book.  But it is simply easier to say the replacement must be the same.  One line.

At a club match, you'd probably find the stats guy and MD a lot more accomodating.  But at any higher level, they have a lot more to keep track of, and the simple rule makes their life easier.

[A33435]

"the simple rule makes their life easier. "

Thanks Patrick this is defenitely a rule that's clear.

At least about the caliber part.

Most matcher higher than level II i visit with a shooting friend who also shoots a G35. In case one of your weapons becomes unserviceable/unsafe we could shoot with each other guns.

(i think that's allowed)

Thats's much more simple than having ammo for 2 calibers and carrieng 2 guns + mags at a match.

Greetings

Adrie

[Patrick Sweeney]

Yep!

[Vince Pinto]

Patrick,

Well explained .......... you done good. I'll be making a note on your record

[shred]

Somebody want to define what 'caliber' means this time around?  I had an entertaining chat with some CRO's about whether a 9x25 was an acceptable replacement for a .38 super.  They, of course were thinking "caliber=chambered for the same cartridge", while I went with the dictionary "caliber=diameter of muzzle hole".

After observing that I could shoot a wide variety of headstamps in some guns with the same chambering (38 super, 38 TJ, 38 ACP, 38 Supercomp, etc), they eventually saw it my way.  Besides, we score by caliber on the targets.

[Vince Pinto]

Shred,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 9mm = .354" and .38 =.357"? If so, they are (minutely) different calibres.

Not trying to be a smartass here, but you raise an interesting point.

[Flexmoney]

Not sure of the IPSC stuff, but there is wording in the USPSA Divisions (Appendix E) were they say caliber and where they say cartridge...and are obviously meaning different things.

With this in mind, I emailed Amidon about changing barrels in a Glock 20 (10mm) to a 40S&W barrel.  Different cartridges, but both are .400 caliber.  (The US Limited rule states that you can't change caliber).

Amidon was OK with the change from 10 to 40.

[shred]

Vince, not in asmuch as 9x25 and the 38 supers are concerned.. .355-.356 bores across the board.  Caliber designation (especially in inch-measured calibers) is only vaguely related to actual bore size.  (cf: 38 special, 44 magnum, etcP)

[Vince Pinto]

Shred,

Thanks for highlighting an ambiguity in the rules.

To eliminate doubt, my committee has agreed on the following revised wording for the next issue of the handgun rules:

5.2.6.1 The substitute handgun satisfies the requirements of the declared Division and is of the same type, action and cartridge case/bullet diameter as the handgun the competitor used to start the competition.

We changed the highlighted wording when we recently changed Appendix E but we forgot to revise this rule.

[spook]

Vince, does that mean that it is illegal now in IPSC to put .40S&W barrel in your 10mm Glock 20 for instance?

Cause if it is...Dang!

[Vince Pinto]

Spook,

Don't be concerned.

Firstly the rule, if adopted, would not come into force in IPSC until 1 January 2004 at the earliest.

I can't speak for the USPSA but, since they know it's on the table, they could conceivably bring it in sooner.

Secondly, this rule only applies if you are shooting a match and your first gun breaks. If you want to use a replacement, then you must use a "carbon copy" gun, right down to the exact same round.

Unless you are shooting Production division, I can't see a problem using a .40 barrel in a 10mm gun (or vice versa) in Open, Standard or Modified.

The very first thing we do when we consider a new or revised rule change is ask ourselves "Will this cause our members to spend money?".

If the answer is "Yes", the rule dies a very painful death

[shred]

It's silly to be this limiting.  What is the reason for not going by "must have same bullet diameter"?  (or even not caring at all, so long as power factor is adhered to?)

You still have the same problem with multiple "cartrige cases" that will chamber in the same chamber:

The gun I normally put 38 super ammunition into will run ammunition headstamped .38 Supercomp, .38 TJ, .38 MCM NR, 38 Lapua and so on with bullets anywhere from .354" to .357" more or less interchangably.  What's it's cartrige case/bullet diameter combination?

For a long time my "backup" open gun was my old 9x25.  That's a sure case of "members would have to spend more money..."

Let's not even get into revolvers that can chamber a myriad of things.

Now here's another 'replacement gun' quiz--

1: If my C-more breaks during a match, may I replace it on the same gun with another C-more?  Why or why not?

2: If my C-more breaks during a match, may I replace it with an Aimpoint on the same gun?  Why or why not?

3: Is an otherwise identical gun with a C-more an acceptable replacement for one with an Aimpoint?  Why or why not?

[Vince Pinto]

Shred,

How often do you need to replace your gun during a match? If it's more than once a year, then I respectfully suggest the problem is your primary gun, not the rule.

Sorry, but I don't know enough about the calibres you've mentioned to give you a definitive answer.

To answer your other questions:

1) Yes, a C-More to C-More replacement on the same gun is acceptable.

2) This would be the RM's call, but I'm not sure if I would allow it. They are not strictly the same "type" of sights, because one has a tube and the other has a single optic. However replacing an Aimpoint with a Tasco, or a C-More with an OKO or a Doktor would certainly be OK.

3) Ditto.

[shred]

Vince, I've only had to replace a gun once in five years of major-match shooting. But, as a shooter going to big matches, it's always on your mind, and if you don't happen to have an identical spare, "will they allow me to replace this?" is one more thing you don't need bouncing around in the back of your mind (it was a C-more-for-Aimpoint switch, and was OKed by the CRO as they were both 'red dot sights'-- the two also work identically, btw, tube or not)

On the quiz, IPSC rules section 5 is totally silent on replacing optical sights on the same gun (USPSA rules add one), so I don't see how anybody outside the US could object to changing a C-more for an Aimpoint or even iron sights on an Open gun.

And.. I'd hope that at least some of the people making the rules are familliar with the various open cartriges in use. The ones I mentioned are all slightly different in exterior dimensions, strength, interior volume or some combination of the three, and I've picked up all of them at matches in the past six months.

In "factory ammo-only" parts of the world, maybe it's best phrased as "Could a shooter with a revolver chambered in .38 Special replace it with an identical one chambered in .357 Magnum?"

But, back to the point...

What's the point of 5.2.6.1 anyway? What's it trying to achieve? Why not make 5.2.6.1 "The substitute handgun satisfies the requirements of the declared Division."???

5.2.6.2 already says you can't gain a competitive advantage by doing the swap, and 5.2.6.3 says it's still gotta pass the chrono (although the language is wierd-- might be worth fixing that too)

So what else are we trying to govern here? Welfare for gunsmiths and gun dealers since everybody now needs two identical guns?? Prevent buddies from promising to share guns if it comes to that??

[omnia1911]

It sounds like IPSC is going to have to define what it means by "type".

Shred's question was about types sights. What is meant by type of gun? Can you substitute a Caspian with a STI? One is a one piece all steel frame. The other is a modular steel and plastic frame.

It seems to me that if the gun, the sights, and the ammo meet the requirements of the division, that is all that it should take to swap guns. What advantage could someone gain by meeting this less restrictive standard?

I would require that they shoot the same power factor (major or minor), though.

(Edited by omnia1911 at 7:49 pm on Dec. 1, 2002)

[omnia1911]

Pretty soon IPSC is going to have to define what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Now, that is familiar territory!

[Vince Pinto]

Shred,

One of my colleagues on the Handgun Rules Committee (a Dutchman - guess who!), just expressed the view that an Aimpoint and a C-More are indeed the same "type" of sight, but I'll need to wait for the other opinions before we can post a definitive answer and fix the rule.

In respect of Section 5, IPSC already adopted a USPSA proposal in respect of sights, and the new language in the revised IPSC rulebook includes the words "type of sights", which was not previously stated.

But I agree that whatever is decided, we still need to define "type".

Yes, we have lots of experts on ammo, it's just that I'm not one of them! Yes, I'm a gun dealer, but only for the Dark Side of the Force (black IS beautiful).

And yes, we're already looking at 5.2.6.

[Vince Pinto]

OK, here's the thing.

The Handgun Rules Committee is unanimous that "type of sights" means any optical sight can replace another optical sight (i.e. C-More style to Aimpoint style and vice versa).

Ditto for swapping "iron sights", so we've just got to find clearer language.

We're still working on the "type of gun" issue. In other words, is a 1911 with a polymer frame an advantage over a 1911 with a steel frame (e.g. STI/SVI genre Vs Caspian)?

If a guy wanted to replace his busted Glock 35 in Standard (or Limited) with an STI, we'd probably all bitch like hell, but not if it was vice-versa, right?

However if I swapped my Glock for a 1911 halfway through a match, I'd be shooting twice as badly, because I can't work those 1911 short-stroke triggers properly unless I fire a few hundred rounds to change my trigger memory.

Apart from the word "type", the other issue is the term "competitive advantage, which is pretty subjective and varies from shooter to shooter.

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

I was Arnie Christianson's ride from and to the airport when he came in to teach an RO class that our local club hosted.

Along the ride, I mentioned how my girlfriend's Para (P16-40) launched parts down range and she had to finish a local action pistol match with my Glock35.  He mentioned that the substitution would have not been legal if it would have been an USPSA match.

When the class came around to the rule regarding this in the book...I remember thinking that the wording here was VERY unclear.

Arnie's instruction was pretty limiting as to "type", but the book is rather vague.

Let us know what you come up with.

I can't see much reason limit substitute gun to anything but "that which satisfies the division".

I guess that we don't want shooter switching gun from stage to stage (to their advantage).  What other problems could there be?

(Edited by Flexmoney at 3:52 pm on Dec. 3, 2002)

[Steve Anderson]

The substitute gun should conform to the division requirements.

If a guy shoots an STI (his back-up in Vince's scenario) better than his primary Glock, he's dumb for not using the STI in the first place.

If I'm up against Flex, I don't mind one bit if his Glock breaks and he borrows an STI. He'll be a fish out of water for a stage or two. If he shot an STI better, that would be his primary.

Many folks who break a gun and don't have an exact twin will be so flustered by the breakdown that they won't be able to perform their best anyway.

The only problem with this wording is if someone prefers a Glock for close fast stages and a 1911 for long precise stages, he could "break" his 1911 and switch, then get it running again later by some miracle.

Maybe the rule is "once you switch, you switch for good."

I took a Beretta 96 to two bigger matches (shooting production) this year with some .40 minor ammo, in case my Beretta 9 broke. I planned to plead my case and accept the decision if I had to.

SA

[Vince Pinto]

In my experiences, very few "regular Joes" carry a spare competition gun with them to matches so, if your gun breaks, you'll probably try to borrow one from someone else (or share one on the same squad).

Of course the Super Squad invariably have backups which are usually identical twins, for obvious reasons

Moreover, I've yet to work or shoot a match where anyone needed to replace a gun, so I don't think we're being inundated with requests, however we do need to make the relevant rules clearer than they are at present.

And no, we certainly don't want guys using different guns for different stages.

As I said, the term "competitive advantage" is a bit vague and depends on your viewpoint. This is why I'd prefer to spell it out more clearly.

[Detlef]

the most common stage where people pull out their *other gun* is Chrono...  

--D.

[Jon Merricks]

Im glad I didnt know all this at the Georgia Sectional.  A guy in my squad was shooting open and was having ammo problems.  So he finished the rest of the match with a limited gun still shooting in open.  He let an open JR that was having gun problems use his gun to finish the match.  Now that I think about it I dont think it would have matter if I had known.