Constructive suggestions for IPSC shotgun rules

[Carlos]

Replying to a thread I started regarding proposed IPSC shotgun/3 gun rules, several BE members including Vince Pinto and Neil Beverley posted further updates as well as their thoughts on the matter. Neil's latest post is re-printed below (please take a look).

Here is another oportunity for BE forum members to add constructive input and help IPSC develop internationally- appropriate shotgun rules.  I have weighed in generally in favor of the use of slugs on both steel and poppers under limited circumstances; perhaps others can add their experiences/thoughts to this topic?

Finally, a big "thank you" goes out to Vince, Neil, and Brian for offering us the opportunity to share veiws/thoughts/experiences in this area.

""Further to the reply from Vince I would advise that the proposed revisions and updates for the IPSC SG rules were accepted for 2003.

But there is a proviso and this is that the rules need to be further considered alongside the handgun and rifle rules so that proper commonality (wherever possible) is achieved.  This therefore gives us a chance to re-visit any rules that would benefit from a change.  Of course we can't assume that

everything will get approved but at least everything can be considered.  We also must remember that we must produce rules that are appropriate for IPSC shooting and acceptable in all Regions.  And we must attempt to write rules that won't cause significant problems in other Regions.

                      With regards to the subject of slugs on steel targets: what minimal distances are suggested?

                      Should the distance be the same for plates and poppers?

                      Does anyone think that there should be a suggestion for restrictions on backwards falling poppers (I

                      doubt that this would be approved) or minimal thickness of steel?

I am also interested in peoples views on the min and max round counts per stage and per match.  I am aware of one Region who would like SG stages restricted to a max of around 15 rounds but personally I would not be happy with this restriction.

What distances are you shooting the average target at?

What are the views on unloaded starts?  These feature in UK matches and at least make sure that everyone starts equal regardless of gun capacity.  The difference between a handgun with an 8 round mag and one with a 15 round mag is one reload but in SG an extra 7 reloads (assuming no speed

loaders).

The queries above are just some initial thoughts and I'm sure there will be others from me and hopefully from others as well.  I await your replies with interest.

Please note that after next year the intention will be to leave the rules alone for some time so we have just a few months to consider any new ideas.

Is everyone happy to carry on in this thread under the heading of "Proposed Shotgun Rules" or should we consider starting a new one?

As requested by Vince can you please direct SG rule comments to me as I will be particularly involvedin the process of producing next years proposals.  Thanks.

                      More soon.

                      -----

                      Neil """"

[Patrick Sweeney]

Here goes:

Falling plates for shot should not be any farther than can be successfully engaged with the minimum load likely to be encountered:  Cylinder bore and 1-1/8 of #7.

Steel should be at a minimum far enough that doubles on steel are unlikely.  If, say, 25 yards, they can be doubled, risking lead exit from the range.  With a 40 yard max, they are less likely.  If that doesn't work, then require steel not hinged, and thus easier to take over before being doubled.

Stage max and mins for capacity should be liberal.  If a club has a vest pocket range that only holds five poppers, then a ten shot minimum simply means they can't shoot there.  However, a twelve or fifteen maximum precludes a large field course.  I'd say four minimum and twenty maximum.  On a 3-gun match, the average should hover in the ten to fifteen rounds area.

Unloaded starts should be kept to a minimum.  At most one per 3-gun match.  No one thinks they're fun, and they do not test a relevant skill.  ("Gee, all my guns are unloaded.  Which will I load first, the shotgun, which takes one at a time, or the handgun or rifle, which I have loaded magazines at hand for?&quot

I'm all for accomodating those with new equipment (which may not be competitive) but our experience has been that the cost is not so great as to preclude the new shooter getting up to speed.  Using unloaded starts as a means of leveling equipment, doesn't.  The new guy isn't going to load as fast, will fumble under the new stress, and will still start shooting with a gun holding less than the experinced competitor.  You want the new guy to come back?  Give him recognition for doing well with what he has, and see he has fun.  He'll be back.

[ErikW]

At a 3 gun match you need to keep your stages balanced, which means you need to have "big" shotgun stages. Encourage double-point Pepper Poppers or split poppers to bump up the stage points.

The big problem with shotgun stages is they hit factor very low compared to rifle and pistol. Low hit factors favor accuracy, but there's rarely any accuracy to shotgun stages, save for slug shots on paper. If you drop a few points there, your hit factor suffers greatly. It's just a reloading contest. Do what it takes to make it more of a shooting contest.

The main reason hit factors are so low is the time spent reloading. The rules should strongly discourage  or disallow a course to require starting with an unloaded magazine tube. (Chamber unloaded is OK.)

[Neil Beverley]

Carlos - Thanks for kicking off this new topic.

Patrick - The rule book test for testing plates and poppers is close to your thinking but uses a 28gr or 1 ounce load and should be at around 1200 fps.  There are also cartridge specifications for Buckdhot only stages and slug only stages see the end of Appendix H of the IPSC rule book.

I take the point about unloaded starts  in a 3 gun match as described but we shouldn't preclude this type of start in a SG only match or even a SG only stage.  Match Organisers and Course reviewers should be sensible when considering the inclusion of such stages.

I believe Erik is correct about the need for big SG stages in 3 gun matches and also I believe that there is a place for them in a stand alone match.  IPSC certainly seems to be taking a bigger interest in multi discipline tournaments and we need to consider the balance of the 3 disciplines to decide a tournament winner.  This may be different to IDPA 3 gun matches of which I have very limited specific knowledge so please forgive me if I get something wrong with regards to IDPA.

The difficulty of course lies in the target types with steels only needing (usually) a single shot whereas the paper targets in pistol are nearly always double tapped.  This can quickly lead to a disparity in the number of shots fired for Sg v pistol.  So we should keep the big stages in Sg to help balance this problem.

I have heard an argument that the balance of a tournament should be assesed by the number of targets but I believe that the number of scoring hits is the shooting challenge rather than the number of targets.  Two scoring hits on a paper target is more difficult than knocking a plate down with a SG and a single shot!  This subject is very much up for discussion within the IPSC rules committees.

I also agree with Erik that the hit factor for Sg can be low and I hear the comment about accuracy - but why do some people still miss?  You can add to the accuracy requirement by setting tight Penalty Targets (No-shoots).  The shooting challenge must always be achievable with the test gun and test cartridge specification but can still present a really tough challenge.  And the risk of the 10 point penalty makes shooters consider their shot placement.  

Clever positioning of Penalty Targets can also add to the freestyle element of the sport - take the time to move to the side to get a clear shot or save time and take the tight shot whilst risking the penalty.  Freestyle!

I'd like to see more input from others as well but at least it's a start.

Thanks.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Until the current ruling on no-shoot targets is changed, no-shoot poppers in shotgun is a non-starter.  If I'm going to get a penalty on a no-shoot popper for a single pellet hit (and that's the way the rule is now) I'm just going to hose the scoring plate and ignore the no-shoot.  In ther words, everyone will "earn" that no-shoot as there is no way to avoid it.

One way to pump up shotgun factors is to set up short stages with multiple runs.  A five popper stage you can engage three times will quite often take less time than a fifteen popper stage.  Not as fun, but if all you have are five poppers and a vest pocket bay, then don't overlook it.

Buckshot?  I don't see it happening much.  The cost and recoil are much greater than birdshot, and there is no point in using it on poppers unless you simply want to force the shooters into dealing with the recoil.  Buckshot on paper isn't a shooting skill, it is a luck and how tight is your choke test.

Our range can't shoot over the horizon, so we don't do any clay birds at all.  We can't be the only club with this problem, so I think we should not encourage wholesale flying clay targets.  They also strike me as being fiddly to run and liable to false starts (what to do if you launch a broken bird at the end of a 20-shot field course?) and thus should be kept to a minimum.

[Neil Beverley]

Patrick

Thanks for the input.

The current ruling (IPSC Rules) about no-shoot targets was changed as from the beginning of this year and plates or poppers must fall to count as hit.

Clearly this was a major requirement for SG and we have operated this rule in the UK for years.

Also please note that again for SG a max of 2 penalty hits per paper penalty target to count against the competitor rather than "all visible hits" but see above for plates and poppers.

Actually I've had some arguments about this with others within IPSC (mostly those who don't shoot SG and who hadn't contemplated the consequences of a pulled shot).  Fortunately I have been able to win the day and hopefully we have a more practicable rule as a result.

With this in mind could you see a situation where carefully placed no-shoots (penalty targets) add to the shooting challenge?

I'm not keen on multiple runs per stage just to boost factors - it's too artificial.  I guess as far as the smaller ranges are concerned then we must accept that they won't have big SG stages but it's still better that they are doing something.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that buckshot should never be forced on people just so that they have to deal with the recoil but our experiences are that buck copes with longer range targets than could be shot with birdshot.  In a UK match of say 12 stages sometimes we will see no buck stages and other times perhaps just 1 or 2.  Their inclusion must satisfy the course reviewer that there is genuine reason for the inclusion (and not just to achieve sales of buck ammo  :-) !! ).

We also try to include some paper targets in these stages with the highest 2 hits to count - we nominate OO buck as a specific ammo type.  The targets must be test shot with factory OO ammo and with a test specification gun to check that 2 hits can be regularly achieved.  Stages will often allow competitors to get closer to the targets to ensure they achieve 2 hits but this adds to their time - freestyle!  With only one shot usually being necessary per target but with 2 hits to count this helps with the factor.

Patching is obviously a problem and is why the rules now provide for a nominated buck type such as OO (and this is only just under 9mm per pellet) so only 9 pellets per cartridge.  If the targets are set at a long range then you won't have 9 holes to patch anyway.

Actually the UK has nearly entirely moved to the new A4 and A3 targets which are photocopyable and so cheap they are disposable per competitor.  No patching and everyone gets a clean target to start with.

I also agree with you about clays or at least flying clays but static clays are OK.  IPSC handgun rules no longer allow frangible targets (unfortunately) but we got them accepted for SG.

Bearing in mind that there should be no miss penalties on a flying clay (disappearing target) and considering Limited Division then a flying clay should not feature in stages of above 8 rounds because it can be a better option to ignore the clay rather than to engage it and have to reload the extra round.  Have a look at the factors - it's close but it can mess things up.  

Out of 4 Level III matches in Europe this summer 2 of the matches had a single flying clay in each.

[Patrick Sweeney]

I wasn't aware that the no-shoot rule had been changed.  In that case, we'll be using it more at our club.  And with shotgun, yes.

A five shot stage run multiple times could be three runs, one each from each side of a barricade and through the window, or something like that.  Not just a stand in the box and hose 'em round count multiplier.

Our members love shooting steel, so the idea of walking down and pasting buck hits on a target would not be fun.  As an occasional thing, OK.  Ditto stationary clay birds.  Swingers, the rare flying one, fine.

[Carlos]

Neil, in response to some of your thorough comments:

"could you see a situation where carefully placed no-shoots (penalty targets) add to the shooting challenge?"

As you specified poppers that must fall to incur a penalty, then yes, that sounds like a reasonable solution. Initially, I had some concern about paper No-shoot penalties which might be caused by an errant wad rather than shot/slug, however, I doubt a calibrated popper could be taken over by a wad - has this ever been an issue in the UK? I have never competed in a match with no-shoots on a shotgun stage so please enlighten me.

"I'm not keen on multiple runs per stage just to boost factors - it's too artificial.  I guess as far as the

smaller ranges are concerned then we must accept that they won't have big SG stages but it's still better that they are doing something."

-Agreed.

"I agree with you wholeheartedly that buckshot should never be forced on people just so that they have to deal with the recoil but our experiences are that buck copes with longer range targets than could be shot with birdshot.  In a UK match of say 12 stages sometimes we will see no buck stages

and other times perhaps just 1 or 2.  Their inclusion must satisfy the course reviewer that there is genuine reason for the inclusion (and not just to achieve sales of buck ammo  :-) !! )."

Locally, buck shot stages have been problematic from a taping standpoint as well as a lack of experience/predictability as to what buckshot will do on paper;  perhaps the disposible target at closer, more predictable ranges would lead to better results. I am not sold on the idea of buckshot as yet.

As for birdshot stages, the static frangible target has been a great success and requires nothing more than a length of rebar with a nail attached to one end and a case of clay birds; it takes the same or less time to re-set than a popper and there is little argument about hits as a single pellet hit will count. We have even used steel "windmill" contraptions with 2 birds in motion for an added challenge.

Regards, D.

[Neil Beverley]

I wish I had discoveredthe BE Forums sooner.  The dialogue is very useful and I agree with the comments  from Vince Pinto elsewhere that it is particularly good that everyone approaches the discussions in a positive manner.

I’ve never known a problem of a plate being taken down by a wad.  We generally spray penalty targets red and will re-spray if one takes a hit so there are no arguments with subsequent shooters.  We use almost instant drying road marking spray paint and it hardly adds any time during the reset process.  There is a slight concern that with certain target designs the penalty plates could be knocked down with the splash back off a closely placed shoot target.  It doesn’t happen very often but a cleanly painted penalty plate avoids any doubt.

Penalty targets can definitely add an extra dimension to a stage.  I’m surprised that you haven’t done much with them before and without trying to teach my granny to suck eggs you might like to consider the below.

For example try setting 2 shoot targets (6 inches square) about 10 feet apart and about 7 yards from the shooter.  Now add a penalty target in front of each shoot target and to the outside overlapping by about 3 inches leaving about 3 inches of shoot target visible.  So we get (from the left to right) penalty target, shoot target, 10 foot gap, shoot target, penalty target.

Now a competitor in the middle of a shooting line 7 yards from the targets has a choice – one position and 2 difficult(ish) targets or move first to the left by about 2 yards to get an easy shot on the right hand target but with the left hand target all but disappearing from view, then they can move about 4 yards to the right to get an easy shot on the left target.  But this is slow, so the competitor chooses the compromise between the easy shots with a longer time or the quick one position solution but with the greater risk of hitting a penalty target.

Clever course design can set this into a stage say for example with a barricade and 3 apertures.  Add in the pressure of the timer running and we create extra interest in a stage and no longer such an easy blag.  But then this is just my humble opinion.

On the subject of plates had you spotted that for IPSC SG there is a wider choice of acceptable plate sizes compared to IPSC handgun?  You can use any size from 15cm x 15cm to 45cm x 30cm (6” x 6” to 18” x 12”).  Also any round plate between 15cm to 30cm diameter (6” to 12”).  What size or sizes do you use in matches?  How would you feel about the inclusion of other steel targets, for example a steel silhouette of the IPSC Classic target?

Surprise No. 2 for me was that you are not using much if any buckshot.  I had expected the opposite to be true.  The Italians who shoot quite a lot of IPSC Shotgun (Italian style) allow competitors top choose either bird or buck to suit themselves per stage except for nominated slug stages.  In the UK the buck stages are nearly always popular particularly because of the challenge of the longer range shots or because of the inclusion of some paper targets.  Why not try a small stage with buck ammo and say 2or 3 paper targets and see what feed back you get?  The dimensions for the new A4 and A3 targets are in Appendix G of the rule book and are easy to draw by hand and even easier for anyone with a CAD program, then photocopy.

Please note the rules don’t allow for birdshot to be used in competition against paper targets for score.

There have been some adjustments to the Divisions for 2003 as a result of discussions with some IPSC Regions.  Hopefully the changes won’t be as controversial as the Handgun Division debates.  As they are written what would be the percentages of US shooters in each Division?

Regards,

[Patrick Sweeney]

Neil,

Sidebar, if you please:  Exactly what was the change, who made it, and what is the wording?  I just got done exchanging e-mails with John Amidon, who tells me that the rule is what it has always been, and also tries to tell me it can be both what it was and what it is.

Near as I can tell, the ruling on no-shoot poppers is still the irrational "visible marks incur the penalty" definition.

[Neil Beverley]

Patrick

I’m pleased to hear you say “ the irrational ‘visible marks incur the penalty’ definition” because it’s just that and even more so to those of us who shoot a lot of SG.

For a bit of background: I’ve been on the IPSC Rifle and Shotgun Rules Committee for a little over 2 years.  I’ve been very active on the UK SG circuit for many years (too many some might say), and for SG - UK RM, Course Reviewer, Instructor, NROI Administrator etc. etc, ad nausea!  Actually I know next to diddly squat about rifle shooting and have never claimed to have.  I used to shoot a lot of pistol (badly) when we had them.  My role on the IPSC committee was to help on the SG rules.  

Phew!  I’m glad I got all that out of the way.

The last official set of IPSC SG rules dated way back to the 1980s and were pretty useless.  For the countries that shot SG it seems that many developed their own sets of rules.  The committee was tasked with producing a decent set of rules that could adopted by IPSC.  The current SG rules are based from a start position of the 14th Edition IPSC Handgun Rules.

At the IPSC General Assembly in August last year it was voted:  “That the Shotgun rules as submitted be accepted for one year for evaluation”  That is for 2002.  These rules can be viewed or downloaded from the IPSC web site.  These rules include the references to the penalty targets having to fall, see below.

“9.4.3  Steel penalty targets shall be penalised the equivalent of twice the points value of a scoring hit.  Steel penalty targets shall always fall or overturn when hit to count as a penalty and must be designed and installed to prevent them from turning edge-on or sideways.  Steel penalty targets that can turn edge-on or sideways when hit are not permitted.”

Also:

“9.4.2  Hits visible on the scoring surface of a paper or card penalty target shall be penalised the equivalent of twice the points value of a maximum scoring hit, subject to a maximum of two (2) penalty hits per penalty target.”

“9.5.3  Penalty paper targets shall be penalised no more than 2 hits and penalty steel targets must fall to score.”

I suspect that the discrepancy with the email exchange with John is that not all countries (IPSC Regions) have yet adopted the new IPSC rules.  They were voted as an evaluation set for 1 year.  

At this year’s World Assembly the R & SG Committee submitted some updates, changes and corrections to the 2002 Rules.  Nearly all the changes were written by me and these were in response to feedback, such as it was, to the 2002 rules.  I also closely monitored proposals from Mike Voigt and the committee members of the IPSC Rules Committee for changes to the handgun rules.  Where I thought a change sensibly relevant to SG I included it.  Clearly not everything was going to be applicable .

At the Assembly the revised SG rules were adopted as provisional rules including all the changes.  They will take effect from Jan 2003 and the European Championships will be conducted under these rules.  I think Carlos has already seen this set of rules and this triggered the current discussions.

I feel that SG (and Rifle) has drawn the short straw within IPSC for far too long and at last I see it moving forward towards greater recognition.  The rules may not be perfect (yet) and may not suit everyone but they’re a big improvement on what was there before.  We now find the discipline being discussed within IPSC and not just within individual Regions.  There have been a number of Level III matches this year and I’m sure we will see more next year.  Next year’s World Assembly is to be held in conjunction with the SG Europeans in Italy.  SG is on the map …. At last!

I am still expecting to change the rules again for submission next year to come into effect in Jan 2004.  I know this is a pain but on the other hand it is also giving us the chance to sort problems and to modify rules if necessary.  As these IPSC SG rules are still fairly new to many I have to regard it as a good opportunity despite the work.

I’m no miracle worker and I make mistakes like any other, but like the rest of you using these forums I’m passionate about our sport.  The purpose of my questions elsewhere have been to try to glean information so that I can try to produce good rules that suit the majority..  I suspect that I will never totally please everyone.

All input gratefully received.

One day, just one day I’m going to write just one simple paragraph …….!    :-)

Hope this helps.

[Patrick Sweeney]

So for shotgun penalty steel must fall.  What about handgun?  Is the irrational rule still in effect? My recollection of the no-shoot popper ruling was that it was some artifact of the US getting more in agreement with the International rules.

I'm puzzled not just by the rule, but by the lack of a rational basis for it.

[Neil Beverley]

I agree about the handgun rule and penalty steel targets but I haven't had the same influence there.  The new rules committee is tasked with making the rules more consistent across the 3 disciplines in time for next years Assembly.  I will take up the cause!  There!  A single paragraph!  I knew I could do it.

[Patrick Sweeney]

You can try the argument I used: The ballistic equivalent of scoring rings.

The popper is not scored from being perforated, it is scored from being tipped over.  A cardboard targt is not engaged unless it has a bullet-diameter hole in it.  Splatter and fragments do not count.  The equivalent on the popper would hold.  If it is not tipped over, it has not been "engaged" regardless of the marks on it.

It might work better for you than it did for me.

[Neil Beverley]

Patrick - I'll add your arguments to mine.  I can only try!

I know that there is one standpoint about the use of non-falling steel penalty targets in that they are used to protect range equipment or an area of the range which is not to be shot at but only too frequently this isn't the case and there is no logic to having peppers or steels that don't fall.

On the plus side of things were you aware that the last IPSC WA has voted that for 2003 onwards the max number of penalty hits to count per penalty target is 2, both for paper and steels.  From 2003 this applies to the handgun rules as well as for SG.  

Unfortunately the change didn't go through for Rifle because of other technicalities but we will get changed for 2004.