BritinUSA Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Also posted this on the USPSA Forum: I'm wondering what people think about the IPSC proposal to mandate magazine reloads in Medium and Long courses of fire. There is a proposal at the IPSC General Assembly to mandate one reload in a medium course and two in a field course. This change also removes any restrictions on magazine length in Standard, Modified and Production divisions. Failure to comply with the reload rule results in a procedural error for each infraction. The rule as worded seems to apply to all divisions including Open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireant Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Hell, no. Very bad idea. Why not just eliminate all divisions except one and make everyone shoot that division? That would be the end of free style courses and eliminate any advancement of the equipment used, because it would not make any difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) [withdrawn] Edited September 25, 2008 by Steve J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry cazes Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Absolutely not a good idea. Are we heading down the slippery slope of more erosion of the free style nature of our sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tekno Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Yes, a bad idea but it seems like it can pass the vote at the GA... Please let your Regional Director know what you think about the proposal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvb Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) I don't agree w/ mandatory reloads in non-standards stages... BUT, I dont like seeing 31+1 mags becoming more common in open. A better way to make sure people reload is to cut 10-15mm off the max mag lengths. There. I said it. I feel better now. haha Edited September 25, 2008 by rvb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireant Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I don't agree w/ mandatory reloads in non-standards stages... BUT, I dont like seeing 31+1 mags becoming more common in open. A better way to make sure people reload is to cut 10-15mm off the max mag lengths. There. I said it. I feel better now. haha Making a better mouse trap was just a free style solution to the problem given Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) The proposal also removes the limitations on magazine length in all divisions. Although there will always be stages where more rounds gives more flexibility as to 'where' to the do the require reload; This proposal essentially means that 10 round magazines could be just as competitive as someone with 30+ round magazines. Of course this assumes that there is no need for 'make-up' shots. If a similar rule were introduced in USPSA, then there would be no difference between shooting L10 and LIMITED. A medium course is no more than 16 rounds. Long courses are 17-32. Edited September 25, 2008 by BritinUSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I'll copy what I wrote on GV: "I also agree with my fellow countrymen and Mark. Don't like it. Ok, I can see the point of it in PD, but whats wrong with the rules in Standard or Open today? Fit the box and 170mm seems to be working just fine. Part of what I like today is for example on a 27-28 round stage, some open shooters are going to try it with one mag (and might get burned) while others are going to do a reload. Knowing how far you can push yourself is part of whats great about this sport. Another point: Say a 28 round stage with 5 targets up front and then a 10m run to another position. You'll end up in Open (and to some extent in Standard) with shooters doing two reloads back-to-back (without shooting in between) to get them out of the way in those 10m..." So please get your RD to vote No to the proposed rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Absolutely not a good idea. Are we heading down the slippery slope of more erosion of the free style nature of our sport? Exactly. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tekno Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Absolutely not a good idea. Are we heading down the slippery slope of more erosion of the free style nature of our sport? Yes, and such a rule would make it easier for any government to restrict mag capacity to 10 rd since they can claim there is no real need for high cap magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFlowers Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 IPSC is having a major issue with the Production Division and magazines. The USPSA Production division deals with the issue by simply saying "Doesn't matter how many rounds you could load, 10 is all thats allowed". I think this was meant to be a way to resolve the issues, but sounds like the rule may have been poorly written or may have been allowed to "get out of hand". The other item on the Agenda is to do away with the standard USPSA/IPSC target and leave only the misnamed "Classic" turtle target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Not no, but Hell No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herky Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramas Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 YES!!! It will give more tactical choices to solve CoF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkeeler Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 No. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caspian guy Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Just no... Peter Adams FY-39604 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Absolutely not a good idea. Are we heading down the slippery slope of more erosion of the free style nature of our sport? I was thinking the same thing. Keep the concept of free-style alive and kill this proposal (and this is coming from someone who very rarely shoots open). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mig Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Absolutely not a good idea. Are we heading down the slippery slope of more erosion of the free style nature of our sport? Agree . . . bad idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) name='ima45dv8' date='Sep 25 2008, 12:45 PM' post='828176']Not no, but Hell No. This is exactly what I was going to write only Not only no... Hell NO!!! Edited September 25, 2008 by JThompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyZip Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I still don't see how this will enhance anything. It seems to this new shooter that this would in effect dilute the distinction between divisions. Wish they would just leave well enough alone. Seems someone wants to fix a problem that isn't there. No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 If they are doing this to somehow address the Production magazine issue then why not just apply this to Production Division and leave the others as they are ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 sure, right after i get my svi mag to hold 30...NO WAY! i'm sure the mag tuning guyz would be P'O'd... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshidaex Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g34 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 What benefit would there be to this rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts