edwin garcia Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Is this a conspiracy among open folks that cannot seem to make their big stick work? What happens if IPSC approves the proposal? Will USPSA be forced to comply, or can USPSA 'abstain' from such 'heresey'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markcic Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) 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 ? If the plan is to make IPSC production more competitive then they need to limit magazine capacity to force reloads like USPSA did with USPSA production. Edited September 25, 2008 by markcic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I'm sure glad we, USPSA, have our own rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 wow...they're junking the metric target, creating mini ipsc targets, and did i read that montenegro was gonna lose it's sanction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 YES!!! It will give more tactical choices to solve CoF. What's not tactical about having more ammo in your gun than the other guy? Unless you're wrestling underwater..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I wasn't sure I was for the big split of USPSA and IPSC before but I sure am now. Lets see.....screw up the rules for all divisions because we screwed up the rules for one division? And as far as better stage options that only applies to stupid stages. If you can't design a challenging stage without mandating something then you don't need to be designing stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mapzter Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Lets see.....screw up the rules for all divisions because we screwed up the rules for one division? As far as the magazine capacity race it wasn't even the rules that screwed up IPSC Production division. It was adding guns with longer magazines (CZ 75 SP-01, SIG P226SCT) to the approved list that caused the "problem". They could have been left off, and the problem wouldn't be as grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markcic Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 We should all take a look at all of the proposed rule changes and let our region representative know how everyone one feels on the individual issues and let the know how we would like like to vote at the meeting at the world shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Keen Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 HELL NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 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. Item one: NO, NO WAY should reloads be made mandatory in field courses. HOWEVER, what about ALLOWING us to mandate a reload after the first shot and before engaging the last target. (Same for Rifle) Again NOT MANDATORY , allowed to be required by the designer, add that only a certain number of courses in a match may have this option exercised. As for th problem with a capacity race in Production (IPSC) limit the capacity to 10 rounds and almost all guns of the allowed action types are competitive. This removes the 9mm only situation we now have. Perhaps IPSC does not want to mandate a capacity in order to keep some regions from having it dome for them. So if the race is only in Production, mandate a reload in Production only. Item two: Repeat NO, NO NO F'ING WAY! If IPSC wants to shoot at the stop signs only, fine, Heck they can shoot bullseye if they want to, but we need to keep the Metric. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 i don't like this at all. this is leading to the idpa type of stage.next they'll make virginia count field courses. You just hit the nail on the head. Why screw with something that isnt broke. But then the GA is kinda like the UN they know what is best for us even if we dont want or need the changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 (edited) Item one: NO, NO WAY should reloads be made mandatory in field courses. HOWEVER, what about ALLOWING us to mandate a reload after the first shot and before engaging the last target. (Same for Rifle) Again NOT MANDATORY , allowed to be required by the designer, add that only a certain number of courses in a match may have this option exercised.Jim No. That is stupid. What is the point? It is similar to the stupid forbidden action bullsjit USPSA did this year. The only possible purpose I can see for it is for stupid people to design stages. If you aren't stupid you should be able to design a stage within the current (now past current) rules. Regardless of props, range, indoor/outdoor, whatever excuse you might have. All it takes is a little creativity. (Very little) Slightly sorry for the harshness, but this is all stage design by rule. Good stages do not need any further rules than what we have/had. Edited September 26, 2008 by SmittyFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 I guess I must be stupid then. What is so wrong about saying you have to reload? Not in every course, just sometimes. We mandate that you draw your gun and that you engage the targets, we mandate that you stand or sit or otherwise assume a position. None of this has a negative effect. Beep, engage array one, reload, engage array two. Now we can do that in a short course, why not in a long course. Also as I said, and others have also said, just mandate a reload in Production to open the division to other than 9mm guns. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gose Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 So now I need to get 32 round mags for all my guns, since the best/fastest way to solve a stage might be shoot one shot, reload one, reload two, shoot remaining 31 rounds. Yeah, sounds like a great idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 I guess I must be stupid then. you said it What is so wrong about saying you have to reload? Not in every course, just sometimes. We mandate that you draw your gun and that you engage the targets, No we don't. Nothing says you have to engage targets or draw your gun. we mandate that you stand or sit or otherwise assume a position. Only to start, after you start the course of fire it is up to you. Beep, engage array one, reload, engage array two. Now we can do that in a short course, why not in a long course. Because you are removing the freestyle principle from the sport. Why not just dictate everything I have to do? If that is your thing go shoot IDPA. I shoot IDPA and like it for what it is, but it ain't freestyle.....not even close. Present a problem and let me solve it. I've yet to understand what is so hard about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 I guess I must be stupid then. What is so wrong about saying you have to reload? Not in every course, just sometimes. We mandate that you draw your gun and that you engage the targets, we mandate that you stand or sit or otherwise assume a position. None of this has a negative effect. Beep, engage array one, reload, engage array two. Now we can do that in a short course, why not in a long course. Also as I said, and others have also said, just mandate a reload in Production to open the division to other than 9mm guns. Jim reloading is gay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Stupid idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 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 Agreed. The better way to bring back the fun and challenge of reloads is to reduce the maximum mag length from 170mm to 140mm. After all, IIRC, the 170mm was really meant to allow single stacks to compete with the emerging double stack guns back in the day . . . I guess the power that be didn't anticipate folks eventually using 170mm double stack magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted September 26, 2008 Author Share Posted September 26, 2008 ...After all, IIRC, the 170mm was really meant to allow single stacks to compete with the emerging double stack guns back in the day... That would be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry cazes Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 I guess I must be stupid then. What is so wrong about saying you have to reload? Not in every course, just sometimes. We mandate that you draw your gun and that you engage the targets, we mandate that you stand or sit or otherwise assume a position. None of this has a negative effect. Beep, engage array one, reload, engage array two. Now we can do that in a short course, why not in a long course. Also as I said, and others have also said, just mandate a reload in Production to open the division to other than 9mm guns. Jim One more time, folks. Any compromise to freestyle shooting is a slippery slope to things like mandating order of target engagement,etc. I love the sport the way it is today, leave it alone. I also like our unPC human silhouette targets, leave them alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-ManBart Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Hmmm....how about hell no? I'd be pretty pissed if they did that now after I've spent a bunch of cash on a handful of reliable big sticks. Suggesting that mandatory reloads won't change the freestyle nature of the sport, is an absolute falacy. If you watch how the best single stack, Production or L-10 shooters shoot a stage they're almost always reloading in the exact same spots because they HAVE to if they want to be competitive. They simply can't try to stretch things a little bit and take some extra risk for a faster time since they'll run dry and/or have to do a static reload. I certainly wouldn't want to see Limited or Open turn into that. Honestly, if USPSA were to adopt this rule I'd probably stick to shooting Single Stack...less stuff to worry about and the end result would be pretty much the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoMiE Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 If you want to reload in Open/Limited/Standard/Modified, move to Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 wow...they're junking the metric target, creating mini ipsc targets, and did i read that montenegro was gonna lose it's sanction? I predicted that move the day the neoclassic target was announced. Certain folks in IPSC told me I was wrong and that this was not in the works. I can only hope that my prediction that the next step would be to mandate that stages not resemble real life with things like doors, hallways, cars, etc. in order to become more "PC" is less accurate than my prediction they would be working to extinguish the original target with the upper A/B zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 wow...they're junking the metric target, creating mini ipsc targets, and did i read that montenegro was gonna lose it's sanction? I predicted that move the day the neoclassic target was announced. Certain folks in IPSC told me I was wrong and that this was not in the works. I can only hope that my prediction that the next step would be to mandate that stages not resemble real life with things like doors, hallways, cars, etc. in order to become more "PC" is less accurate than my prediction they would be working to extinguish the original target with the upper A/B zone. I can live with Rob's worse fear easier than my own. IPSC also has on its agenda starting airsoft matches thus giving our governments who are afraid of guns reason to tell us we do not need them to perform in our sport since airsoft will do just as well. If it comes to that, will we really need to care what the stage designs resemble or the lack of heads on the targets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjbush12 Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 So.......Im the only one that thinks this is the best idea ever?? I've also been whining about taking the heads of the targest for about 20 years or so, probably the best thing we could do for the sport! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts