Flexmoney Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 I was actually surprised that IPSC is interested in Airsoft, since I always assumed they would see acceptance of simulated guns as proof they didn't have the "need" they must continually prove to various nationals governments. Me too. I'd think they'd want to push airsoft away with a 10ft pole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el pres Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 This is a non-issue in the US, since USPSA needs never drive gun laws, issuance of permits necessary to own guns, etc. It But U.S. gun laws drive USPSA trends !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFlowers Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 I have no issue with rules for the bettering of the sport, but a bad rule is always a bad thing. Based on the way the proposed rule is written, an Open shooter could eject his magazine, then shove it back in and he has made his mag change. Or during a long run, eject the mag from the gun, shove in a new one, eject it, shove in a new one, eject it and shove in a new one. The two mandatory mag changes have been made with no cost at all. I mean when people are dicussing how to game a rule before it becomes a rule, you know its a bad rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gino_aki Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Waving from a state where everybody reloads regardless of division...what's all the fuss about?...ACK !!! ACK!!! NOT the tomatoes!!!!!! Seriously, I figure course design would go a long ways towards alleviating magazine races in IPSC Production, bring back the "Run 'N' Gun" Norco type 60 rounders. For USPSA I don't see much chance of any such rule adoption, which might also hurt chances of hosting future World Shoots. It's too bad shooting sports invariably become however illogically linked with shooting violence...and lead attitudes towards proposals such as have been discussed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 If Production division rules are this much of a problem, why not just get rid of Production? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gose Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 (edited) It's also somewhat interesting that there is such a a big "problem" with production, yet at many IPSC matches, it's the biggest division.... Edited September 26, 2008 by gose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 If Production division rules are this much of a problem, why not just get rid of Production? Right after we get rid of Open..... :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 If Production division rules are this much of a problem, why not just get rid of Production? Right after we get rid of Open..... :P Hey now!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 If Production division rules are this much of a problem, why not just get rid of Production? Right after we get rid of Open..... :P That kind of talk will get this thread closed down in a heartbeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shooterbenedetto Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Hell no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gose Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Polls in Sweden and Denmark (FWIW) indicate ~80% against the proposal. Lower than I thought, but at least it shows that it's just not the US opposing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 If Production division rules are this much of a problem, why not just get rid of Production? Right after we get rid of Open..... :P That kind of talk will get this thread closed down in a heartbeat Mmmmm, the Production shooting mods might outnumber the open shooting mods....... :devil: O.K. back to your regularly scheduled programming --- sorry for the drift.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 FWIW, I've talked to Vince Pinto and other IPSC officials directly about Airsoft. They said "Hell, no!" too.. at least as an official part of "IPSC". I think the whole argument around 'adding challenges' is merely going to further separate the pro and semi-pro shooters from everybody else. The more skills you have to be good at, the less people will have time and resources to get good at them. Do we really want that??? The other point is--- USPSA is the IPSC organization for the USA. Why do the US shooters have to hear about and provide feedback (which hasn't been solicited) on a completely unofficial forum? We get a vote, but what's the process for getting the desires of the US shooters into that vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted September 27, 2008 Author Share Posted September 27, 2008 Our vote is through our RD (Mike Voight). We need to ensure that he is aware of our positions on these issues and ask that he vote accordingly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Our vote is through our RD (Mike Voight). We need to ensure that he is aware of our positions on these issues and ask that he vote accordingly... My thought was maybe he should be sending us the issues and figuring out what we want... for all I know that is or will happen somewhen/where, but I don't know of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roar M Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Polls in Sweden and Denmark (FWIW) indicate ~80% against the proposal. Lower than I thought, but at least it shows that it's just not the US opposing this. And the same in Norway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Polls in Sweden and Denmark (FWIW) indicate ~80% against the proposal. Lower than I thought, but at least it shows that it's just not the US opposing this. And the same in Norway It looks the same over here in The Netherlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA Friday Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Pretty much says it all on all of the proposals. If IPSC production has become such a mag capacity race, killing freestyle over limiting mag capacity is the wrong choice of two evils. I don't think either would completely destroy freestyle or have political ramification result from the decision either way, but I think resolving this issue at the sake of freestyle because of 'potential' politics may lend too much weight to just how much IPSC influences those political decisions. (wow, that was a hell of a run-on) Completely getting rid of the misappropriately named 'metric' target would be a mistake IMO. I know it cannot be used in some countries, but mandating conformity vs allowing variation if allowed is just crazy-talk. Heard mention that mandatory reloads was similar to charge lines in limiting freestyle. YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR. If that would have been adopted in it's original form, it would have been. But a compromising solution was found that allowed for the ability to use charge lines and still keep fault lines that resolved both issues. I see no compromise currently tabled for the IPSC manditory reloading proposal. Oranges and Grapefruit; related, but hell of a lot different. Jim Norman agreeing with Vince Pinto. I think I'm gonna pass out. Reality is truely stranger than fiction. In the end, if these proposals are approved they would be another couple of steps away from USPSA's current position in this sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RePete Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 but I'd hate to have to do 2 reloads on a 17 round COF. Agreed. I think that most designers would simply stop building 17 to 20-25 round stages. And you would possibly end up with either 16 round or 26-32 round stages Which goes back to what I stated, the COF designers can control rounds counts. As for the targets, while I prefer the original IPSC target, now the Metric, over the 'new' target, now the Classic, I can live with the change, BUT I think it's plain ludicrous to limit round counts by what the mag can contain, other than production, which I like shooting, along with Revolver and Standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dansy Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 It would also allow USPSA limited shooters to shoot standard without having to have all new magazines, their 140mm mags would work just fine. It would also allow the open shooters to use their 171.25 mags in an ipsc match. Actually I don't believe there a is a proposal for longer mag's just restricted capacity and mandatory reload.....no the USPSA 171.25 would not be legal even pin to 10rounds, in the same sense the Limited (standard) in Canada are limited to 140mm NOT 141.25" ask some shooters that got bump in Open at the last national..... Was that an advantage....no but its a rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Actually I don't believe there a is a proposal for longer mag's just restricted capacity and mandatory reload.....no the USPSA 171.25 would not be legal even pin to 10rounds, in the same sense the Limited (standard) in Canada are limited to 140mm NOT 141.25" ask some shooters that got bump in Open at the last national.....Was that an advantage....no but its a rule. IF the new rules are implemented, you could use whatever mags you wanted. 170mm, 171.25 or 271.25. It doesn't matter. No restrictions on lenght or capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GvU Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 (edited) Alex Instead of mandating reloads how about just limiting guns to flush fitting mags...the long mags hanging out of pistols is about as attractive as a dress on a hog... Just make longer grip I guess the bottom line is in limiting the number of rouns per position ( more movement and more possibilities for mag changes ). Edited September 27, 2008 by GvU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dansy Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Actually I don't believe there a is a proposal for longer mag's just restricted capacity and mandatory reload.....no the USPSA 171.25 would not be legal even pin to 10rounds, in the same sense the Limited (standard) in Canada are limited to 140mm NOT 141.25" ask some shooters that got bump in Open at the last national.....Was that an advantage....no but its a rule. IF the new rules are implemented, you could use whatever mags you wanted. 170mm, 171.25 or 271.25. It doesn't matter. No restrictions on lenght or capacity. And were did you read that fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 IF the new rules are implemented, you could use whatever mags you wanted. 170mm, 171.25 or 271.25. It doesn't matter. No restrictions on lenght or capacity. And were did you read that fact? 26) Introducing reloads in Medium and Long Courses "A gun is part of a system that includes the gun, the ammunition, the way to reload, and the way to carry and, most important of all, how to best use the system." Jeff Cooper There has hardly been a General Assembly where magazine capacity in some form or another has not been an issue. Originally, the order of the day was to impose restrictions on the magazines themselves. In Open Division, these restrictions arbitrarily limited magazine length by measuring. In Standard and Modified Divisions, magazines were restricted by inserting them in the pistol before putting the pistol in the IPSC Box. Production Division is currently in a state of ammunition capacity turmoil. Restricting the magazines themselves or arbitrarily limiting the number of rounds loaded is the wrong path. Simply introducing one reload anywhere in Medium stages, and two reloads anywhere in Long stages, will make all these issues go away. Questions of magazine length, size, capacity, shape and form all vanish. Eliminating all magazine restrictions, and adding the challenge of reloading will mean that more styles of pistols will become competitive including the beloved single-stack models. No doubt, one may bring up the question of 'freestyle'. Freestyle means that competitors are free to think and to solve challenges in the manner they choose. Adding reloads to Medium and Long courses of fire is not ordering competitors where, when, or how to reload. With no restrictions whatsoever on magazines, no competitors are disadvantaged and all existing magazines can continue to be used without any problems. Introducing reloads will bring back challenges, excitement, and skills lost over time plus serve to re-energize our matches. 35. Motion That the 2009 Edition of the IPSC Handgun Rules include the following revisions: 1.2.1.2 "Medium Courses" must not require more than 16 rounds to complete nor require more than 3 shooting locations. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to shoot all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view. Competitors must, after firing at least one round and before firing their final round, minimally complete one reload, failing which one Procedural Penalty will be assessed. 1.2.1.3 "Long Courses" must not require more than 32 rounds to complete. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to shoot all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view. Competitors must, after firing at least one round and before firing their final round, minimally complete two reloads, failing which one Procedural Penalty will be assessed for each reload not completed. Open Division 8. No maximum magazine length Standard, Modified & Production Divisions 8. No maximum magazine length Standard & Modified Divisions 16. A handgun in its ready condition (See Section 8.1), but unloaded, must fit wholly within the confines of a box which has internal dimensions of 225mm x 150mm x 45mm (tolerance of +1 mm, -0 mm). When a handgun is inserted into the box, rear adjustable sights may be slightly depressed, but all other features of the handgun, (e.g. collapsible and/or folding sights, slide rackers, thumb rests, external hammers, grips etc), must be fully extended or deployed. Production Division 19.2 will be deleted 20.1 will be deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted September 27, 2008 Author Share Posted September 27, 2008 Poll added on IPSC Global Village ---> Link to the poll Please take the time to vote, you need to register if you are not already a member of the Global Village Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts