rhino Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 She thanks you greatly and is willing to cook you all dinner when your in the neighborhood. Hope you like Italian food. You have to ask?!? Italian Food! Italian Women! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dunn Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 We need fewer rules, not more. Right on Rhino! Leave the divisions alone. No matter how you change them, you will hack someone off. It is not worth it. I might vote to get rid of revolver (if you can't go head to head with a Glock, what good is it?), except it would piss off Ron Ankeny and Jerry Miculek. I might vote to get rid of open (those things are loud!), but then I'd piss off Ron Ankeny and Steve Anderson. I might vote to get rid of production (if your gun can't go head to head with a 1911, what good is it?), but that would hack off Bonedaddy. Right now everyone has a home. Unless there is a compelling reason to change (new laws, I change my mind) just stop tinkering with the divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Larry Cazes Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Chuck, I didn't mean to jump down your throat with my previous reply but there seems to be a lack of understanding as to what purpose L10 serves for many of us in states like california. for alot of new shooters it is a way to enjoy IPSC style shooting competition in a FUN, flexible way without breaking the law in regards to magazines. Alot of us prefer .45ACP 1911s and therefore choose to shoot in this division. If USPSA chooses to place lots of "practical" restrictions on shooters in L10, alot of these shooters will probably go elsewhere. Lets not take the FUN out of shooting L10! Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Ah yes. That mysterious word "practical". I don't think the founders of IPSC had a strict dictionary definition in mind when they wrote Principle 4: "Practical shooting competition is a test of expertise in the use of practical firearms and equipment. Any item of equipment, or modification to equipment, which sacrifices practical functionality for a competitive advantage contravenes the principles of the sport". Of course Principle 4, like everything else ever written, is open to interpretation. However since the oldest divisions are IPSC Standard Division and Modified Divisions, I think we should accept them as what the founders envisaged: 1) A gun which is reasonably concealable (hence the box governing the size of the gun with magazines inserted) 2) A holster position which generally aids concealment (hence the "behind the hipbone" rule) 3) Apart from that, anything goes (but if you have ports, comps or optics you shoot in Modified, but purely for sports scoring purposes). And although these two divisions were based on a single-stack 1911 platform, they apply equally to the myriad of newer technology guns released since Principle 4 was written. Moreover, given that the box has three dimensions, I don't think the founders would have seperated guns by round capacity. Legislation aside (which is a more recent challenge), I think they would've considered a 9 round magazine versus a 16 round magazine to be a personal preference for defensive purposes. This is why, for argument's sake, I personally prefer carrying a Glock 26 with 10 rounds rather than a Glock 17 with 17 rounds. For me, the lighter weight and added concealability are a matter of comfort. Finally, using Principle 4 as a guide, Open Division is the least practical of all. Sure, some guys can carry a scoped and compensated gun with a 21 round magazine fairly well concealed, but I think such people are in the minority. For most people, such guns are primarily competitve tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 For many years I only owned one gun. It was a comfort to me when I visited cities with high mortality rates and restrictive gun laws. It was not until I became interested in shooting for sport that I learned my 6" S&W model 629 was not practical or concealable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted August 19, 2003 Author Share Posted August 19, 2003 Icazes: I know all too well what the meaning of L10 is....we're both in the same boat ( N.Y. is just as "misfortunate" as California is). Thankfully L10 exists for members like us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Anderson Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 If we're gonna talk about gun fights, it makes the case for a high capacity optical sighted major caliber firearm even stronger. MP5s are very practical, and not very concealable. I'll take my caspian any day over an MP5, though...full auto is too slow. Holster position? I carry my Kahr P9 appendix, much further forward than my cr speed...alas, that's illegal in prod. It's the shooters that wins matches and gunfights. Not guns, gear or anything else. Except in my case...my open M card came addressed to: Caspian High Cap Ser. # 41xx My name was nowhere on there... :) Must be the gun after all....I just hold it up there. More ramblings... The stages at the fgn made holsters more or less irrelevant. I can only recall a few stages that started with a normal draw of any kind. Each shooter decides what is Practical for them. How many keep an AR in the bedroom? Is that practical? It must be for those who do. I keep two Beretta high cap 9s in my bedroom. Plus the Kahr and the 870. That's practical for me. One final thought: Before your next gunfight, be sure and and call ahead to make sure your opponent (s) are complying and using your same gear so you're competing on "a level playing field." Now, back to your regularly scheduled competition shooting forum. all in fun, SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 I'll take my caspian any day over an MP5, though...full auto is too slow. my open M card came addressed to: Caspian High Cap Ser. # 41xx At last we got it unveiled.... You are not human! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Just a question. Since none of us around here like BS rules, but do like choices that give us freedom to pick whatever equipment we like, while still being competetive... What makes one gun more competitive than another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 A brief aside before I dive into my main thoughtline: "What makes one gun more competitive than another?" The shooter holding it. After that, comps and sighting systems. In Detroit, before they went with plastic fantastics, the carry policy for the PD was quite rational: If you could qualify with it, you could carry it. (DA revolvers, S&W and Colt, DA pistols only.) Thus we had officers packing S&W .41's, .44 Spl and .44 Mag. When the .45 Colts became available they went for a premium for six months due to demand. And yes, there were those who selected 4" M-29s with full-power ammo and shot qualifying scores. Many carried 6" on and off duty. One Detroit officer I knew packed an 8-3/8" M-29. At 5'7" you'd never know he was carrying. Holster selection allowed concealed carry. For most shooters, barrel length matters naught. For some it matters a bit. For all, it matters hardly at all compared to alternate sighting systems. To force any barrel length with irons into Open to compete with red-dot sights is not reasonable. If the idea is to enforce "practicality" then define it without reference to barrel length, and allow me to solve the problem. Or not, and shoot a shorter barrel length. I don't think we have much to gain by messing with the Division definitions, but I think any rational discussion is valuable in and of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Which makes the most difference in Open vs. Limited guns, the Optics or the compensator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Optics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Each shooter decides what is Practical for them. How many keep an AR in the bedroom? Is that practical? It must be for those who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GvU Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 As IPSC / USPSA is about COMPETITION, my view on “practical” is getting to any match with the gun & equipment best suited to YOU and win (if you can). Open, Limited / Standard (and Modified) are virtually racegun divisions. Usually this also means expensive (tinkering to the limit to have all real and perceived advantages possible). This means: “your choise of gun & equipment within the limitations of the divisions”. Production and Revolver are “easy entry” divisions (IMO very important to attract new membership and keep the “basics (keep it simple) community” satisfied). Keep the guns as basic as possible (no “hidden” advantages). Equipment (holsters, pouches, belts) is a visible part were (perceived) advantages show, but the competitionstyle (speed) holsters and pouches are not entirely necessary to use. And lets be real, how much is gained, as a large part is shooting skills. Limited 10 is a USA necessity (magazine legality), but still a racegun division. Meaning no further limitations to "limited". In the end training, skill, mindset will usually (and must) provide the outcome of a match. Training (acquiring skills; following courses, shooting, matches) will do more than changing parts and guns (equipment race). Trying to limit certain divisions to specific guns(models/brands) should not be the way to go. That sounds like; “this is what I have, lets name it ‘my division’”. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 It surprises me that capacity hasn't been mentioned. This, to me at least, seems the one thing that makes the open guys/gals faster than the other divisions. Next would be optics (especially on long tight shots), and after that I'd go with comps for faster follow up shots. That's just my 2cents on what makes one gun more competitive than another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Both capacity and optics matter, and they matter to a large degree depending on course design. Of the two, I'd say optics matter more, much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Spook, Pat, I think you are staring at the same thing from two different viewpoints: Pat you are looking at the practicality issue from the semi-auto viewpoint, thus you consider capacity second to optics, because if the COF allows you to reload on the move, you are not wasting BIG time reloading more often (somewhere else the SS vs widebody supposed disadvantage has been discussed a lot). Spook you are looking at the practicality issue from the revolver viewpoint, where optics are second to capacity because no matter if the COF allows you to reload on the move, reloading a revo every (at least) 6 rounds slows you waaaay more than the speed you could get by engaging targets with an optic on your gun. Just my 2c worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Skywalker, you're right. Tunnelvision from my side I guess. I'm just focussed on capacity, because if they would change the rules to equal capacity, so many other rules could be dropped. If you limit the capacity in standard div. IPSC to say, 16+1 rnds, you can drop the box rule. The box rule was originally to enforce "carry guns" to be used in competition. Now (in IPSC) it's just a way to regulate mag capacity. It's the only thing people are thinking of concerning the box: How many rounds can I get in the gun? Will it still fit the box? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 If you want to discussing changing anything; why not focus on getting USPSA and IPSC going down the same path. I am old enough to remember when there was no USPSA, only IPSC and we did just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Well, tightloop, that would seem like a great idea. Only probleem I've seen so far is that USPSA wants IPSC to ajust to their rules and vice versa. This seems to be the hardest part. I personally couldn't care less who copies who. It just looks like a lot of other people do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 The USPSA v. IPSC fight seems to boil down to numbers...every country gets one vote, just like the UN. However, just like the UN, the US has BY FAR the most dog in the hunt. I'd still like to see the number of paid-up members of each country...Vince? (not sure what good Bambi eyes will do, since it still hasn't made Liota buy me a flamethrower...but it is worth a try!) This has been a great thread, and there are some good ideas. I still think that L10 needs to be the Production game for single stack 1911 and super-trick "Production" guns. Production should be box-stock, or box-stock with some grip tape and different sights if desired. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Just like everything else, Spook, too many big egos and personalities getting in the way. I thought USPSA fell under the direction of IPSC, as IPSC came first. If I remember correctly, USPSA didn't get formed till the '80's but Cooper started IPSC in the '70's. Am I correct ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 If I recall my history correctly, when IPSC when truly "international", the US messed up by not setting up proportional voting based on number of active members...instead, going for the UN-style "one country one vote" system. And...that works just as well as does all the other great UN ideas. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted August 20, 2003 Author Share Posted August 20, 2003 IPSC was around long before the formation of USPSA. Cooper had a big hand in developing IPSC in the early days, so did a group of guys from South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). We'll never have complete plurality in regards to the rulebook, especially now seeing that the various regions have "unique" needs do to laws and Gov't regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Hi guys, In case you've forgotten (or didn't know), our generous host has a rule which is stated in the "Forum Guidelines" at the top of this page: I did not start this forum to discuss or debate political issues of any kind - either for IPSC, USPSA, or governmental. On that note, this thread has strayed way Off-Topic, and is now closed (if I can figure out how to do it, because my Moderator controls are missing). The threas can be reopened by more Senior Moderators, if they feel I acted incorrectly or in haste. If you'd like to discuss the politics of IPSC, attend a General Assembly. The next one is Monday 25 August 2003 in Terni, Italy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts