Proposed Rule Change

[DDuprez]

From what I have read there are many good points being made, but they need to be addressed separately.

On the promotion point of view it may be necessary to find range space and establish an AP competition even looking at an indoor version. the place to start this for new shooters is where they learn the craft. It is interesting to note that the NRA indoor range does not offer an AP option although it is quite feasible. The immediate argument is that we can't shoot the mover- so what - look at the requirements and make some changes to suit the available space. Might I suggest a fixed target at the reqd distances and using the times. Sure, not the perfect solution but a way to introduce skills. other matches can also be introduced to reinforce skills.

The comment about shooting only the four matches can be addressed at a local level but when we get to a championship they are as good as any to search for the best. The other point that should be addressed is that the only person we are competing with is ourselves. If we shoot to our potential or better we can then look to see how we went against others.

re the proposed rule change - Why does it matter whether we lie down or stand up. If we follow this thread to its illogical conclusion we will use the provided gun and ammo and have no need of our own equipment. This would negate the "equipment advantage" that the top shooters have over us. At the same time we should revert to supplied ammunition and no practice allowed. This will certainly flatten the field - or will it.

I believe the match as it is currently shot is testing and truly rewards both effort and skill. To finally have a tie at the end of the match after better than twenty years is a testament to the difficulty of the match. It is interesting to note that we are still waiting for a 1920/192X. When we consistently have a multiple tie (equivalent to 5% of the field) at 1920/192X, then is the time to review the stage procedure and techniques allowed. Consider the implications of a match where the top score is tied 4ways at 1915/ 132X - Surely this is the same as we are currently discussing!

re Tiebreaking - If we follow the rationale of continuations in plates, we could introduce a tie break target which would be the standard D1 target with a 2 inch X ring (indicated by a buff patch as suggested by BP), the existing X ring becomes a 10, the 10 becomes an 8, the 8 becomes a 5 and the existing 5 zone non scoring. This should break ties quick - but eventually we will return to where we are now.

My view, leave the open division as it is, free style, restrict stock to its roots (ie production guns) and then examine the best way to accommodate shooters from say IPSC (with scoped but not Bianchi modified guns) and PPC style guns with open sights, and properly apply the grading rules.

Whatever the changes, the best competitors with the best gear and the most skill and dedication will still win. For the rest of us it is important to remember why we got involved in this sport - and it certainly wasn't for the prize money.

My final point is that while it is important for the NRA to support AP shooting in a variety of ways, the only people who can really make it happen are each of you individually.

See you at Bianchi or somewhere around the world.

Dave

[gm iprod]

After watching the shoot off at the Cup between Doug and Bruce, I was impressed with the turn out.

There was more people watching that part of the event than went to the Banquet? Talk about interest in a match. It was like extra innings at baseball. I bet they aren't going to change the rules too sharply if that happens too often.

I came home from the Bianchi Cup more determined than ever to shoot a 1920. Very few people here in New Zealand can do it, I want to be one of them. It took me 5 months of bloody hard effort with an Open gun to get to 1908, and my X count still stinks, from what I shot at the Cup. I am royally pissed with the highhandedness af the NRA. This is the type of crap we would expect of the antis not of the promoters.

If they leave open as it is and do actually allow more leniency with the interpretation of stock (now to be called metallic), guys like Phil D can shoot their STI/SVI 40cals and have a fair go at it. He could see how he fairs with what he owns. I would welcome these guys into AP, IPSC has it's open rules AP has it's. (I know Phil dislikes the space guns, but hey this is a man who shoots with a 450Rigby, what can we do to help the poor fella).

If they ditch going prone at less than 50Yards, then in the plates, many like me who strugle on them, will drop heaps of points. A poor shot in Practical will be an 8, a poor shot on plates is a big fat 0.

So someone can drop 4 shots into the 8 ring (ie miss the A zone) in practical, clean plates and beat someone who drops ONE plate and cleans the practical. So who is a better shot? Do you find that out?

No you find out who shoots plates the best. Like SRT I go prone where I can, going prone at short range is an skill that is hard to attain in it's own right. Many people simply can't do it. So they compensate. If they say no one can how can that be open. The rules for open are simple stay in or behind the required shooting box or line and have at it.

I am all for making the X ring smaller, only guys like the top 20 at the Cup or in the World will be greatly affected. If you saw the groups that Bruce, Doug and a whole heap of the top guys, shot at the Cup you will see why making them shoot standing will do little to reduce the chances of further shoot offs. The really top guys are quite a ways in front of me and many others. In some respects they are shooting amongst themselves anyway, not that I have a problem with that. But as it stands all I have to do is quit work and shoot full time and I have a fair chance of catching up. If they shitcan prone except at fifty the only difference is that I will have to start taking more blood pressure medication to hold the gun still and quit work and shoot full time.

The people who will suffer the most is the regular club shooter who wants to do his / her best and see how close I / we can get, it will still be an equipment race, the one with the most time and money will always do better than a shooter of equal ability with less time and money, a fact of life that legislating to combat it will not change. Many of these shooters will be marginalised out of the sport or into stock where in theory it is a level playing field, rot, TGO had a bad day by his standards and shot better than most of the open field. This will make the gap betwen the top and the rest huge. Many will look at this gap and go away.

This move smacks of the liberal left loonyism that is rife in gun control.

It's not fair so we "make it fair". Bollocks.

Yes we shoot the mover standing and that is why it is the hardest match, as we now shoot it, but hey, make the box bigger and I bet very few will go prone. Or how about we make people shoot 6 rounds per pass at 20Yards, that will stuff so many it really will not be funny. The IPSC guys will do awesome though.

The best, I have heard so far is the suggestion for making the match more difficult for the top dogs is to go to a small paster that fits inside the X ring and make it smaller (until the new targets come on stream at all the clubs). That will not greatly disadvantage the regular guy who wants to see what he can do. One idea I came up with was to score the X ring as outward gauging, probably more likely to start a fight rather than settle a match. That will cause the X count to plummet for most (me included) but I would suspect that after three or four years we would see 180+ X counts again. Great, at least we know someone is improving. Then do something else that will make a small difference.

I honestly think that in ten or so years we will probably be shooting at a 8" NINE ring a 4" TEN ring and a 1" or 2" X ring. Fine, this will give everybody time to adapt, come to grips with the change and start on the trail of the perfect score. Which in theory I will be leading.

What I don't want to see is the type of situation that exist in ISU (Olympic) where the rules book will choke an Elephant. The targets will be a little square with ten scoring rings and a black aiming blob. Scoring will take an age and be done by old farts who had to chuck in the shooting as we can't hold steady on a fleas arse sized target standing at 25. And no surprises the top dogs are still shooting huge scores compared with the rest, but as I said above the gap is now bigger than ever.

Make the goalposts smaller not move them over the hill. Very few people can shoot AP well.

Doug and Bruce were only 9 rounds off a perfect match, and that was one less than the two previous years, so where is the problem. The scores have actually gone down since 1999 and 2000 (when Bruce then Doug shot 185X) The first 1920 was shot 13 years previously. Of the four shooters who shot 1920 this year only one had not done it before (Kelly Gilmore). That means that since the first 1920 (Doug K 1990) only 20 other shooters have done it. And only one of them was from New Zealand. BE won it twice with amazing X counts. But I think his best score at the Cup was 1910, Brian please correct me if I am wrong.

In 2003 the next two shooters were 15X's behind and then came the rest of us. The 20th place competitor only shot 1910 (wish I could). So I can not see a problem with they way Open is shot.

Definetley sort out Stock. What happened at the Cup was a disaster. Luckily TGO was there or they would still be arguing. If this is a way to show how they have regained control of the event after they dropped that ball then this stinks. The organisers should run the event for ALL the shooters not just to satisfy their ego on how it should be run. The range staff at the Cup were awesome, so this is no reflection on those who were on the front line (just in case I make it back).

Something is going wrong and I can't figure out what they are trying to achieve.

AP is hard and sometime expensive to put on, that is unfortunate, so is 300yard bullseye for rifles and they find the ranges for that.

There have been many good suggestion here, by people who actually shoot the match, on what should, could or must be done. I have emailed R Dufour with my thoughts. I will also be sending that email to a couple of others on the NRA AP Committee. Some of them I met at the Cup and they seemed to be reasonable people. So here's hoping.

I'm with Bruce, get something going. You don't have to only shoot the Bianchi Four. Try some of the other matches until the groundswell is enough to start getting a full Bianchi Setup going. The NRA AP rule book has over twenty matches. The reason the Open Pistols became so specialized is that we adapted them to shoot the 4. They used to shoot 5. The best score ever is 2034-155X, on 5 matches.

Here is some trivia, come on who did it and when.

Sorry for the rant but down here we are a long way from the decisions and we have to live with them or miss out completely.

RM

[SRT Driver]

TGO shot the 23XX something in the late '80's, if my 'Cup history is correct. I think the displeasure was such the NRA went back to the way it is now.

Originally, the 'Cup was an invitation only match to the top shooters in the world to see who was best, again if my memory serves. When the NRA took over, it was opened up to the rest of us. And it is the rest of us that keep it alive today, even with smaller turn outs.

If the NRA abandons the average shooter in favor of the professional, the 'Cup will die a slow, agonizing death, which some say has already begun. It is the "nobodys" that keep the match alive. But, it seems that the Action Pistol program was formed to promote the 'Cup. I think there are only 1600 classified Action Pistol shooters with 75 or so in rimfire. Action Pistol was always about the 'Cup and not much else.

No one can deny that the 'Cup is a first class match. The range is nice but the match hotel is one of the best in Columbia. The social functions, banquets etc are some of the best in the shooting sports. Shooters come from all over the world to experience it. But it seems the shooting takes a back seat to everything else. And here lies the problem, IMHO.

Anyone who has been to Camp Perry will tell you it is a dump and getting worse. But, where else can you pay $30 and sleep 4 shooters in a "hut" that was built to house WWII POWs. Bare bones, at best. Rough living, certainly. But some of the best most memorable stories come from the Huts. The barracks are a step up but not much better. The hotels in the area range from $70 for one with a refrigerator Close to the range to $150 per night in Port Clinton during the "Cedar Point" season during which Camp Perry falls. But, Camp Perry is about the shooting.

There has to be some middle ground. And the NRA needs to find it for the 'Cup. In the beginning, the number of shooters at the 'Cup was not a problem and I'm sure some of the old veterans can support or deny this.

Maybe the solution is to get rid of some of the expense at the 'Cup which many don't attend anyway and might allow more shooters to afford to take a week or two off and justify the expense. If more "average"shooters could afford to attend the 'Cup, maybe the AP program would generate more interest on the local level. I don't think changing the rules is the answer.

[rhino]

Re: lack of new shooters and NRA support . . .

From what I've seen, all of the NRA pistol disciplines are dying.

And in my opinion, the big problem is the shooters. Not all of them, but most, at least where I live in Central Indiana.

I go to a lot of different matches and I'm always inviting people from other disciplines to try USPSA/IPSC. I've been likened to a crack dealer with some of my "sales pitches" and my persistence, in fact. "The first taste is free . . ."

And I am not unusual . . . the majority of IPSC shooters I know (and to a lesser degree, IDPA shooters) actively seek new people and are open to sharing information.

Now . . . I've been doing this since 1995 and NOT ONCE has ANYONE from an NRA pistol discipline invited me or offered to tell me about their sport. I won't speculate as to their motives (or lack thereof), but it's very obvious that a vast majority of NRA Action Pistol and NRA bullseye shooters show zero interest in attracting new shooters by word of mouth.

I'd see people at our local USPSA/IPSC matches that I knew were primarily NRA Action shooters (from their gear), but even when I'd ask them questions, none of them ever encouraged me to try it or invited me to a match or even told me when the matches were held. Until recently, it was like pulling teeth trying to find out when and where the matches were held around here.

The only reason I tried NRA Action Pistol was because BigDave and twix told me how fun it was. And I think BigDave caught the bug from some people here on these forums. So it was actually IPSC shooters who tried to get me interested in NRA Action Pistol.

Now . . . I'm not saying I need an engraved invitation to try a new game, but I was definitely turned off to NRA sports for a long time because no one on the inside seemed to want any else to join them.

Word of mouth is the key.

[Action Pistolero]

Rhino,

Come on down to my neck of the woods. (Virginia) It's funny because around here IPSC shooters are like that. I've met a few like what you are talking about in AP. Once you start kicking their butt they come around. For the most part, I have found that you won't meet a better bunch.

[kimmbeckwith]

Hi everyone, I haven't wadded in on this subject until I thought a little bit. I have been competing since 1985 when I was invited to attend because of my Master Certification in PPC. I was so thrilled to even be invited.

Now after a little background, the new rule change. Some of us that have been in this for a long time hate change. I am one that thinks changing the prone rule may be thought by the committee as a way to keep possables from being shot. I know from attend the Masters a few times that you think action pistol is hard try that! That's exactly why I haven't been back. Making this match harder in not the answer! If a change in targets is needed to achieve this, DO IT. Local clubs could ajust the stock of targets they have and new one's could be purchased for Bianchi.

Also the problem we all may not want to admit is there are alot of other shooting sports that are easier, don't take the practice time and you still have a chance to win. Bianchi is hard for some of us and it has taken a long time to get to the High Master level.

I for one would like everything to stay the same, I hit 50 in March and am finding that change doesn't suit me well.

Take Care Everyone, and look forward to seeing you all at the cup.

Kim M. Beckwith

Zero Ammuniton

[brentm]

It's certainly no surprise this topic has dragged up more issues than the rule changes…

New Zealand has for seen a steady decline in AP shooters from when I started over 10 years ago, AP was then the matches to be at on the calendar...not so now, we have a regular committed base of shooters but only 20-30% of what it was.

It was obvious from the start there is far more in the reason to change these rules than the fact two shooters tied at the US nationals....it smacks of a lot more - I've yet to hear anything that sounds like truth, certainly the reason being bantered around are really very lame.

There is several really easy solutions to separating the top scorers without affecting the average graded shooter, and it is really important since they make up the majority.

I asked RudyD a few questions and one thing he said was they wanted more shooters from other disciplines to shoot, now that's just a slack answer. The rule that actually stops any open class pistol shooting AP is a barricade shroud otherwise any scoped & comped gun would be fine, and are they changing that? nope.

The changes from stock to metallic sights will see plenty of opportunity for more shooters, so they got that one right....strange though that rule change was actually officially submitted by a NZer at the cup this year.

and that's really my point.....where did they get this idea about reducing the prone aspect, as a revolver shooter who can produce regular 1914+s and the odd 1920 I'm not really going to be see my scores change drastically but the average shooter is, plenty more 8's & 5's.

It's certainly a big enough change though to look into an auto.

That's no knee jerk reaction, plenty of prone is ok with the revolver I can compete x of x with anyone, but standing its a lot of work...and changing from one standing match to three will introduce so much more effort.

So how many shooters are like me and perceive they need a new pistol or an auto? plenty I bet.

I'm game for some improvements to the match but this is altering the match too much, and we will see a lot of shooters NOT competing because of it.

The interesting thing what is really driving the change?

is it some mislead idea less prone shooting will change the top scores? or that we'll see more shooters from other disciplines?

I'm dying to find out...

[Jay Della Bella]

I have been thinking about this for a week now and it's still frustrating me. I'm an open class shooter (about to switch to stock class if they change the prone rule) that thinks this rule change will hurt the Cup much more than it will help. Open class means "anything goes." If I didn't want to, or couldn't go prone, I would shoot stock class - Period. If the NRA's concern is too many 1920's, than the issue will still remain next year when the top 5 shoot the same scores as always. (They are machines). As for the rest of us mediocre shooters, the 8 that I shoot at 15 and 25 yards on the practical is now a 5 or 10 point loss.

As for the stock gun rule change, it's about time. I hope to see more shooters from other disciplines there.

With regard to bringing new shooters to the Cup, one suggestion may be ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE, ADVERTISE! A small, quarter page article in the NRA's American Rifleman magazine AFTER the event takes place is just not cutting it! Where is the advertising BEFORE the Cup?

Also, I would like the NRA to look into ways to make the cost for a shooter participating in the Cup more affordable. More shooters will come.

Jay

[Action Pistolero]

I spoke with Rudy earlier this week to find out how the conference call went with the AP committee last Friday. He informed me that the proposed rule change will stand which means the rules committee will rubber stamp the AP committee's proposal. This rule change will not affect all AP matches. As a match director. I can issue a bulletin that says shooters can go prone wherever they want. This will however affect the Cup. It will be interesting to see how many shooters show up. 2004 may be my last.

I have put my heart and soul into this sport for the past 5 years and this rule change ticks me off to no end. Now I will have to take several steps back and work on things I already mastered instead of working on techniques to carry me forward.

To some shooters this will sound like I'm whining. To others, they know what I'm talking about. I will say this, I feel more comfortable going prone but I can still shoot well standing. I will take great pleasure in beating the proponents of this rule change.

[kimmbeckwith]

I sure would like to here what Phil H. has to say about all of this, I know his e-mail is probably full all the time after this, but for him it is just a contination of Match 4 in PPC no big deal. Plus he is like me going prone, it's an effort, but a productive one.

I am still upset at this change that looks like is going to happen! What's next; shourds, wings, mover bases? I guess this is one thing they can change that doesn't effect the sponsors!

I agree with Jay, that this will not effect the top 10, but boy will you see a gap below them. I guess it might be wise to ask that some average shooters be put on the committee, or is there?

This means more range time for me, and with running my own business, it may not happen. Boy, talk about a kick in the teeth to the revolver shooters! From an x or ten to an 8 or a 5! Should sell more autos!

Kim M. Beckwith

Zero

[gm iprod]

If they don't listen to us then maybe we have to start putting pressure on the sponsors.

I bet if John Bianchi finds out that his baby will be ignored and his products not used, then he may have something to say, it may take about 2 hours, but he will have something to say.

[brentm]

this is the letter i fowarded

Thursday, 23 October 2003

Action NRA Action Pistol Committee

C/O

Rudy Dufour

Action Pistol coordinator

RDufour@nrahq.org

Re: Proposed rule change – open class- limiting prone shooting.

I would like to express my condemnation of the proposed rule changes to the open class rules of the Action Pistol Bianchi cup match.

I would have preferred not to write such a letter without some understanding of the committee’s reasoning leading to the proposed changes, but I have yet to discovered any official press statement, even direct contact via the NRA AP Program Coordinator received a limited reply.

Therefore you will find the points I will make are limited to the information I have gathered, mostly second hand.

I have competed for over ten years of in this match at both Nation & International events, I hold 3 national titles and have represented my NZ in 7 events, I have at times lived and breathed this match, but I feel extremely dismayed the committee has created the unfortunate and unnecessary situation leaving thousands of competitors worldwide awaiting the committees sole judgment on rule changes so significant as to alter the current Bianchi match into an entirely different event.

I ask you how can the committee seriously expect competitors to continue to participate in an event, which after 25 years alters the rules without any consultation. Thousands of shooters have made the event what it is today; they have created its history and invested hundreds of thousands of hours and dollars into John Bianchi’s vision match.

I actually struggle to understand what issues could have initiated such drastic changes to the open class rules, and my concerns revolve purely around the effect these changes will have on the participation at Bianchi cup matches, because these changes will see less people competing.

New Zealand has seen a steady decline in numbers attending Bianchi matches since I first started competing some 10 years ago, when these where the premier events. I honestly believe any rules changes need to be aimed at increasing numbers, the proposed stock gun rule is a great example of this happening.

So far as I know the proposed change to open class is to limit prone shooting to 50 yards only. This is a significant change which I believe will damage the match seriously.

I know from personal experience this change would create a large void between top scoring competitors and the balance of the grades.

A Highmaster will hardly be affected, I know this myself I score regularly 1914 plus using a revolver, yes you will make it more difficult but I will still have very similar results. I know prone shooting allows far more consistent scores (not just higher scores) and this is why we will see such a large gap, the lower graded shooters will be penalized far more because they are inconsistent than they are currently.

New shooters will struggle for much longer before shooting what they perceive as reasonable scores, this one of the major factors in new competitors being scared off before they even start.

Revolvers will almost certainly be pushed further out of the match, I can compete x for x throughout the current match but standing is far more demanding at top level.

I would expect most shooters to move straight to semi-auto’s or to move away from competing at all. Currently the revolver in open class can compete in at much less cost than with an semi-auto, for many this is a big issue.

The prone element itself is a technique not demanded in any other Action match, it is an art and it will be lost. I remember the mention at the cup this year of the Nz’er 70 old years old who still ‘went prone at 15y’, well that’s to what you’ll lose.

I received one comment from the program coordinator that these changes would involve more shooters in the Bianchi match, not so, you still need a gun with barricade wings to seriously compete, that one element alone separates the Bianchi pistol from others.

I honestly believe open class should be distinctly different than stock class. What makes the Bianchi Cup the match is the pressure generated at the elite level. The shooting is not significantly demanding to a Highmaster but it is the pressure that makes it difficult and you will change this drastically.

The fact that not one shot may slip from the 10 ring because you can never catch. Well this type of rule change will see such a large spread of scores this pressure element will disappear.

You will by now I’m sure have plenty of suggestions on how to improve the match.

I believe hearing many of these there is several very simple subtle changes which would separate the top scorers and still not disadvantage the average shooter.

Any rules adopted we would need them to ensure the average shooter still wants to shoot, these are the people which actually support the event by participating.

Brent M

Member New Zealand Pistol Association

[Patrick Sweeney]

Just out of curiosity, how has the Stock category been changed? Or is proposed to be changed? And how would it effect those of us with IPSC/USPSA Limited or Limited 10 guns?

[brentm]

anyone shooting in IPSC/USPSA Limited or Limited 10 would slip right in, work up a sweet 120 power factor load and away you go.

the Stock class rules currently create a level playing field, all shoot standing except 50y thats freestyle, and non-contact on the barricades.

but the rules did restrict a lot of pistols who'd had minor alterations so the changes will let a lot more pistols classifiy - bascially they are creating 'Metallic Sight Firearm' class.

hey really Metallic Sights and no compensator's are the big factors, what else you do to doesnt add up to that much of an advantage

brentm

its below....

MOTION - change rule 3.2 to read as follows:

         Rule 3.2 Metallic Sight Firearm - Minimum caliber is 9x19mm (9mm).  A Semi Automatic firearm with no more than a 6 1/4" barrel in length.  The front sight not to extend past the front of the slide and the rear sight not past the rear of the slide by a ¼". Revolvers with no more than a 8 5/8" barrel in length.  The front sight not to extend past the front of the barrel and the rear sight not past the rear of the frame.  The following items are prohibited.

         a.           Wings

         b.     Peep, ghost, optical or electronic sights.

         c.     Wraparound grips - No part of the grip may encircle the hand.

         d.     Thumb rests.

         e.         Compensators or ported barrels.

[Alan550]

From the info I have, this is pretty much a "done-deal"! The AP committee had a conference-call meeting and it's still a "go" going into the main NRA Rules committee meeting on Nov. 2, as I understand it now. So it seems we're screwed! I, for one, am having serious doubts about attending next year if they do change it as proposed. Seems they didn't get enough complaints from the rank & file shooters to turn the decision around, so I may have to go into IDPA or some other game and try to sell a nice Caspian action gun. It's not worth much as an IPSC shooter since it's a single-stack!

DAMN!

[SRT Driver]

I'd still like an explination for the change. But, rules are rules. Everyone will just get better standing and catch up again.

[benos]

I'd still like an explination for the change.

It's the NRA.

Eventually, [CoolHandLuke] what we have here is what we get [/CHL] when administrators, not participators, control the event.

be

[SRT Driver]

The rule change was proposed due to a number of complaints by stock shooters who were on the same line as open shooters at the 'Cup. Gun handling was not the issue but the "distraction" of the open guys dropping messed with the stock class guys.

A little bit of whining to the "right" people goes a long way. And several shooters are on the committee..Don Golembieski, Phil Hemphill and Jerry Danuser. Apparently, they are in favor of the change.

The "Metallic Sight Firearm" rules are positive. A "Production Class" is also being looked into.

State Associations are being sent info regarding AP programs on the State and Regional level. A new brochure is printing regarding club level activities. Club grant money was also mentioned as being available for local programs.

[GrantJ]

So what is their angle. Phil and Don are both open shooters and Jerry shoots stock. You cant call Jerry an active competitor, he shoots one AP match a year, and that is the "Cup."

This decision will do nothing to advance the sport of action Pistol but will drive away the very people we are trying to get to the match. Comments like, "it is too hard, I am not good enough to shot the Cup, I can no longer afford it, we no longer get value for money," and numerous others are commonplace to those that take an interest.

It seems to me that the committee should listen to the rank and file. If they did, maybe the "Cup" would be thriving instead of being where it is today. What is needed is promotion, advertising, in all of the shooting publications, not by lines at the end of Cup articles, that are rarely read.

So what is my angle, I am a cup enthusiast. I have been fortunate enough to shoot the cup 10 times, my first being the 10th back in 1988. I have competed internationally and at two world shoots, and still there is nothing like the rush of shooting the Cup. No other match comes close. While I am not opposed to change, it needs to be positive not negative. If the perceived problem concerns stock shooters, then separate the squads, if it is the worry about the high scores, then halve the size of the X ring. These changes are easy to do and are positive. Oh and by the way I am a High Master shooter and proud of it.

From here on in all we can do is try to bury the AP coordinator with input against the change. It isn't over yet, we need to keep the pressure up. As of 11/10/03 the numbers read as follows; 22 for the change, 3 unsure and 84 against, yet "YOUR" committee knows best, I don't think so. And who voted them in anyway!

[GrantJ]

Hi All

Talked to Rudy yesterday and he confirmed that the rules committee had passed the proposed prone rules change banning prone shooting at all ranges except 50 yards on Practical. As I understand it, from here it goes to the Board for final approval.

To date the response has been poor to say the least. The latest figures I have as of October 31, 2003 are:

FOR 22, NOT SURE 3, AGAINST 84.

Remember that 7 of those for the change are in fact the Action Pistol Committee. The numbers clearly show the majority are against this move.

If this rules change is passed by the board it will permanently affect all Action Pistol competitions no matter where they may be held. The current plan is to have them fully implemented for the 2004 season.

Once again I stress to you all the importance of making your voice heard. If you have an opinion on this subject it is imperative that you contact Rudy Dufour at:

actionpistol@nrahq.org or fax at 703 267 3941 or phone 703 267 1450.

Please pass this information on to anyone you know who is involved in action pistol, and stress to them the importance of contacting Rudy with their opinion on this matter.

Best Regards and good shooting

Grant

[GrantJ]

Hi all

Sorry for the late notice but I just received the following details today. Apparently the Competition Rules & Programs Committee meets Saturday to make a final ruling on the proposed "Prone" rules change for open class Action Pistol. It seems that this is our final chance to make our voices heard.

If you have an opinion on this subject, it is imperative that you contact the following executives of that committee immediately and let them know how you feel.

Please pass this message on to anyone you know who shoots Action Pistol and get them to do the same. If you have not already done so it may also be an idea to contact Rudy Dufour and let him know how you feel as well. actionpistol@nrahq.org

Good luck and Good shooting.

GrantJ

Competitions Rules & Programs Committee

Edie P Reynolds, Chairman 73623.2160@compuserve.com

fax 919-876-4751

3709 Marlin Court

Raleigh, NC 27604

Warren L Cheek, Vice Chairman

fax 910-253-9826

3498 Beaver Creek Drive, SE

Southport NC 28467

Dr. Thomas P. Arvas

tomarvas@hotmail.xom

fax 505-293-3274

7905 Spain NE

Albuquerque, NM 87109

Ms. Patricia A, Clark

lpclar@bpthosp.org

fax 203-384-3237

25 Point O Rocks Road

Newtown, CT 06470

Manuel Fernandez

riocauto@earthlink.net

fax 661-268-7317

P.O. Box 7832

Mission Hills, CA 91346

Philip Hemphill

phemphill@mdps.state.ms.us

fax 601-933-2200 or 2159

104 Oakridge Cove

Clinton, MS 39056

Ms. D. Cynthia Julien

fax 401-233-0771

37A Pheasant Run

Smithfield, RI 02917-2535

John C. Sigler

fax 302-698-9427

11 Waterwheel Circle

Dover, DE 19901

Donn C. DiBiasio

P.O. Box 17452

Esmond, RI 02917

M. S. Gilchrist, Secretary

11250 Waples Mill Road

Fairfax, VA 22030

[Jay Della Bella]

It looks like only one person on the committee shoots nra action pistol (Phil). Those that don't play the game shouldn't make the rules.

I'm not a brain surgeon but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night...

Jay

[Action Pistolero]

Jay,

As far as I'm cocerned there are no real Action shooters on the committee. Yes, Phil does shoot Action but only the Cup and maybe a few matches in MS. There are no real grass roots shooters on the committee.

I have inquired as to how one gets on the committee and so far no word. I have emailed Mr. Hemphill and have yet to get a response. Rudy told me that he thought that the chairman had to appoint someone. I was told that Phil and Don pushed for this rule change so it seems to me that those of us opposed to this change will never get on the committee. I was told the reason for this was Phil and Don are getting too old and fat to go prone anymore so they didn't want the rest of us doing it.

It all boils down to this WE'RE SCREWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only thing that I believe would get their attention is if shooters like Doug K would not shoot this year. His sponsors probably wouldn't like this very much and I don't think it would be worth risking one's way of making a living.

I hate to say this, but I hope the participation this year is down in significant numbers so maybe we will get there attention.

Kevin

[gm iprod]

I shot my first Bianchi Cup in 2003, if this kind of shit keeps happening it may be my last. I enjoy NRA AP, I have met some real nice people over the years here and overseas.

I agree Doug K may not be in a position to boycott the event. He has a family and he can't just throw it away. Many of the other top shooters who I suspect of supporting this are keen to take away any edge that anyone else may get. Doug and I bet anyone in the top 30 will shoot a 1916 to 1920 real quick, if this match is modified. They have the ability, time, inclination and singlemindedness to make a success of this.

Those of us who have to do a job to survive and shoot will not be able to transition as easily. These guys have the basics of shooting in general to carry on with as if nothing happened. Many of these people are tremendous shots with any kind of firearm and some of us have to concentrate on one type just to see any improvement.

I have tried the match under the proposed rules. It is bloody difficult, I can see a lot of low Master and lower graded shooters just chucking it in, it will be too hard for them to keep up.

Riley Gilmore, Bruce Piatt and very few others have voiced opinions on this subject. I have yet to see, hear or be informaed about what most of what the top 20 want. If in fact it is true that many of the "senior" shooters are keen to keep an edge over the youngsters, then they should shoot "Metallic Sight".

I am 40 with very poorly knees and going prone will be difficult for me soon. I will do what I have to to keep shooting, if going to Mettalic Sights is the way then that is MY choice, if shooting from standing is the way then THAT is MY choice. Youngsters are the life blood of the sport, we cannot afford to f88k this up.

Fat old sods, like me, do not look good on TV. TGO, DK et al will be the ones we need, to get more young people in, to get more coverage.

Good Shooting to all and keep upthe good fight.

[Alan550]

This just "bites" in general! I will not be going to the Cup this year, after going to 4 of the last 5, for the very reason that they changed this rule. It's a good shooting event, lots of fun with good people attending, but no more!

I also understand that Phil won't be there either as he's planned a cruise for that week. Ironic, isn't it, that he won't be there to hear the complaints in person!?

Oh well, so much for us "little guy's" opinions, huh?