Ipsc Minimum Calibre

[Vince Pinto]

Flex,

Your dislike of what you call "bureaucracy" is duly noted but, whether you like it or not, that's the way things work.

FYI, the Production Division Committee is comprised of Fritz Gepperth (RD IPSC Germany), Tim Anderson (RD IPSC Denmark), Doug Lewis (IROA RM, IPSC Canada), Nick Alexakos (IPSC President) and me (IPSC Secretary). As Chairman of the PDC, I have the same vote as the other members of the committee - I do not have "control" - however I personally respond to each and every enquiry we receive, but all incoming messages and all my replies are copied to all members.

Having said that, the PDC did not create (nor does it modify) the PD rules - that's the job of the rules committee - the PDC merely explains the rules to whoever asks us, and the vast majority of the 246 enquires we received thus far in 2003 were along the lines of "Can I add a left-handed widget to my Glocretta 57?". The other function of the PDC is to deal with the approved gun list, as and when we recieve requests to consider approving a particular model gun, and we make our decision strictly in accordance with PD criteria.

And in four years of operation, the PDC has not recieved a single complaint but, if you know of a better, more efficient system, let me know.

Every organisation has a bureaucracy, including the BE Forums. In fact you, as an Administrator, wield more power and control over these forums and it's members than anybody else, save and except for our generous host Mr. Enos

[Vince Pinto]

Flex,

One more thing. In case you were wondering about the Rules Committee "bureaucracy":

Overall Chairman: Mike Voigt (USA)

Coordinating Committee:

Chairman: Bob Chittleborough (GBR)

Secretary: Martyn Spence (GBR)

John Amidon (USA)

Dino Evangelinos (CAN)

Vince Pinto (HKG)

Neil Beverley (GBR)

Tim Andersen (DEN)

Handgun Rules Committee:

Chairman: Vince Pinto (HKG)

Bruce Gary (USA)

Yvan Vogels (BEL)

Kees Guichelaar (NED)

Johnny Gildenhuys (RSA)

Shotgun Rules Committee:

Chairman: Neil Beverley (GBR)

Arnie Christianson (USA)

Myro Lopez (PHI)

Rifle Rules Committee:

Chairman: Tim Andersen (DEN)

Troy McManus (USA)

Geir Owe (NOR)

Roger Stockbridge (RSA)

Ex Officio: Nick Alexakos (IPSC President)

[Radagast]

Vince, I'm fine with your proposal.

Flex, we already have that level of politics there. All we are doing if Vinces proposal is accepted is allowing them to let more shooters and their toys in to the game, as opposed to mandating they may not, as is currently the case.

For that matter, as a Section Secretary here in OZ, I agree with your loathing of the beaurocrats, I have to dance with three different other associations that control access to ranges and clubs so that our confederation's members can play. But, rather than saying hang em all and getting no where, I prefer to squeeze a little bit more leeway each time we talk. As Vince well knows.

Ken

[Flexmoney]

...whether you like it or not, that's the way things work.

You have, most certainly, made my point for me!!!

what you call "bureaucracy"

Poor form on my part. I should have noted my sources. I got the definition that I stated from Dictionary.com.

It is important to note the differences between a bureaucracy and a committee.

Bureaucracy: Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials.

Committee: A group of people officially delegated to perform a function, such as investigating, considering, reporting, or acting on a matter. [note: I added the bold type.]

I'm not to concerned with the actual words...it is the definitions that are troublesome.

A committee that studies the Handgun Rules for an upcoming update of the rulebook is positive. And, after they have done their work, the committe should be disbanded. A new committee can be put together when/if the next revision of the rulebook is needed (as will cetainly be the case).

A bureaucracy is exactly what the "Production Division Committee" is. It wasn't formed to solve a specific objective...once solved, to then be disbanded. This is a sitting body.

If the rules require a bureaucracy to support them, then perhaps the rules need to be examined for alternatives.

One more thing. In case you were wondering about the Rules Committee "bureaucracy

I think you will find that I didn't refer to the rules committees as a bureaucracy.

I did say that you had some control...I should have said influence. As chairman of both the Handgun Rules Committee and also the "Production Division Committee", you certainly have plenty of sway over both.

You stated the PDC has two functions:

- One is to interpret the rules. Those are the same rules that come from the Rules Committee, right? And you chair both? It's not that I don't trust you Vince. I just don't think that anybody should be in a position to influence both the rules and their interpretation. (seperation of powers)

- The other function is to "to deal with the approved gun list". I don't even think I want to crack open this can of worms.

Just expressing my voice. Good luck. Nothing personal.

[Carlos]

I'd vote to keep things as they are. As to what lengths inovators will go to achieve an advantage, do not limit your imagination. I have a good friend who built a compensated open gun from a CZ 52 in Cal. 7.62 Tokerev - a necked .30 cal that can be loaded to major. Just as there is an advantage in going from a compensated .45 to a comped .40/10mm, then to a compensated 9mm bullet, there are further advantages to be gained from a 7.62mm/.30 cal bullet. Of course his gun is useless in IPSC/USPSA as it is under 9mm and it is so magazine capacity limited as to be non-competitive. However, this case could be necked to 7mm, 6.5mm, 6mm, even .22/5.56mm (though the 121grn bullet limitation would present a temporary problem) and would certainly work in say, a custom SV or Tanfoglio. These things are all possible given a rule change and enough of your money - just to keep pace with the arms race. Should we continue further into the area of "non-practical"?? Anyone care to buy an open .45ACP? How about a "full race" 1911 S.S. in 9x25 Dillon? Didn't think so. Keep the rules as they are, please.

As for regional difficulties (such as the use of 7.62 Tok in Asia), I do not see a problem with regional allowances for sub-9mm provided that the World Shoot retain 9mm as minimum.

[Vince Pinto]

Carlos,

Thanks for your views, but I don't think you've read my post of 9 November.

IF (and it's a big IF), we ultimately recommend a lowering (or removal) of the minimum calibre, there's no way in the world we'll allow a equipment race "free-for-all" to develop, especially one which will cause existing equipment to lose value or become defunct.

This is why I stated that I would prefer limiting any reduction (or removal) of the minimum calibre to be restricted solely to Production Division, so that my friends with the Black Helicopters and I can keep a watchful eye on things.

With our "approved gun list" IPSC, not the manufacturers, decides which guns are acceptable for IPSC PD.

[shred]

As I see it, you either advantage the smaller calibers and piss off everybody that has existing equipment, or disadvantage them and piss off the people that wanted to use them in the first place. Try and make them both totally equal and you'll piss off everybody since they'll think the other side has an advantage.

I think changing the rules every time somebody else shows up and says "we'll join if only we can get X" is silly.

We can't be all things to all people. Sorry. That's why there are other shooting sports.

[Vince Pinto]

Shred,

So, if we allow a guy with a Plonkinov 7.62 x 25mm pistol which holds 10 rounds and makes the 125PF to compete in IPSC Production Division, who exactly will be pissed off and/or disadvantaged?

[redmercury2]

the guy with the plonkinov.

[Bucky]

Vince,

If we allow the Plonkinov 7.62 x 25mm which holds 10 rounds, what's to stop Para from releasing the LDA in the same caliber which holds 22 rounds in a factory flush fit mag. THAT is what will "PO" people.

Bucky.

[Vince Pinto]

Redmercury2,

Naaaaaah. Boris and Natasha are just dying to come play with us if we find a solution.

And it's not IPSC preventing them from getting hold of 9mm or larger calibres in their country - it's their government - and I don't think we should just abandon them.

IPSC's job is to develop IPSC shooting, not to help governments suppress their people by excluding them from our sport on a technicality. If we can find a way to boost IPSC's membership development without affecting membership retention, that's a good thing.

Bucky,

This is why we have an approved gun list.

And what's to stop Glock making a "triple stack" 9mm pistol in a G21 frame?

[Bucky]

Vince,

As has been pointed out in the past, this is why we need to allow for "Regional" rules or exceptions.

I'd have no problem allowing same gun in US Production as you can only load to 10 rounds anyway.

What happens when you do allow it Globally and Para does make said gun? Do you not approve it..., just because??

If you open the door, the gamers will sneak in!

Bucky.

[Vince Pinto]

Bucky,

And, as you well know, IPSC has made regional exceptions - for the USA and Canada.

Anyway, I'll put you down as 100% against the idea of lowering the minimum calibre on a global basis.

[Vince Pinto]

Bucky,

One more thing. If you read my post of 8 November, I acknowledged two potential concerns, one of which is:

1) Possibility of <9mm calibres having a significant capacity advantage, thereby making exisiting equipment defunct.

As far as I know, this is probably not true with the <9mm guns available today but if these guns were accepted by IPSC, this might drive development of serious competition guns in <9mm calibre, with the same end result. A possible solution would be to limit the magazine length (maybe the IPSC box?) or limit the round count (say 15 rounds?) of <9mm calibre guns. In other words, we could give <9mm guns "special dispensation" but with conditions attached.

Hence, I'm well aware of the problems and I'm open-minded on finding a workable solution.

[Chuck D]

Bucky makes some excellent points....

I'd be interested in how many "disaffected" members/potential members are effected by the caliber regulations that changes are being discussed...

My guess (and it's only a guess) ...the numbers are rather small compared to the remainder of the regions that have invested in "legal" equipment.

If a region needs rule changes to compete, let them enact them on a "local" basis...same as the U.S. and Canada have chosen to do.

[spook]

Hehe, how about a 10 round capacity limit in IPSC production?

[Vince Pinto]

Chuck,

The existing regions which would benefit most from the admittance of <9x19mm calibres are China and Russia, but there are also a number of other areas such as Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), countries in Eastern Europe (e.g. Bulgaria), the Indian sub-continent (e.g. India, Pakistan), parts of Africa and possibly the Middle East, which might be brought into the fold.

All-in-all, it's conceivable that accepting <9x19mm calibres with restrictions, such as those I've already suggested (coupled, perhaps, with a possible "trial period"), could increase our global membership anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 members.

As I stated earlier, this matter is "on the table", and we'll consider the pros and cons very carefully by conducting extensive and detailed research, before we are in a position to make a recommendation. If we do conclude that we should move forward, then every member region will be asked to comment on how such a change would affect them and their members. However the final decision would be made by the IPSC General Assembly, if it gets that far.

Anyway, I think we're done here, and I thank you all for your comments, positive and negative, which will be relayed to my colleagues for consideration.