Rules Changes

[rmills]

Has anyone heard whether or not the Production rules are going to be changed?

[Vince Pinto]

RMills,

I presume you're asking about the USPSA version? If so, I have no idea.

However if you're asking about IPSC Production Division, the rules have been "further clarified" rather than "changed" as follows:

16. Only handguns approved and listed on the IPSC website may be used in Production Division.

17. Single-action-only handguns are prohibited. First shot must be double action. Handguns with external hammers must be fully decocked. Competitors in this Division who, after the issuance of the start signal and prior to making the first shot, cock the hammer on a handgun which has a loaded chamber, will incur one procedural penalty per occurrence. Note that a procedural penalty will not be assessed if the first double action shot attempted fails to discharge due to a malfunction, or in respect of courses of fire where the ready condition requires the competitor to prepare the handgun with an empty chamber. In these cases, the competitor may fire the first shot single action.

18. Neither the handgun, nor any of it's attachments, nor any allied equipment (e.g. magazines or other loading devices), can extend forward of the line illustrated in Appendix F3. Any such items a Range Officer deems not to be in compliance must be safely and promptly adjusted, failing which Rule 6.2.5.1 will apply.

19. Original parts and components offered by the OFM as standard equipment, or as an option, for a specific model handgun on the IPSC approved handgun list are permitted, subject to the following:

19.1 Modifications to them, other than minor detailing, are prohibited.

19.2 Base plates and/or any other devices which provide additional ammunition capacity (e.g. “+2” magazine extensions), are prohibited.

19.3 Front sights may be trimmed, adjusted and/or have sight black applied.

20. Aftermarket parts, components and accessories are prohibited, except as follows:

20.1 Aftermarket magazines which match the external dimensions of standard magazines offered by the OFM for the approved handgun are permitted.

20.2 Aftermarket sights of the same type and kind offered by the OFM for the approved handgun are permitted, provided their installation and/or adjustment requires no alteration to the handgun.

20.3 Aftermarket grips which match the profile of the OFM standard for the approved handgun and/or the application of grip tape is permitted, however rubber sleeves are prohibited.

21. A competitor who fails to comply with any of the requirements above will be subject to Rule 6.2.5.1

+++++++++++++++++++

6.2.5.1 However if a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of a declared Division during a course of fire, the competitor will be placed in Open Division, if available, otherwise the competitor will shoot the match for no score.

[Jim Norman]

In reviewing the proposed IPSC Handgun Rules I found the following items and I have concerns on several levels. All of these examples call for a procedural penalty should the infraction occur again in the match. How is this to be tracked? Do we add a box on the score sheets outlining each of these infractions and make a tic mark next to it and each RO has to check to see if he is to warn or access? Warn the competitor on a stage, ding him on the same stage, the next stage is a new game. No other way that will work. Do you remember the equipment position sheets that were filled out at the nationals a couple years ago? A lot of paperwork and after the first stage, nobody looked at them again.

5.2.2 Competitors carrying their handguns in a holster must have an empty magazine well, and the hammer or striker must be de-cocked. Violation will incur a warning for the first occurrence but will be subject to Section 10.6 for subsequent occurrences in the same match.

Currently this condition would indicate a loaded firearm, (Whether or not the gun is actually loaded is immaterial) and would result in an immediate DQ.

10.5.11.1 A single action pistol holstered without the safety applied is a match DQ, but the same gun holstered with a magazine inserted and the hammer back, but the safety on, while the competitor is not under the direct supervision of an RO, on a course of fire is only a warning for the first offense?

8.7.1, 8.7.2, & 8.7.5 All three of these have to do with the taking of sight pictures and as in 5.2.2 only penalize subsequent violations within the match. Again how is one to know what is a subsequent violation?

10.4.3.1 Match disqualifications- Accidental discharge: Exception – a detonation that occurs while unloading a handgun is not considered a shot or an accidental discharge…

This is an extreme departure from our current rules where a competitor is responsible for ALL of the rounds fired. Currently a discharge on Unload and show clear is a match DQ, unsafe gun handling.

It appears that we are removing the responsibility for safe, proper gun handling from the competitor and placing it on the ROs. I find this contrary to all that I have been taught or taught others about firearm safety. The person with the gun is 100% responsible all the time for everything. PERIOD. It is interesting to note that 8.1 states that the RO cannot take any action should the competitor fail to properly load at the start of a course of fire as “the competitor is always responsible for the handling of the handgun” but that the same competitor is no longer responsible should he AD when unloading the gun.

I’d like to hear how 10.4.3 is different in outcome from 10.4.3.1 above? How does the RO determine just why the gun went bang? If the RO says Gun Clear Hammer Down, and the gun fires is it a AD or a detonation? The round was detonated, that much is for sure, so if the RO missed the round in the chamber and the competitor pulls the trigger and the round goes off does he get a DQ or not??

According to 10.7.2 it seems that it is OK to drink at a match, unless I am deemed to be under the influence. So, does that mean that unless a range prohibits consumption of alcohol at said range it is now OK to drink, unless I get plastered? I think that this needs to be addressed as well. Any consumption of alcohol during or before a match is grounds for disallowing the competitor to shoot and may be grounds for removal from the range.

The appendix refers to power factor floors that differ from current USPSA floors, 160 for Open, 170 for Standard and Modified. Can we assume that the current USPSA 165/125 PFs will remain in effect?

Jim Norman

[Gary Stevens]

Jim if you will read the current rule US10.3.2 it explains the difference between a discharge and a detonation.

[Nik Habicht]

I'll second Jim's comments. The whole warning first, then procedural thing has to go --- it's too paperwork intensive, and there too big a chance of penalties being applied capriciously. Either it's not a problem, or a procedural should be assessed.

Gary,

I'm pretty sure Jim's raising the issue because the board of directors is considering/discussing the adaptation/modification of the new IPSC rulebook for USPSA. Jim's pretty clear on what's in the current rulebook --- and is trying to look forward.... which is pretty impressive for a man of his advancing years.....

[Vince Pinto]

Jim,

I'll do my best to answer your questions, in the sequence they were asked:

1. Warnings are tracked by having them recorded on the competitors scoresheet and on his equipment card, if issued. If not, the Range Master (who should always have a small notebook with him) can be advised in lieu, so that multiple warnings to the same competitor can easily be tracked. As cumbersome as this might seem on a "what if there are 200 warnings issued?" basis, the fact is that warnings are not endemic. IPSC manages to conduct World Shoots with 900 competitors using this system, and we don't encounter any difficulties.

2. Rule 5.2.2 explains the way guns must be carried when holstered between stages. You're given a warning the first time you're seen walking around with a cocked gun in a holster, but the second occurence is considered unsportsmanlike. Rule 10.5.13 defines and deals with loaded firearms outside of COF.

3. The operative word in Rule 10.5.11.1 is "loaded".

4. For Rules 8.7.1 et al, see my reply in (1) above. The expression "subsequent violation" could also be described as "the next incident".

5. IPSC has, for the first time, included a Glossary in the new rulebooks, and we define detontation therein as "Ignition of the primer of a round, other than by action of a firing pin, where the bullet does not pass through the barrel (e.g. when a slide is being manually retracted, when a round is dropped)". Under IPSC rules, a detonation is not grounds for a match DQ, and this is dealt with under Rule 10.4.3.1. The reason is that a detonation occurs without (unsafe competitor) action of the trigger, and can be caused by a round contacting the handgun ejector, or when a round merely falls to the ground. Also remember that "preventative" action to stop a round from striking the ground (such as placing your hand over the ejection port while retracting a slide) is potentially more harmful.

6. You said "It appears that we are removing the responsibility for safe, proper gun handling from the competitor and placing it on the ROs", however the truth is quite the contrary. For example, the current unloading commands include a "Gun clear" declaration by the RO and, eventhough it's only the competitor (not the RO) who hits the showers if the gun was not actually clear, the fact remains that the RO made an incorrect declaration makes him partially liable. By changing from a declaration to a conditional question (i.e. "IF clear), the onus is now 100% on the competitor. Of course any RO worth his salt would be sharp enough to notice a chambered round, and he would warn the competitor accordingly.

7. Rule 10.7.2 makes a general statement of policy, but Rule 10.7.3 identifies the Sheriff and his enforcement powers.

8. IPSC power factors have defnitely not changed from what they were 4 years ago. While I cannot comment on the USPSA power factors, it's my understanding that they will be not changing, but you'd need to contact John Amidon or a USPSA BOD member for a definitive answer.

Hope this helps.

However if you wish to further discuss these particular rules, I suggest you start a new thread for each issue, otherwise we're bound to get bogged down with mutliple issues in each reply and, well, I'm easily confused.

[TRNinTX]

As an MD and having RO'ed at several major matches, I also have some concerns over the "warning" rules. How will this be tracked from one stage to another? Will it be enforced at the local level with inexperienced ROs? I believe that this will add a degree of subjectivity into our sport that has been not been there. If a rule is broken, then the proper penalties are applied. It is the competitors' responsibility to know the rules of the game he is playing.

If you follow some of the threads on this and other boards concerning IDPA vs IPSC the biggest complaint is the subjective rulings that SO's can make.

It seems we are trying to be the appeasers and make sure no one gets their feelings hurt. If its good enough to be a rule and require a penalty, then make it a rule, if its not good enough then let it be.

[Vince Pinto]

TRNinVA,

Subjectivity implies bias, but that's not the case with IPSC warnings. There are a number of "offenses" which we've deemed to be unacceptable at IPSC matches, and some of these warrant instant and severe penatlies (i.e. a match DQ for safety issues), while other lesser offences do not warrant such punitive measures.

We've identified which actions are unacceptable, and we've stated the associated penalties. The RO at an IPSC match merely observes competitor action and he then applies the applicable penalty as stated in the rulebook - he doesn't get to decide the penalty according to his personal beliefs.

[blue edge]

Anyone know the future of the Spingfield XD-9 ??, in uspsa.

It was ok in 2003, I have told Jan. 1-04 it will no longer be uspsa legal.

Thanks blue edge

[Matthew_Mink]

I heard from a very reliable source that the only thing changed in Production is holster and allied equipment position. They have relaxed it a bit to conform to IPSC (not USPSA) positions, which is more forward of USPSA's position.

[Vince Pinto]

Matthew,

True confession time. While I cannot comment on the inner workings of the USPSA BOD, I must confess that the new diagram IPSC has included in the new rule book allows the holster and allied equipment to be more forward (or relaxed) than even what I've been enforcing for 10 years

This is precisely why we decided to commission a new diagram to replace the former "spinia iliaca pelvic girdle of the left-handed widget" language, because we don't get too many surgeons at IPSC matches, and everybody has a different opinion on where to find that particular point on a competitor's anatomy .............. and I was sick and tired of being slapped by Lady competitors

Anyway, with the new diagram it's much easier to check compliance.

[Wakal]

Vince, we would have believed that you didn't like getting slapped...except that you kept asking them to wear boots and use the whip...

Alex

[Vince Pinto]

Yeeee-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Vlad]

As a newbie, I am more concerned about the equipment limitations, and I'll let the more experienced folks worry about the rest. I think that the legal guns list is a horrible idea. It is already flawed and it will only get worse as new models come out by the dozens every year, and a working group somewhere needs to meet and aprove every one. The list already has some glaring omissions, IMHO. For example, the XD is missing and so are the Magnum Research Baby Eagles. Why the XD is missing while the Glocks are not is a mistery to me, and just saying that the XD is really single action is silly. It is not single action, nor is it double action, it is something else, the same way that the Glock is not really DA or SA. I can assume that the Baby Eagle might be identical with some of the Uzi or Tanfoglio models, but just because it is only being sold in the US under that name, it gets excluded. How about the same models of listed guns being sold under various names in different countries?

Most new shooters are going to be shooting in production, with the guns they already own. Why make it harder for them to jump in?

Further more, many shooters have been picking up the Glocks 34, and 35. Note that in the USA they are being sold as "tactical" models, not competition models. Banning a firearm because it is somehow better then the rest, or more suited to the sport then others, while still being a fine defensive firearm is short sighted. It reminds me of 4x4 Audi's being banned from rally driving. To me it is absurd to ban a weapon advancement, so older guns stand up. To quote a different thread ... " It's the indian ... "

Ban features if you must, but as far as I can tell a handgun which sits in the display cases of 3 gun dealers within 30 min of my house, like the G34 and G35, is a production gun.

Vlad

[Vince Pinto]

Vlad,

Thanks for your newbie perspective, which I'll take under advisement, but a couple of comments:

1. Does IPSC having an approved gun list actually affect you where you shoot? In any case, the "working group" does not need to "meet and approve each one". We've had absolutely no problem using email to discuss and consider approval of new gun releases which, contrary to your view, are few and far between.

2. The Desert Eagle and Baby Eagle are indeed on the approved gun list under "Uzi" and there's a link which goes to the Magnum Research website. I guess we could probably add the same guns under "IMI" too, but most people have no problem finding the subject guns on the list.

3. The Springfield XD Series are SAO according to IPSC definition. However it's interesting to note that the IDPA, the ATF and, funny enough, the original manufacturer of the gun (HS Produkt of Croatia) also classify it as SAO. The latter actually say: "Although the HS20Ws trigger feels like a double-action trigger, it's technically singe-action".

4. The Glock 34 was created before Production Division, and it was designed to fit the IPSC box used for Standard Division. When Production Division criteria was being written, IPSC decided upon a maximum barrel length of 5" to prevent the G34 alone from dominating the division which, judging by comments here and in other forums, seems to be the case in the USA, although I don't have any hard data either way.

5. We don't approve or deny a gun for Production Division based on it "being a fine defensive firearm" or because it "sits in the display cases of 3 gun dealers within 30 min of my house" - if we did, then we'd allow SAO 1911-style guns to qualify. We establised a set of criteria which allows over 200 gun models to qualify, and the overwhelming majority of people who complain about the approved gun list are competitors who don't actually need to use it.

6. Having said all that, I'm disheartened that you think the approved gun list is "a horrible idea" which is "already flawed", and that the decisions we've made have been "silly" and "absurd". We "old timers" are trying our best, but I guess we'll just have to try harder.

[vluc]

From my area director:

"The USPSA version of the rules will not be officially complete for a while

yet, so I cannot comment in detail. I can say that the BOD as a whole does

not look kindly on changes which affect a shooter's investment."

[Vlad]

2. The Desert Eagle and Baby Eagle are indeed on the approved gun list under "Uzi" and there's a link which goes to the Magnum Research website

My bad for not mousing over the link. However, when the link says UZI, I think UZI, I habit I must break.

"Although the HS20Ws trigger feels like a double-action trigger, it's technically singe-action".

Thank you for correcting me. It was however my thought that single action guns were placed out of the production group because they gave some advantage to the shooter not based on how they technicaly worked, but on how they acted and felt to the shooter. I suspect if the average 1911 trigger requiered 3/4" movement and weighted about 10 pounds, the whole issue wouldnt even be addressed regardless on how they functioned.

I could actually reply to some of the other points but:

6. Having said all that, I'm disheartened that you think the approved gun list is "a horrible idea" which is "already flawed", and that the decisions we've made have been "silly" and "absurd". We "old timers" are trying our best, but I guess we'll just have to try harder.

I am trully saddened if you found my opinion offensive. It was not meant as direct critisism of any one person, or even of the system. If the majority of members are ok with it, then so be it. I was only expressing my opinion. I also don't believe I made any references to old timers or new timers.

You should however consider what I think to be the most important point of my original posting:

Most new shooters are going to be shooting in production, with the guns they already own. Why make it harder for them to jump in?

Perhaps my grasp of the english language is not perfect, being my second language and all, but to me the tone of your point 6, quoted above, also makes me feel like you do not actually want to encourge new shooters to express their opinions.

Far be it from my mind to instruct other how to shoot, I assumed that no harm would come from me expressing my opinion of the rules. Please forgive my assumption. I'll make sure to keep my mouth shut until I turn GM or so.

Vlad

[vluc]

Far be it from my mind to instruct other how to shoot, I assumed that no harm would come from me expressing my opinion of the rules. Please forgive my assumption. I'll make sure to keep my mouth shut until I turn GM or so.

Feel free to express yourself. Not all wisdom or knowledge comes from folks with GM or M after their name, anymore than an MD or a JD makes you inherently smarter or entitled to an opinion over someone without one.

[Detlef]

vlad,

there is no need to *shut up*. We sometimes rough up our forum members, but mostly even things that sound like an insult are not really meant as such.

Prod. Div rules are one of the hottest topics here, and opinions vary widely, from the purists ("no change permitted at all") to the competitive liberals ("USPSA members"), with almost anything in between.

It would help if you would tell us where you are from, and how those rules affect you.

You have some good points, don't be afraid to make them be heard. Even if not everyone agrees, Prod Div. is already a weird melting pot of ideas (double action division, carry-gun division, no-changes-allowed division, 9mm minor division, entry-level division, etc asf...), but it is growing and becoming more successful quickly. Something must be right, then...

--Detlef

[Vlad]

I shoot in the US and I am a USPSA member. The rules may not affect me directly, but being that IPSC and USPSA try to stay close to each others, the rules may affect me later. In fact in either case I feel the rules can affect me. If they are adopted by the USPSA it will restrict my choice of guns, and if not it means that the two organizations drift further apart which I view as bad for many reasons outside the scope of this thread.

I dont have enough experience to know why Production is so wildly successful, but I know that myself and my friends started shooting production because of the guns we already owned. I suspect there are two ways by which shooters enter the IPSC/USPSA world, either they are raised into it by their family, or they are brought in after they already own their self defance or plinking guns. In the case of the first what gun you choose is not an issue as appropriate guns are already around. However, the new shooter who already owns guns will not go out and pick up a new one just to try a sport. Nor will he submit paper work (or e-work) to get his gun approved just so he can shoot his first match.

I fully admit that the list includes the great majority of popular guns which would fit the production concept. However, here is an example. CZ makes a gun sold in the US as a P-01. It is a compact 75B DA/SA decocker, but its model is not 75. As far as I can tell it is a perfect Production gun, in form, spirit, and function. It is not on the list. Sure it can be added. But the new shooter will not bother.

I guess what worries me is that Production should make it really easy for new shooters to jump in. I am incredibly lucky to shoot next to same really good shooters who share their knowledge freely. My concern is that a list of models as opposed to a list of features may make it harder for new shooters to jump in, both in IPSC and USPSA (if adopted in both) or create drift between the two. In either case, it is bad for me personally because at the end of whole mess it means less shooters, less gun owners, and more laws, regardless if I have to change anything about the guns I shoot.

Sorry about the long winded post, I just wanted to state my case clearly. I had no intention of starting a flame thread.

Vlad

[xcount]

Vince,

Nice diagram but why doesn't the belt have any curvature to it? My belt buckle is that high only until I breathe.

[Flexmoney]

Vlad,

You make some very valid points. And, your views are shared by many (in some degree or another).

[Vince Pinto]

Vlad,

Your classification has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your right to express an opinion here, but there are two ways you can express your opinion:

1. I disagree with (fill in the blank) because (your arguments) and we should (your proposal);

2. (fill in the blank) is stupid (or silly or absurd or sucks etc.).

I'm sure you can understand the difference. There a lot of people (who would rather be shooting) who devote a lot of time, year in and year out, to the administration of IPSC shooting, and they welcome positive suggestions and constructive criticisms. However comments which, inadvertently or otherwise, give the impression that the writer is merely dismissing decisions as being "stupid" (or similar), does not go down well, at least not with me.

There are always (a minimum of) two ways we can go on most things to do with IPSC shooting, but we must choose one of them. It might not be the way you or I prefer, but that's the way the world goes around.

Moving along, you mentioned the CZ-P01. I've not heard of that particular model before but, if somebody requests it be added to the list, I personally guarantee they will receive a response within a maximum of 48 hours. Moreover, if the gun satisifes the criteria of IPSC Production Division, it will be added to the list within another 48 hours.

As I presume you're making such a request, consider it done. The gun will be on the approved gun list by this time tomorrow.

The other thing you said was "......the new shooter who already owns guns will not go out and pick up a new one just to try a sport". This may or may not be true, but that doesn't mean Production Division alone must accommodate such aspirations. IPSC has five divisions, and I can't think of more than a handful of "exotic" handguns which don't have a home in IPSC (e.g. the Glock 18, the Beretta 93R, the Thomson Contender etc.).

Moreover, guns such as the Springfield XD series pistols and the Glock 34 can compete in Standard or Limited Division.

[Vince Pinto]

xcount,

Nice diagram but why doesn't the belt have any curvature to it? My belt buckle is that high only until I breathe.

Do you know why the image is black & white, and not colour? The "model" is affectionately known as "A Fat Bastard", and his face was blue from a lack of oxygen due to "sucking it in" while the photo was being taken for the artist to copy.

I personally wanted Pamela Anderson to pose for the image, but we would've had a helluva time drawing those vertical dotted lines (but it sure would've been fun trying).

[Vince Pinto]

Vlad,

Just as a follow-up, I confirm that the CZ P-01 is now on the IPSC approved gun list and we've also changed the "make" of the Desert Eagle series from "Uzi" to "Desert Eagle".