I LIKE Gamers!

 A semi pro competitor by name of Rick Birdsall recently shot this 3 Gun stage where he slid underneath the stage wall and completed the course of fire. Pretty neat and a great use of time. Before people start ringing bells about safety, he cleared his actions with the RO before the match and if you look carefully, he completes his action with a magazine inserted, but no round in the chamber, and loads it on the other side of the wall. There was some criticism voiced on his page but overall it was conducted in a safe manner.

This has been written up on a couple of other gun blogs.    For those of you who have already seen the video I won't bother including it (go to the FIREARM blog link for the video ... they need the traffic).
  But as an IPSC competitor for thirty years, I have something to say.

This is about competition.  USPSA competition.

And I like that this guy chose to shoot the stage his own way; that's what IPSC is all about.
Whether he gained any actual competitive advantage from his approach is immaterial.  He shot the stage the way his way, and this bullshit about whether the score should be protested ... it's just bullshit.  Screw 'em if they can't take a joke; it's legal!

Why IPSC can't use METRIC targets in Europe

The Goofy and Cool Shooting Targets Used by the World's Armies | WIRED:
(By Margaret Rhodes - August 04, 2014)

Years ago, on a cold, dark morning outside of Munich, Herlinde Koelbl noticed a shooting target that had been battered with bullet holes. “In a way, you could see death and aggression and power in it,” she remembers. But Koelbl, a professional photographer, couldn’t help but notice the eerily beautiful way the early morning sun filtered through the punctures. She snapped a photograph.
 That image was never published, but it stayed in the back of Koelbl’s mind. Eventually, it inspired her new series and recent book Targets. Over the course of six years, Koelbl traveled to 30 countries and took thousands of photographs of shooting targets used during military training. Seen as a series, the images are a fascinating and somewhat unsettling window into how militaries around the world use visuals to groom their soldiers for battle.

One of the most INTERESTING things about IPSC is the way a couple of years ago (okay, more than that), when the sport of Practical Pistol Shooting became a worldwide interest, it sort of ... morphed.

The thing is, as soon as this became an International Sport, European (and other) countries began to complain the they couldn't practice it in their home countries.

The fact is: some countries had laws which prevented people from shooting at "humanoid" or "Human Shaped" targets.  And that was that.

There was also the expected national rules which prohibited their subjects from owning "powerful semi-automatic firearms with high-capacity magazines", but there were work-arounds for that.

Examples: Japanese participants practice with paint-guns and air-soft guns; Canadians practice with diminished-capacity guns; British practiced with God-Knows What, but these and other subjects had one thing in common ... they stored their REAL "competition" guns in neighboring, more enlightened countries, and only used them in those countries where the national gun regulations permitted more freedom.

But one thing was universally clear:  "IPSC teaches people how to kill people!"

So they couldn't use the classic .. now called the "Metric" target.  Instead they now use the stop-sign ... now called the "Classic" target.

The first (Metric) target is roughly rectangular (about 3' tall x 2' wide), with a 4" x 4" tab centered on the top, which critics have chose  to call "A Human Head", which makes the target "Humanoid" in nature.


Hence the accusation that "IPSC is teaching people to kill people".  Which is clearly an evaluation which is in the mind of the beholder.  We're shooting Cardboard, folks.  And .. okay .... sometimes we shoot at steel targets, too.

However, people in Europe go right on shooting targets which are not only 'reminiscent' of humans, but are clear depictions of humans.

At this time, no recent Internet searches complain about targets which are obviously intended to teach people how to kill people.

"People Targets", Shooting, and the Olympics:
However, it is worth considering that the singular issue of "humanoid targets", which has caused a schism in the noble sport of Practical Pistol Shooting, has proliferated.  People continue to want to shoot at targets that look like people, and although this issue has been the reason why IPSC competition was rejected as the candidate for International Olympics several years ago, (2005)  with some comments from shooters, which seemed to go nowhere, it seems odd that .. well, people will be people.  And that they want to shoot at targets that look like people even though the International Olympics Commission considers this to be .. TERRIBLE!

Never mind the facts: We Deal In Feelings, Friend! 
Ignore that fact that there are several shooting sports gladly accepted by the IOC:  Skiing and Shooting; Small-bore target shooting (both pistol and rifle) are accepted without comment.  Trap and Skeet (shotgun shooting at flying targets)?  No problem.  Air Rifle?  The same skill sets, except using 'reduced power ammunition"?  Fine! Javelin?  Teaching people to throw spears at people?  No problem.

So why not IPSC competition?

Because it is teaching people to shoot people.  Bad.  So the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) introduce a new target, which they call the CLASSIC target:



Notice it doesn't look anything at ALL like a person.

Well, but yes it does. If you use your imagination ...  it MAY define the human torso, with the A-zone in the approximate area of the heart/lungs/spine, the "C-zone" as the lungs and other semi-vital organs, and the D-zone as "non-fatal but otherwise sometimes debilitating and painful hits, maybe".

The good news is there is not "Upper A/B-Zone" area, which would define a brain/spine hit on a human.

And so, the IOC is unlikely to accept this target, either even if IPSC is willing to accept a minimal position as a "Demonstrations Sport" at the Olympics.

How to Get Started in Competitive Shooting

How to Get Started in Competitive Shooting: | Triangle Tactical:

This is one of the kinds of articles that I wish were more generally available online.  It provides the kind of information which helps people decide that maybe they CAN shoot "competitively", and at the same time it allays qualms that a person is "not good enough" to compete in an organized match.

Starting something new can be intimidating.  When that new thing involves firearms and a timer, it can be overwhelming to get involved in if you don’t know where to start. Do not worry, young padawan, I am here to help.

 I’ve noticed a trend on local shooting forums where people will add a comment to a thread about a shooting match and say something like “I wish I could do that, but I’m not a good enough shot” or “I need more practice”, or something to that effect. Some of these people have been making the same comments for years. If you want to try competitive shooting, do it. Nobody cares how bad of a shot you are. Chances are, they will all be stuffing magazines, or BSing while you are shooting anyways. As long as you are safe, you will enjoy your time. You will also be surprised how fast you improve.

(H/T: GUNWIRE.COM)

Being able to shoot accurately is not necessarily a reason to NOT shoot competitively.  Nobody expects you to win every match, and you meet the nicest people on the range.

However, learning to shoot SAFELY is definitely a requirement.

Many gun clubs which sponsor competition matches offer training programs to prepare people to shoot safely.  Sometimes, the instructors of these classes also help you to learn to shoot accurately, as well.

USPSA and New Gun Restrictions

In my January 19, 2013 post "Stop the Rage .... Mine" (and several earlier posts!) , I summarized my... disappointed .. in the recurring political movement to restrict private firearms ownership.

Actually, what I did was to say I was through talking about it.

[sigh]

Wrong.  I'm not through talking about it.

One of the comments was ... perhaps offered facetiously, but still the question offered was entirely germane to this blog: 

Instead of delving into the progressive mindset, we should be asking the important questions. How will restrictions on certain firearms, and magazine capacity affect USPSA/IPSC rules and stage development? The feds are talking 10 round magazines, but NY has already mandated 7 round capacity mags and other states are sure to follow. How will USPSA respond to these potential draconian restrictions and/or bans in magazine capacity and firearms? What affect will they have on 3gun?

Oh, yeah,  we've been there before.

Some folks suggest that since the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban didn't really have much effect on .. gun stuff ... maybe this one will be equally as ineffective (if still equally inconvenient).

Well .. maybe so, maybe not.

I know that I found ways during that time period to get around the 'banned' items.  For example, I found a way to move from Limited to OPEN Division, including the purchasing of "normal capacity" magazines of 18 rounds (limited) and 25 rounds (open).  The magazines were all marked something like "only military or Law Enforcement" .. but I still got them.  The magazines cost three times as much as their replacement tubes did after the 1994 law sunset in 2004, of course.   Which is, of course, economically selective; "poor people" couldn't afford them, just us "rich folks".  (Or those of us who really like Tuna Fish and Macaroni for dinner six nights a week.)

But that was then; this is now.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'll ignore the very STRONG possibility that Race Guns (they have "compensators", you know) may be outlawed.  Also, "Firearms which may accept magazines of greater than 'x-rounds' capacity" will not be totally banned ... I'm not sure if that can even pass a Democratic congress; any magazine-fed firearm doesn't have a way to restrict the LENGTH of the magazine.

So, delving into excruciating detail, here's what I see as possible ways that Congress and Our Beloved Leader may screw us most painfully:

10-round Magazines:
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that ten-round magazines are the legally maximum capacity allowed under federal law.

Hmm .. the difference between LIMITED and LIMITED-10 Divisions have been been eliminated.

The Open Division can't use 25-round magazines; but they still have compensators and electronic dot-sights, so there is a clear advantage .. albeit LESS of an advantage .. over Limited/Limited-10 Divisions.  (Speaking as a 'vision-challenged' Super Senior: it's still an advantage when you can see the sights.)

I might point out, however, that current USPSA rules limit the number of shots which MUST be fired from a single location, port or position.  Any time you move, you have a small window of opportunity when you may reload.  Speaking for myself, I moved from "C-class" to "B-class" using a single-stack 1911 in 1998 when Limited-10 Division was still a "Talking Point" in USPSA.  If you gotta move, you gotta reload.  BFD.

Production and L-10 Divisions were predicated on limited magazine capacity.  Even Limited has a 144-mm magazine length restriction, which means you can probably stuff 18-20 9mm rounds in there, so ... who cares?

Single-Stack has limited capacity, under 10 rounds.
.
Revolver .. huh.  Who cares; they're only shooting 6-shot loads anyway.  And Jerry Miculek is possibly the only man in the world who doesn't care if he can get a 20-round Revolver or not.


 So, how about the possibility of a 7-round magazine capacity restriction?

Okay, so now we're talking about being really shitty for no discernible reason.

In the first place, the USPSA rule about limiting the number of rounds which must be fired from a single location/position/etc. have been completely undermined.  A 10-round magazine can handle a 9-round maximum; a 7-round magazine can not.

Since most stages include IPSC targets (cardboard, requiring 2 rounds to 'neutralize'), you could only have three targets in most array .. rather than the four (presuming a 9-round max per location) currently presented.  So ... many, even most, of the Classifiers would be either revamped or discarded.

That pretty much hoses the entire Classifier System which USPSA currently uses to decide who is Top Dog in any given Division/Class.


 On the other hand, when I started competing in USPSA/IPSC, the standard assumed that a Revolver was the 'standard/minimal firearm', so all stages were designed to be "six-round friendly".  So .. target arrays included 3 IPSC targets instead of 4, and .. have you noticed that plate-racks still have six plates?  Baby, we haven't got THAT far away from our technological roots.

We're just going back from 10-round-friendly target arrays to 6-round friendly target arrays.

The difference is, if the Federales have their way, we're just going back a decade (or two) to minimum rounds per shooting position, from 9 to 6.  (Citation needed here).

In other words, the current 9-round maximum rule presupposes a 10-round magazine capacity.  A 6-round maximum rule presupposes a 7-round magazine capacity.

It sucks to be a Limited or an Open Division Competitor, in that case.

Look for Open Division to remain strong (but magazines will be a lot cheaper).  The difference between Limited and L-10 will disappear.  Assume that L-10 will not be very popular .. there's no advantage to being able to reload quickly.   In fact, L-10 (or Limited .. whichever survives) and Singlestack will be much more competitive.

Production?  The discrimination between Production and Singlestack will also blur.  Who knows which will predominate.  Note that 1911-style handguns are specifically forbidden in Production, and the Single-Stack Division will disallow the double-stack magazines which are typical in Production Division.

My guess is that Production and Single-Stack will merge in Limited Division ... which was once "STOCK DIVISION" .. and which may be the best choice for the entire definition of "no compensators, no electronic sights".   The only discernible difference between Production and Single-Stack/Limited is that Production now specifically excludes 1911 frames (Prod vs SS) and Single-Stack precludes double-stack magazines (which Limited does not).

TO beat this dead horse a little further:  Limited will accept both Single-Stack and Production firearms, but the placement of holsters and magazine carriers is less restrictive.  Would we really need to cause the differences between the three divisions so picky as to center on holster placement?  (Well, okay .. Limited allows more modifications than does Production .....)

SUMMARY:


REVOLVER DIVISION: no changes
OPEN DIVISION:  Okay, no Big-Sticks, but still a viable Division.  Think of it as "Limited:, But Still Cooler!  And better for weak-eyed old guys.
LIMITED DIVISION: probably no change
LIMITED-10 DIVISION: probably not viable; no real difference between L10 and Limited
PRODUCTION DIVISION:  Probably the same as Limited except for equipment placement and maximum number of rounds allowed ... which wouldn't matter, legally.  That, and 1911's are specifically disallowed.
SINGLE-STACK DIVISION: Probably the same as Production, except that 1911s are specifically allowed and double-stack magazines still are NOT .. not that it matters.

IF I WERE USPSA PRESIDENT, HERE'S WHAT I WOULD CHANGE:

• I would combine Production and Single-Stack, except that maybe the modifications .. I don't know, it's still debatable
• Open and Limited differences remain based on electronic sights and compensators
• Revolvers .. who cares?  God knows THEY don't care!
• Limited and Limited-10 ... Limited-10 is definitively deleted.

________________________________________________________________________

This entire exposition is extemporaneous and not well organized.  It's an off-the-cuff attempt to respond to what turns out to be a very good question .. assuming that Obama's Gun-Killer Legislation ever becomes law.  (That is NOT beyond the realm of possibility in the current Politicized climate.)

You can be sure that these issues are being discussed around the water-cooler at Sedro Woolley, and I think it would be a service to all USPSA members if their thoughts could be shared with the rest of us .. RSN.

Jerry The Geek

Let's Go To The Hop

Moving on with the ARPC Club Match for September, 2009 ...

Stage 1 was "Walk The Plank". An easy stage, there should be no problems, right?

Starting in Box "A", step up on a short stool on your way to a horizontal platform and there shoot all the targets (11 IPSC targets -- four to the right, four to the left, 3 in the center with some vision barriers to make it interesting.)

Easy ... unless you can't keep your pistol in the holster.

I was actually the first shooter on the stage in my squad and I kept my hand on my pistol (securely locked in my Race Holster) on my way up to The Plank.

Unfortunately, a following shooter declined to manually retain his pistol, and it popped out of his holster and hit the ground when he stepped up on the stool.

There was a bit of a hush, and then the Range Officer performed his duties of moving the competitor away from the grounded pistol, then picked the pistol off the ground, cleared it, and carefully handed it back to the competitor.

The shooter said: "What now?"

The RO said: "Now you go home".

Of course, the pistol was safed; but the USPSA rules have always been clear on this point.

If a pistol hits the ground when not under deliberate control of the shooter, that is cause for a Match DQ. The shooter is always responsible for the gun. There are no valid arguments against a Match DQ in this situation.

In this case, the stage acted as a "Holster Retention Test", and we all learned from it.

Still, it was a bit scary. We always tend to over-react when a Safety Rule is violated, however inadvertently.

Fortunately, I was not filming the shooter, so we need not indulge our "slow down to look at the car wreck on the Freeway" tendencies.

but I did film a couple of shooters in the same squad, who heeded the lesson and were very careful to control their pistol when mounting the step-stool to The Plank.

Here's how it SHOULD be done.

An abuse victim takes the cops to court

The Real Gun Guys: An abuse victim takes the cops to court


The Real Gun Guys link to a shocking story of a Restraining Order which, despite repeated violations, threats, and assaults, was never enforced ... by a police department which was 'just across the street'.

Yes, the Lautenberg Amendment prevents (or more accurately, forbids) 'domestic abuse' perpetrators from owning a firearm. But as this story so dramatically shows, a firearms is not necessarily needed by an abuser to continue a program of attacks on those who were formerly considered "loved ones".

Yes, the police have historically been exonerated from legal obligations "To Protect, and to Serve".

Because of this specific case, that legal precedent may be reviewed. Hopefully, it will be overturned.


I understand that Law Enforcement Officers have an almost insurmountable workload, but when they can look out the front door of their police station to watch a Domestic Abuser digging the graves for his ex-wife and her children, and do nothing about it, it's obviously time to review these priorities.

Hopefully, before another throat is cut with a piece of broken glass.

Hopefully ... but not likely.

Kind of Cheating

I post a lot of videos on YouTube, for a lot of reasons ... not the least is to provide public exposure to situations which occur during IPSC competition. (It makes it easier to show the videos on this blog, too, because it's a one-click access to the video and it downloads quickly.)

Because I've deliberately left the 'comments' section open to anyone, I receive some interesting viewpoints from people who watch the videos.

On February 12, 2007, I posted a video showing USPSA competitors shooting a single stage at Albany Rifle & Pistol Club (ARPC) in Oregon. I thought it was of general interest because the final scene showed a gentleman who was "Match Disqualified" (DQ) after he pointed his pistol toward the spectators during a reload.

Most of the several hundred viewers seemed to have understood the point of the lesson; IPSC competition shares a common theme with many forms of competition, including racing with cars, boats and airplanes. Unlike the 'like themed' competitions, IPSC has embedded a 'belt-and-suspenders' approach to safety.

IPSC (especially as practiced in USPSA, the United States Practical Shooting Association), has embedded a set of 'safety rules' which, if once violated during competition, will be immediately enforced by disqualifying the competitor from further participation in that match. The idea is bipartate:

1. If you break a safety rule, you have demonstrated that you are not operating in a state-of-mind which is conducive to future 'safe' participation. We will remove you from the match.
2. You don't have to actually cause harm to yourself or anyone else; the simple demonstration of mental lapse which MIGHT HAVE caused injury is sufficient to be declared an 'unsafe competitor'.
   

Compare this to, say, NASCAR -- where you're still permitted to compete in a race even though you 'almost' crashed your car into the grandstands.

One of the safety rules of IPSC is that if the muzzle of your firearm moves beyond pointing downrange to point uprange, where the spectators are, you are removed from the match.

Okay, that's the 'short course' of IPSC safety, and the reason why this video is important.

However, moving right along to the point of this discussion, some people just don't 'get it'.

Instead, they pick up on points of interest which were not expected in the original presentation.

This is the case here, when one viewer of the cited video commented:

"should not need a red dot with a pistol, kind of cheating."

Huh?

My first impulse, to say "you don't get it, dude!" lasted less than a second. With only a little thought, I had to admit that this view was absolutely, 100% correct.

Using a red dot with a pistol (electronic dot sight, like this and this) IS 'kind of cheating".

But the commentor didn't go far enough.

The "red dot" is only one of four characteristics of pistols used in Open Division ... and only that Division .. which separates it from all other divisions in IPSC competition. Here are the four ways that Open Division is "kind of cheating":

1. Allows "prototype" firearms
2. Allows ANY sights, including 'red dot' sights
3. Allows the use of compensators, or 'weight attached to the muzzle for the sole purpose of minimizing the 'muzzle-flip' or other sort of recoil
4. Allows extended double-stack magazines (exceeding 140mm in length) -- may allow magazines which allow in excess of 25 rounds, depending on the case circumference, magazine follower design, etc. as long as the magazine does not exceed 170mm in length.

Yes, when compared to other competitive decisions, these 'conveniences are "kind of cheating".

In fact, there are a few other characteristics which one typically finds in 'Open (division) guns', and if you go beyond Pistol Competition and begin to consider "Multigun" competition, the list of special exceptions becomes almost unwieldy.

Here is a short list of other 'exceptions' which do not apply to "Open Division" guns, but which may apply (and be very important) to other Divisions:

1. Production Division: all guns score as 'minor', regardless of actual power factor. Some holsters restricted, some handguns restricted, only 10 rounds allowed in magazines, first shot must be double-action, holsters and magazine carriers must be positioned behind the point of the hip, 1911-type handguns specifically excluded, magazine 'bumpers' or extensions specifically excluded, magazines must not exceed 140mm in length, no comps, barrel weights, barrel ports, optics or or any kind of electronic sighting device;
2. Single-Stack Division: only 1911-type handguns permitted, only 8-round magazines allowed, holsters and magazine carriers must be positioned behind the point of the hip, magazine 'bumpers' or extensions specifically excluded, magazines must not exceed 140mm in length, no comps, barrel weights, barrel ports, optics or or any kind of electronic sighting device permitted;
3. Limited Division: no prototypes allowed (500 guns must have been SOLD to qualify), magazine limited to 140mb, no comps, barrel weights, barrel ports, optics or or any kind of electronic sighting device.
4. Open Division: Forget all that stuff. Magazines may not exceed 170MM in length.
   

There are other restrictions on most of the Divisions, and I am deliberately ignoring Revolver Division. Also, Limted 10 Division allows everything that Limited Division allows, except that no more that 10 rounds must be loaded into your magazines. (Some other over-simplification is suggested by this list of qualifications, but they are too technical to fit in here.)

Point One is that competitors in each division, as determined by the equipment they use, competes only against competitors using similar equipment. That is to say, Open Division guns only compete against other Open Guns.

Point Two is that ... yes, Open guns ARE "Kind of Cheating!"

The compensator is unique to Open Division. This helps to reduce 'muzzle flip' because it exhausts the gasses from burning powder to keep the muzzle from rising as much. The consequence is that it is MUCH easier to take the second shot faster. However, an expert experienced shooter using other types of firearms can learn to manage muzzle-flip by timing his second shot in accordance with the amount of time required for the barrel to align with the aiming point. The difference in 'split time' (time between the first and the second shot) may be only a few hundredths of a second.

The extreme high-capacity magazine is unique to Open Division. However, there are very few stage designs which don't present the opportunity to competitors in 'other divisions' to work in a reload during movement. USPSA and IPSC rules prevent stage designs requiring more than 9 rounds from a single shooting position or location. This presents an ammunition management problem only for SingleStack and Revolver Division firearms .... but they are NOT competing against other divisions, so the Shooting Problem is shared by all similar competitors.

The use of Prototype firearms is unique to Open Division. There is no requirement here to use only firearms which have been 'sold to 500 customers', which means that this division is the 'test bed' of features which may or may not be made available to future firearms. This is the way that IPSC and USPSA act as 'test beds' for new designs and features, in order to encourage firearms manufacturers to improve the firearms market to the benefit of future customers.

Finally, the 'red dot' sights (also known as "Electronic Dot Sights" or "EDS") is a special case.
All other divisions mandate the use of Iron Sights. These are characterized by a front sight (usually a metal post sited at or near the muzzle of the gun) and a rear sight (generally, a horizontal bar in which a 'slot' is cut near the center of the sight.) The front sight (post) is positioned equidistant between the limits of the 'slot', or 'notch' in the rear sight to determine that the gun is pointed at the correct lateral alignment with the target. The target is typically placed above, and adjacent to, the front sign; the front sight is aligned vertically with the top of the rear sight. When this target alignment/sight alignment combination is correctly positioned, the sights are correctly aligned with the target and (barring other extraneous influences, such as inappropriate grip and trigger manipulation, etc.) the shot should hit the target.

The 'red dot' sight design is somewhat different.

To over-simplify, if you put the red dot on the target, the bullet should hit where the dot appears on your sight.

There is no need to aligh the red dot sight with a secondary (or tertiary) alignment; there is no 'notch' in the rear sight, there is no 'top' of the rear sight. In fact, there is not rear sight!

ALL the shooter need do is to find the red dot in the sight, put it on the place where he wishes the shot to hit, and SQUEEZE the trigger! If the dot is correctly positioned and the grip on the gun is correct and the shooter does not pull the sight off the target at the moment of shot ignition, the bullet will hit the target where the dot shows it should hit.

This is not only 'cheating', but experientially magic!

Is the use of a 'Red Dot' sight cheating?

Yes!

----

There's a little more to the discussion of "Red Dot" sights.

First, everyone who is using a 'Red Dot' sight is competiting against everyone else who is using a 'Red Dot' sight. That is, all are competing in Open Division, which is the only competitive division which allows this kind of sight.

If you are wrestling against people who are 180-200 pounds, and everyone who you wrestle is in that weight range, is it 'cheating' if you weight 200 pounds? No, I don't think so. (If you only weigh 180 pounds, you may be at a slight disadvantage. The solution is to bulk up, isn't it?)

More important, in IPSC competition it may be that the people who use 'Red Dot' sights are thos who due to age or infirmity are no longer able to correctly align two sights (front and rear) accurately, consistently and quickly.

This is the situation in which I found myself, three years ago.

I have competed in Limited, Limited-10 and Production for 20 years, until I realized that I was no longer able to see well enough to consistently align the front and rear sights with the target.

I was fortunate in being able to acquire the use of an 'Open Gun" (with 'red dot' sights) which permitted me to continue competing in IPSC competition.'

I didn't do well, but I'm still turning in decent scores in spite of my visual degeneration.

So, while it may seem to be 'cheating' to some people, I have managed to avoid being so depressed by my physical disability that I had discontinued attending IPSC competition in the USPSA.

It doesn't bother me that some people consider this 'cheating'.

I am cheating. And it has served me admirably.

If you take offense at my use of the 'red dot' sight, I invite you to come shoot against me. I'll let you use the same pistol (although you'll have to provide your own ammunition ... I'm not a complete fool) and we'll enjoy the competition on a fair basis.

NB: Tinyurl link for this article is here.

Arrogant Critic of IPSC Rules?

During my tenure here, and earlier on The Unofficial IPSC List, I have spent a lot of time and 'bandwidth' commenting on the Rules of Competition for IPSC.

Scroll down, you've seen it before and you'll see it again.

This "commentary" has been coached in at least one of several modes, including but not limited to:

• Evaluation of proposed IPSC (or USPSA) Rule Book Updates
• Evaluation of established rules in regards to specific scenarios
• Requests for other opinions when a Range Officer Question occurred to me (usually when a club match presented a stage which seemed to challenge a rule)
• Comments and request for clarification when non-match circumstances caused me to go read the book, and I wondered what events had suggested that a given rule was necessary

When you think about it, some of the rules seem almost ... arbitrary.

In the process of questioning the justification for some rules, I have alienated many people, some of them friends. Some of them are no longer friends, and I heartily regret the times when my enthusiasm exceeded the bounds of polite discussion.


It has always seemed to me that the periodic re-evaluation of Competition Rules should be driven by situations which clearly provide a justification for changes. It has not always been my experience that new rules are event-driven. Or, if the changes were necessitated by events, no explanation of the need for a change has been offered by those who were delegated the responsibility for changing the rules.

Example: going back two versions of the Rule Book, a new rule was enacted to the effect that "Disappearing targets which appear and disappear multiple times shall incur miss penalties". This was a dramatic divergence from the previous interpretation ("Disappearing targets shall be deemed to represent targets which have retreated and thus no longer constitute a threat", or words to that effect.) This single rule caused so much upset in IPSC Competition that it was changed back to the original concept in the subsequent rule book.

Example: in the 2005 rule book, rule 9.4.2 newly allowed no more than two penalty hits to be scored on a "no-shoot" target. Surprisingly, justification was offered for this rule. Disappointingly, the justification was that "new shooters may be discouraged by excessive penalties" despite the fact that they had hit the no-shoot more than two times. This had not demonstrably proven to be an issue in the past, but it was changed arbitrarily none the less.

Example: in the 2005 rule book, rule 2.1.8.4 newly stated that "Static paper targets must not be presented at an angle greater than 90 degrees from the vertical." This was famously touted as the "Hanging Ninja" rule, and was added because the "Classic" target is symmetrical, so that competitors could not readily discern the orientation of the "Classic" target and thus could not readily discern the location of the A-Zone. This was absolutely justifiable for this target design, but the "Metric" target is not symmetrical. Still, no provision was established for differentiation of this target shape. The rule was held to be applicable to ANY "static paper target" even though it was clearly without justification for the "Metric" target -- that which is overwhelmingly most typically presented in USPSA matches. Still, USPSA was obliged to recognize this rule.

I felt almost alone in my protests against this arbitrary kind of rule changes, except for a select few (who subsequently formed the core of the recently infamous "Hostility to IPSC" hit-list.)

But during a recent change of opinions on the Unofficial IPSC List, I found myself engaged in an ("Off-List") exchange of opinions with a respected IPSC member. He was the first who actually accused me of 'arrogance' in my efforts to raise the question of applicability of specific IPSC rules when I suggested that the venerable "3-belt loops" rule may not be justifiable. (Note that I am not yet certain whether the rule is not needed; I only raised the question -- which has not yet been answered to my satisfaction.)

During the course of the dialogue, I received an email which included the following comments. I have requested and received permission from the author to post his comments with only minor editing for grammatical reasons:

.............. I also feel some kind of double measuring within IPSC sometimes.

One time someone claims that IPSC is a sport, and therefore eg. the Classic is introduced as a "not-that-humanoid shaped target", or PC target if you wish. At the same time, he announces that he has asked several Law Enforcement organizations, and they agreed that the "Classic" fits better for their needs (by being smaller, i.e. more challenging, and by more or less forming the shape of the chest of a man, too).

Then at another time the very same person (or another official of IPSC) claims that IPSC is a practical sport, and therefore the mere "fun targets" should be exiled, only the practical ones should remain.

Some rule suggestions, although would increase the fun of the game, are discarded because the are "not practical". At the same time, some other rules are introduced "to emphasize that IPSC is a sport". I guess it's not just me who sense some disturbance here.


This Texas Star, for example, is not a practical target in the sense that no Bad Guy, or a bunch of Bad Guys behave as that target does.

However, as far as I see, IPSC should be "practical" in the sense that it should teach us to control the gun under pressure, and to use it effectively against both static and moving targets. Partially for political reasons, IPSC should avoid using realistic scenarios for that.

And why should it be realistic? As long as it reaches its main goal, and teaches us to effectively neutralize both static and moving targets by using our handguns under pressure, what does it matter whether we shoot at humanoid robots or funny-shaped UFO imitations?

I can't rid of the feeling that most everybody uses the word "practical" as his own interest at the moment dictates. Including many of this very list, and many of the officials or representatives of IPSC.