IPSC General Assembly issues of "concern"

How would you vote?

  • Yes to manatory Reload in Med and Long

    Votes: 28 32.6%

  • NO to mandatory Reload in Med and Long

    Votes: 52 60.5%

  • Yes to retiring the Metric Target

    Votes: 20 23.3%

  • No to retiring the Metric Target

    Votes: 65 75.6%
  • Total voters
    86
black said:
And that's the main reason most of my shooting is now south of the red line on the map......:mad:
Click to expand...
It also doesn't make sense because USPSA has a voluntary 10 round mag capacity limit in production and Limited 10 - We know why they started it, but thier argument for maintaining it today is they want to encourage reloading...same result; different method.
 
ipscgraz said:
Can't agree with that one...biggest part of IPSC is skills (yes, plural.)

If you can do a magazine change smoothly & quickly between positions or on the move you will still outscore an incompetent shooter with a 23 round mag.

Used to get a kick out of beating people who couldn't shoot but bought better guns...the good old days.
Click to expand...

Maybe you will. :)
For me free style means use whatever you have towards your advantage.
This summer was shooting a match where we had 9 classics and popper.
Simple stage, on one side of the wall/barricade 5 targets and 5 on the rights side. I was able to have 19 rounds loaded to my mag(126mm) and it took me on average 2 sec faster then those with small cap mags where they had to change it between.
Said all that, I still like the idea of fixed mags to a certain nr for a match so everyone has same chances, however I must agree with Sean, that this is not possible.
 
Forcing a mag change is just another challenge in the COF that you have to figure out how to solve in the best way you can.

More challenges will break up the pack between the "average joe" And the better competitors. As it should be..
 
From an "officiating" point of view...
Forcing a mandatory mag change is another burden for the officials to look out for and / or keep track of...
(It would open the possibility of competitors "bluffing" mag changes...) Not something I would want to be looking out for as an official.
Just my $0.02
 
looking for a reload when the shooter is in a 3 foot box not running around and you know exactly when they are reloading is quite different then looking for one when the shooter is running around a large area at speed while you're looking for safety calls, staying out of the shooters way and avoiding the walls. depending on the layout of the stage it might be faster everynow and then to just shoot the whole thing then after the last target reload and dump a round at nothing, that way you still did a reload before your last shot, or depending on how the rule is written you could really game it. As long as you reload before the end of the C.O.F., so before you unload and show clear, you could shoot the stage with one mag then change mags after the last shot and before you show clear, thus not adding any extra time for the reload.
bluffing a reload is a possibilty on stages with lots of ducking in and out of hallways and doors, the only way to prove it was faked would be to grab the mag off the ground and count how many rounds are left in the mag but the RO would have to be able to prove how many rounds were fired out of that mag. I smell an arbitration
 
If the classic target royality comment is correct wouldn't getting ride of the metric be a conflict of intrest, since it would only leave us with a target that the prez makes money off of?
 
PeterPan said:
Maybe you will. :)
For me free style means use whatever you have towards your advantage.
This summer was shooting a match where we had 9 classics and popper.
Simple stage, on one side of the wall/barricade 5 targets and 5 on the rights side. I was able to have 19 rounds loaded to my mag(126mm) and it took me on average 2 sec faster then those with small cap mags where they had to change it between.
Said all that, I still like the idea of fixed mags to a certain nr for a match so everyone has same chances, however I must agree with Sean, that this is not possible.
Click to expand...

If we have mandatory reloads this same stage you will have to reload twice as its a long course!!!!

I think it does affect IPSC Canada in a couple negative ways, on 17 to 21 round stages,as these require 2 reloads and if you have a 2 position stage your doing one for the sake of being required to do it or take the penalty!!!

Looking for mandatory reloads on a ICS stage is alot different the a run and gun!!!

If you have a 20 round run and gun with lots of movement and shoot first bank of targets then move you could do 2 reloads back to back and finish and just hope the RO saw the reload as some stages it is impossible to see everything cause of walls and such, and as a RO if you didn,t see it but saw the mag on the ground ,how do you know it didn't just fall out? or some cheating or it was legitimate?

Some of the 17 to 21 rounders are alot of fun to shoot but it removes the risk for reward,and in my opinion adds more gaming here and internationally, so hopefully match directors don't shy away from these stages!!!

I do believe that reloads are a huge part of this game, but not sure this is the fix....

jay
 
We're going to, I"M SURE, hit the difference between an idea and implementation...

I can imagine - "engage T1 to T2 with 2 rounds each, perform a reload, move to position 2, engage P1 to P4 with 1 round each, reload, engage P5 to P9 with 1 round, move to position 2 while perfoming a reload, etc, etc" Sound familiar? yes, ICS has been a great success here...

Call me a miserable old sceptic, but ipsc powers-that-be in HK aren't known for taking reasonable concepts and turning them successfully into reasonable RULES.

Limiting rounds in the mag is a much better way of doing it. Forcing reloads at particular points, or after a specific number of rounds can easily deprive people with advanced skills from being able to actually use those skills, be they reload skills, or strategic stage planning, or alternate ways of shooting a stage, or whatever...

Re what Sean said how this has been in consultation for months? Let's have a different poll - how many ipsc canada shooters have actually heard of this before now?? The NEC discussing it via email is not the same as getting the shooters' input...

ohh, well... I have zero faith that this will improve our situation here in Canada, and I'm almost certain that it will #### things up, sooner or later, depending how the rules are worded.
 
Nothing from IPSC Ontario , Ipsc Canada ,NROI
about discontinuing the MetricTarget,
Mandatory Mag changes in med & long courses,
Did hear something about Airsoft, Info doesn't seem to be flowing to members.
Whats up am I missing something or somewhere to hear about these proposed changes.

supermag
 
As to the cries of :runaway:"I wasn't consulted!!!" :runaway: Bulls**t. You were - through your ELECTED representative.
IPSC published this on September 24th. There's no goddamn time to send it to all 2000 of you, force you to read it, then discuss it.

You elected the people to consult for you. (Your boards and Section coordinators) They did. :slap::

If you have a problem, run for a position on your section's board; don't waste time whining about it here. :jerkit:

This thread has jumped the shark, so I'll see you in another.:wave:
 
Freedom Ventures said:
It also doesn't make sense because USPSA has a voluntary 10 round mag capacity limit in production and Limited 10 - We know why they started it, but thier argument for maintaining it today is they want to encourage reloading...same result; different method.
Click to expand...

The reason for L10 is the number of 10 round states. (NY & CA are two that come to mind.) In those many of those states you can't shoot high cap (legally) unless your a resident. Some of their laws are even dumber than ours but I'm not going there.

If it wasn't for those states L10 would have been removed. (just look at the platform of the USPSA president from their last election he wanted it gone.
 
...OK guys. Stop hacking on Sean.

To the the Ontario members...

We recieved this infromation in advance (as we always do) This year is a bit different in the sense that there are some very material changes. The info was distributed to the Board, and some senior officials for review. Comments back were not surprising, and generally in line with the preliminary feeback from the NEC. Don't assume that we think any differently than the rest of the members (remember we are members too)

It was not the Boards intention to distribute this publically available info by mass distribution...or more accuratly...an inviation for a mass of emails, opinions, rants...


Slight thread drift (but not a rant...I swear)

Quite frankly...we have our own fish to fry (ie the steering committees regarding our constitutional updates...and the review of the Classifictions system) To date I have two volunteers for the committe on Constitution (both of whom volunteered at the AGM) and a whopping 1 volunteer for the second committe on Classifictions. I'm underwhelmed to say the least (but unfortunatly not surprised)

We don't need keyboard cowboys...we need volunteers...:cool:

So...leave Sean alone...and feel free to direct the rants to me. IPSC-ONT@sympatico.ca hopefully at the same time that you volunteer to help clean up our own house :cool:

When we have a surplus of volunteers, and time, and nothing to do...we can set you all loose to solve the worlds problems...but for right now I will respectfully ask you to focus...

Your humble servant

Craig
 
Quigley said:
... The info was distributed to the Board, and some senior officials for review.
Click to expand...


Ouch..........

You were going fine until the bold part my good man.

How does one get to be amongst the "some".

What qualifications denote those "some" from other "some"?


If you had left it at just the board........I would be most statisfied.
 
I left it up to the Board members to decide who they wished to include...we can't include everyone (just not feasable) and we can't exclude everyone. We have to use our own judgement...which is what we did.

...there was probably a time where a thread like this would really get me going...but I'm smart enough to know that ego's will always get bruised...and no matter what we do, it will always be the wrong thing (to some)



stormbringer said:
Ouch..........

You were going fine until the bold part my good man.

How does one get to be amongst the "some".

What qualifications denote those "some" from other "some"?


If you had left it at just the board........I would be most statisfied.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom