I would be very interested in hearing what our members think of this proposal, particularly the assertion that limiting shots to 6 from any one position doesn't do any harm to stage designs. Please email me with your thoughts.
Dave's complete and unedited proposal follows:
"The Board of Directors of the United States Practical Shooting Association requests that, whenever possible, match directors present courses of fire requiring no more than six (6) rounds from any given shooting position unless the additional targets may also be engaged from another position. While this request is not mandated by USPSA rules, and match directors may choose not to honor this request, the Board of Directors strongly urges match directors to give such consideration in course design as a method of promoting participation and growth in Revolver Division."
I understand that before the BoD can adopt such a resolution it must weigh possible benefits and potential adverse effects, so allow me to present some arguments in its support.
Would shooters in other divisions be adversely affected if course design were influenced in this way? I do not believe so. The current rules allow up to 8 rounds from a given position, choosing to present 6 rounds or less instead would have virtually no effect on high capacity shooters (Open & Limited). In most cases they would still have to do only one reload to complete the average field course and would have to do the same mandatory reloads as anyone else in speed shoots.
As for Limited 10 and Production shooters, under the current "up to 8 rounds" rules they generally reload between shooting positions in field courses now. The only difference on an "up to 6 rounds" stage is the magazine they drop would have 4 rounds left in it instead of 2 and they might need 1 or 2 more magazines to complete a high round count course of fire. The same comments made above concerning speed shoots also apply to these divisions.
So what possible benefits might be derived from influencing course design in this way? Well, it would change the nature of revolver competition to shooting contests rather than reloading contests. Which would make shooting our sport with a revolver more enjoyable. Which should lead to higher attendance and / or more new shooters / members.
How many of you realize that the 2002 ICORE National Revolver Championship had 145 entries? While revolver division at the 2002 USPSA Factory Gun Nationals had only 19 competitors.
Now, a couple of arguments could be made here – first, that the ICORE match has been around for many years and has had a chance to grow to its current size while the FGN match was new this year. Secondly, the 19 entries at this year's FGN represent almost 1,000% growth over previous Limited Nationals revolver entries.
I agree with both of these arguments and offer a tip of the hat to those who made the separate FGN match a reality. That is a huge step forward. However, unless we take some more steps to encourage making IPSC shooting with a revolver as much fun as it is with other types of firearms, we will never see substantial numbers at our national championships or anywhere else.
What do I mean by changing the nature of the competition away from being reloading contests? Consider the common "shoot 8 pieces of steel in array #1, perform a mandatory reload, then shoot 8 pieces of steel in array #2" type speed shoot.
For any division other than revolver this course of fire mandates only 1 reload. So the nature of the contest is primarily a test of shooting skills, with reloading skills being secondary.
As Mr. Amidon recently pointed out to me, the revolver shooter is required to perform 3 reloads to complete this course of fire. He must make his 1st reload to shoot the last two targets in array #1 (otherwise he gets procedural penalties for not engaging all the targets in the array prior to the mandatory reload). He must perform his 2nd reload as the mandatory reload. Then he must perform a 3rd reload just to finish shooting array #2.
I submit to you that if you break down this shooter's total elapsed time you will find more than ½ the time was spent making reloads - not shooting. So the skills being tested for this competitor are reloading skills - not shooting skills. He who reloads fastest wins, the shooting is secondary. In other words, on this type of course the very nature of the competition is different for the revolver shooter than for all other shooters in the match.
The all too familiar field courses consisting of "4 targets here, 4 targets there, 4 targets through the port" have the same effect – extra reloads and / or standing reloads. Isn't it time we finally put to rest one of the greatest IPSC myths? The number 6 is no more (or less) "boring" than the number 8.
Can anyone really believe a field course consisting of 4 six round target arrays is any more boring or any less challenging than a field course consisting of 3 eight round target arrays? And anyone who cannot string together several target arrays & shooting positions consisting of 3 to 6 shots to create fun and challenging stages of 20 - 30 rounds is just hopelessly unimaginative.
As I said earlier, the creation of a separate Revolver Division and separate Factory Gun Nationals are steps in the right direction. And 19 revolver shooters attending the FGN is a vast improvement over the previous high number of 2 at any of the last seven Limited Nationals. But simply creating a separate division is not enough. Even offering separate awards and prizes will not be enough. We must give people a reason to shoot in this division on a regular basis. And the reason has to be that it is fun to do so.
Few guys who do not shoot a particular firearm regularly enough to feel confident in their abilities with it will suddenly pick it up and head for an Area or National championship simply because a separate division and awards are made available.
If they attend at all they will attend using the gun they feel most comfortable with. And if they don't use the revolver in their local monthly matches they won't use it at major tournaments. The ICORE numbers show us that there are revolver fans out there. The question is will we ever be able to attract them to our matches?
But perhaps the real question is does USPSA really want them? Or do we just want to give lip service to a Revolver Division that looks good on paper but has little support?
In order to grow, Revolver Division needs your support and encouragement. Match directors need to be encouraged to take steps to attract revolver shooters to their matches. Revolver fans need to be assured that they are as valued by USPSA as the rest of the members and that if they participate in our sport they will have as much fun and will face the same challenges that everyone else does.
I'm not asking for a rule change or even a policy change. All I am asking is that you encourage our match directors to be a little more inclusive in their course designs. I sincerely believe the benefits of doing so, the potential for increased local match attendance either as 1st or 2nd gun entries, the potential for real increases in attendance at major tournaments and national championships, merit taking this action.
Therefore, I request that this item be placed on the agenda for your next Board of Directors meeting. I hope you will give it very serious consideration.
| Thank you for your time. David Neis L-1850 |