Jeff Cooper Resigns from IPSC
Nosy
From "GunGames" magazine, the "Gunsporting Industry News
and Quotes" section by Wally Arida:
Jeff Cooper has resigned from the International Practical
Shooting Confederation (IPSC), a shooting association he
helped organize 20 years ago. In a letter dated February 4,
1997 and addressed to IPSC President Nick Alexakos, Cooper
said he was resigning because it was "no longer even vaguely
practical". He did not elaborate.
In 1956, Cooper formed a "combat" shooting association in
Southern California. It quickly grew and, in 1976, he helped
organize the IPSC and became its Honorary Lifetime Chairman.
In his two-page reply, Alexakos acknowledged that the 76 year
old former US Marine Colonel was responsible for IPSC growth
in its early years. However, Practical Shooting eventually
shed its "combat" image and evolved into a new shooting game,
Alexakos said. He said Cooper himself had noted the evolution
in some of his published articles.
"I guess what I am trying to say is that I can take your name
off the IPSC mailing list," Alexakos wrote Cooper,"but I cannot
rewrite history."
RDJ
Nosy wrote:
#
# From "GunGames" magazine, the "Gunsporting Industry News
# and Quotes" section by Wally Arida:
#
# Jeff Cooper has resigned from the International Practical
# Shooting Confederation (IPSC), a shooting association he
# helped organize 20 years ago.
This is a damn shame but the writing has been on the wall for awhile.
# In a letter dated February 4,
# 1997 and addressed to IPSC President Nick Alexakos, Cooper
# said he was resigning because it was "no longer even vaguely
# practical". He did not elaborate.
There was no need for elaboration.
# Practical Shooting eventually
# shed its "combat" image and evolved into a new shooting game,
Yes, correct. It has become "a game" catering, primarily, to exotic
firearms and accessories ill-suited to "practical shooting." This, I
feel, was most disturbing to Col. Cooper who foresaw this style of
competition as one which would further combat proficiency.
All that being said, IPSC *is* an enjoyable competition and USPSA *has*
attempted to maintain >some< aspects of practicality (ie: Limited
class). No less an action could be expected from Col. Cooper who found
himself in the hypocritical position of "leading" the sponsoring
organization for competition he saw as straying too far from its (his)
original concepts.
Time marches on and changes happen.
--
"Trying to determine what is going on...
by reading newspapers is like trying to
tell the time by watching the second hand
on a clock." Ben Hecht
Sigstroker
<<
Jeff Cooper has resigned from the International Practical
1997 and addressed to IPSC President Nick Alexakos, Cooper
How ridiculous! Cooper was as "gamey" as the next guy, and gamier than
most. I've seen pictures of Cooper with a low-slung holster that put the
muzzle
around his knees (before the modern holster rules).
eri...@colt380.com
# "no longer even vaguely practical". He did not elaborate.
Geez, and I always thought that "IPSC" stood for:
Im-Practical Shooting Contests
DVC,
Erick Gelhaus
MEDICT
But still, a STRONG message for those of us
that began participating in IPSC competition
because we believed that it was germane to
our preparation for daily carry of a pistol for
self protection. Early IPSC competition did indeed
fulfill those needs.
I abandoned IPSC competition some years ago
because it has some elements of performance demands
that will likely produce "training outcomes" that are tactically
dangerous for real world engagement. I must admit that it
certainly improved my "holster to first shot times". But it
also instills some very dangerous engagement decision making
algorithms.
I would be pleased to hear recommendations from the
group concerning the existence of shooting competition
more appropriate for real world preparation.
Be well and vaya con Dios.
MedicT
Jon
Sigstroker wrote:
#
# <<
# Jeff Cooper has resigned from the International Practical
# Shooting Confederation (IPSC), a shooting association he
# helped organize 20 years ago. In a letter dated February 4,
# 1997 and addressed to IPSC President Nick Alexakos, Cooper
# said he was resigning because it was "no longer even vaguely
# practical". He did not elaborate.
# #>
#
# muzzle
# around his knees (before the modern holster rules).
I can understand his sentiment. Take a look at what has happened with
the sport since it's inception. My understanding of the game was that it
was supposed to simulate pistol combat. IMO, it has strayed too far from
its intended purpose.
First off, you do not start a gunfight in a box at the sound of a
buzzer. Second you don't normally carry a 2000.00 dollar weapon with a
heads up display as your carry gun. The basics of pistol fighting
(cover) are not normally stressed, as most shots are fired from the
open. Things have changed since the early days of IPSC.
Also keep in mind that Jeff Cooper is getting up in years. I don't
really think he holds a grudge against IPSC, it has just changed more
than he can compete with. I imagine that he will take more to IDPA now
as its more to his ideology than IPSC today.
I have a feeling that you are going to see more people, especially the
IPSC limited shooters grasp IDPA with as much enthusiasm as IPSC. Just a
whole different game.
Jon
Plus P Inc
<<<
I would be pleased to hear recommendations from the
group concerning the existence of shooting competition
more appropriate for real world preparation.
Be well and vaya con Dios.
MedicT>>>
The original concept of IPSC was fine,,,,but elitists change the entire
concept and Cooper couldn't gag it down any more. It had no application
to reality..most combat shooting in name or practice is based on 400 year
old technology and in practice produces a 92% miss rate at 21 feet or
less. Most training today and shooting is based on protecting the
employer from liability, not keeping the shooter alive.
Using everything from cartoon targets, to Disneyland with guns training
schools, the entire concept of combat shooting with the intent to surive
is lost. It is not jumping behind barrels, or shooting in ideal
conditions. It is short range and in the DARK and little more. You shoot
in the rain, show and on unlevel ground among other things. Most shooters
would not find it FUN and thus avoid it in favor of Disney Land
environment. Such a shame. Tiz no game kids.
E.G. Clayton
On 8 Jun 1997, Jon wrote:
# Also keep in mind that Jeff Cooper is getting up in years. I don't
# really think he holds a grudge against IPSC, it has just changed more
# than he can compete with. I imagine that he will take more to IDPA now
# as its more to his ideology than IPSC today.
I do not presume to speak for Jeff Cooper, but what I infer from his
commentaries on the subject is that he is bothered not just by all
the (extremely silly, sometimes) highly IMpractical performance-oriented
gadgetry in IPSC, but above all by the total lack of mindset training.
IPSC has truly become a *game*, with all the frivolity the word implies.
Cooper believes that handgun training and practice should foster the kind
of combat mindset that does more to separate winners from losers in a
gunfight than simple mechanical shooting skills. Shooting the highest
number of pepper-poppers between two whistles does not accomplish this.
==========================================================================
Ed Clayton
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Mark Montana
MEDICT <med...@aol.com> wrote in article <5nflif$p...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
#
#
# But still, a STRONG message for those of us
# that began participating in IPSC competition
# because we believed that it was germane to
# our preparation for daily carry of a pistol for
# self protection. Early IPSC competition did indeed
# fulfill those needs.
#
# I abandoned IPSC competition some years ago
# because it has some elements of performance demands
# that will likely produce "training outcomes" that are tactically
# dangerous for real world engagement. I must admit that it
# certainly improved my "holster to first shot times". But it
# also instills some very dangerous engagement decision making
# algorithms.
#
# I would be pleased to hear recommendations from the
# group concerning the existence of shooting competition
# more appropriate for real world preparation.
#
# Be well and vaya con Dios.
#
# MedicT<<<
To each his own, but any and all time spent with your gun is beneficial.
Kind like saying race car drivers should only drive on race tracks, because
they might get bad habits while driving with the public.
Mark M.
MEDICT
In article <5nhevf$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, "Mark Montana" <BM...@relia.net>
writes:
#To each his own, but any and all time spent with your gun is beneficial.
#Kind like saying race car drivers should only drive on race tracks,
because
#they might get bad habits while driving with the public.
#
#Mark M.
No Mark, I do not believe that ALL time spent with your gun
is beneficial if you also carry one on a daily basis.
Most competitors do not compete with guns that are suitable
for carry or self defense, which in some cases can create an
unrealistic expectation of performance when the same person
uses a non-race gun to protect themselves.
And most competitive scenarios require you to engage multiple
targets with little or no thought toward assessing the effect of
your shots on the target or other similiarly appropriate tactics.
The competitor is also expected to leave behind patially loaded
magazines, forget about cover or concealment and required to
unload and show clear after they engage the last target.
There is also no competitive requirement for you to keep your finger
OUT of the trigger guard until you have indentified a life threat or when
moving to cover. In competition, targets simply get hosed and in the
street they don't just take off points if you shoot a white target.
Your life, your choice, your responsibility, but please let's not mislead
others on the fact that ALL time spent with your gun is beneficial
for real life performance and survival. It's not true!!
MedicT
Sigstroker
#I can understand his sentiment. Take a look at what has happened with
#the sport since it's inception. My understanding of the game was that it
#was supposed to simulate pistol combat. IMO, it has strayed too far from
#its intended purpose.
My point was that IPSC did exactly what Cooper's stated vision for it was.
To push the envelope in both equipment and methods. Look how far the
equipment has evolved since 1976, even in Limited guns. The standard
current stance was unheard of back then. It's hypocritical for him to
decry
IPSC for becoming exactly what he'd hoped it would become.
Jerry
In article <5nh16d$s...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, plus...@aol.com (Plus P Inc) wrote:
#<<<
#I would be pleased to hear recommendations from the
#group concerning the existence of shooting competition
#more appropriate for real world preparation.
#
#Be well and vaya con Dios.
#
#MedicT>>>
#
#The original concept of IPSC was fine,,,,but elitists change the entire
#concept and Cooper couldn't gag it down any more. It had no application
#to reality..most combat shooting in name or practice is based on 400 year
#old technology and in practice produces a 92% miss rate at 21 feet or
#less. Most training today and shooting is based on protecting the
#employer from liability, not keeping the shooter alive.
#Using everything from cartoon targets, to Disneyland with guns training
#schools, the entire concept of combat shooting with the intent to surive
#is lost. It is not jumping behind barrels, or shooting in ideal
#conditions. It is short range and in the DARK and little more. You shoot
#in the rain, show and on unlevel ground among other things. Most shooters
#would not find it FUN and thus avoid it in favor of Disney Land
#environment. Such a shame. Tiz no game kids.
Amen!
Keith Wood
In article <5nd8rp$m...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, sigst...@aol.com (Sigstroker) wrote:
[<<
[ Jeff Cooper has resigned from the International Practical
[ Shooting Confederation (IPSC), a shooting association he
[ helped organize 20 years ago. In a letter dated February 4,
[ 1997 and addressed to IPSC President Nick Alexakos, Cooper
[ said he was resigning because it was "no longer even vaguely
[ practical". He did not elaborate.
[#>
[
[How ridiculous! Cooper was as "gamey" as the next guy, and gamier than
[most.
Nope. Not in the 10 years that it has been my honor to know him.
[ I've seen pictures of Cooper with a low-slung holster that put the
[muzzle
[around his knees (before the modern holster rules).
Yep. And gee, guess who promoted the modern holster rules . . ? And guess
why?
I've seen a pic of the Colonel shooting a Thompson SMG on auto, with the
buttplate braced agains his CHIN, but I never heard him advocate that as a
PRACTICAL procedure, which just happens to be the reason that the ISPC was
originally formed.
Karl Rehn
just a few comments regarding the "practicality" of IPSC:
Instead of simply parroting what the magazines tell you to think,
get out and shoot a match. The trend, nationwide, at the club level
has been overwhelmingly toward Limited class and stock guns. At
our last club 82% of the shooters were Limited. That includes lots of
people shooting stock Glocks and minimally modified 1911's.
One reason why you see an emphasis on the gun modifications and
reports on the "money" shooters is because the companies who pay
for advertising in all the magazines have a strongly vested interest
in creating a large market for after-market parts and a continuing
parade of new gadgets to sell. The articles don't necessarily give
you a clear picture of what's happening at the grassroots level.
There is nothing wrong with the scoring and safety rules of IPSC: and
the only thing that separates a "practical" match from an "impractical"
match is the course design. For example, I was recently invited by our
county SWAT team to put on an IPSC-style training session for them.
Recently one of the officers had been competing in local club matches
and had been impressed with the high skill level of the average club shooter.
Their instructors and I designed some courses of fire that
emphasised use of cover and tested the officers' skill with a handgun.
Those courses were all legal courses under the IPSC rules, and could be
easily used for a regular match. Instead of harping about what IPSC
isn't, they wanted to learn about it to get new ideas to work into
their own training sessions. At the session wrap-up I asked them
specifically for their opinions on the 'tactics' of the courses.
Their comments were all positive, including ideas for more course designs.
There are far more armchair tactical experts willing to criticize IPSC
than there are shooters and match organizers willing to set up and run
matches (under IPSC or IDPA, or whatever) that are better than what
exists now. I've certainly met a lot of people over the last 5 years or so
who use the "impracticality" of IPSC as an excuse not to participate in
any form of advanced training. With the exception of a handful of elite
schools very little "practical" training exists at the local level -
especially any sort of regular training on a monthly basis.
Simply getting the experience of shooting under extreme time pressure
under the stress of competition, and learning the mental discipline to
get an appropriate sight picture and make a fast, accurate shot are
extremely valuable skills that you *can* learn from IPSC.
Karl
re...@arlut.utexas.edu
www.sss.org/krtraining
Emmanuel Baechler
Karl Rehn wrote:
# There is nothing wrong with the scoring and safety rules of IPSC: and
# the only thing that separates a "practical" match from an "impractical"
# match is the course design. [...]
Well, there are case where safety rules will limit scenarios. It is for
example pretty difficult to make scenarios implying shot over 360
degrees.
One of our local RO (a private security guard) had to modify a few
scenarios
just because of that.
To be sure that a match will be shot "tactically" it is also important
to put some constraints (tactical reloads only, shots only from under
cover, and so on...) if one want to avoid that some people will play it
in another way.
Emmanuel Baechler
Chemin du Stade 4
1007 Lausanne
Switzerland
Natural Born Cereal Killer
kr...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Karl Rehn) writes:
#Instead of simply parroting what the magazines tell you to think,
#get out and shoot a match.
A fine idea if it's a sport. If it's a game, on the other
hand, that doesn't appear to sit well with the constituency.
How to tell the difference? I believe it was Hemmingway who
said, "The only sports are bullfighting and auto racing. The rest
are games." Bob Munden, an expressive advocate of the fast-draw
pistol sport, says it thus: "Booting a bullet down your holster
will wake you up in a hurry, and ruin a perfectly good pair of
pants. But those are the hazards of any good sport."
Myself, I divide the two thus: If I'm there just to enjoy
myself, it's a game. If I'm there to compete and better myself,
it's a sport.
Perhaps what we have here are two opposing groups on the course?
--
* Dan Sorenson DoD #1066 ASSHOLE #35 vik...@probe.net *
* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
Sigstroker
#[How ridiculous! Cooper was as "gamey" as the next guy, and gamier than
#
#Nope. Not in the 10 years that it has been my honor to know him.
Errr, IPSC has been around for over 20 years.
#[ I've seen pictures of Cooper with a low-slung holster that put the
#[muzzle
#[around his knees (before the modern holster rules).
#
#Yep. And gee, guess who promoted the modern holster rules . . ? And
guess
#why?
#
#I've seen a pic of the Colonel shooting a Thompson SMG on auto, with the
#buttplate braced agains his CHIN, but I never heard him advocate that as
a
#PRACTICAL procedure, which just happens to be the reason that the ISPC
was
#originally formed.
The Thompson thing was a posed stunt. The pictures I've seen with him
using
decidedly UNpractical gear were at matches, where he was competing.
E.G. Clayton
On 10 Jun 1997, Sigstroker wrote:
# My point was that IPSC did exactly what Cooper's stated vision for it was.
# To push the envelope in both equipment and methods. Look how far the
# equipment has evolved since 1976, even in Limited guns. The standard
# current stance was unheard of back then. It's hypocritical for him to
# decry
# IPSC for becoming exactly what he'd hoped it would become.
And it's disingenuous to claim that IPSC in its current form is
"exactly what he'd hoped it would become". Ask Cooper and he will
tell you this is not so. Do you think he resigned just to irritate
you?
=============================================================================
Sigstroker
<<Guess you missed my point, or maybe you've convinced yourself that you
can
simulate a possible encounter before the fact.>>
A lot of people seemed to have missed the point that IPSC was *never*
intended to be gunfight training. Practice is about the only way to train
for that. IPSC was formed so that the natural effect of competition would
further development of the equipment and methods. Which it has succeeded
at to a large degree.
E.G. Clayton
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, W.R. Giacona wrote:
# E.G. Clayton wrote:
# > And it's disingenuous to claim that IPSC in its current form is
# > "exactly what he'd hoped it would become". Ask Cooper and he will
# > tell you this is not so. Do you think he resigned just to irritate
# > you?
# >
#
# He shouldn't have said this what Cooper wanted it to become. He said, instead
# said this is what cooper designed it to become.
This would have been equally disingenuous and more than a little bit
self-serving. I am not sure why some IPSC'ers are evidently having
a hard time severing ties with Cooper and feel the need to cling to
his legacy by claiming to embody "what he really meant".
geoff beneze
In article <5nkqg1$6...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, sigst...@aol.com (Sigstroker) wrote:
# My point was that IPSC did exactly what Cooper's stated vision for it was.
# To push the envelope in both equipment and methods. Look how far the
# equipment has evolved since 1976, even in Limited guns. The standard
# current stance was unheard of back then. It's hypocritical for him to
# decry
No, it is not what he "hoped it would become". From the beginning the
purpose was to explore PRACTICAL methods (etc). I've asked him about this
particular subject and you're attributing "facts" to him that simply are
not reality.
--
geoff beneze (geof...@primenet.com)
NRA Life member -- PGP key available at web site
********************************************
Arizona Shooting Sports -- http://www.primenet.com/~geoffben
BEAST Gunsmithing -- Target Stands -- The unofficial Dillon Tech Page
W.R. Giacona
E.G. Clayton wrote:
#
#
# # To push the envelope in both equipment and methods. Look how far the
# # equipment has evolved since 1976, even in Limited guns. The standard
# # current stance was unheard of back then. It's hypocritical for him to
# # decry
# # IPSC for becoming exactly what he'd hoped it would become.
#
# "exactly what he'd hoped it would become". Ask Cooper and he will
# tell you this is not so. Do you think he resigned just to irritate
# you?
#
He shouldn't have said this what Cooper wanted it to become. He said, instead
said this is what cooper designed it to become.
--
_______________________________________________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona Owner,Fairway Liquor
w...@arkansas.net 3311 N. West Ave.
w...@infogo.com El Dorado, AR 71730
http://www.infogo.com/~wrg
Jeff Crowell
Sigstroker (sigst...@aol.com) wrote:
: How ridiculous! Cooper was as "gamey" as the next guy, and gamier than
: most. I've seen pictures of Cooper with a low-slung holster that put the
: muzzle around his knees (before the modernholster rules).
Nuts. How old were the photos?
IPSC grew out of the old "Leatherslap" games Cooper and others used
to play. Draw speed and accuracte shooting are real-world, whether
you've got a 'John Wayne' holster or not. But IPSC has gone so far
afield from tactical reality that my only surprise is how long Cooper
hung in there. IPSC may be a great *game* (I happen to not agree),
but it is not in any way tactical, or what I would call 'practical.'
Jeff
--
Give me ambiguity, or give me something else.
Sigstroker
<<No, it is not what he "hoped it would become". From the beginning the
purpose was to explore PRACTICAL methods (etc). I've asked him about this
particular subject and you're attributing "facts" to him that simply are
not reality.>>
I'm speaking from articles he's written 20 years ago, which can't be
changed
like his "opinion" can. Also, many of the methods developed in IPSC, such
as the stance currently popular, are very practical, IMO.
John Kepler
geoff beneze wrote:
#
#
# # My point was that IPSC did exactly what Cooper's stated vision for it was.
# # To push the envelope in both equipment and methods. Look how far the
# # equipment has evolved since 1976, even in Limited guns. The standard
# # current stance was unheard of back then. It's hypocritical for him to
# # decry
# # IPSC for becoming exactly what he'd hoped it would become.
#
# purpose was to explore PRACTICAL methods (etc). I've asked him about this
# particular subject and you're attributing "facts" to him that simply are
# not reality.
# --
# geoff beneze (geof...@primenet.com)
# NRA Life member -- PGP key available at web site
# ********************************************
# Arizona Shooting Sports -- http://www.primenet.com/~geoffben
# BEAST Gunsmithing -- Target Stands -- The unofficial Dillon Tech Page
Hate to say this boys, but running a competition and designing rules
that will limit the "check book effect" on the outcome, is like walking
through a dense-pack mine field blindfolded! It is VERY difficult to do
without 1). being an arbitrary hard-ass (which is sure to get you tossed
out of ANY democraticly run organization), and honk a lot of people
off, 2). having a rule, made with the best of intentions to keep
things in balance, blow-up in your face when you least expect it, start
an expensive "arms race", and honk a lot of people off, 3). have the
overwhelming majority of competitors clammering on one hand, to keep the
costs of competition down, while at the same time, bitching about the
rules that specify the size of the rivits on a holster.
People, shooters in particular are a pesky bunch! As a rule, we tend to
be tinkerers with an engineering bent. We are just like auto racers
(some ARE), and are in continual pursuit of this doo-dad or that gizmo
that'll make the sucker better! We may know the rules, but we are
ALWAYS looking for areas where we know a technical improvement in the
system will enhance the outcome, even if this "massages" the letter of
those rules, and certainly violates the spirit of them. While we may
talk a good game about limiting competition and fly the flag of reason
and fair play, when we see a weak spot in a rule, we figuratively hoist
the "Jolly Roger", then rape and pillage with abandon!
Everybody pushes the envelope as hard as the organizers will allow. The
slide is always gradual, and is usually accomplished by some competitor,
with a lot of volume and bile, brow-beating some poor Umpire or match
official that just came to help, not face a lynch-mob! If the
sanctioning organization doesn't step in and really lean on this
behavior, the match officials become Casper Milquetoast, and you have
$3000 Race Guns shooting as limited!
It's easier in Highpower because of the military. In Service Rifle, you
can get tossed off the line for what I think is total chicken-guano
(see, I'm as bad as anybody else)! But the slide starts with the
chicken-sh**.....stuff that everybody agrees is probably nonsense. Once
we start adding this "reasonableness" test to rule interpretation,
particularly in the middle of a competition, you're going to have
problems. The military on the other hand, has been following
chicken-sh** orders, to the letter, for centuries! They have also, at
least in the US military, been listening to citizen-soldiers bitch about
said chicken-sh** orders for centuries, and totally ignoring them! This
culture of "shut-up and soldier" permeates both Highpower and Bullseye
Pistol. This helps keep the sport within the rules, but does nothing to
stop the carping! Everybody at the Nationals has a VERY dog-eared copy
of the rules in his hip-pocket, with spontanious "union outrage
meetings" starting like wildfires after a thunderstorm! As a rule,
nobody important listens to this yammering!
I figure Cooper, who's nobody's fool, saw that the situation was
irretrievable without effectively dismantling IPSC, and didn't feel like
going through the hassle of advocating that. It was easier, and
probably better, just to leave!
John
Sigstroker
<<To be sure that a match will be shot "tactically" it is also important
to put some constraints (tactical reloads only, shots only from under
cover, and so on...) if one want to avoid that some people will play it
in another way.>>
Most IPSC stages can't be done this way, because the rules forbid forced
mag changes on field courses. The intent being "solve the problem the best
way you can".
Sigstroker
<< 3). have the
overwhelming majority of competitors clammering on one hand, to keep the
costs of competition down, while at the same time, bitching about the
rules that specify the size of the rivits on a holster. >>
Sounds like you've been in a lot of IPSC matches.
<<People, shooters in particular are a pesky bunch! As a rule, we tend to
be tinkerers with an engineering bent. We are just like auto racers
(some ARE), and are in continual pursuit of this doo-dad or that gizmo
that'll make the sucker better! >>
Yes, that is the point of competition. Roger Penske called it "the unfair
advantage". The end result for all of us, though, is improved technology.
<<It's easier in Highpower because of the military. In Service Rifle, you
can get tossed off the line for what I think is total chicken-guano
(see, I'm as bad as anybody else)! But the slide starts with the
chicken-sh**.....stuff that everybody agrees is probably nonsense. Once
we start adding this "reasonableness" test to rule interpretation,
particularly in the middle of a competition, you're going to have
problems. The military on the other hand, has been following
chicken-sh** orders, to the letter, for centuries! >>
I hope you're not implying that a competitive Service Rifle resembles the
typical combat weapon any more then an IPSC race gun resembles a defensive
carry gun. A top-line Service Rifle is none too cheap. Some of them paid
for
with my tax dollars!