d_striker Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) Would you like to see PCC introduced at handgun matches? Edited February 3, 2016 by d_striker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onepocket Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Can I vote with all my accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 At this point I chose" I don't care". Tired of arguing about it quite frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) Can I vote with all my accounts. Have you ever read the forum guidelines? Edited February 4, 2016 by Sarge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BARRYJ Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Don't care, as long as it doesn't cause the matches to change their format or stages and doesn't slow down the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cas Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Don't care. We tried it in the past locally. Good turn out the first few times, then nothing, one or two shooters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronArcher Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Don't care, as long as it doesn't cause the matches to change their format or stages and doesn't slow down the match. ^^^ This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Yeah, to this. Since it looks like a foregone conclusion now, I'd like to challenge the MDs and stage designers to keep designing stages exactly as they did before, without making a bunch of changes to fit the rifles in. Without arguing about fine points like "this stage favors open or revo or SS or Prod" there shouldn't have to be any changes at all to accommodate rifles. (Yes, let's say it out loud, they're rifles.) Looking at the 800+ thread on PCC in the Rules forum, though, it seems like a large number of accommodations are being discussed to make us rifle-friendly. If we pistol shooters can come to a match and expect the same quality of stages we're accustomed to, the rifle crowd might find the membership to be a lot more accepting. (Again,not intending to start an argument about stage quality - for which there are ample threads already. You guys know what I mean.) Edited February 5, 2016 by teros135 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pskys2 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I've contacted my Area Director and the new President and expressed my reasoned thoughts on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanb Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I think it would be cool but I wouldn't want to run it as the only gun for a match. I spend too much time with my Main gun to screw around and lose a chance to shoot a match with it. I'd love to shoot it with my mpx sbr but only for fun. In taking over match director duties for my local shoot and I may offer this as a side shoot if there is enough interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_striker Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Don't care, as long as it doesn't cause the matches to change their format or stages and doesn't slow down the match. ^^^ This. It's already been established in the PCC thread that it will change the match. When PCC advocates were confronted with certain shooting challenges commonly seen in handgun matches that would not be possible with a rifle, the responses went full retard. There's talk of adding additional shooting boxes just for the PCC shooters that would not be able to complete the challenge or not including shooting challenges that include using a rope for support while in a hard lean because they are not safe. Edited February 5, 2016 by d_striker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cody6477 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 No other proposed division would potentially require alterations in stage design that can change the game for everybody else. I'm not sure I'm willing to be an RO with rifles in the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I have already voiced my support and reasoning in the other threads. I would also add that I hope it will grow to achieve participation levels that justify dedicated PCC-only matches... this would be a true win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Lot of "if's" in this whole thing. There's way too much being hypothesized here, in service of justifying bring rifles in.The above is especially interesting in light of the many statements that it's "just a few" rifle shooters, "they won't get in the way".And assuming there will be enough of a deluge that PCC will get its own matches, in the road to that they'll be deluging our matches for some time.Sounds like PCC is using USPSA as a "landing spot" while they grow their own sport. Edited February 5, 2016 by teros135 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gose Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I have already voiced my support and reasoning in the other threads. I would also add that I hope it will grow to achieve participation levels that justify dedicated PCC-only matches... this would be a true win-win. Dont be all exclusive by not letting the handgun guys shoot the PCC match. Who knows, they might even appreciate the challenge of having to aim for once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Lot of "if's" in this whole thing. There's way too much being hypothesized here, in service of justifying bring rifles in. The above is especially interesting in light of theany statements that it's "just a few" rifle shhoters, "they won't get in the way". And assuming there will be enough of a deluge that PCC will get its own matches, in the road to that they'll be deluging our matches for some time. Sounds like PCC is using USPSA as a "landing spot" while they grow their own sport. Nobody knows which way it could go. Maybe PCC stays small and remains just another way for our members to mix things up and have fun at our matches. Maybe PCC becomes so big in some locales that it can become its own separate event. We won't know until we try it. The starting point is incorporation into existing handgun matches because there is not yet a critical mass for PCC to stand alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Lot of "if's" in this whole thing. There's way too much being hypothesized here, in service of justifying bring rifles in. The above is especially interesting in light of theany statements that it's "just a few" rifle shhoters, "they won't get in the way". And assuming there will be enough of a deluge that PCC will get its own matches, in the road to that they'll be deluging our matches for some time. Sounds like PCC is using USPSA as a "landing spot" while they grow their own sport. Nobody knows which way it could go. Maybe PCC stays small and remains just another way for our members to mix things up and have fun at our matches. Maybe PCC becomes so big in some locales that it can become its own separate event. We won't know until we try it. The starting point is incorporation into existing handgun matches because there is not yet a critical mass for PCC to stand alone. That's pretty much what I said, and it's full of conjecture. Sounds like the primary benefit is to the rifle shooters. How will it benefit USPSA to do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) ... Sounds like the primary benefit is to the rifle shooters. How will it benefit USPSA to do this? Rifle shooters are members of USPSA too. The P stands for "practical", not "pistol". Edited February 5, 2016 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 ... Sounds like the primary benefit is to the rifle shooters. How will it benefit USPSA to do this? Rifle shooters are members of USPSA too. The P stands for "practical", not "pistol". And the "P" in PCC doesn't mean it's a pistol, or "like" a pistol. It's a rifle, and they've never been a division in USPSA pistol that I know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) ... Sounds like the primary benefit is to the rifle shooters. How will it benefit USPSA to do this? Rifle shooters are members of USPSA too. The P stands for "practical", not "pistol". And the "P" in PCC doesn't mean it's a pistol, or "like" a pistol. It's a rifle, and they've never been a division in USPSA pistol that I know of. It stands for PISTOL Caliber Carbine. The caliber is what makes it compatible with handgun courses of fire, not an arbitrary legal classification. Lots of new ideas in all fields of endeavor had, at one time, "never been done before". I don't know that that is a reason not to try them. Edited February 5, 2016 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_striker Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 ... Sounds like the primary benefit is to the rifle shooters. How will it benefit USPSA to do this? Rifle shooters are members of USPSA too. The P stands for "practical", not "pistol". I throw up every time I hear this red-herring, non-sequitur statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 ... Sounds like the primary benefit is to the rifle shooters. How will it benefit USPSA to do this? Rifle shooters are members of USPSA too. The P stands for "practical", not "pistol". I throw up every time I hear this red-herring, non-sequitur statement. WOW - The idea that rifle shooters are allowed into the USPSA has that kind of effect on you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_striker Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 ... Sounds like the primary benefit is to the rifle shooters. How will it benefit USPSA to do this? Rifle shooters are members of USPSA too. The P stands for "practical", not "pistol". I throw up every time I hear this red-herring, non-sequitur statement. WOW - The idea that rifle shooters are allowed into the USPSA has that kind of effect on you? Nope. I am a rifle shooter. I generally am disgusted by a lack of logic. I could use similar logic as the "p stands for practical" argument and shout something like, "If you don't love USPSA as it is, leave it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Freeman Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 If it gets more people out shooting, I am all for it. More gun owners on the range is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWLAZS Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 ... Sounds like the primary benefit is to the rifle shooters. How will it benefit USPSA to do this? Rifle shooters are members of USPSA too. The P stands for "practical", not "pistol". But the matches I shoot at are run by the handgun rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now