Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About bgary

  • Rank
    Burned Out
  • Birthday 01/24/1911

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Everett, WA (US)
  • Interests
    USPSA/IPSC, 3-gun, etc
  • Real Name
    Bruce Gary

Recent Profile Visitors

1,901 profile views
  1. Due to circumstances beyond our control, it will not be possible to hold the Area-1 match in Washington in August, as planned. Thanks to a bunch of awesome Section Coordinators and match planners, I'm happy to be able to announce that the 2020 Area-1 match will now be in Nampa, ID, the first week of October. Details should be on the USPSA calendar (and registration on practiscore) within the next day or so. Bruce
  2. I was actually in favor of getting rid of the weight thing entirely. It's a pain in the ass to administrate, it's already been moved a number of times and... IMO, it's a self-solving problem. Our sport has always been about trade-offs ("do I want to go fast and get a good time, or slow down and get good hits") How heavy a gun is, is one of those tradeoffs (do I want a heavy gun to manage recoil, or a light gun for faster transitions... or whatever) I suspect at some point we'll stop moving the limit and just get rid of it. Get out of the way of letting the shooter figure out what works best for them... (Just Bruce's Opinion)
  3. What you are "exactly" saying is that USPSA officers and directors accept manufacturer money - directly or indirectly - as part of our rules-making process. I'm saying you're dead wrong. The money that comes in from manufacturers is in the form of sponsor fees and ad buys. The money does not buy them ANY influence - it's purely transactional. Want to sponsor a stage? Here's what it costs. Want to put a full-page ad in our magazine? Here's what it costs. Period. In point of fact, we don't even exercise any preference. There are times when a "big name" company comes in late and wants to sponsor a stage or a match after all the opportunities are taken. Too bad, so sad, step up earlier next time. the sponsor-money or ad-money from Joe Bob's Sportswear Emporium is exactly the same to us - and has exactly the same "influence" - as the money from Big Name Gun Manufacturer. When you use words like "kickback, access, favors", you're making an accusation which is not only untrue, it's potentially harmful to the reputation of the org I (and presumably you) love. Same as when you say "the equipment rules [reflect] what the influencers want to see". You're saying we - *I* - can be bought, and I don't take that lightly. The equipment rules reflect what we, the elected representatives of the members, feel is the best set of competitive options for those members, present and future, given that equipment and interests are changing every day. The other thing I'd add is.... I highly doubt manufacturers are paying a lot of attention to USPSA. We have ~35,000 members, of whom maybe ~25,000 are active in a year, and those are spread across eight different divisions. Even if a manufacturer wanted to sell something to every active member, the total number we're talking about isn't even shipment of guns, let alone a production run, from their perspective. *we* think we're bigtime, but... to them, we're a rounding error in the marketing plan. Nobody is going to pay USPSA to change a rule. They're going to build the guns that they think will appeal to the broadest (and most profitable) market, and its OUR job to try to keep up with the changes and decide if they're good for our sport. And even if they were willing to spend the money to try to buy influence? We wouldn't take it. It's not what we do. Bruce
  4. I love a good conspiracy theory. And I'm sure nothing I say will change any determined minds, but... I've been around (behind the scenes at HQ, at Nationals, and on the Board) for more than 20 years.... under Hollar, Voigt, Strader and Foley... and I've never seen "money buying influence". The only place manufacturer money comes into play is when they sponsor something or buy an ad. Do they have a say in how USPSA is run? depends on how you define the term "run". No, they don't have a say in how any Board member votes. Not on rules, not on equipment, not on match administration or staffing, not on Nationals venues, nothing. They *do* have a voice, though, by way of what they produce. We want to be relevant to our members, and so if Some Big Company comes out with a new model that our members are likely to want to use in USPSA competition, we have to pay attention to that and decide how to deal with it. But there's a difference between "paying attention to manufacturers" and "being bought by manufacturers. The weight change was not pushed by a manufacturer, was not vetted with manufacturers, and for damn-sure was not "bought" by a manufacturer. It's a simple reaction to the fact that the market has changed, and the Board had to decide whether to allow heavier in-market guns to compete in the division, or not. Kickbacks? Seriously? Whatevs. Officers and Directors are *required* to declare a conflict of interest if they have a financial relationship with a company, and if a discussion involves that company the person with the conflict has to remove themselves from the matter. Not just the vote - they can't even be part of the discussion. #FactsMatter
  5. 15 round comes up in discussion every year. The biggest argument "for" is alignment with IPSC. So far, most of the members who have given me input have indicated that's not enough of a reason, and the challenge of the 10-round limit is part of why the division is interesting to them. SA and major? Very doubtful. At the end of the day, there's strong interest in making sure there are differentiators between divisions to make them different competitive challenges. Allowing SA and major in Production would *really* erase most of the lines between Production and Limited, and... there's no good reason to do that. JMHO.
  6. Agreed. At the moment, the big lines around Production are: not SAO, iron sights, at least some number built, minor scoring, 10-round limit, fits in the box, less than 59oz. I suspect one of four things will happen - either -- the 59oz limit becomes meaningless because competitors decide it isn't a competitive advantage to shoot a gun that heavy; or, -- manufacturers see a market and start producing heavier guns that are "factory produced" and the Board decides to adjust the weight limit (again) or -- manufacturers see a market and start producing heavier guns that are "factory produced" and the Board decides to exclude them, or -- we get rid of the weight limit entirely, but continue to keep the line drawn at not-SAO, minor, 10 rounds, iron sights, fits in the box, etc. Arguably, three of those are competitor-centered (based on the idea that we should let competitors choose the equipment that they believe best suits their competitive interests within the rules of the division). One of them is, arguably, drawing another arbitrary line in a place that serves only to "limit competitor choices". I'm not personally sure which is best.
  7. I don't disagree, but... how does that work at the Chrono table? If someone walks up with a... I don't know, Sig something-or-other.... is the weight+4 based on a specific manufacturer SKU? Is it based on a specific range of serial numbers? Is it based on which grip-module is installed? Is it based on whether or not it has factory options (extended controls, adjustable sights, etc)? For that one "model" of gun, there might be 5 or 10 or 20 different "factory weights"... does it make sense to (try to) maintain a list that includes all of them, and is updated every time the manufacturer adds a new "factory option"....?
  8. That "truly stock" thing fell apart about a half-hour after the rules were first published (back in 2000) The original "vision" of production division was a beginner's division; bring whatever you have from the bedside table, come out to play for a few matches and then, once you have a classification you can decide which "real" division you want to compete in. Seriously. In the orignal draft of the rules, you couldn't compete in Production after you had some number of matches under your belt. To bolster that, the rules basically required box-stock guns, "as produced". What we found was that the division was interesting to a whole lot of people besides the brand-new-to-USPSA competitor. And that NOBODY had a "box stock" gun. Even the guy with a G17 in his bedside table added an extended mag-release, night-sights, whatever... which (in theory) made it illegal to use in the "box stock" division. Thus began the slide down the slippery slope. USPSA amended the rules to say that certain internal modifications were allowed. People interpreted that to mean "if you can't see the change from the outside, it's an internal mod and therefore legal". We actually re-wrote the entire rule-set in 2009, IIRC, in an attempt to land the idea that ONLY certain mods were allowed, and that it was on the shooter to be able to point to a rule that made a modification legal. That didn't go over well. Flash forward to today. There's (literally) no way to write a rule that draws a clear bright line between what's a legal mod and what is not. If a model on the approved list comes with an extended slide-stop (or whatever), can I put it on my gun, which is also on the approved list? And, more to the point, the manufacturers are leveraging what *they* see as interesting corners of the market - milled slides, modular grips, weights, competition parts.... So just what *is* a "production gun" these days? If it is a gun "as produced" by the factory, does that mean "in the exact configuration" it came in the box, or does that mean plus-or-minus factory options, or does it mean plus-or-minus a different grip module... or...? And... how in the world would the guy at Chrono know whether or not the thing you put on the table is "as produced" or legally modified or NOT legal for the division? That's the problem the Board has been trying to sort out. Underscored by two premises: there are a lot of guns on the market that are "produced" in a configuration that includes many things that were "modifications" only a couple of years ago. And if "we" can't tell whether or not a gun is legal under the rules, then... the rules don't really mean much. At some level, the things that differentiate Production from the other divisions are: Not SAO, iron sights, at least some number built, minor scoring, 10-round limit, fits in the box. THOSE things we can objectively determine. The other things? that's a lot harder, and it gets harder every time a manufacturer comes out with a new model that contains "features" that - last year - were modifications. $.02 Bruce
  9. Max won all 8 Area matches in 1 year, but I don't think he won the Nationals in that same year...
  10. If I can help (even if just to bounce ideas around), let me know area1 "at" uspsa "dot" org Bruce
  11. I ran a stage this past weekend at the WA-state match, and was sorta surprised at the number of people who run a second optic on a canted mount (eg. a 45-degree mount on the right side of the rail) I've only been shooting PCC for a few months, and haven't felt the "need" for a second optic. I run a canted dot on my 3-gun AR, but that seems like a different scenario - the dot for up-close and a magnified optic for further out, since all the distances are pretty much "up close" for a PCC in a pistol match, it doesn't seem like that's the reason. What's the advantage of a second/canted optic? How often is it "needed"? Is it primarily for stages where you have to lean toward weak-side around a wall or obstacle? Or....? ...and, having been working to keep my PCC light... is it worth the weight? Thx, Bruce
  12. I'm using the stock spring and 5 tungsten weights (basically the same as their 5H5 model), it works great for me.
  13. Hmmm.... all I "know" at this point is what I've read, and the gen-3 was described as the new model with comp and timney trigger. That's what I bought. Is that what you're calling the PCC model?
  14. I recently picked up a gen-3 MPX, and now I'm paying attention to all the places where someone mentions gen-1 magazines or gen-2 magazines. Are there differences I should care about? Are there ways to tell the difference at a glance? Will older (gen-1) mags work in a gen-3 MPX? Is there such a thing as a gen-3 magazine? Anything else I should know? Thx...
  15. G10 is a laminated composite, just like carbon fiber is. cloth saturated with epoxy resin. The main difference between G10 and carbon fiber is that the "matrix" in G10 is woven glass cloth, where in carbon fiber the matrix is, well, woven carbon-fiber cloth. G10 tubes are available off the shelf in a whole variety of sizes... https://www.mcmaster.com/grade-g-10/fr4-garolite-tubing It won't be quite as light as CF for the same lay-up thickness, but should otherwise have very similar characteristics.
  • Create New...