beltjones

I actually like this idea better than my original one. The S&W M&P C.O.R.E. in 9mm would be perfect for production open. I'd quit shooting revolver and go back to shooting production again if this were to happen. Yep....wouldn't be an equipment race. Many gunsmiths can mill slides for optics at a reasonably fair price. Can be done to any Production gun.It's an equipment race -- the capacity along excludes a bunch of guns that can't achieve 16+1...... The issue is whether eliminating mag limits would exclude shooters not whether it would exclude guns. Every Glock 9 can get to 17. CZ and Tan and SF and M&P and Beretta, no problem. I believe new shooters of these pistols woulld embrace the idea of loading their mags up to the standard designed capacities. Based on what? A hunch? Again, once upon a time it was ok in Production to load mags to their factory capacity, and the resulting arms race is what prompted IPSC to go to a 15 round limit. So based on historical evidence, shooters don't embrace the idea of loading mags to "standard designed" capacities. To put it more simply, the evidence shows that shooters were compelled to buy new gear to get or maintain a competitive advantage, but they weren't too happy about it.

Production Optics could be a great idea, IF there is a plan to use the division to market the sport to new shooters, to bring back old members who left, or to keep members who might have otherwise left. Likewise, if there is a plan to market the division to "thought leaders" in the tactical crowd, to gain increased sponsorship from industry partners, and so on, then it might be worth investigating. However, you have to calculate the cost of adding a division, from the man hours required to update the rule book to the effort to sponsor a new division at matches. It's not free, and if USPSA is going to undertake it then they ought to a) come up with a new division that will provide the biggest bang for the buck; and develop a plan to get the most out of their efforts in terms of sponsorship and membership.

You guys made some interesting points, but you didn't quantify at all how this would improve member retention or attract new members. Thus, it's kind of pointless. "Failing to try" is bad, but just throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall without data to support it, without a strategic perspective, without a visition into the endstate of things, without a structured plan for how to get there, etc is just bad management.

So basically your answer is, "why not?"

Ok, I see the point you're trying to make. However, can you address the following: 1. Why is expanding mag capacity to 15 rounds a good idea? What net benefit will it have for the sport?

I say buy the SP-01. You can relegate it to backup duty when the Shadow comes in.

No. It would alienate plenty of people in 10 round limit states who play in Production. It's just a preference by a few people who want to avoid a reload or two on a stage who can easily shoot Limited if they want to load up their magazines. Now you go. I think more highly of USPSA shooters in gun unfriendly states to believe that they would be alienated by less restrictive mag limits for matches in other, more hospitable climes. Then I guess you've never run a match in those states...... No, but I once told a guy from New York hoe I always loaded fifteen rounds in my G19 magazine and got no adverse reaction from him. Is this a non-sequitur? What point are you trying to make?

You're aware that only a handful of people shoot Revolver, and Production is one of the more popular divisions, right? So changing Production would impact more people than changing revolver would, and even still it was a hotly debated topic when they were deciding whether to try 8 rd minor in Revolver. I agree about mandating reloads, but somehow the BOD missed that idea and they deleted about a dozen classifiers the other day. I'm afraid the same thing would happen again. I don't know why this doesn't make sense, but 10 rd max states still have Limited and Open because a lot of those shooters have legacy magazines, or because they use loopholes to buy "parts" that they then assemble. New shooters don't have legacy magazines, and as an organization it's probably a bad idea to instruct people to skirt the law. Thus, to allow new shooters in those states it's a good idea to have a division they can readily jump into, and Production fits that bill nicely.

You know how Production is an arms race, with everybody clamoring to get the new CZ/Tanfo hotness? Now imagine that it starts all over again with everyone trying to get the new Production gun that holds 20 rounds in a factory mag instead of just 17. This happened once before, and that's why IPSC stipulated 15 rounds in the first place. If you can believe it, at one point the Para LDA was the hot ticket because of mag capacity. Do we really want that to happen again? Why hasn't USPSA adopted the 15 round capacity limit for production? Not kosher in all states Not all guns capable of meeting production division equipment rules are capable of holding 15 -- trust me this matters to the weekly match MD who has newbies showing up with Glock 23s, Beretta .40s, Sig 220s, etc. Why fix what isn't broken? I don't think that is a valid argument. Each division has allowances that make certain guns or gear more advantageous. 15 rounds is not keeping a new shooter with any of those guns from being competitive. And when a shooter is at the level where it is hindering their competitive ability, time for them to buck up and play the game for real. Production may be the entry level, and cheapest, and blah, blah.....but ammo and components are the real expense, and is what truly sets the level on the playing field. No, your argument is the one that is invalid. As I wrote previously, if you are making the argument that new shooters aren't concerned with relative match performance, and thus they won't mind shooting a gun that doesn't have a capacity of 15 rounds (or more), then the same logic applies to having new shooters shoot in Limited. If one argument is true then so is the other, and it makes more sense to put a new shooter in Limited than it does to fundamentally change the nature of Production division, throw out a bunch of classifiers, force a bunch of current members to buy new magazines, and alienate people in 10 round states.

quote fail.

No. It would alienate plenty of people in 10 round limit states who play in Production. It's just a preference by a few people who want to avoid a reload or two on a stage who can easily shoot Limited if they want to load up their magazines. Now you go.

The point is, if the intention is to lower barriers to entry into the sport, then raising the Production mag limits (assuming Production is where new shooters start) isn't going to help. If anything, it will make it more expensive to compete, because people will not only need all the gear they need now, they will also need fancy pants basepads on their magazines, and probably springs and followers, too. If someone is going to make the argument that new shooters don't care about performance, and thus won't factor in that cost when first getting into the sport, then then the same logic would suggest they would be happy starting out in Limited or Open with whatever pistol they already happen to own. Either way, raising the mag limits doesn't make logical sense.

Attracting the carry crowd or the tactical crowd assumes that USPSA will actually market itself to that crowd. Simply adding a division isn't going to get people out of bed on a Saturday to come shoot a match. It's going to take a lot more than that, and I'd like to see some moves made in the direction of attracting new members before they go tinkering with new divisions. I mean, I cannot remember the last time I was at the range practicing - with just a pistol - and someone asked me if I shoot USPSA. I can remember dozens of times that they asked me if I shoot 3-Gun. The awareness of USPSA among the general public is nil, and that needs to change before adding a new division will accomplish anything.

You know how Production is an arms race, with everybody clamoring to get the new CZ/Tanfo hotness? Now imagine that it starts all over again with everyone trying to get the new Production gun that holds 20 rounds in a factory mag instead of just 17. This happened once before, and that's why IPSC stipulated 15 rounds in the first place. If you can believe it, at one point the Para LDA was the hot ticket because of mag capacity. Do we really want that to happen again?

I don't know why these ideas to change divisions always seem to come from someone who doesn't even compete in the division.

Jay, I like that you are taking a fresh look at HHF's, but I would suggest that - based on your proposal - you don't have the statistical background to really fix the system. Your "bottom of the top 10 scores" idea is pretty bad from a statistical standpoint. It would be better to do as Chills1994 suggests and use a normalized distribution to calculate the frequency at which a certain score is shot, then use that to classify people based on percentiles as defined in the rule book (ie, GM's at 95% and so on).

I refuse to believe they had any money left over after paying for the goods on the prize tables and giving division winners cash, especially considering how low the match fees were.

I spoke to Massimo Tanfoglio's son at SHOT Show. Unfortunately they have no plans or intentions of ever finding another US distributor, and worse, they seem largely unaware and uninterested in any complaints about EAA. On a humorous note, at the Arsenal booth (makers of that new Strike One pistol), the sales guy proudly announced that once the ATF approves importation, they have a signed agreement in place for EAA to import the guns. The guffaw from about 6 people standing nearby was considerable. The look on the sales guy's face was pretty sad as all of us tried to explain to him that he just crushed any hope of ever seeing the guns on American soil.

Is hotel info available?

Paying an executive/managerial position (even a part time one) $55K/year and expecting top performance is a serious threat to the continuity of the organization, in my opinion. Hopefully there are a couple of viable candidates.

There are some smoking deals on potential "backup" guns on here all the time. I got a beat up looking gun built by Shay for a song, but it has a fantastic trigger, it's reliable, and it's accurate. If I consider that it typically costs upwards of $1000 to attend an out of state match, then it seems crazy to me to not spend a little more than that to take along a back up gun. Like someone posted above, you could even outfit a G20 to fire your 2011 match ammo, though you would probably need to take along different holster/mag pouches for it.

Koenig competed at SS Nats and was a non-factor. I don't think he's in the discussion for USPSA/IPSC. If you want to talk about #2, it's Vogel, Stoeger, Nils, Sevigny, Max. But the fact is, this is Eric's sport. When you have a #1 this dominant, it really doesn't matter who is #2. This isn't Ali/Frasier, this is like living in the prime Mike Tyson era and arguing whether Trevor Berbick or Leon Spinks was #2.

We can still start shooting at 10:00am per the original post, right?

Whoa, wait a sec. I'm impressed that you guys have already gotten all of it set up, but are you talking about staff and ROs shooting the pre-match, or are people out there practicing the stages?

How many rounds are people bringing to this thing? 500ish?