mikeg1005
-
Posts
540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by mikeg1005
-
-
4 minutes ago, SufferInSilence said:
- The ones with top dollar sponsorship
- The ones that go to natz and win
You realize there's like maybe 2 or 3 guys who do this for a living... and none of them have won nats recently? Everyone else has a day job.
-
2 minutes ago, SufferInSilence said:
The good ones. Not the ones that got lucky on a couple of classifiers.
So... the people who are at the top of the game, the sport should not be influenced by them? Who should it be influenced by in that case?
-
18 hours ago, SufferInSilence said:
Exactly… NO! This sport does not/should not focus on the “TOP” shooters. It was never designed so that Elite GMs
WTF is an elite GM?
-
43 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
I know that LO (if it's minor only) will have no effect whatsoever on whether I shoot limited, and I don't think it will have any effect on my 2 closest local competitors. I will probably just ignore the division and continue to shoot limited most of the time, and CO for a few months when I feel like it.
CO has already caused issues for limited... creating a division where you can shoot limited guns with a dot and not go into open will finish it.
It might not be an immediate thing but overtime people will opt for LO since people like 9mm and dots over 40 cal and irons.
-
I still think its cool but USPSA is notorious for f*#king up its own amateur sport by doing wholesale rule changes that impact divisions and multi thousands of dollars that people have invested into it. USPSA killed production and limited when they allowed CO to have 140mm mags and not match production optics from IPSC. It allowed for cheap guns to shoot hicap with a dot.
Limited will probably remain the 3rd biggest division at most majors but it will substantially smaller than open or CO.
The real issue is whether or not USPSA will approve limited optics in some fashion... I'm predicting when they do this either by absorbing 2011s into CO or making their own division that limited will be 100% dead.
-
7 minutes ago, IVC said:
It's even more weird that the NROI would want to change the rules to explicitly allow these types of misuses, instead of trying to clean it up. If it was up to me, I would say that there is one procedural for too many shots fired before the reload and one procedural for too few shots fired after the reload. If the guy fired the 13th shot and hit the target more than 12 times, it would be an extra one for the extra hit. But it's obviously not up to me
That would be a wrong application of extra shots. Extras shots apply to the whole string or stage...not a part of it(before the reload) rulebook specifically says this.
No penalty for lack of 2nd shot since the hit is on paper from before (no Mike) and you engage it "again" after reload.
-
3 minutes ago, IVC said:
There is nothing in the current rules that would differentiate (4, 0 - 0, 4) from (3, 1 - 1, 3). There is an example in A3, but it's just an example, not an exhaustive list. The wording only uses "more/fewer", so even if we argue that more/fewer applies to the totals for the COF and not before/after reload, still the two cases cannot be differentiated under the current rule wording. They are either both valid (no procedurals) or both invalid (stacking).
There is....NROI has an article saying this is ok and the rule stipulates stacking requires lack of transition (current rule and new clarification).
-
So 10.2.2.1 says where shots are fired doesn't matter as long as they add up and you engage stuff correctly.
The example states that shootiny only ONE shot on the last target 2,2,3 reload 2,2,"1" is ok because you engaged the target, and shooting another shot would be extra shot/hit.
So.... let's say a WSB is written exactly the same...but a second string is added 2,2,2 freestyle, reload, 2,2,2 SHO.
What rule...would prevent me from doing 3,3,3 FS, reload, 1,1,1 SHO.
It is not stacking as stacking only applies if you don't engage all targets and I didn't violate 10.2.2 because 10.2.2.1 states penalties cannot be given for wrong shots fired in WSB so no violation for competitive advantage.
Legal, yes?
-
Just now, IVC said:
Is it already adopted? I looked at the actual wording of the most current rules published on the USPSA website.
The example they give in the current rulebook is 2,2 reload 2,2...if shot 4,0 reload 0,4 is stacking.
3,1 reload 1,3 is not stacking...its not anything per this interpretation in the question of the month.
-
2 minutes ago, IVC said:
The reload is at the correct time since WSB says to reload after engaging T1-T3 which he did.
But I'm not following why 9.4.5.3 doesn't apply (stacked shots) since the default is that stacked shots are NOT allowed (unless specifically authorized). The appendix A3 defines stacked shots as: "Shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing." which is exactly what the shooter did.
Shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shootingother target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing.Uspsa clarified stacking of shots in the new rule audit saying it's stacking if you avoid transitions. Not shots on target being wrong. So as long as you engage all the targets its not stacking.
-
17 minutes ago, CC3D said:
People want to be competitive in the division they shoot. Nobody wants to shoot 40.
Lets be honest though, what percent of limited shooters right now are shooting major vs minor? And how many of those minor shooters would instantly switch to production if it allowed 141mm magazines? I'd say pretty much all of them.
So yes, it would kill limited participation but there is absolutely a market for a division that allows high cap minor iron guns to be competitive.
The market you speak of went to CO already, its why production is dying.
All you're going to do is take limited and make it competitive with 9mm instead of 40. So you've essentially added nothing to USPSA other than making people change all their equipment to shoot the exact same division.
14 minutes ago, deerslayer said:
How many current lim-minor shooters use guns that would be legal in Production?Only the ones that are newbies or weekend warriors that don't want to reload after 10rds and have 0 concern about being competitive in USPSA.... and Nils, but he doesn't count.
-
2 minutes ago, obsessiveshooter said:
But with the volatility of the rules etc, it would be hard to know what to buy into. Definitely not a striker fired pistol, because what if they merged CO and LO next year?
This, exactly. USPSA changing rules on such a large scale is the worst thing they can do for new members and member retention.
-
10 hours ago, motosapiens said:
it is far easier and far cheaper to add a frame mount to an existing limited gun than it is to mill the slide to accept an optic. If frame mounts are allowed, I will put one on my limited gun, (and I will still be able to use the iron sites if needed.)if it is slide mount only, I will probably completely ignore a limited optic division.
You can buy an optic mount for a bomar slide cut for like $50.
If they truly allow frame mounted optics then they need to just call it what it is "muzzle device-less open" because that's what it will be lol.
-
Just now, Boomstick303 said:
And now I can shoot it in LO not having to shoot Major. Thanks USPSA.
You never had to shoot major, you could always shoot minor in open. We don't need to add divisions, open covers this niche group of people. -
Just now, Boomstick303 said:
I will never understand how allowing more guns to play in USPSA is a bad thing. How allowing people to shoot what they want is a bad thing.
It will be interesting to see the Platform makeup of LO is after a year or two.
If it makes it through the provisional stage.
You were always allowed to shoot those guns, in open. You are really not grasping this concept
-
1 minute ago, Boomstick303 said:
Curious if this will increase wait times at all of the 2011 shops significantly?
Not at all. Most of those lead times are due to builders taking their time vs. backlog.
-
1 minute ago, RJH said:
Thanks for blowing another supposed reason that guns can't compete with a 2011 out of the water
Excellent, now we can put them in CO instead their own division lol.
-
Just now, RJH said:
So you are saying you can get 24 rounds in a mag that doesn't fit the guage?
I mean 141.25mm, brain fart and called it a 142mm.
-
Just now, Boomstick303 said:
Fits the USPSA gage?
Sorry... 141.25" (rounded up incorrectly)
Yes it does.
-
2 minutes ago, RJH said:
And people actually enjoy shooting 2011s the most, but saying you have to have a $4000+ dollar gun to compete is not true
We have already discussed this, but since you can get 23+ 1 in a CZ, I am not sure it's an issue
You can get 24+1 in a 2011 but in reality... Nils just won limited with a $400 plastic minor gun. None if this 'actually' matters.
-
3 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:
This is not true in every instance. Max round count in my 2011 mags is 23+1, and I can get that round count in my CZ Shadow 2 and P320s.
I can 24+1 in an SV 9mm 142mm mag and in limited 40cal mags are usually 1-2rds over CZ, Tanfos, and Glocks (Confirmed by people who shoot them). I don't think its enough of a factor to impact the division overall, more of a thing to consider when buying a new gun.
-
1 minute ago, RJH said:
I also forgot about all the various CZ and tankfolio Sao guns or even da/sa guns that can be fired single action. If anybody tells me those guns can't compete with a 2011 they're completely full of s***
Most of those can be had for well under $3,000 as well, many under $2,000 some under a grand
They can and do but people opt from 2011s due to mag capacity over CZ and tangfo.
-
8 minutes ago, RJH said:
Companies making sub $4,000 2011s: Springfield, staccato, MasterPiece arms. A few that are almost 2011's bul, SPS maybe, Rock Island, Dan Wesson dwx. Probably some others that I'm not thinking of right now
Some interesting guns that are in no way 2011's: various Browning high power copies, sig X5, and whatever that new 1911 hybrid that uses sig mags is.
Most of those guns are under $3,000, some are well under 3,000. Hell some are under a thousand. You can buy a ready to go CZ shadow of some form from a gun shop for about three grand for carryops now though LOL
If LO happens it will still end up looking like limited. You're going to have 2011s dominate (ranging from people with 9mm STIs with dots milled all the way to the most expensive SVs) due to mag capacity and ease of finding parts and you'll have a small % of other people showing up with the other guns but not many.
-
1 minute ago, Zachjet said:
A lot more off the self options for LO
that won’t be close to 4k
Agreed, but not in a 2011.
Limited optics strong early showing
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
I like your lingo up until now I though Elite GMs were just GMs who people thought were douche canoes but you're saying they're what we call the opposite of paper GMs lol.