BritinUSA

Brian created some T-shirts back in 2009 so he may have a higher resolution image of the logo (and forum-name) somewhere.

I think there’s a lot of truth to this. It may also explain why many participants shy away from Nationals or other major competitions; When faced with challenging stages they find that simply do not have the skills. Small and medium stages generally favor shooting skills over foot speed and agility. Is this sport primarily a shooting challenge or an athletic challenge. Or perhaps it’s no longer a sport, maybe it’s just a hobby.

A good match should provide for a mix of small, medium and large stages; IPSC mandates the 3-2-1 ratio at their major matches and it makes for a challenging contest, and not just a running match. Too many L1 matches are based on high round-count. This pushes people into higher-capacity divisions, as they don’t want to have to reload every time they take a step. Reloading requires more magazine-cleaning which is a pain in the butt. Balance is everything, but in USPSA is all lop-sided primarily due to poor stage design.

In order for merchandizing to work there needs to be a high-quality version (SVG) of the logo. To the best of my knowledge the ENO logo only exists as a low-quality JPEG.

Curious, what was awful about it? Was it too hard, too slow, not enough competitors ?

I’m guessing you mean via participation levels? So some people may want to shoot both divisions at a Nationals event ?

Practical Shooting is a test of Speed, Power and Accuracy; How can they test the accuracy potential of a rifle without exceeding the accuracy potential of a Production handgun ? If there is to be a PCC Nationals then perhaps it should be a stand-alone event with target presentation that fully tests the potential of the rifle/shooter.

It takes 5 people (votes) to change the USPSA rule-book, it’s takes about 56 to make changes in IPSC. I think USPSA should be more transparent with regard to all decisions (in no particular order); Who is requesting the change ? Do they have a financial interest in the change ? What is the objective of the change ? How will it improve the sport, enhance skills etc ? How will it’s effectiveness be measured ? What happens if it causes negative un-intended consequences ? What will it cost the membership ?

Might I suggest creating accounts on Instagram, Twitter, Gab, Truth Social etc. So that a status can be posted if there is an outage.

Confirm that you’re not bumping the slide lock lever when shooting. Apply ink to the lever, if there is any on your hands after you shoot then that may be the cause. Make sure the magazine catch is not worn, if the magazine can move vertically when shooting then it could trip the lever. As Sarge suggests maybe remove some material from the slide lock so it does not lock open when empty.

He's getting the error on this topic: Its pointing to an old link

I think some of the Nationals matches actually state that photographs and video of competitors may be taken to promote the sport etc..

No, people got mad because they ruined the original concept of the division. The rule changes appealed to the new shooter who did not want to change any of their gear in order to compete. It appealed to the participant who just wants to have fun at the range instead of learning how to do mag changes and plan stages around them. It appealed to the vendors who would sell more stuff and then sponsor Nationals in return for the increased sales. And one more thing; it’s a DIVISION not a CLASS

Custom guns are available in most countries. When I was living in Europe, both CZ and Tanfoglio were producing excellent factory Open/Standard guns. Guns built around the so-called 2011 frame (they were available long before 2011) were much more expensive due to import duties from USA, which priced them out of reach for many competitors. Production division grew rapidly in Europe mostly for two reasons. The division was significantly cheaper and ammunition was easily available for those that did not (or could not) reload. At the start there was no magazine capacity, it only had to fit in the box with a magazine included. Later it was reduced to 15 rounds which did not appear to have any impact on its popularity.

Note that Production Optics is still a provisional division in IPSC, due to be ratified at the next GA at the 2022 World Shoot

Not provable at this point.There is no control group. The division may have taken off with 10 or 15 rounds. It’s just speculation. Now if IPSC Production Optics takes off in a big way (top four divisions) then it will disprove your theory as the mag capacity is set at 15. If Production Optics does not become one of the top four divisions in IPSC then it would indicate that your theory may be correct.

Perhaps the ones without the weights have already mastered the skills.

My car has a manual transmission, now commonly referred to as a ‘Millennial anti-theft device’. Which I think proves my point a little

The divisions are not sustainable due the manner in which they are changing. As the requirements for divisions are becoming more inclusive they will eventually merge into a single division. This will happen either with rule changes, or via attrition as participation drops below the break-down point. The break-down point is that moment when participation drops so low that participants abandon their chosen division as there is too little or no competition left for them to compete against. The origins of this sport are based on the goal of improving handgun skills, when the technology reduces the need for them, so those skills will begin to decline. As an analogy, consider the technology in cars for parallel parking assist. Using this technology on a regular basis could eventually lead to an inability to parallel park manually. If the continued goal of practical shooting is to enhance skills then it seems reasonable to require that the various divisions be imperfect. Each division should have flaws or weaknesses that the competitor must overcome to reach the potential within that division. As an example; One of the key skills in handgun competition is muzzle-control. The ability to reduce the movement of gun once the bullet has left the barrel. This takes effort and training to find the best solution for each person, and it will vary to some degree based on strength, build and technique. This training and skill can be replicated by adding a brass weight with a 25¢ LED to the end of the gun. The need for that skill has been reduced/eradicated. Does that comply with the principles/objective of the sport? To me it does not.

I think there is a need to be cautious when it comes to daylight hours. I remember when Nationals was at Desert Sportsman one October. When the sun dipped behind the mountains some of the berms were in near darkness, even though the sunset hours for the state were much later.

So just to clarify; I’ve been a member of USPSA for 24 years and have spent many thousands of dollars promoting the sport, but because I have not renewed my membership I am no longer allowed to express an opinion ?

It appears easier for the vendors to provide prizes; They can say they donated $3000 worth of prizes though the actually cost to the vendor could be significantly lower. It’s a win-win for the vendor but none of this helps to improve the quality of the match. Nationals events seem to have lost a lot of their prestige, especially when compared to overseas events. USPSA needs to completely rethink how Nationals are run, it cannot continue to throw money away like this. It’s time to end the participation trophies (prize table) and focus on the QUALITY of the event.

I could say the same thing about IPSC. Their major championships are significantly better organized and presented than anything I have seen in USA in decades. Match sponsorship is cash-only, not prizes, so the money can go into RO costs, props etc..

Per the financial statements it appears that most (if not all) the Nationals lose money.

It's a misdemeanor, not felony. Not that it makes it much better though. I suspect the org may shift the venue due to the recent negative attention, and the proximity to the elections.