BritinUSA

In any sport a competitor's skills (when compared to others) will generally rise at the start, plateau at some point and then begin to decline. If the classification system does not recognize that reality then it should probably change. If the peak times change, does it alter existing classifications or do they stay the same ?

They are not on the USPSA web-site, anything older than 2010 was going to be added to a separate page, but it shows as still under construction. Might be worth emailing USPSA direct to get a response.

Even the best RO can miss things. The sport happens so fast that an infraction can occur in the blink of an eye. I’ve personally witnessed people (some of them sponsored) tell the RO about scoring mistakes when it lowers their own score. Its a tough call to make; But most people are honest and I think if you witness something then tell the shooter before they sign off on their score. Then the onus is on them to correct it with the RO, if they choose not to, that’s on them too.

I've seen competitors on a super-squad call out mistakes at major matches, more than once.

When a person lacks the intelligence to form a cogent argument, there is always the last refuge, the personal insult. For the record I don’t give a single damn about the election results. The USPSA membership voted for someone else and all the good (and bad) decisions and bylaws that resulted from this are the responsibility of those that voted for him and the BOD. After the election, I continued to support the sport, providing photographs, videos and articles for the organization, it’s members and sponsors. If the results bothered me so much then why would I do that? I certainly did not make any money from it. With regard to the CO ruleset, it’s fascinating to hear people state that the growth is solely due to the magazine capacity and the other lax rules. If IPSC’s Production Optics shows growth then I wonder what the reason will be ? I don’t like what USPSA has done to the rules, and I didn’t agree with the concept of un-restrained growth in the sport that led to 20-25 person squads at some L1 matches, so I stopped shooting. I still care about a sport that I’ve been involved in for 30 years, but I see no reason to keep giving my money each year to an organization that pays so little regard to the very people that generate all of its revenue.

After '98 the amount of divergence began to increase, and the previous administration moved USPSA significantly further from the host organization, particularly in the division requirements. I am still of the opinion that IPSC will one day pull USPSA's affiliation to allow for a new organization that follows the IPSC rules. In the past this would have been unthinkable as USA was by far the largest region. I don't think this is the case any longer.

I thought the IPSC 3-2-1 ratio was for majors, and not club matches, there are exclusions for L1 matches for round count and freestyle etc. I think this basically allows for more freedom on stage designs and stage descriptions.

When it comes to short courses, I think there is a big difference between IPSC and USPSA. For the most part, short courses in the US are generally classifiers that have very little (if any) movement. An IPSC short stage can have cover a lot of ground and require a perfect balance between speed / accuracy that is hard to find in many medium or large courses.

Not an RTS2 but I just checked both my DPP sights that I have not used since September 2019. Both sights are still working. If I recall I put new Duracell batteries in them both at the start of that year. So whatever matches I shot in 2019 plus 2.5 years sitting in a box.

Depends on stage design, four lose eight-shot arrays can be shot a lot faster than 16 individual targets spread over a long distance.

The changes made it both easier, and more expensive.

The same people would win regardless of what the division requirements are, so it has no bearing on this issue. The extra magazine capacity makes it easier to: 1. Plan stages around reloads as most field stages now only require a single reload instead of 2 or 3. 2. Fire more make-up shots (to counter poor accuracy) with less need for a standing reload. The addition of muzzle-weights in the form of weapon lights, tungsten guide-rods etc, make it easier to control muzzle-flip. Moving the magazine holders to anywhere on the belt makes reloads easier and faster; Though admittedly its not much of a gain as the 23-24 round magazine capacity has all but eliminated the need for fast reloads except on classifiers. Essentially all the changes that the BoD made to CO has made the division easier to shoot; If the concept of these changes was to reduce the necessary skills to be competitive in this division, then it has been successful. If you cannot see this, then you are simply in denial.

Agreed

The hit factors only favor speed in USPSA, because the emphasis is on round-count. IPSC has a more balanced approach to stage designs at majors. 3 x small, 2 x medium and 1 x large ratio. I’ve seen quite a few IPSC stages with 9-10 rounds that had a lot of movement and some that required little/no movement. I suspect that a lot of people that think USPSA is a better sport have rarely, if ever, competed in IPSC competitions. I shot IPSC from 1989-2000, and USPSA from 1998-2019. I think I have a broader perspective than many that post here.

https://gallowayprecision.com/canik/tp9/ You can find assorted roll pins on many web-sites just measure the sizes.

Under the original concept they were practical. Just a production gun with a red dot.

The stippling issue always seemed a little weird to me too. They allow grip tape to be applied, which on a steel frame gun works (and sticks) really well. But I've never found a grip tape that sticks well to polymer as the grip can flex a little over time and especially in high temperatures/humidity. Also, I think they need an option for those guns with captured guide-rods that's allow the recoil spring to be changed to a lower poundage, as most guns are over-sprung for +P ammo. Some captured guide-rods are designed in a way that makes it impossible to change the springs. Apart from these two gripes I think IPSC has Production just about right, and certainly far better than the customized division that USPSA has created. As to the magazine capacity, I was ok with CO/Prod being 10 or 15, they never should have allowed 140mm magazines.

There is a whole thread about the differences between IPSC and USPSA rule books own this forum, somewhere.

Absolutely, each of the four main divisions has pros and cons and offer clear choices. No division should be better than the others. If it were then eventually that division would eliminate all others and with it all choice for the competitor. As originally proposed, ProdOptics filled a hole in the line-up, see the graphic I posted earlier.

I think a lot of the rules changes were made to pander to potential new members so they would not have to spend money to alter their equipment to be able to compete. Fact is, anyone with non-compliant guns could compete in Open and easily compare their scores with different divisions using the Practiscore App. The changes were made to grow the revenue, they were not made to improve the sport. Many people will state that the changes made the divisions more fun. This is another way of saying that it made it EASIER, which diminishes the challenge and concept of competition.

In my opinion IPSC is better than USPSA at this point as their divisions now make more sense than ours. Its a sad irony that one of the main reasons that USPSA split off rules from IPSC, was the latter was changing the rules too frequently. I think IPSC missed the mark with splitting up Production Optics into Light and Heavy, I think they are trying to encourage more people to shoot polymer. Truth is I think the reason more people use CZ, Tanfoglio in IPSC Production divisions is the availability of factory competition parts. Both CZ and Tanfoglio list competition upgrades available direct from there OFM so they are legal in IPSC Production. Many polymer manufacturers, S&W, Glock etc. have very few competition upgrades. I know Walther has released its competition trigger and I think that is now legal in IPSC, but they need and others need to offer guide-rod upgrades to so people can easily change recoil spring weight. I will probably never shoot another USPSA match but I might shoot IPSC at some point.

Its been a while since I last competed in an IPSC match. There should be an equipment check at registration, if one is there then I would suggest taking advantage and making sure your equipment is compliant with whatever division you are shooting, so you have time to remedy any issues. They used to collect chrono ammo at random stages, not sure if that is still the case. Process for chrono is much the same as USPSA. There were no prize tables when I used to shoot IPSC matches, sponsors would provide cash for the match, not prizes. That money is then used for the stages which is why IPSC major matches generally have a much higher presentation value to the competitor than USPSA majors.

My 2 cents: PCC is a rifle that has no place in a handgun match. USPSA could have catered for this division by declaring .556 as Major and allowing PCC as Minor in rifle matches. Revolver was killed with the 8-shot Minor ruling, many people shot revolver once in a while as they had one in the safe, once the capacity was increased by 33% those 6-shot guns became obsolete. Limited-10 has no place any more, if you live in a state with mandatory magazine limits then everyone should be within those limits anyway. Single-Stack is where the sport originated, it should have its own Nationals with its own unique flavor of stage designs reminiscent of the origins of the sport. Production was created by IPSC as a way to bring more people into the sport. Outside of USA, most gun owners had 9mm DAO/striker fired guns and so the division was created for this purpose. Open was created by IPSC when people started adding compensators and red-dots to their guns giving those shooters an enormous advantage. Production Optics was proposed as it would fill a hole in the USPSA line-up; We had a lower-cost, minor iron-sight division with Production and a higher-cost Major iron-sight division with Limited. the idea was to have the same choice for optics.

There’s no reason why the Practiscore web-page could not use a cookie that stores your member number. The results page could then be set to default to whatever division it found that identifier. They would need to add an option (if it’s not already there) where a person could enter their member number. One of the cool features of the Competitor App was the option to compare my scores with a select bunch of people in different divisions. I could also change my division to Open to see where I would have finished in that division using my CO setup.

When you list them for sale, show the pictures you have posted here along with a picture showing the writing on the side of each die and indicate that only the resizer is marked as carbide. I think you’ll sell them in a matter of minutes