BritinUSA

I'm not sure that is accurate, in this case the term 'Hit Factor' was first used prior to USPSA and continues to this day to describe a manner of calculating score based on points/time in a shooting competition. If someone wanted to trademark that phrase for a completely different purpose/description they most certainly could. But I don't think they can trademark a process that is currently being used by other groups for the exact same purpose. It's like trying to trademark 'Profit & Loss' to describe an accounting process.

Regardless of other claims about the phrase, it existed in IPSC (and remains in use today) before USPSA was incorporated. I don’t see it getting approved.

It's clear that there was little if any due diligence performed prior to the application. It took less than a day for people to find the evidence that the phrase was in use prior to the incorporation of USPSA.

A7 director is on record as stating that he had no idea they were going to attempt to trademark the phrase. Ben Berry reposted the comment, so I assume he was equally blind-sided. Ben Berry also stated that this was done before the January BOD meeting and no mention of it was made during that meeting.

A red-dot is basically a Heads-Up-Display, so you were on the right track.

When I first started shooting practical pistol, we had advanced a long way from this methodology; We used a stop-watch and a whistle. It was cutting edge technology back then. I do recall when one of our members bought a shot-timer, I felt like one of those apes when they first see the monolith in 2001.

Back in the day, regions printed their own rule books from the World-wide rules

PSC Rule Book 1981 mentions Hit Factor scoring which predates the claim in the Trademark Application

Back in the old days we would call out the next shooter, on-deck and in the hole. The next two names would tape targets, and optionally a third to reset steel. Worst case you worked 3 times per stage. That’s not asking too much for anyone, as long as everyone complies.

New Radar Chronograph from Caldwell Price is around $549 FEATURES RADAR DETECTION IS NOT AFFECTED BY LIGHTING CONDITIONS AND RELIABLE IN BOTH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR USE MEASURE VELOCITY FROM THE BENCH ELIMINATING THE NEED TO GO DOWN RANGE FOR SETUP AND RISK OF BULLET IMPACT TO CHRONOGRAPH STORE UP TO 100 SESSIONS WITH UP TO 100 SHOTS PER SESSION PERFECT FOR RIFLES, SHOTGUNS, HANDGUNS, AIRGUNS, AND ARCHERY USE CALCULATES TRUE MUZZLE VELOCITY WITH +/- 0.1% ACCURACY. CALCULATES BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT TO CONFIRM MANUFACTURERS STATED B.C. FOR SPECIFIC LOADS 2.8” COLOR SCREEN PROVIDES EASY-TO-READ VELOCITIES AND MENU OPTIONS INCLUDED RECOIL-ACTIVATED TRIGGER FOR INCREASED RELIABILITY CAPTURING VELOCITIES WHILE USING SUPPRESSORS OR AT COVERED/INDOOR RANGES THAT AFFECT STANDARD ACOUSTIC TRIGGERS INTERNAL RECHARGEABLE BATTERY SAVES MONEY AND OFFERS LONGER RUN TIME THAN DISPOSABLE BATTERIES INCLUDED PREMIUM BALL HEAD TRIPOD FOR EASY TARGET ALIGNMENT ADJUSTMENT EASY-TO-AIM SIGHT BUILT INTO HOUSING FOR PERFECT TARGET ALIGNMENT FREE MOBILE APP ADJUST SETTINGS, DISPLAY AND STORE SHOT STRING DATA, MAX/MIN VELOCITY, AVERAGE VELOCITY, STANDARD DEVIATION, EXTREME SPREAD, WEATHER CONDITIONS, SHOTS FIRED, AND INDIVIDUAL SHOT VELOCITIES

There were shooters in Europe running Tanfoglio and CZ with Major 9mm before the S&W guns. The Springfield P9 was basically a Tanfoglio. They had problems with the frames being strong enough to support the scope mounts and the barrel pins would frequently break due to the stresses.

Is the mount inline with the slide or the barrel? It should be mounted about 1º downwards so it's inline with the barrel. If its not you may be able to buy a shim for the mount/scope that increases the downward angle. But if the group is high then you need to RAISE the dot, not lower it.

Nothing posted that I’m aware of. They have a committee to gather names and then they’ll nominate one during the next BOD to serve until the election. I’m not sure when the next BOD meeting is.

If you like old S&W IPSC guns, check these out from Richard Wilson in UK, these models were used by the UK Team in 1993. Though they may have had different scopes back then.

Same rule was in IPSC if I recall which is why it was called Standard. When shooters started putting compensators on their guns it changed the sport. Standard/Limited was a reaction to the high customization that was happening. Now its a custom division and Production and Single-Stack/Classic are the stock divisions.

It was more a spin-off of the military via Jeff Cooper.

USPSA members seem to fall into one of four groups; Just want to shoot on weekends at L1 matches, interested in their classification, rarely shoots outside of their area but may do a State match if it’s close. Serious competitor, uses L1 matches as practice for State, Area and maybe Nationals Foreign members who want the magazine and may shoot USPSA classifiers in their own country. People who don’t shoot at all In 2022 I think there were around 17-23,000 people who shot at least one USPSA or SC match, which would mean about 12,0000 didn’t shoot at all. This statistic was notably absent from the latest DME report. A smaller organization could easily meet the demands of the first two. A valid classification system is not that hard, and States can organize their own State and Area matches and let the org do a single Nationals. I suspect that if the organization was a lot smaller and had a lot less revenue it would probably function better. Its like the government, give it too much money and it grows to an unsustainable level, and makes everyone unhappy.

DAA usually has them but currently out of stock: https://www.doublealpha.biz/us/ipsc-magazine-gauge

Every CO gun is LO compliant. Plus you get to add a magwell and a thumb rest and even a racker if you want. Going to 15 in CO will not alter match participation to any measurable degree.

The longer the 'club sanctions' continue the less likely they will be to return as USPSA clubs in the future. The larger clubs may grow accustomed to the extra revenue they now get to keep. USPSA may have to provide incentive for clubs/members to come back, any cost involved in those incentives will impact the org's bottom line. So its possible that revenue will never return to pre-sanction days. The clock is ticking, as warmer weather begins so to will the impact.

I think Jake was driving the changes to the classification system, not the IT guy. They do need to revisit how the classification system works, I've been critical of the methodology for a long time. The correct way to make changes like this is to seek the opinion of the membership, offer some solutions but provide some method for the members to make suggestions. USPSA used to have a forum (very much like this one) where rules and more political discussions could take place and where everyone could see the flow of opinions and ideas. They need to bring that back, rather than hide everyone's opinions from the rest of the membership as they did with the bylaw changes.

I used to shoot a slide mounted Docter scope on Open Tanfoglio and SVI many years ago. The dots lasted around 18 months and that was shooting every week, the scopes were modified by Beven Gramms. The technology in the dots seems far more robust now… I think they would be fine.

Consistency is in the hands of the people that run the stages/match. Justice is supposed to be blind to bias/favor, some officials get that and some see it as an exercise in power that pleases their ego. This exists in every sport.

This post could have easily been made without the inflammatory rhetoric, nevertheless; An EU citizen can request to have their userid deleted and GDPR requires that the userid be deleted. The second issue is the removal of content, as has been stated this would leave holes in the narrative of threads that would render some of them unreadable. The software used by this forum and many others does allow the content to remain but the username is replace by GUEST or some other vague description. This allows the content to remain but it essentially becomes anonymous thereby complying with the 'Right to be Forgotten'. The more you know.

When I first got here in 1998 it was all paper scoring. The classifier data was being entered manually by staff at USPSA. PractiScore changed everything. Once the majority of clubs had switched over, the cost of maintaining the classification system must have dropped through the floor. Those cost-savings were not passed on to the clubs. There is no reason why USPSA could not offer grants to clubs to help them improve, they could organize bulk purchases of tablets, timers and steel and pass those savings on to the clubs. Instead the focus is on the Nationals at the expense of everything else, and the clubs are left to fend for themselves. They need to severely limit AD travel/expenses, go back to a single combined Nationals for a few years until things get back on track. If they are not going to change course then its time to look for alternatives. I wonder if other countries receive as much revenue from IPSC competitors as the USA does, and how do they spend it?