BritinUSA

I think there should be four main divisions, two for iron-sight, two for optics, two that allow almost unlimited customization and two that allow only minor changes… We had almost had that, but it got messed up thanks to ‘grow the sport’. The same flawed ideal that has led to some matches filing up in minutes and competitors being unable to shoot.

Yep, anytime you drill, cut, grind a polymer frame you are asking for trouble. Even just grinding material (under trigger guard for example) could lead to tiny cracks or weaken the structure. If you could find a way to 'bond' the mount to the frame then it may survive, but it would depend on the bonding agent. Not aware of anyone that has done it though.

Also the most likely reason for all the changes to Production/CO that we have seen the past few years… I suspect it was mostly vendor-driven, and not member-driven.

One reason why I liked the IPSC target, the smaller ‘A’ zone encourages accuracy, plus they hold up better in bad weather.

My opinion; Any division that allows 2011’s will become a 2011 division. Just because a few more participants want to use their current gun in this division does not mean USPSA should pander to them. Each division should have its own pro’s and con’s plus a clearly defined objective. The core divisions need to complement the other divisions while offering clear choices between them. Find the division for which your gun/setup is eligible, and learn to master the tool within those confines… that’s the challenge of IPSC/USPSA. Changing the divisions to make them easier or ‘more fun’ turns a sport into a pastime/hobby. This is a sport.

I think it would have been great to go there a few years ago. I no longer have any connections in the industry and all the covid crap would likely drive me nuts anyway.

I like the first one a lot, very interesting angle.

Back in the days of 175PF, small pistol primers would only work with enlarged/longer firing pins. SPP should be fine now it’s lower but if you use a very light bullet and fast burning powders then I think you may get some issues.

There is no definitive history of IPSC that I am aware of. Even finding old copies of the rule-books can be a frustrating experience. There are many old photographs in shooting magazines (American Handgunner) for example that may be available online. Some were taken by Nyle Leatham (TGO's dad). Watching very old videos of IPSC matches is an eye-opener, the speed that people are shooting now is incredible compared to 20-30 years ago. I was watching a few old videos last night from 1997, the last year of shooting in England before the guns were destroyed. I still have some old photos from the World Shoot in Brazil in 1996.

When I wear glasses vs contacts I notice a distortion of straight lines when I am not looking straight ahead. The outer edges of the lens will distort. If you are tilting your head when shooting with prescription glasses then you will need to adjust the sights when using contacts.

Yep, local shooters only. If people were traveling from several hours away then a rota would not work.

The biggest thing I hated with match setup (and what seemed to use the most time) was hauling the props from the equipment shack to each berm. Especially the large poppers. If I had the funds to build and run a range I would have custom flat-bed trailers that would have several walls, poppers, targets stands etc all stacked neatly in slots. An ATV would haul each trailer to a berm for setup. Tear down would involve stacking the props back onto the trailer and then ATV them back to the shack. All the props would remain on the trailers for the next match. I think even a large stage could be setup in 20 minutes and torn down in 5 with that process….

What kind of stages are typical at your club? Are they mostly long courses or a good mix of short, medium and long ?

Stage Design is a regional/match thing. Some clubs have great designers who don't just rely on the 32-round, 8-shot arrays. Other areas are not so fortunate. When I used to shoot in UK from 1989-1997, matches were judged not on round-count but on the number of stages. Most stages had a far fewer rounds, I think even then we used the 3-2-1 ratio for our IPSC matches (3 x short, 2 x medium, 1 x long). The maximum number of rounds for a stage was 28, it got bumped to 32 when people started figuring out how to jam 31 rounds into the magazines. If all your local clubs have mostly field courses then I think eventually it will drive some people into the higher-capacity divisions, as they get tired of just shoot-move-reload on every stage. The more people shoot higher-capacity, the more the matches will cater to that. So it's a vicious circle in many respects. I've always thought that the short/medium courses test the competitors more than the large courses as there is less margin for error. In USPSA our short courses are mostly classifiers and many off those use a single box for a shooting position. IPSC has short courses with as much movement as a medium/large course…. it makes things very interesting. I realize that very few people in USPSA have ever shot an IPSC match, I spent nine years shooting IPSC stages and 22 years shooting USPSA style stages….. I think on the whole that IPSC has much better concept of good stage design than USPSA. But I am likely a minority of one in that regard.

I like the idea of a team-lead/mentor. If that was tied in with my other proposal of a database of stage designs - for those occasions where a club is short of a good designer - could really help matters for some clubs. I still think USPSA needs to do more to support the L1 clubs. These matches generate the vast majority of USPSA’s revenue and cash reserves.

Maybe a rota system would work; Have squads of members and each month a new squad will be responsible for setting up the match. Anyone who doesn't show up would not be allowed to shoot for a period of time. Exceptions would be needed for those that work shifts or be able to swap out with another person if they were unable to be there on a specific date. Might work, then again it might not... If there is no incentive to work then some people won't do it. They will just rely on those that are passionate about the sport…. It's that whole 'competitors vs participants' thing again.

This is so true; Any sport that relies on volunteerism to succeed will eventually fail if there is no return on that time/effort for the clubs/volunteers. This sport and the organization exists ONLY because of the members who sadly do not get a great deal of support in return for their efforts.

Board Consensus: No This statement does not tell us how many BoD members agree with the policy and who they are. Roll call votes should be listed for all of these for transparency. When these BOD members are next up for an election this information can be used by members to help determine their vote.

Latest BOD minutes where comments to the proposed bylaws are discussed. Not sure why they state that a ‘consensus’ did not agree, I would have though a roll-call vote would have been more appropriate considering the impact these changes will have. Link to USPSA Minutes

This is an opportunity for USPSA to provide some more support for clubs. A database of stage designs that included the berm dimensions and props required would alleviate some of the headaches around stage design. Members could submit their own designs to the database, it would not be long before there would be literally hundreds of stages to pick from. Add a front-end to the database where a club could define the number and sizes of each berm, and the props that were available and the software could spit out a set of stages that could theoretically provide all the data needed for an entire L1 match. Select all the stages that they want for their match and it would download the stage setup diagrams and images of the layout. There would also be a download for Practiscore that would contain all the stage names, number of targets, steel etc into the master match device to populate the tablets. The front-end could keep track of which stages were used in each club to prevent the same stage being offered more than once.

Just describe the problem here and one of the Mods or Brian will respond.

Phil Strader on Ben Stoeger’s podcast talking about bylaws : YouTube

Limited capacity divisions are challenging, they can become tedious however if every stage is a 32-round hose-fest. Unfortunately round-count appears to be the driving factor in most L1 matches, tie that in with a limited number of berms and many MD’s will try to boost the round count to help justify the match fees. Designing new and challenging stages every week/month can be difficult, a database of stage designs along with a prop list and minimum berm dimensions would help MD’s enormously. This is a service that USPSA could easily provide with input from clubs across the country (or worldwide for IPSC).

It’s dying because USPSA watered down another division so that appealed to more participants that wanted an easier tool to use.

The rules for CO were updated in January 2016 (minutes) to mandate an Optic Below is a response to an email I sent to NROI in August 2015 after the provisional rules were first published in July of that year: