BritinUSA

http://www.tanfoglio.it/uploads/docs/goldcustom.pdf

It might be worth your time to drop them an email, perhaps they can get a cheaper version of the gun without the mount/scope so you can get your own installed.

I think it just made it easier. I enjoyed CO with 10 rounds, there was a high risk/reward ratio, the dot made me want to shoot faster but the reduced capacity would leave me with a standing reload if I pushed too hard. Planning the stages was fun, I understand why Production competitors enjoy their division. It’s challenging. I could have lived with 15 rounds. But twenty-four rounds is too similar to Open, I think the main divisions work better when there are clear differences between them. I shot Open for many years but the constant breakages and maintenance efforts started becoming an issue. You really need two in case one breaks as repair times can be weeks/months.

Instead of searching, might I suggest finding a mount that you like (regardless of hole pattern) and then contact the company that makes them and ask for an un-drilled version. Chances are they will be able to do that.

2019 I was on a squad with 25 people. We spent about 90 minutes in each bay, just to shoot for 20 seconds. It was one of the reasons why I eventually quit the sport.

Growth only works when there is room to grow. We are in a bubble; There are a finite number of ranges, and new ranges are rare. There are criteria for hosting USPSA matches. Once you eliminate those ranges that do not, or cannot, or will not meet that criteria, how many potential ranges are left? Its a regional thing. Some regions will have more clubs than others, so each region of the country will have a potential upper limit on the number of USPSA competitors that it can absorb. Once that limit is reached than growth will stop, people will be unable to shoot at their local matches. It’s starting to happen already and if not for the ammo shortage it would be even more prevalent. By ‘growing the sport’ without regard to its potential limits, they could have doomed the sport to fail.

No it sounds like potential new members that showed up with a Production gun and just a couple of magazines and were placed in Limited so they would not have to reload after every 10 rounds, Do that analysis on most L1 matches and you would see similar results.

Doesn’t matter what the skill level is; If you are serious about competition and train and puts the effort in the you’re a competitor. I have noticed in your responses an inclination to be derogatory towards those that disagree with you. Now you claim that I look down my nose at people, how disrespectful. If you cannot explain your position without insults then perhaps your opinion is not on the solid ground that you believe it to be.

I did not know that… The box cut-out was in my original proposal to USPSA. I think I had a weight allowance at 5oz over listed weight to accommodate slide cut and optic.

The original concept would have been in balance with the other three main divisions. It would have offered clear choices to members, find the division that your existing gun meets (but does not exceed) and learn from there.

There is no problem with new members per se. The problem is what is happening as a result of those new members and/or the organizations attitude toward them. More emphasis is placed on participants, than competitors. If this was a business then that position is understandable, but it is supposed to be a sport. USPSA cannot serve two masters, either it serves the competitive sport or it serves money.

That is a great question, a secondary question is this; Does USPSA still comply with all the requirements/objectives laid out in the IPSC Constitution. If it does not then this may end up happening:

A survey is no-good, participants outnumber competitors. It will be mob-rule. We’ll have magwells, ported barrels, maybe even compensators in CO…. It will never be enough. Honestly, IPSC’s rules are starting to look better to me…

I disagree, Production division took 2 years to really take off in this country. It became the 3rd most popular division with a very restricted set of rules and a 10 round capacity. CO was not given the same amount of time.

If they can’t get participants and competitors on the same page then a split will become inevitable. Right now, I’d say it is inevitable.

My guess is that they won’t. They have made no investment in the sport, they have changed the rules to suit the equipment they already have and that made it easier to shoot. When I shot CO with 10 round magazines it was challenging. The dot made me want to shoot faster, but the lower scoring hits and the magazine restriction altered the risk/reward ratio. Now most stages only require a single magazine change, and the extra rounds mean that I can always make up shots with no consequence of a standing reload. It’s easier, not better.

This is the root of the problem; I enjoyed the challenge of learning how to use a piece of equipment and to be competitive in its use. The changes make the sport easier, for me that reduces the challenge, It’s hard to be competitive when others have the advantage gained by utilizing the rule changes. If the sport is easier, how is it better?

The cost is the big issue, and it’s not just the gun, the price of high-capacity magazines and likelihood of needing a second gun as a backup have pushed the division outside of the price range of many competitors. This is one of the reasons why people were pushing so hard for Production Optics. I switched over in 2014 and I wish it had been around a lot sooner, but the red-dots were not as reliable then as they are now… If the division had existed 15 years ago it would struggled due to scope breakages, they still happen but the technology is getting better each year.

Or maybe we could just reset the division rules; Set them in stone if necessary and encourage members to master their division instead of trying to change it to make it easier.

Exactly; People are drawn to any sport by a desire to overcome the challenge that it represents, and compare their mastery with others. I think we need to go back to the original intent of our most popular divisions. There will be those that will leave if that was done, but those that are passionate about the challenge will stay, and perhaps welcome it.

I’m not cherry picking at all, the fact that you think so indicates that perhaps you do not understand the impacts that course design has on the results. IPSC stages at major matches are based on a 3-2-1 ratio, 3 x short stages, 2 x medium and 1 x field course. Short stages in USPSA are generally shot from a single position, not so with IPSC where 9 round stages can incorporate lot of lateral and down range movement. IPSC’s combination of stages more accurately tests the shooting ability of the competitor than USPSA’s local/state matches that tend to have a few large field stages and perhaps a classifier.

The differences in results are more a consequence of stage design. World shoots have been won in Classic division by people shooting minor. If you think people currently shooting minor in limited are going to win matches you are mistaken, they will be beaten handily by people who will switch from Limited Major to Limited Minor.

Just read the report from one of those involved… Not good at all…

It’s working as designed; Minor is supposed to have a disadvantage over Major when it comes to scoring. Controlling a minor caliber handgun is easier than controlling a Major caliber. That is why the difference exists. You are free to compete using a minor caliber round in Limited on that understanding. There are choices in the divisions but we simply cannot create divisions for every person that wants to feel special. Learn to master the gun in the division that you have chosen.

Agreed, if we look at the original intent of the top four divisions, they offered real choice and while different, complemented one another. The four divisions offered choices in cost, sighting, magazine capacity, major/minor, magazine and holster placement, Now the differences are getting blurry, and the choices are less than they were before. This sport is not for everyone; By opening it to everyone, they are watering down the requirements, and to some extent the challenge that created the sport in the first place.