Southpaw

Why not?

So you're wondering if there's anything that can be done to make shooting iron sights more popular, besides the thing that could be done to make shooting iron sights more popular?

The 15 and 17 round mags for compact and full size M&P will work in the sub-compact.

I know nothing about IDPA, is CO the only pistol optics division? If so, then that's 31% of handgun shooters choosing an optics division. In USPSA CO + LO (basically the same division) participation is a way higher percent of overall participation in handgun divisions. So further proof we should have an actually appealing irons division, i.e., Limited Minor

Yup. By far the most popular category of handguns sold in this country is high cap, 9mm, iron sighted guns. And it's consistently been that way for over 30 years. Yet USPSA has no division for them. Maybe they should try Limited Minor as a provisional division and we can see how popular it would be. You can't judge what its popularity would be based on current divisions.

So before this gets locked, anyone want to interpret these minutes? As best I can tell: They tried to change the bylaws, but that motion failed. The change looks like it would've allowed Yee-Min to be President, if he won, so now that motion failed, looks like he's still not eligible to be President? The Finance Committee Chair thing is strange. Looks like some of them wanted A8 Director to be new Finance Committee Chair, but he didn't actually want to do it. So now he's being forced into being the Finance Committee Chair? Looks like they had some discussion about the DNROI incident, but didn't take any action on it.

We're equally baffled by all of it...

Results are here, bottom 3: https://uspsa.org/surveys/results I think more people voted to keep L10 than number of people who actually shoot L10 15 is better than 10, but I don't think it'll be enough to drive people back to Production.

You already know the answer to this. It's the same category of handguns that has been the #1 selling category of handguns consistently for the past ~30 years: high cap, iron sighted, 9mm handguns.

Wouldn't it be swell if USPSA had a division for the most popular type of handgun sold in this country - high cap, iron sighted, 9mm handguns. It's only been the most popular type of handgun sold for the past ~30 years, yet we still have no division for it...

Is that a bad thing? If both divisions were offered and most people chose Limited Minor, then doesn't that prove that it makes sense to have Limited Minor as a division? Isn't it a good thing when division rules match the types of guns people actually want to shoot?

1. Open: no change 2. Limited: no change 3. Limited Optics: stays minor only, as it is now 4. Limited Minor: new division 5. Limited 8/10: 8 major, 10 minor capacity. No magwells for double stack guns. 6. Revolver: no change, or combine into Limited 8/10 7. PCC: no change Done, then we can stop changing equipment rules all the time. Can also create a participation % threshold where if a division's participation drops below set % for certain length of time then it gets axed.

I've never understood getting worked up over the names of divisions. It's just 1-2 words used to refer to a specific equipment ruleset. Doesn't have to perfectly describe every gun that's allowed within that ruleset. Maybe we should just rename all divisions "Division 1", "Division 2", etc. Then people can't complain about name not matching the guns. Not all names perfectly describe the thing they're named for. Why do you drive on a parkway, but park on a driveway? You don't hear anyone demanding we rename these things (And not calling you out specifically on this. I see similar comments all the time and just don't get it)

I think if they created a Limited Minor division before adding CO it would've easily become the most popular division. Now that so many have already switched to optics thanks to high cap CO, I don't know that Limited Minor could overtake it, but it would easily become #2 most popular division.

I don't get it either. The most shocking part of survey results to me was that most people actually voted for optics being required ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It kind of makes sense for provisional division, to get better idea on participation numbers, but makes zero sense that it's still a rule in CO.

Yeah, makes you wonder why they wasted all that time writing multiple blog posts and recording podcast, just to make all that irrelevant a few weeks later. But at least they now "fixed the glitch"

Ah that's right. So the WSB said "engage T1-T3 with only two rounds per target, make a mandatory reload, then engage T1-T3 with only two rounds per target". So the word "engage" is strictly enforced and procedural if don't engage both before and after reload, but "with only two rounds per target" can be ignored. Got it. It's hard to keep track of which words from WSB are enforced and which can be ignored And I think 3-2-1 reload 1-2-3 is gonna be way faster than your 1-2-3 reload 3-2-1

What other penalties? According to this article shooting it 2-2-3, reload, 2-2-1 doesn't violate 10.2.2 or 10.2.4. So why would 4-4-4, reload be any different? And 4-4-4, reload actually isn't stacking according to current definition per glossary: "Shooting more than the specified shots at a target(s) while shooting other target(s) with fewer shots than specified in the stage briefing." There are no "other targets" that are shot too few times, it's the same targets. So the more I think about it, the more it seems 4-4-4, reload would be allowed according to this article, like IVC said.

I'm still not sure that a penalty for 10.2.2 isn't appropriate here. We're not saying competitor fired the incorrect number of shots (which is where 10.2.2.1 comes into play). Instead competitor didn't comply with procedure in WSB that specifies the timing of shots and reloads. So number of shots is correct, but sequence of shots before and after reload is wrong, which is a different procedure in WSB than just the number of shots. Thoughts? Should still clean up rule wording to be more clear, as I don't think we really want this type of incorrect shooting order to be allowed, right?

I'd think so too. Not by much, but all it'd take is someone to get a stage win at a major shooting it 3-3-3, reload, 1-1-1, and then everyone would start doing it. Is this really what NROI wants? El Prez and similar stages to be shot 3-3-3, reload, 1-1-1? Jeff Cooper would be rolling over in his grave...

So by this logic, we could shoot El Prez 3-3-3, reload, 1-1-1 with no penalties? Who wants to run it both ways and see if makes a difference on the clock

A few SAO hammer fired guns with no manual safety have come out over the past few years. Off top of my head there's the Alien, S&W EZ and Equalizer have no manual safety option, and that new RIA 5.0. There's probably a few others. At first it seems strange to have a cocked and unlocked pistol, but it's really no different than most striker fired guns.