858

The market changed. Brand new guns come with red dots. Also, CO doesn't have stupid magazine rules.

Correct. Fitting a CGW disco is easy. The Pre-B disco is a drop in part. I honestly can't tell the difference between the hand fit disco and the drop in Pre-B disco. By the time you adjust the set screws so the pistol functions reliably you may as well use the disco. Also, the set screws have to be glued in or they back out or back in. If they back in your pistol will stop working. The pre travel set screw sucks. CZC used to post about it here year back.

The disco attaches to the hammer, not the trigger. If the CGW trigger shoe functions with the stock trigger bar and hammer then it will function with the disco too. I don't know why CGW recommends removing the disco, CZC SAO trigger jobs keep the disco. Like I said, I've done it both ways. Read CGW's description for their disconnector: https://cajungunworks.com/product/1488-t5-shadow-2-disconnector/

The disco sets pre-travel. Without out it you're relying on a janky set screw that moves or change shapes. You can hand fit a CGW disco or buy a factory Pre B disco from CZC. I've done all three, the set screw is not optimal.

I switched from a C-More to a Romeo3 XL. I was tired of the C-More height over bore and the small window. The XL is significantly larger than the C-More, smaller, and mounts lower. Objectively the only thing the C-More does better is the ability to swap emitters.

To convert an S2 to SAO only requires a new trigger shoe. All you have to do is replace the curved trigger with a Tactical Sport trigger. You don't need to change the hammer or remove any of the DA parts. If you want to put race parts in you can but the SAO trigger will function better if you set up the race parts with a disco.

Open has always been more expensive than the other divisions. Unless I was trying to collect another GM ranking I wouldn't bother with LO. LO is just a stepping stone from CO to Open.

Yes. There is also a majority of new directors that have an interest in ending the status quo. There is an interim A1D who is very active in the PNW and wants to turn the organization around. I think you will see positive change. Previously, members here said most local shooters don't care. Those people probably don't vote though. The voting members appear to be engaged and unhappy with USPSA now that everything is public. Take a listen to the Hit Factor podcast. They are normally agnostic to the organization politics. They came out and said they are ready to quit the sport over what's been happening. I believe that is the temperature of the engaged membership; the people that vote, email, watch board meetings, etc. A4D and A5D both quit a month apart. The engaged unhappy members are routing the legacy BoD and soon the corporate staff.

A5D submitted his resignation. It's only a matter of time before the remaining two legacy BoD are gone. I think you will see DNROI, Managing Director, and Marketing Director leave soon too.

Supposedly '22 CO Nationals lost $71k and '23 CO Nationals lost $120k. Neither of those figures include BoD and staff travel expenses, which are estimated over $20k per year. Supposedly, allegedly, etc.

The $3 is a strawman intended to trivialize the objections. Each nationals is losing something like $80k. Should non national shooting members pay for the shortfall? Your questions imply that anyone not participating in nationals should not have input. All events should be revenue positive or neutral. If they are not, there should be a clear explanation what benefit is derived from the expense for the membership not attending. In years past nationals were not open to every member to attend that wanted to. There were limited slots and once full new signups were closed.

Rio Salado too.

It's probably the most viable model. There is more value for vendors too. Having many national events dilutes the value of the events.

That sort of response doesn't work when more that just nationals competitors vote and have a say in the direction of the organization. Change is coming and you need a better response when you're asked why non national shooting members should pay for nationals events. Your response is polarizing and may rally the average members against nationals.

I think you won't have a functional Nationals match without some types of comps for RO's. The question is how many nationals should the organization have and how much to charge competitors? Nationals used to be a marketing event for USPSA, that doesn't appear the case any longer with all of the different national matches.

If a member doesn't shoot nationals, should they have to pay the subsidize portion of the event cost?

I'm loading copper plated bullets and using any brass that isn't split. I went from obsessing over JHP and head stamps to not caring at all. I've had no change in performance or reliability.

That's right, and they have to sue in the state the infringement occured. USPSA's goofy attorney is facing an investigation for practicing law in WA without a license too.

I have been pretty critical of the production rule changes over the years. The arms race more or less spoiled production. However, the advancement of small slide mounted optics turned the market away from iron sights. Regardless of the production division arms race, slide mounted optics are the present/future and shooters have made their decision. 15 round magazine capacity doesn't change the economics and market trends. At one time I thought open was dying. The emphasis on optics seems to be breathing life back into open. There isn't all that much difference in cost between LO and Open. There's almost no difference in ammo cost when reloading either.

IP is only as good as it's enforcement. Assuming USPSA is actually granted the trademark, they would need to enforce it at which point they'd face potential invalidation and counter claim. Not to mention public opinion.

USPSA filed for a trademark on "Hit Factor". That's USPSA's long game.

I don't think it is coming back. The world moved on. The future is CO, LO, and Open.

AMA went bankrupt and only sanctions MX and SX now. They are a for profit corporation and generate revenue from national events.

So you think members that don't go to nationals should pay for the members that do go to nationals? It should not come as a surprise there is a contingency of members that don't want the organization to change. Membership fees and level 1 match fees are paying for the revenue shortfalls of the national matches.

That's why it was raised. The corporate staff is trying to avoid changing by showing the higher entrance fee upsets participating members. The problem is less than 1% of the USPSA membership actually attends national matches. And yeah, by all outward appearances, nationals are the good-times subsidy. I don't actually care about your (the royal you) experience at nationals. I don't want to pay for it. That is a common sentiment too. I think the new BoD are on board with making nationals revenue neutral, or as close as they can get. I suspect when the old guard is gone you will start to see changes with the structure of nationals. Boomer vacations aren't terribly interesting to the younger members.