Jeff226
-
Posts
255 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jeff226
-
-
4 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:
Wrong. Competitor vs. participant is mindset, not achievement. You're thinking of participant vs. contender, which is a different story.
Would you say a motivated high school football player is just a participant, not a competitor? After all, he's not playing in the NFL, so by your logic he's not a competitor no matter how seriously he takes the game.
Again, nobody's looking down their nose at anybody. There's nothing wrong with treating a sport as a recreational activity, but it's also silly to change the rules of a sport to cater to recreational participants at the cost of serious competitors.
Who says your subjective classification is correct? I don't know anybody who participates regularly that is just going through the motions in order to kill 5 hours. Everybody seems to be competing. Seems like a pointless distinction. If you are saying someone's opinion doesn't matter because of how you classify them then that is looking down your nose at them. Objectively, limited minor participants outnumber many other groups of participants.
-
20 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:
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.
Statement from the USPSA President
USPSA Headquarters
Jun 26, 2017
All Announcements
What is USPSA? Is it a hobby, a sport, or an event? The answer depends largely on who you ask, but USPSA is all three. We are a hobby. Not everyone who competes in USPSA has his or her eye on winning. Many USPSA members continue to show up for the friendship and fellowship that matches at all levels provide. We are also a sport. Our top athletes spend thousands of hours training and preparing for our most prestigious events. To this group, and others who aspire to be part of it, taking the test against the best, and winning, is paramount. We are an event, too. Events are local monthly matches, state or section championships, area championships, or national championships. Members look forward to their next match, and each match seems to have its own identity.Without sufficient participants you won't have a sport...or more precisely as much opportunity to participate in the sport. Arguably, unless you are an M or GM, you are probably just a participant regardless of how much of a "competitor" you identify as. Not sure I see the value in claiming to be one and looking down your nose at the other.
-
47 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:
I've yet to see any kind of survey showing what the member ship wants Prod and CO to look like. I find it hard to imagine the majority thought brass and tungsten frame weights were a good idea but here we are.
I have yet to see a true survey either but I suspect that is because nobody wants to see/deal with the results.
-
2 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:
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.Carry Optics is far more competitive now than it was at 10 rds...because it is appealing to more competitors.
-
26 minutes ago, jt1207 said:
I haven't been around long enough to understand what you are saying here. I obviously get the band-aid reference but what division is headed where?
Production and Carry optics are slowly and painfully morphing into Limited Minor and Limited Minor with optic.
-
31 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
everyone I know personally and have talked to about it (except possbily one guy in oregon) thinks the option to personalize your gun with those things (and others) is a good idea. For sure, the same 10 guys on the this forum are still opposed, for the same old reasons.
imho, once the rules allow heavy guns and custom features on factory guns, there's no reason to prohibit people from adding those features and weight to their existing guns.
I think we are agreeing on this but coming at it from two angles.
-
25 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
9mm and 45 are also downloaded, and competition guns are sufficiently different from duty weapons that pretty much everyone serious shooting those calibers also buys guns and reloaders that they wouldn't get otherwise.
At any rate, i'm not sure there's any particular reason to care all that much whether the real race divisions are using the same caliber or same pistols as the local PD uses. F1 and motoGP don't use anything resembling the car I drive, or the bike I ride on weekends.
I don't care what the PD uses, but the gun buying public and 95%+ of the PDs want 9mm. It doesn't make sense to have the most popular caliber in the world (not changing in your lifetime) to have a scoring disadvantage in USPSAs most appealing division. Production lost its "production" years ago.
It makes sense to toss the whole 'production list" nonsense as well as the few rules we have left keeping it from being limited minor...and just make it limited minor. Similarly, carry optics is slowly becoming limited minor with an optic...so lets just do it and simplify that whole mess also. In the end it is simpler and more people get what they want.
-
1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:
But, is the opposite really better? With no rules stability there is really no way to know what will change next year. That's assuming we make it a hole year this time.
If I remember correctly, most of the rules changes have been geared towards making production and carry optics what people actually want (limited minor and limited minor with optic essentially) and some standardization (holsters/pouches). Limited has been stable for a while and has most of what everyone is after except this built in scoring error favoring downloaded .40 that forces people to buy guns and reloaders that they wouldn't get otherwise.
The problem is they are trying to get where they know we are going incrementally instead of just tearing the bandaid off. Once we/they quit listening to people that have an unhealthy fear of change...the rules probably will settle.
-
1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:
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.
Great idea. Imagine how popular USPSA would be today if they just set in stone 30 years ago that it was for .45 acp 1911s only.
-
12 hours ago, motosapiens said:
I assume you know the whole reason that many LE agencies are transitioning to 9mm. It's because in the name of diversity, they hired weaklings and sissies and scaredy-cats who can't shoot accurately enough to qualify with a 40, so they gotta dumb it down so as to not look politically incorrect and get AOC mad at them.
We already have 5 divisions where 9mm is either de-facto required, or at least not a disadvantage most of the time (ss).
They were able to train us all to shoot the .40 at the FBI and HRT is fine with 9mm but they don't use it as testosterone replacement therapy.
How many years did you spend in the field before you moved to IT?
-
1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:
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.
I am talking about USPSA and specified USPSA. The results for USPSA that get quoted here on a regular basis, and can be found on the internet, do not support your assertion in the slightest way. Major dominates minor in USPSA limited.
-
35 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:
Your transparent attempt at baiting me is noted and ignored.
It isn't bait, how does it affect you if there is a separate limited minor division? What problem does it cause?
35 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:Rules design isn't about allowing everything, or about making every option competitive. It's about providing a stable framework on which competition can happen.
Having built in scoring disadvantages in the same division is not a stable framework. There is no competition if the formula makes over half of the participants in a division non-competitive. You can buy a 515 cc driver or a 320 cc driver...each time you hit the ball with either it counts as a stroke. 250cc motorcycles don't race 450cc motorcycles in motocross and only get 90% credit for each lap completed. You don't pair heavyweight and lightweight boxers and give the lightweight boxer 90% credit for the punches he throws. Etc etc etc.
-
2 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:
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.
You are cherry picking, major beats minor in limited 95%+ of the time.
I think people in limited minor that beat other people in limited minor won't win because of an error in the scoring formula...that is what matters.
-
29 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:
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.
It isn't working as designed because it was supposed to be a choice. The disadvantage in scoring was supposed to be able to be overcome with speed/accuracy. We all know this isn't true as is (those of us that are honest). As it is now, you don't have a choice...you have to shoot major. It was working more like it was designed when major pf was 175. Would work even better at 185.
We can simply create divisions that make sense. Limited minor makes more sense than production, single stack, and revolver from a market and participation perspective. Propping up downloaded .40 cal makes less sense from every angle.
When limited minor gets added, you will be free to participate in that or any of the other divisions available that might make you feel special at the time.
-
2 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:
I get out of the house, and see a lot of beginners and recreational shooters in Limited Minor, and nobody else.
No, I just think it's a dumb rules change, pushed at this stage by people who don't know anything about designing rules.
Do you think it is good to have all of those beginners, recreational shooters, and whatever else they get called in limited division to make your finish look better? Why else would you feel so strongly that they stay in the oh so competitive limited division?
I am not sure who you are referring to exactly but I agree that someone who would advocate a rule where minor power factor had a permanent disadvantage in a division (or not fixing it once known) doesn't know a whole lot about making rules. Same could be said about a person advocating a rule not having a limited minor division when 95% of new handguns sold are high capacity 9mms...as opposed to .40 S&W that the men shoot (downloaded of course).
-
dup
-
1 minute ago, Balakay said:
Momentum may come to a grinding halt with upcoming elections. We shall see.
Probably wishful thinking on your part but yes, time will tell.
-
4 hours ago, Fishbreath said:
Find me all the serious competitors (who aren't three-gunners shooting their three-gun iron sight guns) who are clamoring for limited minor, then.
Ultimately, the rules are what they are, and recent events notwithstanding, changing them annually to chase perceived popularity is a bad idea that only serves to annoy the people who actually keep the sport going. Either newcomers with equipment that doesn't fit another division won't care about USPSA as a sport and continue to play on an unequal field, or they will care, and buy equipment that fits better. That's not a bad thing.
1 hour ago, Balakay said:Are you suggesting that new gun owners (women and millennials) have been flocking to their LGS and buying 9mm 2011s?? Highly unlikely.
Agree. Hate to be blunt, but USPSA should not be catering to noobs and their equipment choices. If one wants to shoot Limited Minor, go for it and accept the scoring penalty.
I don't need to find them for you, if you get out of the house you will find them. It seems they send a significant number of letters to the USPSA as well.
Hate to be blunt but ultimately the rules will change again and the momentum is going towards all minor except for open despite the nonsensical objections of those who see a separate limited minor division as a threat to their manhood.
-
On 5/20/2021 at 8:47 AM, Fishbreath said:
The demand/interest in limited minor as an actual serious competition division is a tiny, tiny minority in a vast sea of newcomers who don't have a dot on their gun and didn't bring a bajillion mags for Production.
Completely wrong. Most people don't want to shoot production just like they don't want to shoot 10 rd carry optics or buy a .40 caliber gun for that matter.
-
On 6/15/2020 at 12:29 AM, HCH said:
So, after reading the replies to this thread, I have confirmed some of my previous options as to why a guy might shoot Limited Minor:
1: This is what I have and I want to shoot.
2: I have a 9mm, don’t want to make all those reloads during a stage, don’t want to mess with a dot, and don’t really care about competing beyond level 1/level 2 matches.
But what I don’t understand is competitor number 3:
I like the sport; I practice both dry fire and live fire; and I’m willing to buy a new gun to complete with... but I really don’t want to load ammo or buy .40.
Maybe there is just a lot more crossover between 2 and 3 than I realize.
USPSA doesn't understand those competitors either which is why they continue to force them into participating in a division that props up .40...a caliber that a resounding majority of the gun buying public and law enforcement/military have no interest in.
It couldn't be more obvious that limited minor has the demand/interest to become the largest/most popular division...even with carry optics...but they refuse to split it out because....STUBBORN.
-
1 hour ago, motosapiens said:
In general, I'm not a big fan of the nanny-state attitude that some kind of legal or rules changes is required to address every accident that ever happens.
We already have a rule:
5.1.6
Firearms
must be serviceable and safe
.
Range Officers may demand
examination of a competitor’s
firearm
or related equipment, at any time, to
check they are functioning safely.
If any such item is declared unserviceable or
unsafe by a Range Officer, it must be withdrawn from the match until the item
is repaired to the satisfaction of the Range Master.
Any gun that has a firing pin that is forced to protrude through the breech when the hammer is lowered is not safe. Conversely, any firearm that has a firing pin so long that it props the hammer back due to contact with the primer when a round is chambered is also not safe. Intelligent/educated people have known for over a hundred years that resting the hammer/firing pin on the primer of a chambered round was not safe which is why single action revolvers were carried with an empty chamber and most subsequent guns were designed with inertia firing pins.
Doesn't matter if the occurrence is rare or we have been lucky so far...firing pins this far out of spec should be forbidden....just like thumb safeties are required to be used on guns so equipped even if we most likely would rarely have an accident if they weren't used.
-
6 hours ago, shred said:
If indeed the extended firing pins are so long that the pin protrudes from the breechface with the hammer down, then that's a concern.
Exactly. CZ and other manufactures use inertia firing pins for a good reason (this very reason). Wouldn't surprise me if we have improper mods that need to be addressed before we start pointing fingers at the rules or the manufacturers.
-
14 minutes ago, MoRivera said:
But if we're talking a CZ shadow with a hammer, we're still taking a double-action first pull and even if it's as light as 5-6lbs, I highly doubt that even a thick trigger would have enough momentum to pull back that whole way with a drop of only three feet or so. Also, falling on the hammer would further prevent the trigger from pulling back, as anyone who's put their thumb on the back of a hammer and tried pulling double-action can tell. That trigger's inertia would have to overcome both that and the momentum of the entire gun for that matter.
So based on the, it seems the only sensible explanation is that somehow the shock of the impact was transmitted from the hammer to the pin. Maybe the hammer spring was so light that it let the pin push back on the resting hammer enough to allow a little space to start moving.
But I do agree that the hammer should be resting on the frame/slide. Checking my own CZ shadow, I just don't see how the hammer would push the firing pin and farther at rest after it's fully down. Bu then, my hammer spring is 12 lbs, as opposed to 8 or so.
Maybe the firing pin bounced...and it is an extended one so there was just enough contact with the primer after bouncing?
Yes, the trigger being inertia fired would have to happen when the hammer was cocked.
You can't get reliable ignition from full hammer travel when you start going too low on the hammer spring...the chances of the firing pin bouncing against spring pressure and firing the pistol from a 3-4 foot high fall are statistically impossible in my opinion.
-
2 hours ago, Sarge said:
I feel from a personal viewpoint as a fairly experienced CRO, that the shooter failed to ensure the gun was properly holstered. We could never experience this exact incident again if the gun had been holstered as needed.
This is in no way an attack on the shooter but it is what set the incident in motion.
If the gun was modded in such a way that it allowed it to fire when dropped on the hammer outside the holster, then it would just as easily fire if the holster fell off of the belt and it landed in the same manner.
I seriously doubt the gun fired as a result of a fall on the hammer and think it being dropped during the stage, before the hammer was lowered, or maybe he tried to catch the gun when dropped and inadvertently fired it to be more likely...but I guess we won't know for sure unless the whole story comes out.
Limited Minor
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
I am speaking in general terms. I didn't quote the guy who calls limited minor shooters "weaklings, sissies, and women" but the general opinion here seems to be that people who want limited minor are lacking in some way or are less of a competitor and I don't see value in that. I think you are noticing an inclination that doesn't exist because you don't like being disagreed with...I have yet to insult anybody (again, I am not the guy calling people sissies and weaklings).