Rich406
-
Posts
922 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Rich406
-
-
1 minute ago, Dazhi said:
Create a 9mm iron division based on production ruleset plus 140mm mags, SAO and magwells, and watch it become the most popular division in 3 years.
no way....
-
13 minutes ago, abigger04 said:
Were the provisional rules addressing capacity limits in production adopted? Or just the limited optics rules?
Next time the board can make a change to an existing division is January 31st 2024. They are just letting it ride until then Most likely.
-
15 minutes ago, RJH said:
For some reason I can't open that file, was it any different than the original proposed division?
Looked exactly the same.
I’d like to see something directly from USPSA though. -
looks like LO is live on 5/1. No details on the exact division rules.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CpPaYQZA0cM/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
-
6 hours ago, mandiesel said:
Looks like I still have some time to go...... Im considering cancelling the order.. which may be easier said than done at this point. Im not sure I received an invoice, and if i did, it got deleted by mistake. The charge is definitely on my CC though..
it’ll show up eventually. Could he do better on customer service, no doubt. But it’s one guy, would you rather have him making product or answering emails all day?
theres lots of people out there that offer a great product or service, but can’t manage their business for s#!t.. Am I making excuses for the guy? Maybe. But it’s the reality of the situation.
-
9 hours ago, jpeters11 said:
No, running wolf 12lb variable springs and 135ish pf 124gr
Like I said, that's interesting. I tried probably 10 difference combinations of spring, tube and base pad. none of them would run 10 out of 10 times. Some would run most of the time but not always. Some of them were so tight, I was barely able to get 24 round in.
I wasn't able to get one to run 100% until I removed some material from the base pad.
If you were able to just plug and play 8 magazines, with zero issues, that makes me wonder what the difference is.
-
8 minutes ago, jpeters11 said:
I’ve got 8 140mm mags. Henning rx pads on 4 and TTI on the other 4. Rune followers and springs in all. Easy 24+1 in all of them. No grinding other than the tubes of the Rx ones.
No errors or failure to feed when starting at 24+1? That’s interesting.
-
2 hours ago, X5SigChris said:
I’ve heard good things about the rune but I suppose nothing is perfect. Sick’s you’re having issues with both, Rich406. I’d like to try one or the other though as my local has numerous 24 round stages and I’m starting to feel confident enough to run with a 24+1.
pretty much everyone I’ve heard of that’s gotten them to run 100% had to grind the base pad.
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal to do. But it’s definitely not plug and play.
-
2 hours ago, echotango said:
Has anyone tried these? In 2011's their follower always let rounds past the follower so I am a bit skeptical on the super this follower. Just wondering on the reliability.
I’ve tried both rune and mbx. Sometime they work, sometimes they dont. I think there is enough variance in the tube bodies, basepads and range brass for them not to reliably work.
that said, I was able to get some to work reliably by grinding some additional room inside the base pad with a demel…
it’s a very fine line, and I ruined the first couple basepads by removing too much.
-
8 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:
There's more thought in his post than in a survey, and he explained why he did not complete it.
The org should do what is good for the sport, not what is just good for revenue. As he stated the org flourished when it had far fewer members than it does now, and it did. This is why I think there is room for two practical shooting sports, USPSA and a US-IPSC.
I think there are a few competitors who would be more than happy to leave the current org and shoot under an international rule-set.
He didn’t bother with the poll, and hasn’t shot the sport in years. I didn’t bother with his wall of text after that came out.
-
56 minutes ago, RuckUp said:
Hi Nathanb,
That's a good question. As as one of those who didn't take the survey I'll try to explain my perspective. But first, since I did not take the survey I realize have nothing to complain about. I'm good with that and will accept whatever the outcome.
I shot IPSC decades ago. We had three "divisions" of firearms: Open, Stock, Revolver. Probably 98% shot Open. Yes, it was an arms race and at times hard to keep up with. Personally, I got tired of that around the time I was departing serious shooting due to changes in life priorities. No regrets or angst. It was just timing.
Yes, I've retained my membership and have watched/read from afar what's happening in USPSA. Please note, many, many people will grind through one sport/hobby after another as they age. They just get bored, or interested in another game, or whatevs, and move on. It's no more complicated than that but we keep our memberships anyway. So, that's part of the equation.
But also, why invest time in a survey when we really don't understand all of the dynamics of what's happening? It's like shooting without sights. Will we be on target with our uninformed/aged/dated opinions? Perhaps knowing that you might prefer we didn't take the survey? (e.g. "We should bring back the ballistic pendulum!!" <-- joking) Regardless, maybe we shouldn't judge too harshly those who didn't take the survey even though we still hold a membership.
Next, watching from afar I've been both pleased and disappointed with the changes. First, I was really excited about Production. Iron sights, 10 rounds, all Minor; that's probably as close to a level playing field you might find (SS is there too.) But then all of these spin-offs were being suggested, or put into play. For me and others in my "cohort" I sensed that many had this dream that if only they could get their favorite firearm/caliber setup approved, that would be perfect for them, and they'd be a home-town hero at every monthly match. I'm a bit surprised we haven't created sub classes for the color of each gun. It's still early yet. "... High Overall in L-10 in with a turquoise finish is..." OK, I'm being snarky there, but I think some will share the sentiment.
More importantly, how many divisions must we have to keep everyone happy? And that begs the question, should everyone be happy? The martial artists didn't like what happened to IPSC/USPSA so they formed IDPA. I've never shot an IDPA match but I respect that they put their money where their mouth was and broke off. Yes, the member's voices should be heard. But how do we balance those organizational ideals against the withering complaints of the small groups of folks that want change? With all the flux it makes one wonder if filling out a survey will really alleviate the demands or just create more. So...why bother?
There's a game. And it has rules and parameters. If we try to appease everyone, for every reason, what kind of an organization will we be and what kind of game will it become? And will all of these new divisions and changes really result in membership retention? I can't be certain, but it sure feels like this is a key driver in attempting to appease everyone.
USPSA survived when it was 5,000 members, then 10,000, then 20,000, and more. It survived a split (IDPA). Do we really need to accommodate every demand in the name of membership numbers?
Food for thought.
RuckUp
You took the time to sign up to the forum and write out a book about your opinion. But you couldn’t be bothered to spend 5 mins taking a survey?
-
14 minutes ago, Dirty_J said:
Have you met the buffoons that were behind it?
When the dude that’s in charge of the RO corps contradicts himself every other ruling and the dude running nationals has zero clue how much they spend on an event are drafting a survey.. this is what you get. Pure incompetence.
The whole place needs a major house cleaning… before they change another bylaw, rule or division.
Make no mistake, I’m not a fan of the board and how they do things. But, it’s going to be 6-8 years best case scenario before there is any meaningful change. At some point you have to work with what you got…..
-
10 minutes ago, YVK said:
While I am appreciative of USPSA's effort to get members' input and some objective data behind their decisions, maybe they can get professional help in designing their data collection instruments the next time around. 20% of responders are against the division altogether. Why are their opinions on a power factor of a division they don't want to happen relevant? The results of two last two pie chart diagrams of the LO part of survey are contradictory to each other. Same number of respondents replied to a question "if you already shoot CO..." and to a question "If you don't shoot gun with an optic...", with the sum of the numbers of responses well exceeding the total number of people who have replied.
In well designed surveys negative answers to some questions preclude one from answering the next questions, and some choices have to be mutually exclusive. The way this one was set, I see up to 20% potential error rate on power factor discussion alone, and evidence of low internal validity.
It’s abundantly clear that whoever made the polls had zero experience and also rushed them out. The grammar mistakes alone were comical.
-
1 minute ago, deerslayer said:
The poll in the other thread favored major scoring 56-44. Which one do we use? Neither - they are both probably too small a sample to be relevant.
So you comparing a poll with 100 participants to one with 25x the number?
There was an uproar over the last set of equipment changes, and one thing said from pretty much every talking head is that there should be polls for changes like this. So somebody listened and now that it’s not going the way some would like, there is an uproar over the poll…
I agree 2500 isn’t a large number. But you know what, everyone had an opportunity to vote, and the people that did are absolutely relevant. Those that didn’t, chose not to, and thus gave up their voice on the matter.
The 2500 number actually shows how much fluff and casual members are in total membership numbers.
-
1 minute ago, MikeRussell said:
And the point of Limited was do whatever you want but no comp and no dot. So the natural progression to LO would be keep the same rules as Limited, just add a dot. It's a pretty simple concept.
Using limited in the name is a mistake, the same way they used carry in carry optics. There are no carry guns in co, but since the name contains carry, people get hung up on it. “Carry optics” is quite frankly a stupid name for a division that has never revolved around anything carry….
same problem with using limited in the name of LO, when the initial division appendix did not exactly align with the limited appendix. People will get hung up on the differences..
-
17 minutes ago, deerslayer said:
The 4% or so of the membership who voted that way can shoot minor only all they like. Nobody is telling them what they have to shoot.
So, you can spin the results to align with your viewpoint. But when it’s correctly pointed out the the poll in fact shows the opposite, you fall on back excuses why the poll should be ignored.
you should go into politics.
-
21 minutes ago, deerslayer said:
If 42% of voters want to try major in an experimental, trial-and-error division, I don't think they should be ignored.
If 58% want minor only. Maybe they shouldn’t be ignored either?
-
21 minutes ago, Joe4d said:
like they do with 38 super ?
38 is in an already existing division.
Edit actually, I take that back. The point of open is you can pretty much use whatever you want. That’s not the same as LO
-
2 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
20 rounds of 40, vs 28-29 of 9mm. I don't care if it's close to offsetting the 3-5% advantage of major.
Your suggestions should at least make sense from a competitive viewpoint. A “I don’t care” that my suggestion doesn’t make sense adds nothing other than make you sound like a fudd..
-
18 minutes ago, deerslayer said:
If .40 is dead and everybody hates it, allowing major won't hurt because no one will shoot it.
That’s not really how it works…..
-
11 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
i demand 40.
my vote is major/minor, 140mm magazines for major, 170 for minor.
What the difference there? 24 vs 29 rounds? I don’t see that even coming close to offsetting the 5% advantage of major over minor.
-
40 is a dead caliber. USPSA should look to the future, not dwell on the past.
-
1 minute ago, motosapiens said:
why does it need to be mass produced? limited isn't about mass-produced guns, so why should LO be? We have divisions for mass produced guns already.
Because a custom gun is 5-6k+ and an off the shelf version would be half that?
-
3 minutes ago, shred said:
RIA for one, but there's also Tac Sports and other SAO pistols. Plus plenty of 10mms and arguably thats a better caliber for Limited Major anyway, plus new tac coolness.
Ya. I looked around and there are plenty that don’t come dot ready. I suppose a dovetail mount would be fine for trying it out.
still though, going forward. I think 40 is on its way out.
Limited Optics
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
1982…
no internet
10 channels of cable (if you were lucky)
landline , no cell phones
gas was under a buck.
nostalgia is great, but times have changed, drastically.