Should 9mm major be recognized in Limited 10?

[Paul Santiago]

No.

I HAVE shot Limited 10 with my 9mm gun in major matches with strong results...

Okay, so stick with what works.

With the high (low) wages that educators are paid, and the cost of a doctorate program, I never see myself buying new bullets/dies/brass/guns to shoot anything other than 9mm.

So, the rules should be changed because you can't afford to change calibers/platforms????

[Sarge]

No.

I HAVE shot Limited 10 with my 9mm gun in major matches with strong results...

Okay, so stick with what works.

With the high (low) wages that educators are paid, and the cost of a doctorate program, I never see myself buying new bullets/dies/brass/guns to shoot anything other than 9mm.

So, the rules should be changed because you can't afford to change calibers/platforms????

at your new signature line.

[z40acp]

Quote..."Would it not be nice to allow .40/.45 as Major in Production as long as only 10rounds are in the mag after the beep and the gun mod's are restricted?"

Production Division has been a huge success, I would not tinker with it.

[twodownzero]

Doing most of the things you suggest would set us back about 10-15 years and the playing field wasn't as level then as it is now. There is a reason and history on why we got to where we're at right now, and the sport pretty much has a place for everyone the way it is and that wasn't always the case.

If you allow Major in Production virtually everybody that's competitive WILL switch to a .40, and folks starting out that show up with a G17 will think their equipment is at a disadvantage (it will be, but it won't matter for a while). That isn't conducive to bringing in, or retaining, new shooters. R,

I understand that, but the reasons you've cited for avoiding the changes are merely nostalgic. Just because something worked yesterday isn't a good reason, necessarily, for it to work today.

Bigger magazines in production sure works well for IPSC. The 10 round max (and the entire creation of the L-10 division) was imposed based on a law that no longer exists except in history. Given that the initial reason for writing the rules in the way that they are written is now gone, the only reason we still have these rules is that USPSA wants to avoid alienating members who like consistency in the rules.

There are pros and cons to the rule changes I've suggested, and I recognized that in my post. In fact, I agree with you for the most part. This is, after all, a game, and the details of the rules are basically irrelevant from a competitor's perspective. We can show up with equipment that is legal in a given division and we're all on a somewhat level playing field, and that is a major pro for the current rules.

That said, everyone hates the idea of an "equipment race," but an equipment race isn't necessarily bad. When it's bad, we call it an "equipment race." When it's good, we call it "innovation." Equipment plays such a small part on who wins or loses a match that I'm shocked that anyone even cares about that anymore.

I highly doubt that any of my proposed rule changes will ever be adopted. I do think that many of them would be improvements and strengthen the game, while respecting that others have contrary opinions.

Any proposed rule change could have a negative effect on the membership, though. The magnitude of that effect is just one of the factors that should be weighed when the rules are changed.

[Bear23]

There is no compelling reason to do so.

Leave well enough alone.

What about people who currently only shoot Steel Challenge with custom 9mm guns? Their options are to shoot Limited and Limited 10 minor as it stands right now. By allowing 9mm major in Limited 10, we will have a place for custom built 9mm guns.

Custom 9mm guns were never a big issue a few years ago when steel challenge was getting ramped back up. why should they be now? It seems to me someone had the gun made to shoot steel anyway, so now we should let them into uspsa limited/L-10 and have them shoot major? Just another solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[Precision40]

I can just see someone trying to make major in a Glock 19. I voted "Yes" simply because I enjoy watching other people blow their stuff up

[G-ManBart]

Doing most of the things you suggest would set us back about 10-15 years and the playing field wasn't as level then as it is now. There is a reason and history on why we got to where we're at right now, and the sport pretty much has a place for everyone the way it is and that wasn't always the case.

If you allow Major in Production virtually everybody that's competitive WILL switch to a .40, and folks starting out that show up with a G17 will think their equipment is at a disadvantage (it will be, but it won't matter for a while). That isn't conducive to bringing in, or retaining, new shooters. R,

I understand that, but the reasons you've cited for avoiding the changes are merely nostalgic. Just because something worked yesterday isn't a good reason, necessarily, for it to work today. Who says they aren't working today? Production and Limited-10 are both about as fair and equitable as anybody can come up with and the changes you're suggesting would be back to what didn't work in the past.

Bigger magazines in production sure works well for IPSC. We don't really know that since they just changed the IPSC rules for this year. We're not IPSC, totally different competitor base, but even they were getting beat up about their lack of magazine limits, so they changed. The 10 round max (and the entire creation of the L-10 division) was imposed based on a law that no longer exists except in history. Untrue, it exists in at least 10% of the states in the U.S., it's just state law, not federal law. Given that the initial reason for writing the rules in the way that they are written is now gone, the only reason we still have these rules is that USPSA wants to avoid alienating members who like consistency in the rules. No, I think they'd like to avoid instantly making folks in those five states incapable of being competitive with everyone else in the country.

There are pros and cons to the rule changes I've suggested, and I recognized that in my post. In fact, I agree with you for the most part. This is, after all, a game, and the details of the rules are basically irrelevant from a competitor's perspective. We can show up with equipment that is legal in a given division and we're all on a somewhat level playing field, and that is a major pro for the current rules.

That said, everyone hates the idea of an "equipment race," but an equipment race isn't necessarily bad. Many of them were detrimental to our sport and that's coming from an Open shooter who doesn't really care since Open is...Open. When it's bad, we call it an "equipment race." When it's good, we call it "innovation." We have divisions for innovation....Limited and Open come to mind. Equipment plays such a small part on who wins or loses a match that I'm shocked that anyone even cares about that anymore. That tells me you didn't shoot USPSA when there was only one division, or two....I did and believe me, it makes a difference. Hey, even I can hang with somebody like Dave S when he's shooting his G34 and I'm shooting an Open rig

I highly doubt that any of my proposed rule changes will ever be adopted. I do think that many of them would be improvements and strengthen the game, while respecting that others have contrary opinions. There's a reason why so few folks seem to be in agreement...they've been around long enough to know that none of them worked the last time they were tried, and they know they wouldn't work now. You've been a USPSA member for 18 months, which is great Unfortunately, that doesn't give you a whole lot of background to support your opinions on why or how things should be changed. When I was in the military the most dangerous thing around wasn't bad guys, it was a new LT who wanted to change stuff with some "really great ideas"....I preferred saying "sergeant, what should I be doing now?" and things worked out well for me.

Any proposed rule change could have a negative effect on the membership, though. The magnitude of that effect is just one of the factors that should be weighed when the rules are changed.

In an effort to avoid thread drift, I'll stop with that

Edited April 20, 2010 by G-ManBart

[G-ManBart]

I can just see someone trying to make major in a Glock 19. I voted "Yes" simply because I enjoy watching other people blow their stuff up

Now that's funny right there!

[diehli]

There's a reason for stare decisis within the legal system, which I think is a good thing to remember here: people can follow the rules if they know what they mean and are going to mean tomorrow. You change the rules constantly, and people 1) will constantly look for ways to flout the rules and 2) quit respecting the rules altogether, which could kill the sport. Stick with the basics (as long as they're sensible) and start changing things only if there's a widely recognized absurd result.

I appreciate the nod to liberalism that this suggestion embodies (liberalism in the classical sense, from the Latin liber, not the philosophical abomination that bears that name today), but have to go with the conservative approach.

Edited April 21, 2010 by diehli