myorke Posted November 30, 2001 Share Posted November 30, 2001 Hello all, After almost 10 years away from the sport I think I'm going to get back into it. I think I'll shoot limited 10 as this appeals to me the most. I haven't shot my "first" match yet as my reloader still needs to be setup. Anyway, I've run into a number of folks that I used to shoot with and almost everyone says the same thing, "The sport has really changed in the last 10 years..." My question is this - in what way has it changed? I mean, besides the obvious power factor changes, and extra classes. Thanks in advance! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted November 30, 2001 Share Posted November 30, 2001 I've only been shooting USPSA since 1997, but maybe the changes are things likes this: http://www.brianenos.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...=9&topic=19 One thing is for sure, course designs are more freestyle, and that's fairly recent, trickling down from IPSC and USPSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Capizzo Posted November 30, 2001 Share Posted November 30, 2001 Well first of all, welcome back! I will try and answer your question, but this will be strictly my limited viewpoint. I don't travel to very many matches outside my locale so I might have a narrow field of view here. The obvious changes are those you've mentioned, and the sophistication in the all out race guns. The hi-cap limited and open guns are simply marvels of efficiency. The availability of fiber optic front sights is relatively new. The "classic" target is also new. Whether you'll see any of these of not depends on where you shoot. Holsters have gotten slicker and quicker. Some consist of little more than the trigger guard lock. Courses of fire may have changed somewhat. There are not many standards drills fired in matches, and lots of run and gun courses. Stages at one time had some sort of supposedly realistic scenerio behind their design, now the closest we get to real life is a prop to hold or the decorations on a stage. I suspect that when people tell you that "things have really changed" they're talking about attitudes and not equipment however. And I'm not sure that attitudes have changed all that much. Shooters are alot like people. Maybe there is less debate now about "is this a game or a martial art", but that was probably over ten years ago anyway. I think the most significant change is the realization that shooting must be studied and learned like any other skill. This is something the great shooters figured out long ago of course, but now what they've learned is more readily available. Instead of throwing rounds downrange and trying to perfect a mechanical technique or skill, we've got a much more intelligent framework or reference for determining what we're doing. If you've read Brian's book or looked around this forum you know what I mean. I think for the "average" shooter this is a huge change. All the other stuff I've mentioned and other changes you'll see are just incidental compared to this. Again, welcome back, and hope you have a great time! By the way, after you've shot a few matches, why don't you tell us whats changed? What you like and what you don't like. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 30, 2001 Share Posted November 30, 2001 I think Al covers the bases. With the internet and books like Brian's...the learning curve for shooters is not as steep as it once must have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted November 30, 2001 Share Posted November 30, 2001 myorke, Besides what everyone else said, all true, one thing hasn't changed - you still have to shoot - it's just that today's typical course design has steered shooters away from knowing that essential. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted November 30, 2001 Share Posted November 30, 2001 myorke: In my area, you seldom see a target beyond about 12 yards with the majority between 5 and about 9 yards. Not many no-shoots, little hard cover, and very high round count. When I set up stages I try to add no-shoots, hard cover, and keep the arrays further away than arm's length. It is still a rare occasion where I get to use the skills that I developed in bullseye and PPC. It seems to me that the philosophy of IPSC course design is about the same as IDPA and the cowboy bunch. That is, design courses so that everyone is capable of getting the hits, then let the clock make the difference. I would love to see some 8 inch plates at 30 yards and some paper at 50, but it ain't gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myorke Posted November 30, 2001 Author Share Posted November 30, 2001 Quote: from benos on 11:23 am on Nov. 30, 2001 ...it's just that today's typical course design has steered shooters away from knowing that essential. I'm sorry, just let me clarify what's being said. It sounds like, in general, targets today are closer and not as obscured. Yes? Are you saying that shooters are more prone to spray-n-pray than to aim because of this? I imagine this narrowed the gap a little between iron and optical shooters. Yes? I wonder what brought about this change. Thoughts? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Capizzo Posted December 1, 2001 Share Posted December 1, 2001 I think this is a general trend, but some clubs or particular members (like Ron A.) will try to do something more challenging. The reason this came about I would think is because most people just find it more fun to hose 'em and go, it takes too much effort to learn to shoot small targets. distant targets, etc. I'm fortunate that both local clubs I shoot with try to make at least one or two challenging stages each month. We've made a point of using the new classic targets just because they're tougher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted December 2, 2001 Share Posted December 2, 2001 Mike, "I wonder what brought about this change. Thoughts?" I know the following might sound simplistic, but like Elmer said, "Hell, I was there." High round count originated simultaneously with the introduction of the high-cap gun. Suddenly, course designers started adding more targets to stages, basically, because they could. They (course designers) even thought silly things like - "We gotta put more targets on these stages so the high cap guys will have to do at least one reload." And it didn't make sense to just stick out more targets with the same shot difficulty level, so they just started laying them out all over the place. Further, since now there were so many targets to maintain, it became too big of a pain to make the shots difficult with no-shoots, hardcover and such, so we were simply treated to open targets everywhere. If you think about it, if a stage was only going to be, say, 8 to 15 rds, you might try to make it interesting, right? On the other hand, if the stage is going to have 15 + TARGETS, you're doing good just to get the targets (and the course itself) out there, run the shooters through, get them taped and scored, and not be shooting until o'dark thirty. The sad thing is, from my perspective, it'll never change (in the U.S.) because now, that's what the majority wants and expects, and the majority won't show up if shooting skill is the challenge. And the really sad part is that I had a hand in it by accepting the sponsorship offered by S&W. The Great One saw what was coming (with the entry of the S&W high-cap), and consequently had Springfield begin importing P9’s so he wouldn’t get left behind in the equipment race. The really funny thing is – he actually had a high-cap gun on the range before I did. (S&W turned out to not be the dream come true I thought it was going to be. I usually got my IPSC gun less than a week before a major competition.) Ah, the hindsight thing… if I’d only known. Oh well, I did drink a lot of beer on S&W’s tab for a year or two. be BTW, I don’t know how much of the site you’ve perused – did you see this rant? http://www.brianenos.com/pages/hate.html#degeneration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myorke Posted December 2, 2001 Author Share Posted December 2, 2001 Again, thanks for the input folks. Sounds like I'm going to get lots of practice reloading my 1911! Hmmm. Brian, regarding your rant, I concur. On a number of levels, I concur. I'll shoot you an email later. Got an idea that I've been sitting on for a while. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted December 3, 2001 Share Posted December 3, 2001 One change that I've seen that no one seems to talk about much is that there seems to be a lot more competitors that are as happy to win because of an equipment advantage as they would be to win by skill alone. This started about the time the high cap race started. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianH Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 ....and something I think Brian was about to touch on but missed..... a lot of the hi-cap stages were being set up by the people WITH the high cap guns....so and so just got his .45 Para comp gun and so now he's throwing 10 poppers downrange, and target arrays of 6 or 7. Once we all got OUR hi cap guns, nobody was perceptive enough to go back to...... .......here it comes........ ................A BAD WORD.......... REVOLVER-NEUTRAL STAGE DESIGN!!!! Remember the WHINING, Mike? Pissed-off shooters whom their 10 round .38 supers were not an advantage. (I paid $1,800 for this gun! I better start winning stages!) I agree with JJ. And it has been going on for awhile. I think it is because people think their match placement should be commensurate with how much money they spend on shooting. That's why I liked RN stage design.....eliminate the capacity advantage and it comes down to a finish of skill. What was wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Capizzo Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 "Whats wrong with that?" I think it is always a test of skill. Now that there are seperate divisions for revolver or L-10, what difference does it make if I have to fire 6 or 8 or whatever and then reload, everyone else in my division is doing the same thing. Also, to think only firing 6 rounds from one spot before moving puts hi-caps and lesser caps on an equal footing is an illusion. It is still faster to move to a new shooting position without a reload than with one. Lastly, revolver neutral is BORING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 Revolver neutral ensures 10-round gun shooters (all Limited 10 and Production shooters) will need six or seven magazines for a big field course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 DING-DING-DING!!!!! Man, you hit that on the head! Give that man 2 ceegars! One of the clubs I shoot at likes to throw a 40 round stage in. Most production shooters don't have enough mags to shoot it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Bagoly Posted December 6, 2001 Share Posted December 6, 2001 Revolver neutral does NOT mean 6-6-6-6 6-6-6-6 sucks, as does 8-8-8-8 or 10-10-10 Don't get me started! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianH Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 Yeah. There's almost a half dozen divisions now. That's not because we WANTED that many. It's because people who don't want to practice, but think they deserve to win something think that they can buy scores. Limited 10 came along because of hi-cap raceguns in the Limited division. Production came along because some wanted to shoot a stock gun with a higher capacity than 10, but were again at a disadvantage against the people who could afford 3 grand for a limited gun (and willing to commit a felony by building magazines with parts from Brownells). Again, more categories to deal with people trying to buy a better score. Don't get your undies all in a knot. I'm simply giving a perspective from someone who's been a member of USPSA for more than 3 years. Shooting is still fun, even without 30 round magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted December 8, 2001 Share Posted December 8, 2001 Correct me if I'm wrong, but via the latest USPSA Rule Book, aren't we limited to no more than eight targets per shooting position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 8, 2001 Share Posted December 8, 2001 DT, Right. Eight shots per position. US 1.2.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted December 8, 2001 Share Posted December 8, 2001 Oooooh, riiiiight. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now