Division 'modification' discussion

[Ben Stoeger]

I think I need to clarify my position on ladies.

I brought up how in our sport we recognize women out of proportion to their actual participation. I wasn’t really talking about front site coverage, but I was talking about awards. I think I should expand what I was talking about so people get the picture a little bit more.

I think in USPSA we have a culture that very highly regards women shooters. Everyone knows who the top lady shooters are. Women often grace the cover of front site. Women get their own special section in that magazine. We even have one poster on here that follows women around at major matches and writes articles about them (creepy).

At the Nationals, the Champion of a division got a really cool trophy. It had an STI engraved inside of it. The high junior got a lame plaque that said high junior on it. The high lady got one that said ladies champion on it… the same as the match winner. Women even got stage win medals. Does that strike anyone else as odd?

When I and a couple others suggested we recognize women the same as other categories (The high senior at nationals doesn’t give a speech) we get accused of HOSTILITY towards women. Am I the only person that thinks all of this is a little bit strange?

We even have one top lady shooter that has written a book about competitive shooting. It will be released soon and I have no doubt many on this forum will buy it. The strange thing is, if a male shooter of equal skill level (A or M class or whatever) wrote a book like that, nobody would buy it. He would probably even be ridiculed right here on the forum for having the stones to give others advice on a topic he has only gained a relatively small amount of success at.

My point with all this isn’t that I don’t want ladies to shoot. I very much do! I want everyone to come shoot. I just want us to be a little more grounded. Lady shooters are a category of our sport. They are no different than juniors or seniors or whomever else. I think it serves everyone well to remember that.

[Supermoto]

I agree with Ben and would take it one step further... probably too far as I usually do.

Why have categories at all? What's the point other than making winners out of those who did not. Top C, junior, women, super senior, what does that mean?

Doesn't it say: you're not capable of winning the match, so we created a special category. Its nothing more than affirmative action.

[wgnoyes]

...If a given club decides to run IPSC rules to prepare for this or another IPSC-regulated event, good for them -- if that's what their customers desire.

Put it this way. The board set up USPSA some years back as the regional agent for processing and reporting on IPSC match classifiers (your so-called IPSC alias and all that). Out of (guessing here) 12,000 active members, there were all of 128 or so IPSC classification updates appearing in the monthly ezwinscore update. Not exactly a clamoring demand for it. In fact, the interest is SO lacking that the USPSA part of IPSC classifier reporting and processing has been broken since Oct 2010 (this is Dec 2011) and NO ONE has done anything about it.

[wgnoyes]

I wanna old, fat, bald, beared division.

I can create an OFBM category right now and put your happy butt in it for last sunday's match! I did that for Marty once. We have Sr, SSr, and for him I created OMG.

[Mark K]

My only comment on the whole thread: We have lots of new shooters every month at our club, with close proximity to a military base (Ft. Benning). Many of these military folks are only here for 3-12 months for schools, and then on to other locations. We get to introduce them to the sport. Most new folks show up, want to shoot with friends and have fun. We ask what equipment they have, we tell them what divisions they can shoot in, and usually recommend a division - then they go an play and have fun. They are learning the sport, learning to shoot safely, and have fun with the gun they have. Only MUCH MUCH later, IF they decide they want to be more competitive do they start to ponder the advantages of Major vs Minor, Production vs Limited, etc, and then seek advice about it.

How you present the sport to the new shooter has every thing to do with it. If we have a new guy show up with a G17 and 3 mags, we tell him, that he can shoot Limited minor, we explain the scoring of minor vs major, but also tell him not to worry about it, he is learning the sport and we want him to have fun and shoot safely. We usually further explain that the purchase of only a couple more magazines and pouches, and downloading the mags, and his equipment would be very competitive in production division. At that point, like most adults, they make a decision based on their wants vs needs, and the ability to afford it.

I find the argument about Production 15 is being couched in new shooter terms, but really about experienced shooters wanting to shoot Limited lite.

Growing the sport is about showing people how much fun it is.

Mark K

[Flexmoney]

NIce reminder, Mark!

[lcs]

A---That is pretty much what I meant. I repeat myself , Prod 10 would satisfy all those who live and breath "Production must never change".

B Your argument doesn't make any sense if USPSA had Prod 10 and Production.

Which, unless we add new members just means we split up the existing 6 Divsions and turn it into 7 Divisions. Several have posted the reasons why adding Divisions just waters down the competition. I just don't see what it would add, other than another National Champion. Have you noticed that you are the only one proposing Prod-10 and Prod-Unl (I'm guessing the unlimited since you haven't specified any other round count) I'm guessing you want a Division for the SP-01, XDM and Grand Power to be able to run their 19+ round magazines? Because those would be the clearly dominant guns.

You would be guessing wrong.

I just "suggested" Prod -10. It seemed like a an easy compromise for all. Just because there are not additional posters in this thread agreeing, does not make it a bad suggestion. I don't see a lot of posters coming up with real reasons why it would be bad either.

It would be interesting if everyone just asked all those production shooters at local matches a simple question. Which would you rather do, Shoot this match with 10 rounds per mag or 15 rounds per mag" . I picked 15 because 15 is the figure most mentioned.

[lcs]

To those that are arguing for 15 round magazines. What advantage is there to add another arbitrary number that will effect existing members. Is there a clamor to increase th magazine size in Limited to 161.25mm? This is basically the same thing. Some folks will have to buy new gear to stay, "competetive" Production is meant to be as equipment neutral of a Division as possible. Yeah the horse left the barn and there are a bunch of things allowed that if I was king of USPSA I'd say no to. But I'm not about to cause a bunch of people to have to go out and buy new gear just because a handful of people want to be able to load their magazines up a little bit more, not even full, just a little bit more.

Sorry, but I don't get why you branch off the subject and start talking about Limited mag length "clamor" as you say. Limited mag length has nothing to do with Production. In addittion, how do you know it is just a handful of people?

[West Texas Granny]

My 2 cents; Apart from the change from 10 to 15 rounds for Production (which just brings us in-line with IPSC, at least in one regard). Any significant changes to divisions should have one overriding goal, and that is increasing membership.

There is one demographic that USPSA is not getting any significant numbers in, and that is women. More than 50% of the population I suspect that their numbers in USPSA are less than 5%.

Find out what women want to shoot and promote the living daylights out of the women that we have, promote USPSA in women's magazines and then we may see some more growth...

We all know you have a issue with the way we treat women in this sport. We give them their own awards in each division even when they dont meet the requirements (i.e. 2011 revolver nationals). We recognize it more so than senior, super senior, military, and Law enforcement which in the rule book are all suspossed to be equal in awards. So how much more should we bend over to a insuffecient catagory then we already do. They also have their own section in Front sight but we never see numbers increase. Thanks

They don't come out and shoot because of attitudes like yours. This women belong in the kitchen not on a gun range is a load of you know what and that is why their numbers don't increase. You and others with this attitude make it damn uncomfortable for any women to participate in this support and if you expect this support to survive you better get my gender more involved. As it is today if it wasn't for those who run our IPSC 101 match making me feel safe and comfortable I would never had become involved as much as I am today.

[BritinUSA]

We even have one poster on here that follows women around at major matches and writes articles about them (creepy).

If that is referring to me then allow me to respond.

I volunteer my time to help grow women's participation in USPSA by writing one/two articles per year on the USPSA Nationals. There are those that are working harder to promote Junior participation in USPSA, are they creepy too ?

I provide the women that I cover with free copies of all the photographs that I take of them so they can use them in Facebook, their own web-sites or to send to their sponsors.

I provide the women a free DVD of all the video that I take so they have a record of their match.

I provide my pictures free of charge to any Nationals/Shooter sponsor that requests them.

Are you insinuating that perhaps I have an ulterior motive for what I am doing? Perhaps you would like to clarify?

[beltjones]

I think I need to clarify my position on ladies.

I brought up how in our sport we recognize women out of proportion to their actual participation. I wasn’t really talking about front site coverage, but I was talking about awards. I think I should expand what I was talking about so people get the picture a little bit more.

I think in USPSA we have a culture that very highly regards women shooters. Everyone knows who the top lady shooters are. Women often grace the cover of front site. Women get their own special section in that magazine. We even have one poster on here that follows women around at major matches and writes articles about them (creepy).

At the Nationals, the Champion of a division got a really cool trophy. It had an STI engraved inside of it. The high junior got a lame plaque that said high junior on it. The high lady got one that said ladies champion on it… the same as the match winner. Women even got stage win medals. Does that strike anyone else as odd?

When I and a couple others suggested we recognize women the same as other categories (The high senior at nationals doesn’t give a speech) we get accused of HOSTILITY towards women. Am I the only person that thinks all of this is a little bit strange?

We even have one top lady shooter that has written a book about competitive shooting. It will be released soon and I have no doubt many on this forum will buy it. The strange thing is, if a male shooter of equal skill level (A or M class or whatever) wrote a book like that, nobody would buy it. He would probably even be ridiculed right here on the forum for having the stones to give others advice on a topic he has only gained a relatively small amount of success at.

My point with all this isn’t that I don’t want ladies to shoot. I very much do! I want everyone to come shoot. I just want us to be a little more grounded. Lady shooters are a category of our sport. They are no different than juniors or seniors or whomever else. I think it serves everyone well to remember that.

I have to disagree somewhat. I thought it was very strange at my first nationals that the women had their own camera man who followed them around. It seemed a little "off" to me as well, kind of like the dudes who post on Tori's facebook page asking her if the cleats she wears would work for their wide feet. After speaking candidly with a few friends on the women's super squad, I learned that they don't find him to be creepy or distracting at all. Make jokes about women liking the attention if you must, but if they don't have a problem with it I don't see why anyone else would.

I also have to ask, given the realities of sexual dimorphism and the importance of physical traits to supplement technique, do you really think it's fair to only reward female shooters if they can beat the men? I mean, it's not like women will one day grow into men ala the juniors (the boy ones anyway)...

[mhop]

They don't come out and shoot because of attitudes like yours. This women belong in the kitchen not on a gun range is a load of you know what and that is why their numbers don't increase. You and others with this attitude make it damn uncomfortable for any women to participate in this support and if you expect this support to survive you better get my gender more involved. As it is today if it wasn't for those who run our IPSC 101 match making me feel safe and comfortable I would never had become involved as much as I am today.

how from my post did you get that I have a males are superior than females attitude. which I don't, I like certain females the ones that don't have a chip on their shoulder just like the males with issues. I like females on the range I just don't understand why they should be treated differently than any other category that is spelled out in the rule book. how much more do you want us to do for the women to make them feel more comfortable. they have their own super squad that they can't fill up. their own paparazzi. their own awards only have to compete against each other. their own section in front sight. this sport has grown for more than 20 years and is still growing i think it will be able to survive. so a beginners class got you involved in the sport not the super squad or front sight articles or paparazzi following the top females. I suggest that USPSA invest in beginner shooters classes and setup a system like they have for RO's classes.

Edited December 8, 2011 by mhop

[beltjones]

They don't come out and shoot because of attitudes like yours. This women belong in the kitchen not on a gun range is a load of you know what and that is why their numbers don't increase. You and others with this attitude make it damn uncomfortable for any women to participate in this support and if you expect this support to survive you better get my gender more involved. As it is today if it wasn't for those who run our IPSC 101 match making me feel safe and comfortable I would never had become involved as much as I am today.

how from my post did you get that I have a males are superior than females attitude. which I don't, I like certain females the ones that don't have a chip on their shoulder just like the males with issues. I like females on the range I just don't understand why they should be treated differently than any other category that is spelled out in the rule book. how much more do you want us to do for the women to make them feel more comfortable. they have their own super squad that they can't fill up. their own paparazzi. their own awards only have to compete against each other. their own section in front sight. this sport has grown for more than 20 years and is still growing i think it will be able to survive. so a beginners class got you involved in the sport not the super squad or front sight articles or paparazzi following the top females. I suggest that USPSA invest in beginner shooters classes and setup a system like they have for RO's classes.

Literally every sport has a category for women. Literally every sport recognizes women's champions the same way they recognize the men. Are you suggesting that USPSA should be any different?

[mhop]

They don't come out and shoot because of attitudes like yours. This women belong in the kitchen not on a gun range is a load of you know what and that is why their numbers don't increase. You and others with this attitude make it damn uncomfortable for any women to participate in this support and if you expect this support to survive you better get my gender more involved. As it is today if it wasn't for those who run our IPSC 101 match making me feel safe and comfortable I would never had become involved as much as I am today.

how from my post did you get that I have a males are superior than females attitude. which I don't, I like certain females the ones that don't have a chip on their shoulder just like the males with issues. I like females on the range I just don't understand why they should be treated differently than any other category that is spelled out in the rule book. how much more do you want us to do for the women to make them feel more comfortable. they have their own super squad that they can't fill up. their own paparazzi. their own awards only have to compete against each other. their own section in front sight. this sport has grown for more than 20 years and is still growing i think it will be able to survive. so a beginners class got you involved in the sport not the super squad or front sight articles or paparazzi following the top females. I suggest that USPSA invest in beginner shooters classes and setup a system like they have for RO's classes.

Literally every sport has a category for women. Literally every sport recognizes women's champions the same way they recognize the men. Are you suggesting that USPSA should be any different?

no i am saying that we should award senior stage wins and national champion and super senior stage wins and national champion and militarty stage wins and national champion and law enforcement stage wins and national champion with the same level of awards that the lady awards are presented since they are all the same in the rule book

[Chuck Anderson]

A---That is pretty much what I meant. I repeat myself , Prod 10 would satisfy all those who live and breath "Production must never change".

B Your argument doesn't make any sense if USPSA had Prod 10 and Production.

Which, unless we add new members just means we split up the existing 6 Divsions and turn it into 7 Divisions. Several have posted the reasons why adding Divisions just waters down the competition. I just don't see what it would add, other than another National Champion. Have you noticed that you are the only one proposing Prod-10 and Prod-Unl (I'm guessing the unlimited since you haven't specified any other round count) I'm guessing you want a Division for the SP-01, XDM and Grand Power to be able to run their 19+ round magazines? Because those would be the clearly dominant guns.

You would be guessing wrong.

I just "suggested" Prod -10. It seemed like a an easy compromise for all. Just because there are not additional posters in this thread agreeing, does not make it a bad suggestion. I don't see a lot of posters coming up with real reasons why it would be bad either.

It would be interesting if everyone just asked all those production shooters at local matches a simple question. Which would you rather do, Shoot this match with 10 rounds per mag or 15 rounds per mag" . I picked 15 because 15 is the figure most mentioned.

Okay, clearly I'm not understading your suggestion of Prod-10 and Production. Please explain what you are talking about. The way I've read your posts it appears that you want to create two Divisions where there is currently one. Prod-10, which would be what the current Division is, and a new Division Production which would allow...what. I can't follow your posts. Are you looking for Prod-15 or Prod Unl Capacity. We have Prod -10 now. Not seeing how that is a suggestion of anything new. It's what we have. By the last post it looks like your looking at Prod 15. I don't see a need to for two identical divisions, separated by 5 rounds of capacity. As to the comment about Limited, it's a direct parallel to what you're looking to do in Production. Limited has a capacity limit, albeit one measured by length of magazine, not number of rounds. Those looking for an increase to 15 are asking to increase that arbitrary capacity limit in Production to another arbitrary capacity limit. The same as taking the arbitrary capacity limit in Limited of 141.25 to another arbitrary limit of 161.25. As far as the handful of folks, yes, there are only a handful of people in this thread. Of the 20K members of USPSA, only a fraction are on Enos, only a fraction are on this thread and only a fraction agree that any change should be made to Production. Believe it or not, I do actually talk to people at matches. Part of the whole AD gig. I also have a lot of them, from my area and around the country email or call me with questions, requests, suggestions, angry demands, etc. Additionally I've shot Production since 2005, pretty much exclusively, and all around the country. I've had maybe, maybe two people ask me to change the limit to 15 outside of the Enos Forum. None of the new shooters I've brought into the sport have ever complained about the 10 round limit. Not one.

[beltjones]

They don't come out and shoot because of attitudes like yours. This women belong in the kitchen not on a gun range is a load of you know what and that is why their numbers don't increase. You and others with this attitude make it damn uncomfortable for any women to participate in this support and if you expect this support to survive you better get my gender more involved. As it is today if it wasn't for those who run our IPSC 101 match making me feel safe and comfortable I would never had become involved as much as I am today.

how from my post did you get that I have a males are superior than females attitude. which I don't, I like certain females the ones that don't have a chip on their shoulder just like the males with issues. I like females on the range I just don't understand why they should be treated differently than any other category that is spelled out in the rule book. how much more do you want us to do for the women to make them feel more comfortable. they have their own super squad that they can't fill up. their own paparazzi. their own awards only have to compete against each other. their own section in front sight. this sport has grown for more than 20 years and is still growing i think it will be able to survive. so a beginners class got you involved in the sport not the super squad or front sight articles or paparazzi following the top females. I suggest that USPSA invest in beginner shooters classes and setup a system like they have for RO's classes.

Literally every sport has a category for women. Literally every sport recognizes women's champions the same way they recognize the men. Are you suggesting that USPSA should be any different?

no i am saying that we should award senior stage wins and national champion and super senior stage wins and national champion and militarty stage wins and national champion and law enforcement stage wins and national champion with the same level of awards that the lady awards are presented since they are all the same in the rule book

I would suggest the rulebook ought to be changed in this regard. Would you agree?

[MGMorden]

How you present the sport to the new shooter has every thing to do with it. If we have a new guy show up with a G17 and 3 mags, we tell him, that he can shoot Limited minor, we explain the scoring of minor vs major, but also tell him not to worry about it, he is learning the sport and we want him to have fun and shoot safely. We usually further explain that the purchase of only a couple more magazines and pouches, and downloading the mags, and his equipment would be very competitive in production division. At that point, like most adults, they make a decision based on their wants vs needs, and the ability to afford it.

I think this is a very good point and a good way to look at it. A new shooter is only really a new shooter for a few matches. Just to try things out for new shooters Limited was always fine.

Production isn't about new shooters - it's about shooters of more restricted finances, or someone who just truly enjoys competing with Production style gear for the challenge of it. You can (competitively) shoot Production with some pretty cheap gear. That doesn't mean that the person who shows up on his first day should run to Production. Their fist day isn't a competitive day - its an evaluation day. It means that for the guy who shows up, shoots a match (in ANY division - could be Open for all it matters), and says "I really like this, but I'm not sure if I can afford it.". Production is there. If they need to buy a few magazines to get ready for production thats ok as that's a pretty minor expense. Anyone who shoots in the other division carries more too, as plenty of times I've seen mandatory reloads in stage descriptions require at least 4 mags regardless of division.

From that perspective, I just don't see anything wrong with Production as it is. Going to 15 rounds would serve no purpose - first day shooters would be doing nothing there that they couldn't already do in Limited Minor, and people who stay in the sport would be saving what? The purchase of two magazines that they'll likely have to buy anyways? Not to mention diluting the existing pool of shooters.

IMHO, I'd personally be in favor of either keeping the same divisions we have now or even reducing them (either find a way to eliminate L-10 and just keep Limited in a fashion that works for everyone, or merge it and SS into something like a Limited Capped division where it's 8 rounds Major or 10 Minor). The more that gets created the thinner we're spreading ourselves.

[mhop]

They don't come out and shoot because of attitudes like yours. This women belong in the kitchen not on a gun range is a load of you know what and that is why their numbers don't increase. You and others with this attitude make it damn uncomfortable for any women to participate in this support and if you expect this support to survive you better get my gender more involved. As it is today if it wasn't for those who run our IPSC 101 match making me feel safe and comfortable I would never had become involved as much as I am today.

how from my post did you get that I have a males are superior than females attitude. which I don't, I like certain females the ones that don't have a chip on their shoulder just like the males with issues. I like females on the range I just don't understand why they should be treated differently than any other category that is spelled out in the rule book. how much more do you want us to do for the women to make them feel more comfortable. they have their own super squad that they can't fill up. their own paparazzi. their own awards only have to compete against each other. their own section in front sight. this sport has grown for more than 20 years and is still growing i think it will be able to survive. so a beginners class got you involved in the sport not the super squad or front sight articles or paparazzi following the top females. I suggest that USPSA invest in beginner shooters classes and setup a system like they have for RO's classes.

Literally every sport has a category for women. Literally every sport recognizes women's champions the same way they recognize the men. Are you suggesting that USPSA should be any different?

no i am saying that we should award senior stage wins and national champion and super senior stage wins and national champion and militarty stage wins and national champion and law enforcement stage wins and national champion with the same level of awards that the lady awards are presented since they are all the same in the rule book

I would suggest the rulebook ought to be changed in this regard. Would you agree?

i wouldn't be opposed to this but what makes us stop at just female what about juniors and seniors and then he/shes

[mhop]

We even have one poster on here that follows women around at major matches and writes articles about them (creepy).

If that is referring to me then allow me to respond.

I volunteer my time to help grow women's participation in USPSA by writing one/two articles per year on the USPSA Nationals. There are those that are working harder to promote Junior participation in USPSA, are they creepy too ?

I provide the women that I cover with free copies of all the photographs that I take of them so they can use them in Facebook, their own web-sites or to send to their sponsors.

I provide the women a free DVD of all the video that I take so they have a record of their match.

I provide my pictures free of charge to any Nationals/Shooter sponsor that requests them.

Are you insinuating that perhaps I have an ulterior motive for what I am doing? Perhaps you would like to clarify?

I think this comes down to what does it look like outside of that group. it looks like sexism coverage of just the female super squad all 6 of them is disproportionate to the whole of USPSA.

[beltjones]

i wouldn't be opposed to this but what makes us stop at just female what about juniors and seniors and then he/shes

Really? Are you sliding down the slippery slope all the way to a transgender national champion?

And pray tell, who will provide the impetus for recognizing the high junior or senior the same way we recognize the national champions? Has it ever been offered or requested before?

[mhop]

i wouldn't be opposed to this but what makes us stop at just female what about juniors and seniors and then he/shes

Really? Are you sliding down the slippery slope all the way to a transgender national champion?

And pray tell, who will provide the impetus for recognizing the high junior or senior the same way we recognize the national champions? Has it ever been offered or requested before?

Yes this came up at a sectional this year.

[beltjones]

i wouldn't be opposed to this but what makes us stop at just female what about juniors and seniors and then he/shes

Really? Are you sliding down the slippery slope all the way to a transgender national champion?

And pray tell, who will provide the impetus for recognizing the high junior or senior the same way we recognize the national champions? Has it ever been offered or requested before?

Yes this came up at a sectional this year.

Since you were light on details I'm going to assume you mean the transgender issue came up at the sectional...

:P :P :devil:

[lcs]

A---That is pretty much what I meant. I repeat myself , Prod 10 would satisfy all those who live and breath "Production must never change".

B Your argument doesn't make any sense if USPSA had Prod 10 and Production.

Which, unless we add new members just means we split up the existing 6 Divsions and turn it into 7 Divisions. Several have posted the reasons why adding Divisions just waters down the competition. I just don't see what it would add, other than another National Champion. Have you noticed that you are the only one proposing Prod-10 and Prod-Unl (I'm guessing the unlimited since you haven't specified any other round count) I'm guessing you want a Division for the SP-01, XDM and Grand Power to be able to run their 19+ round magazines? Because those would be the clearly dominant guns.

You would be guessing wrong.

I just "suggested" Prod -10. It seemed like a an easy compromise for all. Just because there are not additional posters in this thread agreeing, does not make it a bad suggestion. I don't see a lot of posters coming up with real reasons why it would be bad either.

It would be interesting if everyone just asked all those production shooters at local matches a simple question. Which would you rather do, Shoot this match with 10 rounds per mag or 15 rounds per mag" . I picked 15 because 15 is the figure most mentioned.

Okay, clearly I'm not understading your suggestion of Prod-10 and Production. Please explain what you are talking about. The way I've read your posts it appears that you want to create two Divisions where there is currently one. Prod-10, which would be what the current Division is, and a new Division Production which would allow...what. I can't follow your posts. Are you looking for Prod-15 or Prod Unl Capacity. We have Prod -10 now. Not seeing how that is a suggestion of anything new. It's what we have. By the last post it looks like your looking at Prod 15. I don't see a need to for two identical divisions, separated by 5 rounds of capacity. As to the comment about Limited, it's a direct parallel to what you're looking to do in Production. Limited has a capacity limit, albeit one measured by length of magazine, not number of rounds. Those looking for an increase to 15 are asking to increase that arbitrary capacity limit in Production to another arbitrary capacity limit. The same as taking the arbitrary capacity limit in Limited of 141.25 to another arbitrary limit of 161.25. As far as the handful of folks, yes, there are only a handful of people in this thread. Of the 20K members of USPSA, only a fraction are on Enos, only a fraction are on this thread and only a fraction agree that any change should be made to Production. Believe it or not, I do actually talk to people at matches. Part of the whole AD gig. I also have a lot of them, from my area and around the country email or call me with questions, requests, suggestions, angry demands, etc. Additionally I've shot Production since 2005, pretty much exclusively, and all around the country. I've had maybe, maybe two people ask me to change the limit to 15 outside of the Enos Forum. None of the new shooters I've brought into the sport have ever complained about the 10 round limit. Not one.

Prod -10 same rules as production is today.

Production -- same rules EXCEPT the 10 round mag limitation and those rules associated with it. I did mention in one of my earlier posts that a mag length restriction might be the answer, or 15 round limitation. A mag length restriction works quite well in another division (IMO).

I really think there is more support for being able to use HICAP mags than appears here. I also said in a previous post "I can see, understand, and support those reasons cited by members for USPSA to support all our competitors who are handicapped by a state law to 10 round limits. No way do I support the "go shoot limited minor" answer.

I don't believe this thread is an indicator for support or non-support of modifying or changing 10 round mag restrictions.

[mhop]

i wouldn't be opposed to this but what makes us stop at just female what about juniors and seniors and then he/shes

Really? Are you sliding down the slippery slope all the way to a transgender national champion?

And pray tell, who will provide the impetus for recognizing the high junior or senior the same way we recognize the national champions? Has it ever been offered or requested before?

Yes this came up at a sectional this year.

Since you were light on details I'm going to assume you mean the transgender issue came up at the sectional...

:P :P :devil:

yes and, no one knew how to award for it

[Skydiver]

i wouldn't be opposed to this but what makes us stop at just female what about juniors and seniors and then he/shes

Really? Are you sliding down the slippery slope all the way to a transgender national champion?

And pray tell, who will provide the impetus for recognizing the high junior or senior the same way we recognize the national champions? Has it ever been offered or requested before?

Yes this came up at a sectional this year.

Since you were light on details I'm going to assume you mean the transgender issue came up at the sectional...

:P :P :devil:

Mhop:

The current rulebook's Section 6.3 and Appendix A2 already outline categories that a MD may choose to recognize. Are you proposing that the wording "may" encoded therein to be changed to "must"? Or are you suggesting that a transgender category be added to Appendix A2? Or are you complaining about the recent nationals where some categories were recognized even though by the rulebook, they shouldn't have been because of insufficient numbers?

My personal stance used to be that if the rulebook says there aren't enough numbers, then the category shouldn't be recognized. I switched from that stance after seeing the inner working of how a match is put together. The trophies and plaques are ordered way in advance of the actual match based on pre-registration and the staff's best guess of who else maybe registering later. It's money that's already been spent. The trophies and plaques might as well be handed out, because the match isn't going to get refund from the trophy/plaque company for awards that were not given out. Additionally, sponsors for matches may stipulate how they want their donations to be distributed. Most MD's will not turn away a sponsor.