Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Division 'modification' discussion


Jim Norman

Recommended Posts

I will repeat my earlier comment. Can we please split the 'How Women are treated thread' out of this as it is really totally off topic. This thread was about adding two divisions to grow USPSA. It has as is nearly always the case degenerated into how to change Production into something else.

As to the Claimer Rule, not only NO, but HELL NO!

As to raising the round count in Production, NO, Production works. IPSC made their limit 15 after a lot of serious thought, they were rightfully concerned about the effect it could have in a lot of their regions. Would all divisions become limited to whatever limit they set on one division? The reason IPSC Prod is 15 was to stop an Arms Race. Manufacturers were building 'Production' guns with capacities approaching Standard Division. 15 worked for them, it was a REDUCTION in the allowed round capacity. We are at 10 rounds, we require a carry type holster, IPSC allows race holsters. Do we want that as well?

Leave it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 399
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will repeat my earlier comment. Can we please split the 'How Women are treated thread' out of this as it is really totally off topic. This thread was about adding two divisions to grow USPSA. It has as is nearly always the case degenerated into how to change Production into something else.

As to the Claimer Rule, not only NO, but HELL NO!

As to raising the round count in Production, NO, Production works. IPSC made their limit 15 after a lot of serious thought, they were rightfully concerned about the effect it could have in a lot of their regions. Would all divisions become limited to whatever limit they set on one division? The reason IPSC Prod is 15 was to stop an Arms Race. Manufacturers were building 'Production' guns with capacities approaching Standard Division. 15 worked for them, it was a REDUCTION in the allowed round capacity. We are at 10 rounds, we require a carry type holster, IPSC allows race holsters. Do we want that as well?

Leave it alone.

I agree the other comments unrelated to adding divisions should be moved out of this thread.

Totally disagree that this thread has "degenerated" to how to change production. It is comments like that make people not want to participate in a discussion on "Adding Divisions ...". It seems, because you don't support a particular frame of thought, we have degenerated.

All my posts spoke to "adding divisions". I'll admit they were focused on one division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will repeat my earlier comment. Can we please split the 'How Women are treated thread' out of this as it is really totally off topic. This thread was about adding two divisions to grow USPSA. It has as is nearly always the case degenerated into how to change Production into something else.

As to the Claimer Rule, not only NO, but HELL NO!

As to raising the round count in Production, NO, Production works. IPSC made their limit 15 after a lot of serious thought, they were rightfully concerned about the effect it could have in a lot of their regions. Would all divisions become limited to whatever limit they set on one division? The reason IPSC Prod is 15 was to stop an Arms Race. Manufacturers were building 'Production' guns with capacities approaching Standard Division. 15 worked for them, it was a REDUCTION in the allowed round capacity. We are at 10 rounds, we require a carry type holster, IPSC allows race holsters. Do we want that as well?

Leave it alone.

i think this thread turned into what way can we increase participation in uspsa and all thoughts are prevalent to that topic. i don't think we should change any divisions i would want to test out an entry boxed gun division and the only rules were gun has to fit in box with any mag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will repeat my earlier comment. Can we please split the 'How Women are treated thread' out of this as it is really totally off topic. This thread was about adding two divisions to grow USPSA. It has as is nearly always the case degenerated into how to change Production into something else.

As to the Claimer Rule, not only NO, but HELL NO!

As to raising the round count in Production, NO, Production works. IPSC made their limit 15 after a lot of serious thought, they were rightfully concerned about the effect it could have in a lot of their regions. Would all divisions become limited to whatever limit they set on one division? The reason IPSC Prod is 15 was to stop an Arms Race. Manufacturers were building 'Production' guns with capacities approaching Standard Division. 15 worked for them, it was a REDUCTION in the allowed round capacity. We are at 10 rounds, we require a carry type holster, IPSC allows race holsters. Do we want that as well?

Leave it alone.

i think this thread turned into what way can we increase participation in uspsa and all thoughts are prevalent to that topic. i don't think we should change any divisions i would want to test out an entry boxed gun division and the only rules were gun has to fit in box with any mag.

I thought that's how the IPSC Modified division worked. If it fit in the box, it was legal... optics, comps, ports legal. I was also under the impression that IPSC was considering phasing out that division.

Edited by Skydiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it then make sense to adopt the old IPSC Modified division into USPSA? Or is the proposed Open-10 a better alternative for the USPSA? To me both routes look interesting.

I'm also not opposed to the idea of Open Revolver to try to entice ICORE shooters.

Edited by Skydiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 degrees and breezy here in North Texas. At least you and I are having a nice, albeit unproductive and irrelevant, exchange. :roflol:

I just want to say "hi." :roflol:

Hey, and how is the weather in Texas today? It's partly cloudy and about 40 degrees here in Denver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the increase to 15. You still can't get through 2 arrays. If you want an increase in capacity, why not lobby for at least 16.

I don't care for Production and I shot it for a while. I prefer single action triggers, but I think Production is fine as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Count me in for 15 in Production. It isn't so much about getting another full array in but more of a bit of a cushion for newer shooters (okay and some of us older ones as well) and for two arrays that are not 8 rounds each. Potentially adds some stage planning beyond "reload every time I move".

Edited by Neomet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

i think there are a couple different ways to do the category prize stuff. If there is enough create the prize stuff. if there is a question dont create the prize stuff and if they hit the magic number send it out after or do what the NFL does and create all the stuff assuming that the numbers will be meet and if not destroy the stuff if the numbers are not meet not hand out the stuff and let somebody go around gloating about winning something that shouldn't have this would just go into a match expense and no lose just make it into the budget

Started a new thread: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=141406

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

What is the NFL's cagetory for women? Lingerie Footbal League?

I can't think of very many sports where men and women compete at the same time, on the same playing field (for lack of a better term.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At Old Bridge we have a group that runs the Old Bridge Rimfire Action Matches. They are run essentially under USPSA Rules although they are NOT advertised as USPSA. There are some required differences, Stages are started at the Low Ready or Pick-up off the Barrel. Magazines are staged. We have 4 divisions, Pistol OPEN and LIMITED and Carbine OPEN and LIMITED all are limited to 10 rounds. It is a great place to start out for people that are not sure.

This said, I think that we should NOT have a .22 division in USPSA. Our .22 group has its own steel that is much lighter so that a .22 will take it down. They also use the 1/4 size targets for some stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sperman, men and women compete in the same events primarily in shooting and motorsports. There have been national champions in both, straight up. USPSA is really the exception rather than the rule though. Motorsports particularly trys to be blind to gender and has fine so very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my idea for a new division that would potentially attract new shooters: .22 rimfire.

Good for the youngsters, and it might attract some women who are intimidated by a heavier recoiling gun.

The issue with that is steel targets. .22's won't knock them down. To score them you'd need to do it audibly. You also have the problem that falling steel is often used to either reveal an additional steel target behind it, or act as an activator for a moving target.

In that regard, you'd have some difficulty scoring a .22 as it would have to have portions of the stage non-scored for .22 shooters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...