USPSA Production Mag Pouch Restriction?

[AlbinLee]

Hello Everyone,

This is my first post on this forum so I hope some more expert folks can help explain something to me. I was reading the latest issue of Front Sight magazine, and on page 5 of the "Inside NROI" article, the editor indicates that double magazine pouches will no longer be Production legal on 12/31/12. The comment states that each magazine must have its own pouch. Can someone please clarify why this is a necessary amendment to the current rules?

I ask because I have been shooting Production for about a year, and the reason why I started there is because of cost. It took alot of saving for me to get the gear needed to compete, and I actually bought it little by little over several months (started with four mags on the belt and one in a back pocket!). Being a broke college student, I can realistically only afford to shoot two matches a month right now, and that is because I just recently got a reloading press to save money on ammo. So here I am, finally set up with enough gear to be competitive, able to produce my own ammo, and now my kydex double magazine pouches are being outlawed! This is going to set me back at least 100-150 bucks or more (3-4 matches worth), and for me money is tight. All I can say is that I am super bummed!

So with all that being said... is there a reason why this is being done? I don't necessarily see how a double mag pouch gives an advantage. If anything, singles would be faster! Especially the kind that can be canted forward.

I don't mean to sound like I am complaining necessarily, but to me this is quite a blow. Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide!

-Albin

[diehli]

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78345&st=0&p=1699036&hl=production%20mag%20pouch&fromsearch=1entry1699036

[diehli]

Whoops. Premature postulation.

Nothing to worry about. By "own pouch", it simply means multiple mags can't be held by one enclosure. The language could use some cleaning up, but the intent, as posted in the thread I linked to, is to bar gimmicky things like the springloaded multi-mag pouch.

Your double pouch has 2 enclosures.

[GrumpyOne]

While it will still be legal to carry a spare mag in your back pocket, by the letter of the law, put two mags in your back pocket and receive a free trip to open! Back pocket being one enclosure.... And don't forget, magnetic mag holders are also banned in Production on 1/1/13.

[remoandiris]

bar gimmicky things like the springloaded multi-mag pouch.

I've seen one version. It allows a shooter to draw a mag from the same spot everytime and hold mags in a more compact package. It is more efficient. How is that gimmicky?

[diehli]

How is that gimmicky?

Look up the definition of "gimmick".

[remoandiris]

How is that gimmicky?

Look up the definition of "gimmick".

From Wikipedia;

In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature.

Like the 90 degree C-More mounts.

[Sin-ster]

While it will still be legal to carry a spare mag in your back pocket, by the letter of the law, put two mags in your back pocket and receive a free trip to open! Back pocket being one enclosure....

I had completely and utterly failed to consider this implication until now!

You may have saved me some heartache!

[Sarge]

From Wikipedia;

In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature.

Like the 90 degree C-More mounts.

[AlbinLee]

This is good news!

I am not sure why the Front Sight editor didn't clarify a bit further, but I must say that he had me worried. And in response to Grumpy: I have eight Glock magazines, and four double-pouches, so carrying in the pocket is long behind me now. Thank goodness because it was a time robber having to fumble for a magazine that way! Since I have gotten more competitive lately, I have been taking all the advantages I can get out of Production. Its nice that I can afford to do that!

P.S. Only two more years of engineering school and I am gonna buy the most kickass open gun and gear, and shoot every match (maybe even area matches, which I hear are amazing). In the mean time... Glock 34 and Top Ramen.

[remoandiris]

From Wikipedia;

In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature.

Like the 90 degree C-More mounts.

Yep, 5 or 6 years ago, maybe more, lots of people were ROTFL when they saw the 90 degree mounts on Open guns. But over time, they became more accepted. Just like a spring loaded mag pouch would. And I'm sure the modern Open guns themselves were viewed as gimmicky back when the VAST majority of Open shooters were using 1911s.

[diehli]

Generally, a dictionary is the appropriate place to look up the definition of a word.

If you had, you may have seen this:

gim·mick - noun \ˈgi-mik\

1 a : a mechanical device for secretly and dishonestly controlling gambling apparatus

b : an ingenious or novel mechanical device : gadget

2 a : an important feature that is not immediately apparent : catch

b : an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle

c : a trick or device used to attract business or attention

— gim·micky - adjective

Nota bene the bolded parts.

Edited May 30, 2012 by diehli

[remoandiris]

Generally, a dictionary is the appropriate place to look up the definition of a word.

If you had, you may have seen this:

gim·mick - noun \ˈgi-mik\

1 a : a mechanical device for secretly and dishonestly controlling gambling apparatus

b : an ingenious or novel mechanical device : gadget

2 a : an important feature that is not immediately apparent : catch

b : an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle

c : a trick or device used to attract business or attention

gim·micky - adjective

Nota bene the bolded parts.

Oh, so you the idea of a springloaded multi-mag pouch appeals to you.

Edited May 30, 2012 by remoandiris

[diehli]

I think it's clever, yes. I'd like to see it developed for Open, Limited, &, particularly L10. Were I shooting Revolver, I'd probably get the similar product that's available for moonclips.

But on the rule itself, I think it makes sense to exclude them from Production & SS Divisions.

[remoandiris]

I think it's clever, yes. I'd like to see it developed for Open, Limited, &, particularly L10. Were I shooting Revolver, I'd probably get the similar product that's available for moonclips.

But on the rule itself, I think it makes sense to exclude them from Production & SS Divisions.

Why would anyone develop it for classes with big sticks? I don't see how it would sell enough to make it financially viable. There just aren't that many reloads. L10, sure, but that division probably doesn't have enough shooters to pay for the R&D and manufacturing costs...even if they're built in China.

Why do you think it makes sense for Prod and SS?

[Skydiver]

I think it's clever, yes. I'd like to see it developed for Open, Limited, &, particularly L10. Were I shooting Revolver, I'd probably get the similar product that's available for moonclips.

But on the rule itself, I think it makes sense to exclude them from Production & SS Divisions.

Why would anyone develop it for classes with big sticks? I don't see how it would sell enough to make it financially viable. There just aren't that many reloads. L10, sure, but that division probably doesn't have enough shooters to pay for the R&D and manufacturing costs...even if they're built in China.

Why do you think it makes sense for Prod and SS?

The obvious benefit is always training to just to reach for the next mag at the same position.

Then the additional benefit, for Prod and SS, it saves on waist real estate for us with smaller waists. ( I'm working on growing mine. ) I think the capacity to space ratio is 5 mags stored in the space that 2 individual pouches would use up. I think that for SS it may be 6 higher to 2.

Of course, if these devices became prevalent, evil stage designers will setup table starts for field courses with all mags to be used at the start table. People with these devices maybe at a disadvantage if there isn't a quick way to put mags into them.

[remoandiris]

The obvious benefit is always training to just to reach for the next mag at the same position.

Yep. No matter how good or innovative the equipment, if you don't practice and train, it makes no difference.

My gripe with the BoD over their decision is it is just another way to stifle new products that competitive shooters could use. Whatever.

[Leozinho]

My gripe with the BoD over their decision is it is just another way to stifle new products that competitive shooters could use. Whatever.

I suspect the BoD's intention was to avoid an equipment race in Production. If their intention was to stifle new products , they would have banned those gimmicky pouches from all divisions. I don't know if you are purposely being obtuse, but in case you didn't know, the BoD recently approved rule changes in Limited that are anything but stifling new products.

I'm all for leaving Production the way it is. As it's been said ad nauseum, USPSA has Open (and to a lesser degree, Limited) for folks that want to be on the cutting edge of equipment. Sounds like you should be shooting there.

[diehli]

Why do you think it makes sense for Prod and SS?

See below.

I suspect the BoD's intention was to avoid an equipment race in Production. If their intention was to stifle new products , they would have banned those gimmicky pouches from all divisions. I don't know if you are purposely being obtuse, but in case you didn't know, the BoD recently approved rule changes in Limited that are anything but stifling new products.

I'm all for leaving Production the way it is. As it's been said ad nauseum, USPSA has Open (and to a lesser degree, Limited) for folks that want to be on the cutting edge of equipment. Sounds like you should be shooting there.

[remoandiris]

My gripe with the BoD over their decision is it is just another way to stifle new products that competitive shooters could use. Whatever.

I suspect the BoD's intention was to avoid an equipment race in Production. If their intention was to stifle new products , they would have banned those gimmicky pouches from all divisions. I don't know if you are purposely being obtuse, but in case you didn't know, the BoD recently approved rule changes in Limited that are anything but stifling new products.

I'm all for leaving Production the way it is. As it's been said ad nauseum, USPSA has Open (and to a lesser degree, Limited) for folks that want to be on the cutting edge of equipment. Sounds like you should be shooting there.

You mean they are avoiding a "visible" equipment race in Production. As long as you can't see the changes on the inside of the gun, race all you want. All the complaints about measuring trigger pull and the BoD reversed itself. If S&W developed the springloaded mag pouch, I wonder if it would have been banned from Production. Something makes me think it would not.

Yes, I know all about the changes to Limited. Or as I have heard some call it, "Open Lite". What "new products" are being developed? Or do you mean different versions of existing products...like the thumbrest.

And as I said above, cutting edge equipment means nothing without the range time to back it up.

Edited May 31, 2012 by remoandiris

[Chuck Anderson]

My gripe with the BoD over their decision is it is just another way to stifle new products that competitive shooters could use. Whatever.

I suspect the BoD's intention was to avoid an equipment race in Production. If their intention was to stifle new products , they would have banned those gimmicky pouches from all divisions. I don't know if you are purposely being obtuse, but in case you didn't know, the BoD recently approved rule changes in Limited that are anything but stifling new products.

I'm all for leaving Production the way it is. As it's been said ad nauseum, USPSA has Open (and to a lesser degree, Limited) for folks that want to be on the cutting edge of equipment. Sounds like you should be shooting there.

You mean they are avoiding a "visible" equipment race in Production. As long as you can't see the changes on the inside of the gun, race all you want. All the complaints about measuring trigger pull and the BoD reversed itself. If S&W developed the springloaded mag pouch, I wonder if it would have been banned from Production. Something makes me think it would not.

Yes, I know all about the changes to Limited. Or as I have heard some call it, "Open Lite". What "new products" are being developed? Or do you mean different versions of existing products...like the thumbrest.

And as I said above, cutting edge equipment means nothing without the range time to back it up.

Wow, not only a stab at questioning the ethical integrity of the BOD, but a completely misguided one as well. Of all the companies to pick you choose Smith and Wesson? Seriously? If there is a single company that has a legitimate gripe about the BOD making decisions to screw with their company it's Smith. You clearly haven't been around long enough to remember the .356 TSW or for that matter the 6/8 shot revolver debate. I'd hope you can recall the issues over the M&P 9L/Pro series and how long it took to get those approved. To think that the BOD favors Smith and Wesson would be offensive if it wasn't so completely off base.

If you think there will not be innovation in Limited, well tell me that in two years. I've already seen a handful of new products in prototype and the rules aren't even in effect yet.

[diehli]

My gripe with the BoD over their decision is it is just another way to stifle new products that competitive shooters could use. Whatever.

I suspect the BoD's intention was to avoid an equipment race in Production. If their intention was to stifle new products , they would have banned those gimmicky pouches from all divisions. I don't know if you are purposely being obtuse, but in case you didn't know, the BoD recently approved rule changes in Limited that are anything but stifling new products.

I'm all for leaving Production the way it is. As it's been said ad nauseum, USPSA has Open (and to a lesser degree, Limited) for folks that want to be on the cutting edge of equipment. Sounds like you should be shooting there.

You mean they are avoiding a "visible" equipment race in Production. As long as you can't see the changes on the inside of the gun, race all you want. All the complaints about measuring trigger pull and the BoD reversed itself. If S&W developed the springloaded mag pouch, I wonder if it would have been banned from Production. Something makes me think it would not.

Yes, I know all about the changes to Limited. Or as I have heard some call it, "Open Lite". What "new products" are being developed? Or do you mean different versions of existing products...like the thumbrest.

And as I said above, cutting edge equipment means nothing without the range time to back it up.

Wow, not only a stab at questioning the ethical integrity of the BOD, but a completely misguided one as well. Of all the companies to pick you choose Smith and Wesson? Seriously? If there is a single company that has a legitimate gripe about the BOD making decisions to screw with their company it's Smith. You clearly haven't been around long enough to remember the .356 TSW or for that matter the 6/8 shot revolver debate. I'd hope you can recall the issues over the M&P 9L/Pro series and how long it took to get those approved. To think that the BOD favors Smith and Wesson would be offensive if it wasn't so completely off base.

If you think there will not be innovation in Limited, well tell me that in two years. I've already seen a handful of new products in prototype and the rules aren't even in effect yet.

Yeah, like we're gonna believe you.

I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!!

[Flexmoney]

We had a new(er) shooter here, asking a fairly simple question.

It seems answered. In fact, it was answered in another thread (see the link in post #2, above)

Since this is turning personal/argumentative, I am going to close it.

- Admin.