Pistol Caliber Carbine. (PCC)

[MarkCO]

Can someone explain to me how deploying PPC in USPSA pistol matches "grows" the sport? Growth meaning bringing in and maintaining new shooters, not giving existing shooters something else to screw around with.

I have run 3 Carbine matches (with PCC) at CRC in the last 2 years. Of the 50-60 people that show up, there have been about 4 or 5 USPSA pistol shooters, about 20 3Gun shooters and over half were people who had never shot a USPSA match, nor a 3Gun match. One of those was my wife, one of those was my 11 year old and once we took some of my sons friends. We had about 10 ladies and 5 youth shoot their first match ever (more than sum total over 2 years of USPSA matches). PCCs are among the easiest firearms to shoot, other than rimfire. Training a lot of youth, they are also better from a safety and control perspective. New youth and ladies generally enjoy shooting PCC more than any other platform in my experience. The information I have been able to get from manufacturers supports this. PCCs are going to be one of the hotter selling platforms in the Industry in 2016 according to the sales trends and numbers.

When we, as seasoned competitors look at the industry and the sport through the eyes of a potential new shooter, and not as an accomplished shooter, things really do look different. I have spent the better part of a year researching shooting industry trends and how to attract new shooters to the action shooting sports. I think, 18 months ago, I might have been opposed, but an open mind and a fresh perspective on seeing opportunities instead of looking for all the potential roadblocks is a much healthier approach for me, and the shooting industry.

Edited February 2, 2016 by MarkCO

[Strick]

So we are not interested in growing the sport of handgun competition, just shooting? Seems like all that you posted was just how to get more people shooting not growing USPSA Handgun popularity. There is a difference.

[rowdyb]

Yet the NRA only has rifle in its name and we aren't concerned about their involvement in pistol matters. The P in USPSA doesn't stand for pistol either, so we shouldn't be surprised if they want to grow shooting by thinking USPSA could be inclusive of PCC.

I am a supporter in the addition of PCC to our matches. Growth does not happen without change, ever. How one reacts to that change is their own decision.

[Roons]

Yet the NRA only has rifle in its name and we aren't concerned about their involvement in pistol matters. The P in USPSA doesn't stand for pistol either, so we shouldn't be surprised if they want to grow shooting by thinking USPSA could be inclusive of PCC.

I am a supporter in the addition of PCC to our matches. Growth does not happen without change, ever. How one reacts to that change is their own decision.

Agreed. I've been more excited about PCC than anything else recently announced, specifically CO. I've been shooting Limited for 4 years, and PCC makes me want to run out and throw cash at someone to get a gun - its like Open, but more practical - feels more line with the idea behind USPSA in itself.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Roons

[MarkCO]

So we are not interested in growing the sport of handgun competition, just shooting? Seems like all that you posted was just how to get more people shooting not growing USPSA Handgun popularity. There is a difference.

If that is the way you chose to color it, that is your choice. But the numbers are pretty clear that the action shooting community has done a great job scaring people away and not including new customers unless they are very attractive females. NSSF surveys have all kinds of information that show competition shooters spend more money and until a few years ago, drove industry trends. No longer true. The more people that enter their first competition, the better a chance we have of them searching out, and eventually finding a sport they like. If 100 people shoot their first match, some will never do it again, but most will. However, most will not end up becoming proficient in, or sticking with their first taste of action shooting sports. So yes, the bigger the pond, the more fish we can have. Any sport that screams us 4, close the door no more...will die. As I said, my work and experience have changed my views, and at this point, I think for the better.

I started a 2ns IDPA club at my range, not because I wanted to shoot IDPA, but because the more people competing with firearms, the better. But guess what, that IDPA club has brought in new shooters who eventually want to move up to USPSA pistol, or 3Gun. Some want to stay there, and that is okay too.

I think any provisional division needs to be a gracious guest and if the guest upsets the residents by their mere presence, well then that is an old guard we don't need.

[Strick]

Can someone explain to me how deploying PPC in USPSA pistol matches "grows" the sport? Growth meaning bringing in and maintaining new shooters, not giving existing shooters something else to screw around with.

I answered a similar question over at the USPSA site. Here is my answer:

• Why PCC? A USPSA-style PCC match format is appealing in different ways to handguns. The PCC platform is in some ways easier to shoot (opening participation to folks that struggle with a handgun), yet in other ways introduces new and interesting challenges for all of us (maneuvering around a course of fire, target transitions etc.). A lot of folks only shoot 3-gun/long gun matches, having less interest in handguns, and so a PCC division would draw them into the USPSA world. Some long-time handgunners just get burned out, and PCC can breathe new life into the match for them. For myself, I enjoy handgun, long gun and 3-gun competitions, and so being able to run a PCC in a USPSA handgun match (of which there are many in my area) gives me more choices each month. Oh, and 9mm<$<.223.
• Why not run PCC in multigun? Firstly, most multigun matches have at least some targets that are placed beyond the effective range of a PCC (~100 yards), so a PCC is just not viable. Furthermore, there are a sizable number of shooters (including USPSA handgunners) that have no interest in shooting shotgun - we see an explosion of new participation whenever we run rifle-only or rifle-pistol events.
• Why not have a dedicated PCC match? Unfortunately, there is just not enough critical mass in most locales to justify using a range exclusively for a PCC match. This may change in the future if PCC division proves to be as popular as some us expect, but we are not there yet.
• Why allow a "rifle" into a handgun match? A PCC is a rifle under federal law because of its buttstock. However, ballistically it is much closer to a handgun than a true rifle. In the "real world" (if that matters to anyone here) PCCs are often used as an easier to shoot, more accurate pistol. The "P" stands for "pistol" - the caliber we shoot out of a PCC is the same as we shoot out of our handguns. This makes all of the stage designs, target types and berm construction at a handgun match entirely compatible with PCC in a way that it would not be for a real rifle. If we accept the premise that PCC practical shooting is something worth doing (which I am sure not everyone here does), and we are able to put appropriate safety and match integration protocols in place (which DNROI is working on now), then a handgun match is its natural home.

PCC has a lot to offer, and I am pleased to see USPSA showing leadership in this area.

My basic response to you over there.

1) You say they have little intrest in handgun matches so we should let them shoot their rifles in.......a handgun match. Just sayin

2)PCC could be used in multi/3 gun the same way you want to shoehorn it into USPSA Handgun, by changing things. Only certain targets would need to be shot by PCC, say yo 100-150 yards. maybe that means altering cof's ot other things to only affect PCC but it would be just as easy.

3)So it is popular and USPSA is missing a huge market......but there isn't a big enough market to support it. What if there is only a big enough market to make pistol shooters not able to shoot at a Handgun match?

As I have said a few times, many matches all over the country are at capacity (level 1 to level 3), majors fill up in less than an hour in some cases and only days in many cases. How does this indicate a need to "grow the sport"? Even worse, what happens if the growth of PCC is what you are selling? What happens when the majority of shooters at handgun matches becomes PCC shooters? Could that have an overall affect on the level of handgun participation in general?

[Strick]

Yet the NRA only has rifle in its name and we aren't concerned about their involvement in pistol matters. The P in USPSA doesn't stand for pistol either, so we shouldn't be surprised if they want to grow shooting by thinking USPSA could be inclusive of PCC.

I am a supporter in the addition of PCC to our matches. Growth does not happen without change, ever. How one reacts to that change is their own decision.

The "P" in USPSA argument is ridiculous. I never indicated otherwise. I was however refering the the USPSA matches that are governed by the USPSA HANDGUN rules.........

[teros135]

So we are not interested in growing the sport of handgun competition, just shooting? Seems like all that you posted was just how to get more people shooting not growing USPSA Handgun popularity. There is a difference.

<snip>

I think any provisional division needs to be a gracious guest and if the guest upsets the residents by their mere presence, well then that is an old guard we don't need.

Does anybody else find this to be both offensive and condescending? It seems to refer to anybody that disagrees with PCC as an "old guard we don't need". Since when do newcomers get to simply dismiss those who already live here and support our sport?

You certainly are guests, and not ones that everybody thinks is the blazingly good idea you think it is. Be careful, with this type of attitude you might wear out your (tentative) welcome a whole lot faster than you think.

[MarkCO]

The sky is not going to fall if PCC is a provisional division in USPSA contested at pistol matches. Really, it won't.

[Manwithnoname]

FYI

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/02/02/potd-kydex-holster-for-ar-pistol/

[Strick]

So we are not interested in growing the sport of handgun competition, just shooting? Seems like all that you posted was just how to get more people shooting not growing USPSA Handgun popularity. There is a difference.

If that is the way you chose to color it, that is your choice. But the numbers are pretty clear that the action shooting community has done a great job scaring people away and not including new customers unless they are very attractive females. NSSF surveys have all kinds of information that show competition shooters spend more money and until a few years ago, drove industry trends. No longer true. The more people that enter their first competition, the better a chance we have of them searching out, and eventually finding a sport they like. If 100 people shoot their first match, some will never do it again, but most will. However, most will not end up becoming proficient in, or sticking with their first taste of action shooting sports. So yes, the bigger the pond, the more fish we can have. Any sport that screams us 4, close the door no more...will die. As I said, my work and experience have changed my views, and at this point, I think for the better.

I started a 2ns IDPA club at my range, not because I wanted to shoot IDPA, but because the more people competing with firearms, the better. But guess what, that IDPA club has brought in new shooters who eventually want to move up to USPSA pistol, or 3Gun. Some want to stay there, and that is okay too.

I think any provisional division needs to be a gracious guest and if the guest upsets the residents by their mere presence, well then that is an old guard we don't need.

So you didn't answer my question. Would you be OK for growing the sport of shooting at the expense of sport of handgun competition?

Start PCC, I applaud it, but on it's own. I would probably even shoot it. But I sought out USPSA to shoot handgun matches and it would be a shame to think that in order to grow for the sake of growing that part of USPSA would be compromised.

[Strick]

The sky is not going to fall if PCC is a provisional division in USPSA contested at pistol matches. Really, it won't.

And the USPSA Handgun matches won't die if PCC doesn't exist....really, it won't.

[MarkCO]

Would you be OK for growing the sport of shooting at the expense of sport of handgun competition?

No, and I have stated such herein and elsewhere several times.

[ZackJones]

So you didn't answer my question. Would you be OK for growing the sport of shooting at the expense of sport of handgun competition?

Start PCC, I applaud it, but on it's own. I would probably even shoot it. But I sought out USPSA to shoot handgun matches and it would be a shame to think that in order to grow for the sake of growing that part of USPSA would be compromised.

How, exactly, does adding PCC compromise the match? I can shoot PCC and compete only again other PCC competitors you can shoot Open/Limited/Limited 10/Production/Revolver/Single Stack/Carry Optics and only compete against shooters in the same division.

[Beastly]

So you didn't answer my question. Would you be OK for growing the sport of shooting at the expense of sport of handgun competition?

The premise of the question implies a zero-sum game, that is, one must lose for the other to gain.

I don't agree with the premise.

[Strick]

So you didn't answer my question. Would you be OK for growing the sport of shooting at the expense of sport of handgun competition?

The premise of the question implies a zero-sum game, that is, one must lose for the other to gain.

I don't agree with the premise.

It kinda is. Let's take a simple 300 slot level 2 handgun match, that would normally fill with just handgun shooters. If PCC is a division and there are 30 shooters then we have basically grown the "sport" of shooting at the expense of handgun competition.

[ctay]

1) Questioning the idea does not make one an "old guard" curmudgeon that doesn't like fun. That type of attitude only serves to make people defensively take sides rather than have an open dialog. Cut it out.

2) I think there are a lot of people (like myself) that would like to see this work but are apprehensive because there are some legitimate real challenges that will have to be addressed before it can work without having a negative effect on handgun shooters. The one that worries me the most is one handed shooting challenges. USPSA has quite of few of these - not just strong hand / weak hand but port and prop manipulation that I don't think can be safely done while holding and shooting a long gun. For those that support the idea, do you mind taking a moment to address how you would handle those situations and further, why any suggested modifications will not adversely effect those not shooting a PPC?

It seems clear to me that there will need to be some trade offs to bring PPC's into USPSA Handgun competitions. Those trade offs will need to be evaluated and valued - if you feel the cost is small you may be for it. However there will be some that feel the trade off is too much for "what you are getting" and won't support the idea. In order to have an honest conversation you have to address this.

Chris

[Beastly]

It kinda is. Let's take a simple 300 slot level 2 handgun match, that would normally fill with just handgun shooters. If PCC is a division and there are 30 shooters then we have basically grown the "sport" of shooting at the expense of handgun competition.

We already have more demand than matches - this isn't necessarily a bad thing, excess demand encourages more matches to be offered assuming there is profit or satisfaction in doing so.

If the PCC shooters were going to shoot handgun if PCC wasn't available, nothing changed.

If new new PCC shooters are attracted that wouldn't have othewise shot the match, then yes, in the immediate term there is more competition for already-scarce slots. But those new PCC shooters may also bring in contributors of various sorts, and who might be willing to host new matches, all of which is additive to the sport.

To pick a local example, I suspect a lot of 3-gunners are a little burnt on the personal time, travel time, complexity and expense of full 3-gun matches. We have lost a lot of fine shooters to 3-gun, some go back and forth as time permits. These are serious folk, some of which who have run matches in the past.

I know another fine gentleman who prefers IDPA and 3-gun. He is a long time contriutor. He dabbles in USPSA and LOVES his AR-9 PCC. I strongly suspect that if he had a chance to shoot PCC he would bng more to the table than yet another body consuming a slot.

I think it is useful to think in terms of how we scale the sport, vs. assuming it is a zero-sum game.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Beastly

[CHA-LEE]

One thing that I see missing in the PPC situation is the proper representation of DVC. Everyone seems to love PPC because of the cheap or weak sauce ammo that can be shot through it. When I look at the USPSA Handgun Rule book page 3 lists the "Principles of USPSA Competitions". Number 2 on that list says ... Accuracy, power and speed are the equivalent elements of practical shooting and practical competition must be conducted in such a way as to evaluate these elements equally.

Weak sauce ammo shot through a PPC completely blows the "Power" requirement out of DVC. I would liken this situation the same as allowing shooters to use .22LR handguns in USPSA Pistol matches because its cheaper and easier to shoot. Do we really want to neuter the DVC balance in an effort to "Grow the sport"? Personally I would say no and it undermines the fundamental principles of the sport. Accuracy, POWER, and speed are required to be a true balance.

Edited February 3, 2016 by CHA-LEE

[CHA-LEE]

I also think that its funny how PPC has been around FOREVER but now is the new magical thing that is going to grow the practical shooting sports. If PPC is going to create the next tsunami of new shooters entering the practical pistol sports then it should be able to support its own dedicated match and or sanctioning body. I am not holding my breath of that happening any time soon because the market isn't there and probably never will be.

If there WAS a huge growing market for it someone would start up a dedicated sanctioning body for it. As with anything in the free market.......Money talks, bullshit walks.

[rowdyb]

Talking about the founders intent in the rule book makes me think this is an idpa thread.....

[Onepocket]

Angry Panda rant.hahahaha Weak sauce ammo??? My 5.56 rifle has less recoil than my carbine. PCC been around Forever??? So if you don't think it will work why are you so crazed about it. Rifles are fun and this is the freshest idea that USPSA has had in a long time.

[StealthyBlagga]

One thing that I see missing in the PPC situation is the proper representation of DVC. Everyone seems to love PPC because of the cheap or weak sauce ammo that can be shot through it. When I look at the USPSA Handgun Rule book page 3 lists the "Principles of USPSA Competitions". Number 2 on that list says ... Accuracy, power and speed are the equivalent elements of practical shooting and practical competition must be conducted in such a way as to evaluate these elements equally.

Weak sauce ammo shot through a PPC completely blows the "Power" requirement out of DVC. I would liken this situation the same as allowing shooters to use .22LR handguns in USPSA Pistol matches because its cheaper and easier to shoot. Do we really want to neuter the DVC balance in an effort to "Grow the sport"? Personally I would say no and it undermines the fundamental principles of the sport. Accuracy, POWER, and speed are required to be a true balance.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that there would be no power floor... only that PCC could be scored Minor PF (with the intent of putting a premium on accuracy). Most PCCs need fairly robust loads to cycle reliably, and of course the longer barrels deliver substantially more horsepower than the same load in a handgun.

Edited February 3, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[r01]

One thing that I see missing in the PPC situation is the proper representation of DVC. Everyone seems to love PPC because of the cheap or weak sauce ammo that can be shot through it. When I look at the USPSA Handgun Rule book page 3 lists the "Principles of USPSA Competitions". Number 2 on that list says ... Accuracy, power and speed are the equivalent elements of practical shooting and practical competition must be conducted in such a way as to evaluate these elements equally.

Weak sauce ammo shot through a PPC completely blows the "Power" requirement out of DVC. I would liken this situation the same as allowing shooters to use .22LR handguns in USPSA Pistol matches because its cheaper and easier to shoot. Do we really want to neuter the DVC balance in an effort to "Grow the sport"? Personally I would say no and it undermines the fundamental principles of the sport. Accuracy, POWER, and speed are required to be a true balance.

Is this for real?

[StealthyBlagga]

...

2) I think there are a lot of people (like myself) that would like to see this work but are apprehensive because there are some legitimate real challenges that will have to be addressed before it can work without having a negative effect on handgun shooters. The one that worries me the most is one handed shooting challenges. USPSA has quite of few of these - not just strong hand / weak hand but port and prop manipulation that I don't think can be safely done while holding and shooting a long gun. For those that support the idea, do you mind taking a moment to address how you would handle those situations and further, why any suggested modifications will not adversely effect those not shooting a PPC?...

I am bringing my reply to your question over from the USPSA thread for those not already over there:

First I'd like to share my background: I started shooting in IPSC/USPSA handgun competitions in 1984, and multigun in 2000. I have shot matches across the US and internationally. I am an NROI handgun/multigun CRO and an IROA handgun RO. I have been a match director since 2010, and I design stages for one of the oldest and best known 3-gun matches in the nation. Suffice to say I have seen (and created) a lot of weird stage requirements and shooting positions over the years, but by no means have I seen everything. With this in mind, I am sure what I say below will not cover every single situation, and someone determined to pick holes in it and play "gotcha" games will find plenty of ammunition.

As a general comment, I'd like to see the new PCC addendum include some guidance on how PCC stage requirements should differ from handgun requirements. As PCCs are scored separately from handguns, there is no competitive equity reason why they cannot have different stage requirements so long as they do not impose unreasonable burdens on officials or other participants. With this said, ultimately we should trust MDs to exercise common sense and good judgement based on the specifics on the ground... let's have them be the final arbiter.

Start Position: Obviously a lot of handgun start positions (e.g. facing up range) do not translate to PCC. I'd suggest a default PCC start position of standing erect in the start location, facing straight downrange, PCC loaded/safe/low ready (butt in strong shoulder, barrel pointing down at a 45 degree angle). The exact definition of "start location" can be tricky - a start box or feet marks are clear, but we have all seen the contortions some folks get into when they start with hands touching a prop. Maybe in such circumstances we have the PCCer have one hand touching the prop, or the muzzle of the PCC touching the prop or similiar fixed datum point. This is a situation when the MD can make the final call. As mentioned, so long as it is safe and not burdensome, it need not be the same as for handgun.

Strong hand/weak hand: Mostly in short courses/classifiers. I would suggest the PCC addendum stipulate that "strong hand" = normal shooting off the strong shoulder using two hands, and "weak hand" = shooting off the weak shoulder using two hands. Yes, it is easier than the handgun equivalent, but who cares - PCCers are only shooting against other PCCers. I would not necessarily see the need to change the classifiers as written provided the PCC addendum was referenced, but DNROI owns that decision.

Unusual stage requirements: Although less common at Level 1 matches, some stage requirements can be very unusual; carrying something in one hand, holding a port open while shooting, leaning out around a wall, hanging from a rope, etc. etc. I can imagine some will work just fine as is (we long gunners are remarkably creative), but in other cases I can envisage a challenge being just about impossible with a PCC. This is another situation where an MD could simply provide alternatives or stipulate different requirements for PCC, such as the following examples:

• Carrying Something in One Hand: Usually can be done with a PCC unless very heavy. If not, allow the PCCer to put it down while shooting, or eliminate the requirement entirely.
• Holding a Port Open, Leaning Around Wall, Hanging From Rope etc.: Usually can be done with a PCC. If not, perhaps provide an alternative which handgunners won't be interested in (such as an always-open port in an inconvenient location, e.g. at ground level), or a PCC-only shooting box adjacent to the handgun shooting area from which the targets could be safely engaged with a PCC.

To be clear, I am NOT advocating that the MD dumb down any stages for handgunners just to accommodate PCC. However, different stage requirements for PCC would be only a minor change with no competitive equity impact; typically they would require only modest additional effort for the MD/setup crew, and should be no hardship or source of inequity for the handgunners. Initially some handgunners might find the different requirements confusing (e.g. newbie thinking they can shoot handgun from a PCC area), but this should get worked out pretty quickly.

Ultimately, if an MD felt any aspect of PCC was too burdensome, or if they wanted to use props incompatible with PCC (e.g. tiny ports) they would remain at liberty not to recognize PCC in their match. Our MDs know their business - let's give them the tools then let them make the final decision based on local wants and needs.

Edited February 3, 2016 by StealthyBlagga