Pistol Caliber Carbine. (PCC)

[d_striker]

WP's capacity has absolutely nothing to do with USPSA.

Yet another person's head that went completely over.

[thermobollocks]

WP's capacity has absolutely nothing to do with USPSA.

Yet another person's head that went completely over.

If you know how to make indoors bigger, I'm all ears.

[d_striker]

Since people have asked for me to elaborate, I'll respond this one last time and I'm out for good.

PCC is being sold to us purely under the premise of growing participation and collecting additional activity fees. If you're following what Foley has been saying, he has repeatedly stated that USPSA needs to be capturing these activity fees since people are already shooting PCC as an outlaw division. He is also saying that PCC will grow participation in USPSA handgun matches. I'm not here to argue any of this. I don't think anyone can say for certain how things are going to shake out. I'm certainly willing to admit that.

My response to Rangerdug was purely addressing capacity, supply, and demand. Of course WP is not going to get bigger anytime soon AFAIK. That's not the point. The point is that participation is already beyond capacity at matches like WP, CGC, Bristlecone, and Aurora.

People getting turned away from matches, shooters not showing up because of 20 person squads, or L3 matches selling out in three minutes are all indicative of demand exceeding supply. When demand exceeds supply, USPSA is again losing out on activity fees.

The only point I was addressing was growth strategy. As to the poster that said it was only a problem in my locale, you're entirely correct. It's a problem with where I personally participate in local club matches. Maybe that's selfish. But it's just as selfish for people in areas that don't see excess demand push "growth" which contributes to the bottleneck in other peoples' backyards.

All I'm saying is let's see an incentive plan for creating new clubs AND maintain club affiliation. If I was hearing Foley come up with a growth strategy concurrent to just adding divisions for the sake of collecting more activity fees, he'd have more of my support right now.

[outerlimits]

I agree-Over-growing is a mistake. But if you're headquarters, they don't give a fat rats ass about club capacity. They want money.

[Beastly]

PCC is being sold to us purely under the premise of growing participation and collecting additional activity fees.

Your words and narrow characterization. Let me add some of my words. How about 'it's fun' or 'there is existing demand including outlaw divisions' or 'this might drive additional demand AND additional capacity" or 'this expands the relevance of USPSA'?

Maybe that's selfish. But it's just as selfish for people in areas that don't see excess demand push "growth" which contributes to the bottleneck in other peoples' backyards.

I agree that your position is selfish. Demand drives growth. This is a much more reliable model than 'build it and hope they come'.

All I'm saying is let's see an incentive plan for creating new clubs AND maintain club affiliation.

I agree, this as well.

[d_striker]

PCC is being sold to us purely under the premise of growing participation and collecting additional activity fees.

Your words and narrow characterization. Let me add some of my words. How about 'it's fun' or 'there is existing demand including outlaw divisions' or 'this might drive additional demand AND additional capacity" or 'this expands the relevance of USPSA'?

Ok. Read it in his words then. This is just one of many statements by him regarding activity fees from PCC being a driver.

http://www.uspsa.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1563-pistol-caliber-carbine-division/&do=findComment&comment=20336

Anyone who shoots a USPSA match once, twice, whatever, should have an activity fee paid on their classifier. I get that clubs don't want to pay for non-members, and carbines that aren't even USPSA legal. So the Md/stats guy removes that shooter before the final submission. That is what is being done, fact. If we put carbines in the game, we get those fees, and some new memberships because of the classification system.

[Beastly]

I agree USPSA could be collecting fees and more importantly could and should be working to bring outlaw divisions and matches into the USPSA/PCC fold.

I don't agree that PCC is being sold PURELY on the premise of growth and fees. That sells it short.

[Brooke]

If local demand is as high as I am reading here, why wouldn't you try limiting matches to certain divisions and having additional matches to cover all the divisions ? If a private range is saying they lose money on matches (versus having the range open) why not increase match fees to cover the difference ?

If either or both of these occurred, surely someone or some group of shooters would see the opportunity and start up a new range. Isn't that what capitalism is? Supplying a demand in return for profit.

A private club is a good answer because they can prioritize the inclusion of members in matches and just allow outsiders as slots are available.

Limiting what USPSA can do because there is a local range shortage makes no sense. It is not USPSA's fault that local ranges are overcrowded. If USPSA reacts by limiting divisional opportunity, someone else will provide the opportunity and the overcrowding will just continue.

Seems to me that overcrowding (or over pricing) is a good thing because it stimulates discussion about how to fix it. My suggestion is a private club so the shooters are in control. I am not saying that is easy to organize, but it can be done. As long as commercial ranges hold the trump cards they will do what is best for them. If they have a range for the purpose of assisting in the sale of guns, then the sale of guns will always get priority. If they sell memberships, then the members wishes will always get priority. Taking control of the situation is the best choice painful as the initial work will be.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Brooke

[PKT1106]

Is that legal from a USPSA perspective, limiting entry to members first and then the general public (for local matches, of course)? I really don't know.

[StealthyBlagga]

Is that legal from a USPSA perspective, limiting entry to members first and then the general public (for local matches, of course)? I really don't know.

Level 2+ Participants MUST be USPSA members. Matches must be open to all USPSA members (I think IPSC also).

Edited February 14, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[Gooldylocks]

Is that legal from a USPSA perspective, limiting entry to members first and then the general public (for local matches, of course)? I really don't know.

Level 2+ Participants MUST be USPSA members. Matches must be open to all USPSA members (I think IPSC also).

I believe that he was saying limiting it to range members, not USPSA/IPSC members.

Ie, "Anywhere, U.S.A Rifle Club" members get to sign up for the match first, then they open it to everyone else.

[StealthyBlagga]

Is that legal from a USPSA perspective, limiting entry to members first and then the general public (for local matches, of course)? I really don't know.

Level 2+ Participants MUST be USPSA members. Matches must be open to all USPSA members (I think IPSC also).

I believe that he was saying limiting it to range members, not USPSA/IPSC members.

Ie, "Anywhere, U.S.A Rifle Club" members get to sign up for the match first, then they open it to everyone else.

Dont think thats legal

[Beastly]

Half the people at USPSA matches aren't USPSA members. Give USPSA members priority - quick fix.

[Brooke]

Half the people at USPSA matches aren't USPSA members. Give USPSA members priority - quick fix.

Absolutely!! the

I don't know whether the posters using the term "legal" mean under USPSA Rules or under the law. Certainly under the law there are private clubs that do not allow non- members. So it is clearly ok to restrict matches to members. If there is a USPSA rule that says you can not require membership for L1, I have never seen it. If there is it can be changed.

I guess I have never figured out why requiring membership is a bad idea.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Brooke

[MilkMyDuds]

Half the people at USPSA matches aren't USPSA members. Give USPSA members priority - quick fix.

This is by far the best way I have seen to grow USPSA. Keep it up.

[AJE]

Half the people at USPSA matches aren't USPSA members. Give USPSA members priority - quick fix.

Absolutely!! the

I don't know whether the posters using the term "legal" mean under USPSA Rules or under the law. Certainly under the law there are private clubs that do not allow non- members. So it is clearly ok to restrict matches to members. If there is a USPSA rule that says you can not require membership for L1, I have never seen it. If there is it can be changed.

I guess I have never figured out why requiring membership is a bad idea.

I don't remember where it was addressed, but I don't believe the club can host a USPSA match and not allow outside members. Once the club hosts the match, it must abide by the USPSA rules, which allows non members to shoot level 1 matches. (I think, I'm hunting for the rule that says this... I could be wrong)

Rule 6.4.1 doesn't address membership requirements either way on level 1 matches, just that you have to be a member for two or higher. Appendix one recommends competitors to be members but only requires it for II and above.

Edited February 15, 2016 by AJE

[PKT1106]

Half the people at USPSA matches aren't USPSA members. Give USPSA members priority - quick fix.

Absolutely!! the

I don't know whether the posters using the term "legal" mean under USPSA Rules or under the law. Certainly under the law there are private clubs that do not allow non- members. So it is clearly ok to restrict matches to members. If there is a USPSA rule that says you can not require membership for L1, I have never seen it. If there is it can be changed.

I guess I have never figured out why requiring membership is a bad idea.

Requiring membership for a L1 match? You want people to pay $25 or $40 for a membership before even trying the game?

This drift might require its own thread. In the mean time, Viva la PCC!

Edited February 15, 2016 by PKT1106

[teros135]

Half the people at USPSA matches aren't USPSA members. Give USPSA members priority - quick fix.

Absolutely!! the

I don't know whether the posters using the term "legal" mean under USPSA Rules or under the law. Certainly under the law there are private clubs that do not allow non- members. So it is clearly ok to restrict matches to members. If there is a USPSA rule that says you can not require membership for L1, I have never seen it. If there is it can be changed.

I guess I have never figured out why requiring membership is a bad idea.

I don't remember where it was addressed, but I don't believe the club can host a USPSA match and not allow outside members. Once the club hosts the match, it must abide by the USPSA rules, which allows non members to shoot level 1 matches. (I think, I'm hunting for the rule that says this... I could be wrong)

Rule 6.4.1 doesn't address membership requirements either way on level 1 matches, just that you have to be a member for two or higher. Appendix one recommends competitors to be members but only requires it for II and above.

My guess, then, would be that if it recommends (but does not require) membership at LI, it could be done. I agree, though, with PKT's thought about not having new shooters have to join at their first match, but somewhere along the line that could become an issue at popular/quickly filled/people left out match. Like (for instance) "USPSA members and brand new shooters have preference in registration, unless slots are available". The newbies can feel special, those who have some motivation for the sport itself (designated by USPSA membership) would have a better chance at shooting the match, and the others would have motivation to join USPSA. The club would have to define how to determine newness. It could be done.

[cnote]

There are private clubs that open registration to club members prior to the public for uspsa matches. They may have room for 25, and open it up on wed, fill a max of 20 and then first come first serve on sun morning for remaining spots .

I think I have even read about state or sections martches wanting to do the same, but not sure if it ever happened

[davidb72]

There are private clubs that open registration to club members prior to the public for uspsa matches. They may have room for 25, and open it up on wed, fill a max of 20 and then first come first serve on sun morning for remaining spots .

I think I have even read about state or sections martches wanting to do the same, but not sure if it ever happened

Area 7 accepts their own members first and then fills the rest of the match a week later with those who are not from Area 7.

[PPGMD]

There are private clubs that open registration to club members prior to the public for uspsa matches. They may have room for 25, and open it up on wed, fill a max of 20 and then first come first serve on sun morning for remaining spots .

I think I have even read about state or sections martches wanting to do the same, but not sure if it ever happened

Area 7 accepts their own members first and then fills the rest of the match a week later with those who are not from Area 7.

Area matches should definitely favor shooters actually in the area.

[davidb72]

There are private clubs that open registration to club members prior to the public for uspsa matches. They may have room for 25, and open it up on wed, fill a max of 20 and then first come first serve on sun morning for remaining spots .

I think I have even read about state or sections martches wanting to do the same, but not sure if it ever happened

Area 7 accepts their own members first and then fills the rest of the match a week later with those who are not from Area 7.

Area matches should definitely favor shooters actually in the area.

I'm not disagreeing, I was just pointing it out as an example.

[Brooke]

"You want people to pay $25 or $40 for a membership before even trying the game?"

​They can go watch a match first or use the IDPA technique of allowing the shooter to shoot one match prior to joining. It's not like $25 is big money. If that's a problem they can't afford to shoot anyway. You are ignoring the fact that way too many people shoot USPSA for years without joining. If you will not support the org with such trivial dues, I have little sympathy for your shooting options.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Brooke

[PKT1106]

I started a different thread for membership questions.

Viva la PCC!

[Nimitz]

As a MD if I had the problems being stated here about over crowding (and I don't) my first thought would be to open up registration early to USPSA members only and then after some period of time has passed open it to everyone else.

Anyone out there every been a member of a golf country club? members always get preferential choice of tee times on the weekends over non-members ...

This seems like such an easy problem to solve ... Why all the drama ...

What do you think will happen when non USPSA members get shut out of a match a few times and discover for $25/year they can get in every match they want without issue? Throw in a higher match fee for non USPSA members and you have a slam dunk. Will you lose some shooters? Sure, but those aren't the ones you care about ... It's the shooters who come every month but won't become members that you want to target

Edited February 18, 2016 by Nimitz