Do You Want PCC?

[Vlad]

It is a dumbass idea that makes me regret my vote for president. Apparently second order thinking skills are lacking in certain areas.

[teros135]

... Sounds like the primary benefit is to the rifle shooters. How will it benefit USPSA to do this?

Rifle shooters are members of USPSA too. The P stands for "practical", not "pistol".

But the matches I shoot at are run by the handgun rule book.

Apparently we're going to continue playing with words.

The whole "P" argument is meaningless.

USPSA pistol matches, governed by the USPSA handgun rule book, are for pistols. They've never had rifles, have they?

USPSA multi-gun, governed by the USPSA multigun rules, are for pistol/rifle/shotgun (but there's no "R" in USPSA, and the "S" doesn't stand for Shotgun).

A "PCC" is a rifle. "Pistol Caliber" refers to the type of cartridge they shoot. It's still a rifle.

The title of this thread is a simple question - "Do you want PCC?" Each person can answer that simply, but some people seem to want to beat them down with arguments about words and semantics.

Yes, rifle shooters can be part of USPSA. There's a place for them, in multi-gun and (some calibers) Steel Challenge. If PCC needs a home the PCC advocates should build one, not try to invade someone else's home (which is already pretty busy and has a solid history and following of its own).

I do think it looks like fun, but it doesn't belong in the USPSA pistol matches. That's my response to the OP's question.

[shooterDrew]

I like the idea of adding PCC provided it does not change match design (the PCC shooters, maybe me at some point, should be expected to adapt to USPSA shooting not the other way around).... And I would be very strongly against allowing people to shoot pistols and rifle in the same match(as in people shooting the match 2x in 2 different divisions). I hate that idea. Matches currently are a ton of fun, but honestly consist of about 3 mins of shooting for a 5 hour day. I had the misfortune of shooting a steel challenge match once with a whole squad full of people shooting 22 rifles and center fire pistols. I wanted to bang my head against a wall. WAAAAY to much standing around and waiting to shoot to make it worth it. I will likely not ever go back and try steel because of the awful experience I had that match. If PCC was added and people were allowed to shoot it and a pistol division that would change my thoughts on adding PCC entirely.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited February 6, 2016 by shooterDrew

[d_striker]

It is a dumbass idea that makes me regret my vote for president. Apparently second order thinking skills are lacking in certain areas.

Yup.

[teros135]

It is a dumbass idea that makes me regret my vote for president. Apparently second order thinking skills are lacking in certain areas.

Yup.

Yup. It does seem a bit fast. Look at all the heat it's creating on multiple forums & threads.

Edited February 6, 2016 by teros135

[Flatland Shooter]

I'd like to give it a try. Sounds more interesting than Carry Optics but I'll give it a try too.

[Hammar]

I like the idea of it, but think should prob have its own match. I would def shoot it. More matches equals more shooting.

[bmiller]

It is a dumbass idea that makes me regret my vote for president. Apparently second order thinking skills are lacking in certain areas.

Could you expand on why you are so opposed to it? I would be interested to hear your ideas.

[d_striker]

It is a dumbass idea that makes me regret my vote for president. Apparently second order thinking skills are lacking in certain areas.

Could you expand on why you are so opposed to it? I would be interested to hear your ideas.

There is a ton of discussion on it in the PCC thread in the Rules subforum. We don't need certain people copying and pasting their position on every page here.

[bmiller]

I guess I should have pm'ed him. I know Vlad, I have worked matches with him. I think I have a difference of opinion with him on this issue. I would like to hear his reasoning because I respect his opinion of how matches are to be run. That's all. Are you a moderator?

Edited February 6, 2016 by bmiller

[Tom Freeman]

When Production came out a bunch of people thought it was a dumbass idea. After all the Practical Carry Division from the mid 90s failed, so this "Production" is sure to fail as well.

[d_striker]

Hoser-that's a relevant point for Carry Optics but I don't think for PCC. I think most of the dissent against PCC is more along the lines of it being an appropriate fit in handgun matches. Many are not thrilled about it due to the possibility of it influencing stage design and match operations.

[DocMedic]

Hoser-that's a relevant point for Carry Optics but I don't think for PCC. I think most of the dissent against PCC is more along the lines of it being an appropriate fit in handgun matches. Many are not thrilled about it due to the possibility of it influencing stage design and match operations.

And the flip side of the coin is many are thrilled to add a PCC division as well.

[Vlad]

And the flip side of the coin is many are thrilled to add a PCC division as well.

Sure, many people vote in ways I disagree with, drive hellaflush cars, or jump of bridges with glorified rubber bands strapped to their crotch. Also, I feel like many may be overstated. I was told many wanted welfare optics and so far I've seen exactly one person shoot it.

[OPENB]

So only certain people are allowed to voice their opinion here, those that agree with you? Last I saw the poll was 50/50.

[Vlad]

You feel free to express yours, everyone is free to be wrong all day

[d_striker]

Hoser-that's a relevant point for Carry Optics but I don't think for PCC. I think most of the dissent against PCC is more along the lines of it being an appropriate fit in handgun matches. Many are not thrilled about it due to the possibility of it influencing stage design and match operations.

And the flip side of the coin is many are thrilled to add a PCC division as well.

There's no question or argument in that.

But if you're arguing the point I was making then put it in its original context and say that proponents of PCC don't care if it influences stage design of handgun matches.

Edited February 6, 2016 by d_striker

[teros135]

Hoser-that's a relevant point for Carry Optics but I don't think for PCC. I think most of the dissent against PCC is more along the lines of it being an appropriate fit in handgun matches. Many are not thrilled about it due to the possibility of it influencing stage design and match operations.

And the flip side of the coin is many are thrilled to add a PCC division as well.

There's no question or argument in that.

But if you're arguing the point I was making then put it in its original context and say that proponents of PCC don't care if it influences stage design of handgun matches.

And that seems to pretty much summarize the rifle point of view. They don't seem to give a hoot how it affects anybody else, as long as they get what they want. Hey, it's the American way, right?

Edited February 6, 2016 by teros135

[DocMedic]

Hoser-that's a relevant point for Carry Optics but I don't think for PCC. I think most of the dissent against PCC is more along the lines of it being an appropriate fit in handgun matches. Many are not thrilled about it due to the possibility of it influencing stage design and match operations.

And the flip side of the coin is many are thrilled to add a PCC division as well.

There's no question or argument in that.

But if you're arguing the point I was making then put it in its original context and say that proponents of PCC don't care if it influences stage design of handgun matches.

So show me proof that handgun stage design will be influenced by PCC. Hearsay and opinions is all I've seen so far. I could technically be in compliance with all rules in the handgun rulebook with exception of needing the trigger being covered during holstered by using a sling. Not ideal but that's the reality.

[d_striker]

I'm growing tired of saying the same stuff over and over. It's all in the PCC thread you started.

[DocMedic]

I'm growing tired of saying the same stuff over and over. It's all in the PCC thread you started.

It's all for better discussion. Don't take it personal

[TonytheTiger]

I don't have a dog in this fight so I really don't care what happens. Understandably, one of the biggest concerns those not in favor of PCC have is that the stages will have to be altered to accommodate the PCC. One viable option is that they would occasionally have separate shooting boxes and start positions, basically a slightly altered sub-match within a match. This idea has gained no traction and apparently quite a bit of disgust. Here's the part I find ironic: the biggest detractors of the sub-match compromise are the first to adamantly insist that PCC belongs in 3 gun. That might sound fine if you haven't shot much 3 gun, but if you have you would know the accommodations that would have to be made to 3 gun stages could be way more significant than those needed for a pistol match.

So basically, the pistol only guys are offended that the burning paper bag of poop has been dropped on their front porch but somehow believe there's nothing wrong with throwing the same bag on the neighbors porch.

PCC may not have any perfect fit for a match to piggyback off of, but pistol matches are closer than anything else.

Edited February 6, 2016 by TonytheTiger

[d_striker]

I'm growing tired of saying the same stuff over and over. It's all in the PCC thread you started.

It's all for better discussion. Don't take it personal

I'm not taking it personally at all. It's good that a lot of us know how to put our big boy pants on. A lot of people are not able to disagree with someone and not take it personally which is why so many threads end up getting locked on here. I think the more discussion on it it the better. I'll continue to go to matches regardless of the outcome and still enjoy shooting with those that I may disagree with on this issue. It's not the end of the world either way.

I've voiced my concern. I just don't want to continue and contribute the the circular discussion/arguments. I'm not going to keep pounding on my bible and copying and pasting the same stuff in every thread that pops up.

[Bkreutz]

One positive thing I can say about the PCC discussion is that it pretty much shut down the CO arguments. (that's about the only positive thing I can think of). If PCC is as popular as some of it's proponents say, why can't it be popular enough to start it's own matches (oh wait, these same proponents have already said that it isn't popular enough yet) Neither 3 gun or pistol are good fits to piggyback match PCC, maybe they should just start with small matches and see if it grows rather than try to fit it into established (and well attended) match structures.

[DocMedic]

PCC is that red headed step-child of action sports. It's not quite a pistol but it's not quite a rifle either.

Why has PCC became so popular recently? It's probably has to do to with.22LR costing 11cents and reloading 9mm is about 9cents, and 223 is about 23cents reloaded. That and availability of off the shelf PCC have dramatically increase over the years. Education and awareness play into the equation too as owning sbr's isn't so taboo as it once was.

There's no target you can't shoot with a PCC that you can't shoot with a pistol, and that's the biggest draw to PCC.

You could technically shoot at rifle targets with a PCC as well but you will immediately see the disadvantage of doing so. Even a all paper Bay ipsc pistol stage, I could shoot it much faster with my 3gun rifle then I could do it with a PCC or hell even my open gun. But wasting bullets like that makes me sick, and besides shooting rifles are only fun when shooting at distance anyways

Edited February 6, 2016 by DocMedic