Do You Want PCC?

[Nimitz]

For people that will never shoot it, I don't get the resistance.

We thrive because we present a variety of interesting shooting challenges that a variety of people with a variety of guns can do. So long as it doesn't slow the match down (1 gun per shooter solves this) or present safety problems (slung, flagged, open, cased- they are all equally safe) why does anyone care?

Because no matter how you present it, no matter how much fun is claimed to be had it is still a rifle at a handgun match. That will creep into matches and stage design and I don't think that is worth it.

Exactly. Next people will be trying to argue that IDPA is really 'freestyle' shooting because there are many ways to engage a target behind cover ...

And to the OP's orginial question ... No, I don't want rifles at pistol matches any more than I want shotguns, machine guns, bows & arrows or blow guns ...

Setup separate matches for them & knock yourselves out ... Which, BTW is the only way to see how really popular it would be ...

Edited February 9, 2016 by Nimitz

[ctay]

Why can't PCC be setup as a separate match, under separate rules, but with the option to run concurrently with the existing handgun match? There benefits of this are:

1. You don't have to change the Handgun rule book at all - just copy it and modify it to become the rule book of the new discipline of PCC. USPSA would own the discipline rather than react to others.
2. You don't make MD's choose between something they are uncomfortable with or not allowing all USPSA divisions. They can choose not to run a PCC match but still recognize all USPSA divisions - thus eliminating the product fragmentation that would occur should MD's not offer PCC as a division of USPSA handgun matches.
3. MD's that choose to setup a PCC match can also choose to be sure that the stages comply with PCC needs. Start positions, ports ect would be designed from the beginning with PCC in mind. No hard feelings by anyone since this was a proactive decision by the MD rather than something top down.
4. CRO's / RO's will be proactively given instructions on the PCC "match" rather than uncomfortably running a rifle when they showed up to RO pistols.
5. Clubs and USPSA still benefit from the new activity.

Does this not work?

[thermobollocks]

I can dig it. Call it a match endorsement or something.

[Alaskapopo]

Why can't PCC be setup as a separate match, under separate rules, but with the option to run concurrently with the existing handgun match? There benefits of this are:

1. You don't have to change the Handgun rule book at all - just copy it and modify it to become the rule book of the new discipline of PCC. USPSA would own the discipline rather than react to others.
2. You don't make MD's choose between something they are uncomfortable with or not allowing all USPSA divisions. They can choose not to run a PCC match but still recognize all USPSA divisions - thus eliminating the product fragmentation that would occur should MD's not offer PCC as a division of USPSA handgun matches.
3. MD's that choose to setup a PCC match can also choose to be sure that the stages comply with PCC needs. Start positions, ports ect would be designed from the beginning with PCC in mind. No hard feelings by anyone since this was a proactive decision by the MD rather than something top down.
4. CRO's / RO's will be proactively given instructions on the PCC "match" rather than uncomfortably running a rifle when they showed up to RO pistols.
5. Clubs and USPSA still benefit from the new activity.

Does this not work?

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

[ctay]

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

That's why I suggested they are run concurrently ie at the same time. Avoid the complaints about PCC and setup a new USPSA discipline. Win/win.

[StealthyBlagga]

Why can't PCC be setup as a separate match, under separate rules, but with the option to run concurrently with the existing handgun match? There benefits of this are:

1. You don't have to change the Handgun rule book at all - just copy it and modify it to become the rule book of the new discipline of PCC. USPSA would own the discipline rather than react to others.
2. You don't make MD's choose between something they are uncomfortable with or not allowing all USPSA divisions. They can choose not to run a PCC match but still recognize all USPSA divisions - thus eliminating the product fragmentation that would occur should MD's not offer PCC as a division of USPSA handgun matches.
3. MD's that choose to setup a PCC match can also choose to be sure that the stages comply with PCC needs. Start positions, ports ect would be designed from the beginning with PCC in mind. No hard feelings by anyone since this was a proactive decision by the MD rather than something top down.
4. CRO's / RO's will be proactively given instructions on the PCC "match" rather than uncomfortably running a rifle when they showed up to RO pistols.
5. Clubs and USPSA still benefit from the new activity.

Does this not work?

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

This.

Maybe PCC will have the critical mass to justify dedicated matches one day, but not for a while (any more than any single pistol division would).

[StealthyBlagga]

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

That's why I suggested they are run concurrently ie at the same time. Avoid the complaints about PCC and setup a new USPSA discipline. Win/win.

That is what is being proposed... run handguns and PCC side by side at the same time. All equipment divisions are scored independently, so if effect you would have 8 matches running concurrently.

Edited February 9, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[Beastly]

For people that will never shoot it, I don't get the resistance.

We thrive because we present a variety of interesting shooting challenges that a variety of people with a variety of guns can do. So long as it doesn't slow the match down (1 gun per shooter solves this) or present safety problems (slung, flagged, open, cased- they are all equally safe) why does anyone care?

Because no matter how you present it, no matter how much fun is claimed to be had it is still a rifle at a handgun match. That will creep into matches and stage design and I don't think that is worth it.

What specifically are you worried about creeping into stage designs? Nay-sayers are all worried about "oh PCC is gonna change stages and also that is a bad thing." Heck, I'll give you the second part of that argument, but it is difficult to think of of these changes would be -- it is just some vague, nebulous fear. There isn't a stage out there that I would not be able to complete with a PCC vs my handgun. Yeah maybe uprange starts will require some other equivalent for PCC but that isn't going to change the stage for the handgunners and I don't see those things not being included in future matches just because some people are shooting PCC.

Nay-sayers.....haters......I just don't get it.

Anyway. There are a few stage challenges that have become regular occurrences at major matches, such as hard leans, etc...that have already been mentioned. If there is PCC it will be inevitable that those will disappear. Beyond that I have noticed a definite trend toward target presentations to either slow down the top shooters or challenge the even best open gun shooters in accuracy. Targets and stages such as stacked targets/no-shoots at 20 yards n swingers, multiple head shot targets at 20 yards, multiple no-shoots surrounding targets at distance. Add the desire by some to shoot easy platform (which I suspect is the overwhelming desire for PCC) I suspect that MD's will go even further with the ....."this will get them". This does nothing to make the average and most abundant type of shooter in USPSA welcome.

I see a lot of accuracy requirements in my local USPSA matches - 35-45 yard open target distance shots are not uncommon at CMP (they have every wide and deep bays). I see 15-20 yards shots with hard cover, head shots only, no shoots, distant steel, etc. This is the decision of the MD and CMP's USPSA 'Sponsor' and they are doing it solely for pistol matches. When PCC shows up is it going to be PCC's fault?

Hosers and new shooters sometimes complain about having to make 'difficult' shots. Non-hosers complain when the stages are all run-and gun target hosing.

I enjoy both types of challenges. Balance is the key.

[ctay]

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

That's why I suggested they are run concurrently ie at the same time. Avoid the complaints about PCC and setup a new USPSA discipline. Win/win.

That is what is being proposed... run handguns and PCC side by side at the same time. All equipment divisions are scored independently, so if effect you would have 8 matches running concurrently.

I must not be making myself clear. I am suggesting a separate match, under separate sanction by USPSA, with the option to run at the same time as a pistol match if the MD chooses.

The point of making it separate is to remove the fragmentation that might occur if MD's decide to not offer a PCC division in their handgun matches.

You may say it is only semantics but it is important semantics. Not offering a specific match vs not offering an approved USPSA division is a big distinction.

You have to recognize that adding a PCC is a departure from traditional USPSA handgun matches. Make it easier for members to accept it by placing it in its own home and give MD's a reasonable out if they don't feel comfortable with it yet. Success will bring them around.

[Bkreutz]

I've put myself into the observer section of this "discussion".

[sundevil827]

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

That's why I suggested they are run concurrently ie at the same time. Avoid the complaints about PCC and setup a new USPSA discipline. Win/win.

That is what is being proposed... run handguns and PCC side by side at the same time. All equipment divisions are scored independently, so if effect you would have 8 matches running concurrently.

I must not be making myself clear. I am suggesting a separate match, under separate sanction by USPSA, with the option to run at the same time as a pistol match if the MD chooses.

The point of making it separate is to remove the fragmentation that might occur if MD's decide to not offer a PCC division in their handgun matches.

You may say it is only semantics but it is important semantics. Not offering a specific match vs not offering an approved USPSA division is a big distinction.

You have to recognize that adding a PCC is a departure from traditional USPSA handgun matches. Make it easier for members to accept it by placing it in its own home and give MD's a reasonable out if they don't feel comfortable with it yet. Success will bring them around.

Separate huh?

Clubs have issues now getting people to come early to set-up, to tear down, to design stages, but you want to run a separate match that would involve the same amount of work to set-up, for less people and less benefit? That's an expectation for exactly what benefit for clubs versus the volunteer time that needs to be invested to run a match?

There isn't a chance in hell that you could run this separately, so suggesting that it "could" be run at the same time as a normal match is foolish, the reality is that it has to be run as part of a match, on the same stages as everyone else.

The suggestion to run it as a separate from the normal match? Good luck!

[StealthyBlagga]

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

That's why I suggested they are run concurrently ie at the same time. Avoid the complaints about PCC and setup a new USPSA discipline. Win/win.

That is what is being proposed... run handguns and PCC side by side at the same time. All equipment divisions are scored independently, so if effect you would have 8 matches running concurrently.

I must not be making myself clear. I am suggesting a separate match, under separate sanction by USPSA, with the option to run at the same time as a pistol match if the MD chooses.

The point of making it separate is to remove the fragmentation that might occur if MD's decide to not offer a PCC division in their handgun matches.

You may say it is only semantics but it is important semantics. Not offering a specific match vs not offering an approved USPSA division is a big distinction.

You have to recognize that adding a PCC is a departure from traditional USPSA handgun matches. Make it easier for members to accept it by placing it in its own home and give MD's a reasonable out if they don't feel comfortable with it yet. Success will bring them around.

Yeah, OK, now I see what you are proposing, but am not sure what it gets us - all of the substantive issues that handgunners are concerned about (start positions, extreme/one-handed shooting positions, long guns being carried in hand/not in holsters, risk of stages changing) would remain... all that this appears to do is assuage the butthurt by applying the rules equivalent of Preparation H. If we can resolve all the substantive issues in an addendum to existing rules (which I trust Troy to do), then the net result should be the same.

Edited February 10, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[ctay]

Yeah, OK, now I see what you are proposing, but am not sure what it gets us - all of the substantive issues that handgunners are concerned about (start positions, extreme/one-handed shooting positions, long guns being carried in hand/not in holsters, risk of stages changing) would remain... all that this appears to do is assuage the butthurt by applying the rules equivalent of Preparation H. If we can resolve all the substantive issues in an addendum to existing rules (which I trust Troy to do), then the net result should be the same.

You're right except it gives an easy explanation for MD's to give those who are skeptical. "We aren't doing one handed this match because we are doing the PCC match at the same time." Will there be any substantive difference? Probably not. Will more people accept it? Probably yes. Moreover, it gives you the flexibility to run a PCC only match whenever you want, if you want.

If all it takes is some time to build up PCC then this gives you that. I think PCC's are a good expansion for USPSA but I don't think that expansion will work if they are forced into handgun matches as a division. I want it to work.

[cas]

I think PCC will work if it's used sparingly.

Our stand alone PCC matches would bring 25-45 shooters. But when we let them shoot the USPSA matches unofficially, it only added 1-3 shooters. If a club has the dates, stand alone matches are the way to go.

Otherwise have the division's only a few times a season. Matches where you can make the stages "PCC friendly" (no classifiers, no starts that don't work well.)

[d_striker]

Why can't PCC be setup as a separate match, under separate rules, but with the option to run concurrently with the existing handgun match? There benefits of this are:

1. You don't have to change the Handgun rule book at all - just copy it and modify it to become the rule book of the new discipline of PCC. USPSA would own the discipline rather than react to others.
2. You don't make MD's choose between something they are uncomfortable with or not allowing all USPSA divisions. They can choose not to run a PCC match but still recognize all USPSA divisions - thus eliminating the product fragmentation that would occur should MD's not offer PCC as a division of USPSA handgun matches.
3. MD's that choose to setup a PCC match can also choose to be sure that the stages comply with PCC needs. Start positions, ports ect would be designed from the beginning with PCC in mind. No hard feelings by anyone since this was a proactive decision by the MD rather than something top down.
4. CRO's / RO's will be proactively given instructions on the PCC "match" rather than uncomfortably running a rifle when they showed up to RO pistols.
5. Clubs and USPSA still benefit from the new activity.

Does this not work?

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

Yes-if Revolver and Open were rifles, it would be exactly like that.

[Alaskapopo]

Why can't PCC be setup as a separate match, under separate rules, but with the option to run concurrently with the existing handgun match? There benefits of this are:

1. You don't have to change the Handgun rule book at all - just copy it and modify it to become the rule book of the new discipline of PCC. USPSA would own the discipline rather than react to others.
2. You don't make MD's choose between something they are uncomfortable with or not allowing all USPSA divisions. They can choose not to run a PCC match but still recognize all USPSA divisions - thus eliminating the product fragmentation that would occur should MD's not offer PCC as a division of USPSA handgun matches.
3. MD's that choose to setup a PCC match can also choose to be sure that the stages comply with PCC needs. Start positions, ports ect would be designed from the beginning with PCC in mind. No hard feelings by anyone since this was a proactive decision by the MD rather than something top down.
4. CRO's / RO's will be proactively given instructions on the PCC "match" rather than uncomfortably running a rifle when they showed up to RO pistols.
5. Clubs and USPSA still benefit from the new activity.

Does this not work?

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

Yes-if Revolver and Open were rifles, it would be exactly like that.

It appears the argument flew over your head. It seems you are being obtuse.

Pat

Edited February 10, 2016 by Alaskapopo

[Alaskapopo]

For people that will never shoot it, I don't get the resistance.

We thrive because we present a variety of interesting shooting challenges that a variety of people with a variety of guns can do. So long as it doesn't slow the match down (1 gun per shooter solves this) or present safety problems (slung, flagged, open, cased- they are all equally safe) why does anyone care?

Because no matter how you present it, no matter how much fun is claimed to be had it is still a rifle at a handgun match. That will creep into matches and stage design and I don't think that is worth it.

What specifically are you worried about creeping into stage designs? Nay-sayers are all worried about "oh PCC is gonna change stages and also that is a bad thing." Heck, I'll give you the second part of that argument, but it is difficult to think of of these changes would be -- it is just some vague, nebulous fear. There isn't a stage out there that I would not be able to complete with a PCC vs my handgun. Yeah maybe uprange starts will require some other equivalent for PCC but that isn't going to change the stage for the handgunners and I don't see those things not being included in future matches just because some people are shooting PCC.

Nay-sayers.....haters......I just don't get it.

Anyway. There are a few stage challenges that have become regular occurrences at major matches, such as hard leans, etc...that have already been mentioned. If there is PCC it will be inevitable that those will disappear. Beyond that I have noticed a definite trend toward target presentations to either slow down the top shooters or challenge the even best open gun shooters in accuracy. Targets and stages such as stacked targets/no-shoots at 20 yards n swingers, multiple head shot targets at 20 yards, multiple no-shoots surrounding targets at distance. Add the desire by some to shoot easy platform (which I suspect is the overwhelming desire for PCC) I suspect that MD's will go even further with the ....."this will get them". This does nothing to make the average and most abundant type of shooter in USPSA welcome.

I see a lot of accuracy requirements in my local USPSA matches - 35-45 yard open target distance shots are not uncommon at CMP (they have every wide and deep bays). I see 15-20 yards shots with hard cover, head shots only, no shoots, distant steel, etc. This is the decision of the MD and CMP's USPSA 'Sponsor' and they are doing it solely for pistol matches. When PCC shows up is it going to be PCC's fault?

Hosers and new shooters sometimes complain about having to make 'difficult' shots. Non-hosers complain when the stages are all run-and gun target hosing.

I enjoy both types of challenges. Balance is the key.

Right on the money. Perhaps PCC could change stage design I say so what. The game has changed a lot since its inception and people have adapted and learned to love those changes.

Pat

[AWLAZS]

Why can't PCC be setup as a separate match, under separate rules, but with the option to run concurrently with the existing handgun match? There benefits of this are:

1. You don't have to change the Handgun rule book at all - just copy it and modify it to become the rule book of the new discipline of PCC. USPSA would own the discipline rather than react to others.
2. You don't make MD's choose between something they are uncomfortable with or not allowing all USPSA divisions. They can choose not to run a PCC match but still recognize all USPSA divisions - thus eliminating the product fragmentation that would occur should MD's not offer PCC as a division of USPSA handgun matches.
3. MD's that choose to setup a PCC match can also choose to be sure that the stages comply with PCC needs. Start positions, ports ect would be designed from the beginning with PCC in mind. No hard feelings by anyone since this was a proactive decision by the MD rather than something top down.
4. CRO's / RO's will be proactively given instructions on the PCC "match" rather than uncomfortably running a rifle when they showed up to RO pistols.
5. Clubs and USPSA still benefit from the new activity.

Does this not work?

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

Yes-if Revolver and Open were rifles, it would be exactly like that.

https://uspsanationals.org/event/2016-revolver-nationals/

[ctay]

The problem has been pointed out there are only so many matches and so many time slots. It would be like making Revolver or Open have their own matches.

Yes-if Revolver and Open were rifles, it would be exactly like that.

https://uspsanationals.org/event/2016-revolver-nationals/

Next thing your gong to say they should have their own matches!

https://youtu.be/ythrdCsOFJU?t=38s

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: Our local matches here some of the clubs are running PCC and pistol at the same time. The only thing I see being the problem is when the shooters run PCC and a pistol at the same match. It slows things down quite a bit. Other than that it seems to work well. Thanks, Eric

[Woodsk]

Video from Foley on PCC

[bmiller]

My only questions for Mr. Foley is when, and where are the PCC Nationals going to be? I want to be there!

[Ultimo-Hombre]

So has Mr. Foley decided that PCC is happening regardless of what you piss ant serfs say?

Better start saving for a new gun!

[Ultimo-Hombre]

Oh shit.

Watched the video. Sorry guys. I negotiate for a living, Foley appears in my opinion to be behind this. Buy a PCC or be left behind.

Sorry.

[Onepocket]

What he said!!!