Changes needed to accommodate PCC in USPSA matches

[Brooke]

How in hell can y'all make so much BS out of this? Mom, they are going to shoot rifles for God's sake!!! My life is ruined !!

The velocities are less than current major scoring velocities. The changes required because of no holsters are minimal. The safety rules don't change except for bagging or flagging between stages. Current frame mounted optics on Open gun allow much greater accuracy than irons. I don't hear any complaints about that.

Y'all need to find something to do. You have way too much free time.

[teros135]

The cure is simple. If you don't like reading the posts here, just don't read them. You don't need to insult the rest of us.

Back to real conversation. Stock 9mm is usually minor. 9mm major is loadable if you have chamber suport. Stock .40 out of a pistol is usually major if you have a 4.5" barrel or more, and we load .40 to major in pistols all the time, so it can be done with a rifle, yes? However, if rifle stays at minor for all comers that probably won't become a problem.

Well, people do complain about optics. It's the reason CO got made ("We can't be competitive against those expensive 2011s and their fancy optics" (and their comps, and triggers, etc.)). But people don't "complain" about Open's optics because they have their own Divisions that don't allow optics.

I've seen people carrying rifles by the barrel many times, which tends to point them toward people. Doesn't matter if they're flagged or "unloaded", it's still very uncomfortable and violates Cooper's safety rules. (The "handguns in holsters sweep everybody's feet" argument is moot, nobody stares down the muzzle of a holstered pistol, and it's pointing at your foot, not your face.) I'm hoping the ROs everywhere will man up (or woman up, as the case may be) and enforce the safety rules.

Yes, changes can be made for start positions. Good, as long as it doesn't give the rifles an advantage that pistols don't have (and yes, they're in their own "division", but there has always been parity among the handguns in terms of start positions, movement limitations, etc. but that may not work with rifles in the mix.)

On another point, there's the "what difference does it make to you" argument that gets thrown about. It's not even an argument, it's a straw man. Anything at all can be reduced to "what's it to you, so go away". Instead, let's talk about the realities of the sport and give everybody a voice. That's 'Murica!

Edited February 14, 2016 by teros135

[FearsomeCritter]

On another point, there's the "what difference does it make to you" argument that gets thrown about. It's not even an argument, it's a straw man. Anything at all can be reduced to "what's it to you, so go away". Instead, let's talk about the realities of the sport and give everybody a voice. That's 'Murica!

That's not a straw man argument. A good example of straw man argument is your very argument right in that very post. You reduce the point about PCC having minimal to more likely no effect on pistol shooters match beyond their presence at said match, twist it into "what's it to you, so go away," and then argue against that. Hence, straw man.

[teros135]

On another point, there's the "what difference does it make to you" argument that gets thrown about. It's not even an argument, it's a straw man. Anything at all can be reduced to "what's it to you, so go away". Instead, let's talk about the realities of the sport and give everybody a voice. That's 'Murica!

That's not a straw man argument. A good example of straw man argument is your very argument right in that very post. You reduce the point about PCC having minimal to more likely no effect on pistol shooters match beyond their presence at said match, twist it into "what's it to you, so go away," and then argue against that. Hence, straw man.

No, those are statements made by real people right here on BE, in the several threads about PCC. Not straw, but real. I haven't

"reduced" or "twisted" anything.

That's an attitude some people have, and it's their argument against just about anything that doesn't support what they want. "How's it going to affect you, you don't shoot in that division." You could apply that to bank robbery: "It's not your money, what do you care?"

[FearsomeCritter]

On another point, there's the "what difference does it make to you" argument that gets thrown about. It's not even an argument, it's a straw man. Anything at all can be reduced to "what's it to you, so go away". Instead, let's talk about the realities of the sport and give everybody a voice. That's 'Murica!

That's not a straw man argument. A good example of straw man argument is your very argument right in that very post. You reduce the point about PCC having minimal to more likely no effect on pistol shooters match beyond their presence at said match, twist it into "what's it to you, so go away," and then argue against that. Hence, straw man.

No, those are statements made by real people right here on BE, in the several threads about PCC. Not straw, but real. I haven't

"reduced" or "twisted" anything.

That's an attitude some people have, and it's their argument against just about anything that doesn't support what they want. "How's it going to affect you, you don't shoot in that division." You could apply that to bank robbery: "It's not your money, what do you care?"

Feel free to quote these statements, unaltered. The analogy with the bank robbery fails, again, because bank robbery would affect people in that community (increased crime rate, the populace's emotions regarding safety, bank increasing security measures that make interacting with bank harder). Whereas I argue that pistol shooters will be pretty much untouched by the addition of PCC.

The "it isn't going to affect you" is a real argument and a good one at that. Pistol rules can be left intact, course don't need to change at all, and as long as you don't let people shoot two guns in the same match there won't be much of a change in wait time except for those clubs that are already packed. Even then there won't be a difference as they are already sorta screwed in that aspect. Altered start positions for PCC will be sorted out but your pistol start positions won't change. If PCC has a slight advantage due to start positions it doesn't matter one bit for a pistol shooter because they are all competing in their own divisions, like always.

I'm gonna help you argue here: the only real argument you have is the changing of the course to include longer distance targets. Mosher stated that this happened at his club, and there is potential there for some longer targets that, I might add, are still within distances allowed by USPSA rules. This is where communication with your MD comes in. If you find yourself in the position that there are more distance targets than you like then tell the MD. Don't just complain about it on here after the fact. Hell, design some stages of your own.

If you have specific worries, and not some vague "stuff will change" post them up. I'm as interested as you are in politely discussing it.

[MilkMyDuds]

Pistol rules can be left intact, course don't need to change at all, and as long as you don't let people shoot two guns in the same match there won't be much of a change in wait time except for those clubs that are already packed.

https://practiscore.com/results/1e9cc6a7-b16c-4e1d-b885-9a20617bb52c/matchPistol_Caliber_Carbine

One of the local clubs had the first match that included PCC this weekend.

76 shooters. 7 PCC shooters. Out of the 7, 4 were shooting multiple guns. Only 2 were "new" participants in USPSA due to PCC.

This is pretty much what many expected:

1. PCC will cannibalize and dilute existing divisions, much more than attracting new members.

2. People will shoot multiple guns, more than previously. Why? because it's fun! Heck, who has a PCC around would not try it?

So match time is likely to increase. I am not sure how much extra overhead it will cause, but any increase in already long match time is bad in attracting new members. I hope Mr. Foley could invest some time/energy to figure out how to shorten typical local matches to <4 hours. That would have many folds of impacts in attracting new members, especially casual shooters who don't have 6-8 hour on a weekend day. To grow membership at this point of time, the "moderates" is the "blue ocean" we should go after, not the "hardcores" who either love or hate USPSA to death. I personally know many family guys who'd love to shoot USPSA except they cannot devote a full weekend day to matches. If it's a half day match, many of them would be able to join.

[FearsomeCritter]

Pistol rules can be left intact, course don't need to change at all, and as long as you don't let people shoot two guns in the same match there won't be much of a change in wait time except for those clubs that are already packed.

https://practiscore.com/results/1e9cc6a7-b16c-4e1d-b885-9a20617bb52c/matchPistol_Caliber_Carbine

One of the local clubs had the first match that included PCC this weekend.

76 shooters. 7 PCC shooters. Out of the 7, 4 were shooting multiple guns. Only 2 were "new" participants in USPSA due to PCC.

This is pretty much what many expected:

1. PCC will cannibalize and dilute existing divisions, much more than attracting new members.

2. People will shoot multiple guns, more than previously. Why? because it's fun! Heck, who has a PCC around would not try it?

So match time is likely to increase. I am not sure how much extra overhead it will cause, but any increase in already long match time is bad in attracting new members. I hope Mr. Foley could invest some time/energy to figure out how to shorten typical local matches to <4 hours. That would have many folds of impacts in attracting new members, especially casual shooters who don't have 6-8 hour on a weekend day. To grow membership at this point of time, the "moderates" is the "blue ocean" we should go after, not the "hardcores" who either love or hate USPSA to death. I personally know many family guys who'd love to shoot USPSA except they cannot devote a full weekend day to matches. If it's a half day match, many of them would be able to join.

I'd hardly call three people switching for one weekend out of their normal division to PCC cannibalization or dilution. If you logged each individual division's participation every month for a year I bet you'd find that was within one standard deviation aka not significant. Besides, people are free to shoot whatever division they want, there are no rules regarding how many people must be in each division. In that match you posted the turnout for each division is pretty standard. Are you seriously arguing that those three people who shot PCC at the expense of shooting a different division negatively impacted the participation in said division to the point that it decreased your match experience? I think not, unless you were just stewing over it the entire time (more likely).

You can't simultaneously argue that PCC only brought in two people so it doesn't grow the sport while also arguing that those few additional people delayed the match detrimental degree, they are not consistent. Even if you include the people shooting two guns that is only 5 additional shooters, so like ~1 additional person or less per squad? Big deal, still within normal variation of participation. If the two guns per shooter is really slowing down the match it should be limited to 1 entry per person, but this is a MD problem, not a PCC problem.

Chill out on Foley, he isn't responsible for time delays at a local level. That is up to the locals like you. Help score/paste all the time to help speed things along. At some point on the growth curve additional clubs will be needed, or even adding an additional stage so you are all at least spending that time shooting and not waiting around (depending on how many squads and stages you have).

Edited February 15, 2016 by FearsomeCritter

[Beastly]

7 shot PCC, less 2 new shooters = 5. 4 of the remaining 5 shot multiple guns.

So 1 person shot PCC vs. whatever division they would have shot otherwise. So what? Is this your example of 'cannibalization'?

2 new shooters were attracted and there were slots for them to shoot. Win.

The match clearly wasn't full, otherwise the PCC shooters wouldn't have been allowed to shoot multiple guns.

Matches get faster when you have lots of stages and appropriately sized and motivated squads shooting in parallel. But what does local match efficiency, or the lack thereof, have to do with PCC or HQ? And if matches were faster and even more guys could come out to shoot, wouldn't this create the exact type of presssure for slots that others are crying about - and slow the matches???

[MilkMyDuds]

No need to be overly defensive, and no need to redefine terms (e.g. cannibalization, you can google it and it is a very common marketing term).

We are all here to figure out the pros/cons, and other ways to grow the sport.

I am sure over time the data will speak for themselves. I just quoted the first club match with PCC, and thought it is pretty revealing. Maybe it's not the common case across the country. We will see.

As to the local match times, yes USPSA leadership do have control and impacts. It's not just a local thing. Adding more clubs, for example, or put in incentives for existing clubs to reuse same setup for different divisions (prod/limited for 4 hours in the morning, open/co/pcc for 4 hours in the afternoon). We all experience that smaller squad usually run much faster. 6 shooters per squad max with 3 squads rotating 6 stages - this probably can shorten match time significantly.

[FearsomeCritter]

No need to be overly defensive, and no need to redefine terms (e.g. cannibalization, you can google it and it is a very common marketing term).

We are all here to figure out the pros/cons, and other ways to grow the sport.

I am sure over time the data will speak for themselves. I just quoted the first club match with PCC, and thought it is pretty revealing. Maybe it's not the common case across the country. We will see.

As to the local match times, yes USPSA leadership do have control and impacts. It's not just a local thing. Adding more clubs, for example, or put in incentives for existing clubs to reuse same setup for different divisions (prod/limited for 4 hours in the morning, open/co/pcc for 4 hours in the afternoon). We all experience that smaller squad usually run much faster. 6 shooters per squad max with 3 squads rotating 6 stages - this probably can shorten match time significantly.

Fine, I'll go with your definition of cannibalism then. So one (1) current shooter in a match with 76 participants switches divisions meets criteria for cannibalism. Well then, nearly every match with that many people has someone switching so cannibalism is happening all over the place. The issue becomes tautological and meaningless. That whole thing is just making mountains out of mole hills. That match you quoted was pretty much a standard match around here. 12.6 people per squad (assuming 1 squad per stage) and six stages which makes PCC contribution 1 shooter per squad. Don't see the doom and gloom you are relaying based on this info.

All those things can be controlled by the MD. Foley and USPSA leadership don't go around opening clubs. Clubs open and become affiliated with USPSA. They can recruit and do some minor pressuring but it really comes down to local people being willing to put in the time and effort to make it happen.

Splitting divisions into AM/PM ain't a half bad idea. Does your club not use the same set up for different divisions or am I reading that wrong?

[MilkMyDuds]

In marketing strategy, cannibalization refers to a reduction in sales volume, sales revenue, or market share of one product as a result of the introduction of a new product by the same producer.

Cannibalization happens when you have existing paying customers stop buying one of your existing products and started buying one of your new products.

So yes there is cannibalization by introducing PCC.

Prod/Open/Limited - existing product

PCC - new product

Don't get confused by people switching among existing divisions - that is not cannibalization by definition.

I am sure when Prod or Limited were originally introduced, many Open shooters jumped ship too. Yes that's considered cannibalization too. However, the key here is how much the cannibalization compares to the new customers it attracts.

In this particular match I quoted, 4 cannibalization occurred and 2 new customers attracted.

Splitting divisions into AM/PM ain't a half bad idea. Does your club not use the same set up for different divisions or am I reading that wrong?

I was not clear. Yes we do use the same setup for different divisions. I meant splitting matches to AM/PM and reuse the same setup.

[FearsomeCritter]

In marketing strategy, cannibalization refers to a reduction in sales volume, sales revenue, or market share of one product as a result of the introduction of a new product by the same producer.

Cannibalization happens when you have existing paying customers stop buying one of your existing products and started buying one of your new products.

So yes there is cannibalization by introducing PCC.

Prod/Open/Limited - existing product

PCC - new product

Don't get confused by people switching among existing divisions - that is not cannibalization by definition.

I am sure when Prod or Limited were originally introduced, many Open shooters jumped ship too. Yes that's considered cannibalization too. However, the key here is how much the cannibalization compares to the new customers it attracts.

In this particular match I quoted, 4 cannibalization occurred and 2 new customers attracted.

Splitting divisions into AM/PM ain't a half bad idea. Does your club not use the same set up for different divisions or am I reading that wrong?

I was not clear. Yes we do use the same setup for different divisions. I meant splitting matches to AM/PM and reuse the same setup.

In the match you quoted there was only 1 cannibalization event as 4 of the 7 also shot their normal division. So with 2 new shooters and only one cannibalization it actually looks really good!

The cannibalization terminology works really well for business because there is financial cost to making a new product. If that product doesn't attract new customers, only to be purchased by people who were buying a product that company also made, there is additional cost (literally money cost) with no additional income resulting in decreased profit. That terminology doesn't apply in the same way to USPSA divisions because there is not cost to add PCC. Yea, if it becomes a big deal and there more shooters you can argue that increased match time is the cost but that can be sorted out (with your splitting idea being a pretty decent one). Other than that, there isn't any cost on the club to include PCC and therefore cannibalization doesn't have a net negative associated with it like it does in business. At the very worst things would remain the same, and the best case, in cost/profit terms, is that addition of new shooters. The latter of which is what happened at that match which makes the case that cannibalization is either irrelevant or potentially good for business.

Really, the viewpoint of divisions as products is incorrect. The real products are shooter slots (that is what people are buying after all). If, say, a club opened up a different match for like rimfire at the same time and location as a USPSA match in the hopes of overall expansion and only attracted USPSA members that would be cannibalism due to the additional cost of setting up another match with no additional shooters. Taking that into consideration it looks like there were 5 additional shooter slots utilized, which is a net positive.

Edited February 15, 2016 by FearsomeCritter

[MilkMyDuds]

I disagree that cannibalization does not apply to USPSA, but I do agree that it's too early to quantitatively define the cannibalization effect.

I was hoping to see 10+ new PCC shooters showing up but I was disappointed to see only 2. I think L10 attracted more than 2 new shooters the first week it was included in the club match. If the 4 existing members keep shooting multiple guns, it undoubtedly will increase the match overhead/time. If some or all of them switched to PCC permanently, it dilutes existing divisions twice faster than it attracts new shooters.

For clubs that are in need of more shooters, PCC may help. For clubs that run 8-hour matches because the matches are usually overcrowded, PCC will make it worse.

[FearsomeCritter]

I disagree that cannibalization does not apply to USPSA, but I do agree that it's too early to quantitatively define the cannibalization effect.

I was hoping to see 10+ new PCC shooters showing up but I was disappointed to see only 2. I think L10 attracted more than 2 new shooters the first week it was included in the club match. If the 4 existing members keep shooting multiple guns, it undoubtedly will increase the match overhead/time. If some or all of them switched to PCC permanently, it dilutes existing divisions twice faster than it attracts new shooters.

For clubs that are in need of more shooters, PCC may help. For clubs that run 8-hour matches because the matches are usually overcrowded, PCC will make it worse.

Well at least you moved towards my direction a little, that's something. That's the problem with applying terminology from the business world to division management: costs have to be clearly stated and preferably proven. Easy to do in business world because it all comes down to money. Cost could be assessed in relation to divisions as competitiveness of a division, with, generally speaking, decreased participation being the cost. Quantification of this has yet to be established over months, but that is the purpose of provisional divisions.

The overcrowding thing is getting into a whole other problem of expansion of USPSA members vs crowding of local matches and a topic not limited to nor completely contained by PCC.

Just give in, waste some money on another gun, and try it. One of the benefits of not having the weapon strapped to you is that they can be shared easily -- ask a friend.

[fishsticks]

Just give in, waste some money on another gun, and try it. One of the benefits of not having the weapon strapped to you is that they can be shared easily -- ask a friend.

Sounds like canibalization to me. I thought the idea was to expand membership?

[Stony Lane]

PCC will result in longer matches. The reason I hear most from those quitting USPSA is, "it takes 6 hours of my day to shoot for 2 minutes." Uncasing, casing, different start positions, ... and generally manipulating rifles will increasing match time.

[Brooke]

These arguments are nonsense. It is USPSA's role to maintain and increase interest in the sport. It is NOT within the role of USPSA to build and maintain local shooting venues. That is the responsibility of local clubs or commercial ranges, whichever works for your locality.

PCC's will have an advantage.....over who...they will compete in their own division. Do you think Open shooters don't an advantage over Production shooters today? Vastly different mag capacity, magnetic holsters and "pouches", frame mounted optics, ....holy cow who cares....when you shoot production you are scored against others shooting that division. How is this different?

"Canibalization".....to me that is like squeaking a knife on a plate! Why do you care? Do you think the entire world is going to switch to PCC and there will be no other shooters in your division? If that were to happen it would prove that we need this division because everybody but you wants it. It isn't going to happen!

And then there is the worst argument of all.......takes to much time to shoot a match.........awaaaagaaa! I have never left my house to go to a match with the thought of how soon can I get this over with. I'm headed to fun day with my friends, not a funeral. I could give a rat's behind how long it takes. I'm having fun doing what I want to do. If it's a short match I will hang around and do some practice.....or shoot my PCC for a while.

I will say that allowing a competitor to shoot two divisions in a match should be stopped. If there is time available and sufficient interest, then the second division should be shot after the main match as a separate match that requires a fixed minimum number of competitors to be allowed.

Rather than short matches, my club offers more stages in good seasons to increase the shooting opportunities for competitors. We actually like shooting, and in most cases the chances to interact with each other all day. If the little wife only gives you 4 hours, then I suggest you try get her to go and shoot also or tell her you intend to take whatever time is needed.

The entire tale of time, canibalization, stage revisions due to PCC, overcrowding of ranges, etc is just crazy. Every one of these is under local control with the exception of division definition. Matches can be limited to a certain number if necessary. If so USPSA members should be given priority in signing up (and in the case of private clubs members should get priority as well). If significant people are not able to get in, then you need to call a meeting of local shooters and come up with plans to get additional range space even if you have to form a club and raise money.

[revoman]

Brooke

Well said and I don't think anyone can argue with this. I may or may not shoot PPC but I would like the choice to be able to. Just like I do now to shoot Revolver and dabble in SS, Limited and Open.

Edited February 15, 2016 by revoman

[Beastly]

Nicely written Brooke.

[ZackJones]

One of the local clubs had the first match that included PCC this weekend.

76 shooters. 7 PCC shooters. Out of the 7, 4 were shooting multiple guns. Only 2 were "new" participants in USPSA due to PCC.

Did you shoot the match? If so what problems, if any, did you observe with PCC shooters? Did they slow the squad down any?

I think 2 new shooters due to PCC and it not even begin an approved provisional division for USPSA matches is a good sign that adding it is the right thing to do.

[davidb72]

If a single stack (or production) shooter loads from his front pocket he gets sent to open. Too many rounds in the mag - sent to open, etc...

Where does the PCC shooter get sent to? Do they get sent to open as well?

[StealthyBlagga]

If a single stack (or production) shooter loads from his front pocket he gets sent to open. Too many rounds in the mag - sent to open, etc...

Where does the PCC shooter get sent to? Do they get sent to open as well?

If ANYONE shoots a gun that does not conform to OPEN, they are no longer shooting for score (or not shooting at all, depending on the infraction). A PCC cannot conform to Open Handgun Division rules, so the shooter is just shooting for fun. This is one reason why I would prefer PCC equipment rules to be as unrestricted as possible, at least initially... if/when it can stand alone as a separate match format, that would be the time to start segregating PCCs by barrel length, magazine capacity, caliber, sights etc. etc.

[davidb72]

If a single stack (or production) shooter loads from his front pocket he gets sent to open. Too many rounds in the mag - sent to open, etc...

Where does the PCC shooter get sent to? Do they get sent to open as well?

If ANYONE shoots a gun that does not conform to OPEN, they are no longer shooting for score (or not shooting at all, depending on the infraction). A PCC cannot conform to Open Handgun Division rules, so the shooter is just shooting for fun. This is one reason why I would prefer PCC equipment rules to be as unrestricted as possible, at least initially... if/when it can stand alone as a separate match format, that would be the time to start segregating PCCs by barrel length, magazine capacity, caliber, sights etc. etc.

I guess that's the way it HAS to be at least initially.

[PPGMD]

If a single stack (or production) shooter loads from his front pocket he gets sent to open. Too many rounds in the mag - sent to open, etc...

Where does the PCC shooter get sent to? Do they get sent to open as well?

I talked to Mike Foley during SHOT show. And the provisional division will likely start as an open division. Where it goes from there depends on input from the shooters.

[Craig N]

What is the procedure for moving your PCC from stage to stage? Cased? On a cart?

Who is responsible for bringing the shooter their cart or case at the end of their run?

Not a huge deal, but a little bit of a logistical problem on a large field course when you start over here and end up all the way over there.

For 3 gun and SASS it's not a big deal. 3 gun uses chamber flags and you just carry long guns to cart/case taking care not to flag anyone. SASS is the same just they use action open instead of chamber flag.