Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

New USPSA Division Proposal


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Who cares what you shoot at your first 10 USPSA matches, you're not gonna be "competitive" with anything.

I started shooting USPSA production division with my 8 shot revolver from ICORE before 8 shot minor was legal for revolver. I was new to practical shooting and had been shooting ICORE for 4 months, would running out and buying the then-hot M&P made me more "competitive"?

Nearly everything is legal in open division, shoot what you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, waktasz said:

What I'm saying is it's already growing well. Personally I see no need to have the tactical carry gun crowd involved. 

 

This is exactly what I was talking about. This gives the impression unless someone pledges allegiance to USPSA they're not wanted. 

3 hours ago, PatJones said:

Who cares what you shoot at your first 10 USPSA matches, you're not gonna be "competitive" with anything.

I started shooting USPSA production division with my 8 shot revolver from ICORE before 8 shot minor was legal for revolver. I was new to practical shooting and had been shooting ICORE for 4 months, would running out and buying the then-hot M&P made me more "competitive"?

Nearly everything is legal in open division, shoot what you want.

 

So it appears they revised rules to fit you revolver into a USPSA class. Did that make you feel it was wrong to do so? I agree with the first line of your reply.

 

Honestly, the most shocking thing I see from this thread is the disdain for IDPA and anyone who doesn't fit the USPSA mold. I realize this is a very small sample of the USPSA membership but, it speaks volumes to me in this regard. 

Edited by pdq5oh
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, pdq5oh said:

 

This is exactly what I was talking about. This gives the impression unless someone pledges allegiance to USPSA they're not wanted. 

 

So it appears they revised rules to fit you revolver into a USPSA class. Did that make you feel it was wrong to do so? I agree with the first line of your reply.

 

Honestly, the most shocking thing I see from this thread is the disdain for IDPA and anyone who doesn't fit the USPSA mold. I realize this is a very small sample of the USPSA membership but, it speaks volumes to me in this regard. 

 

'Revolver going to 8 shot was a bad move. 

 

Have you ever shot IDPA?  It is pretty squirrelly.....

 

And since IDPA and USPSA are different sports, why should we cater to each others people.  Will IDPA let me shoot an open gun for score at nationals? the answer is no.

 

And so you know, I am a 6 division classified and will eventually get all 8, but think Open, Limited, and PCC (as gay as it is) would be plenty of divisions

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think about it this way, compact guns are made primarily for everyday carry and personnel protection. Your competition guns like Walther Q5 Match, Glock 34, Shadow 2, Tangfo Stock 2's etc. are made for competition. They have a mechanical/weight/sight radius advantage over the smaller lighter compact guns. 
 
Give the compacts their own division and list of rules and mag restrictions (example 10+1 like production) and let them play.  



Mmm, you’re self defeating in your own argument. You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth and it’s silly.

What I quoted is true, in my opinion but you’re wanting to create introduce a new division to make these people feel good.

I am those people and carry a g19 or g43, but they aren’t my most fun guns to shoot. And when I showed up to my first match with a G19 my eyes were opened to the fact that there is more fun in shooting sports than just owning or shooting the gun I carry.

In my opinion catering to what people buy as a first gun is hindering their ability to enjoy other aspects of guns and shooting aka the sport of it.

I shot one match with my G19 and then moved onto a G17, limited STI, and now I shoot open.

My point is, the game is fun, no one quits because they don’t have fun shooting a gun that isn’t competitive, they quit because they don’t want to learn the skills to be competitive.

As an M open class shooter, if i wanted to shoot production I’d take my G19 over my G17, and I’d be just as comfortable with my G43 if I could fit 10 rounds in the mags.

The game is fun as hell, teach the new shooters about the fun of shooting sports first, and then talk about competition. Because in all reality new shooters aren’t competing with anyone but themselves, and creating a division to win that fight is just silly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys make good points and I see the separation of the two organizations. It seems to me IDPA is more geared toward real world (as it can be) defensive shooting. USPSA seems more geared to a run and gun style without regard for concealment or use of cover. That being said, new divisions were created as the need and want arose. Should the want be there for a Compact Class, why not?

As a side note: there are more USPSA clubs within a reasonable drive for me. I'll be the guy who shoots what he has and be happy getting to shoot. I look forward to that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we have to change something (I'm not saying we do) why not add tactical/compact/whatever as a category, not as a new division.

The small guns would have to fit inside Production division (which they already would) but be able to get recognized if they wanted to, without having to add a division and dilute the pool.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2018 at 12:36 PM, waktasz said:

How's this for a controversial opinon. My two day local match filled up in one minute on Sunday night. The Area match at the same range filled up in 6 minutes. We don't need any more new shooters. All of the matches within an hour of here (there are 6) are at capacity. We don't need any new shooters. 

Waktasz, I shot Area 8 last and squaded with a couple of people from your area and they all said the same thing about local matches selling out. This was very new and eye opening to me as we do not have that issue in our part of the country. A big local match for us in the Arkansas/Oklahoma area is 40 to 50 shooters. Most matches in our area probably have 40 or less on average though. I have also seen a few clubs fold because they couldn't get enough participation at their matches due to conflicting schedules with other clubs in their area and not enough shooters to support both. You guys must have a highly shooter dense area, I wish we had more of your problem down here but unfortunately we do not. I know you said that you do not need any new shooters, and this may be true for your area but we do need the new shooters in our area.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ltrain7281 said:

Waktasz, I shot Area 8 last and squaded with a couple of people from your area and they all said the same thing about local matches selling out. This was very new and eye opening to me as we do not have that issue in our part of the country. A big local match for us in the Arkansas/Oklahoma area is 40 to 50 shooters. Most matches in our area probably have 40 or less on average though. I have also seen a few clubs fold because they couldn't get enough participation at their matches due to conflicting schedules with other clubs in their area and not enough shooters to support both. You guys must have a highly shooter dense area, I wish we had more of your problem down here but unfortunately we do not. I know you said that you do not need any new shooters, and this may be true for your area but we do need the new shooters in our area.   

"When we get less than 100 shooters, people start asking "where is everybody?".

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2018 at 11:32 AM, rowdyb said:

No thank you.

 

Also number of guns sold to the general public is a horrible metric for determining competition divisions, if not the worst.

Great point!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2018 at 9:17 PM, pdq5oh said:

Honestly, the most shocking thing I see from this thread is the disdain for IDPA and anyone who doesn't fit the USPSA mold. I realize this is a very small sample of the USPSA membership but, it speaks volumes to me in this regard. 

 

Recalibrate your offense-o-meter...

 

A *lot* of us have disdain for IDPA because we spent years shooting it (8yrs for me) and we want those years back. Its out of a breath of knowledge. Not ignorance.

 

Myself, I had two First Place SSP Master plaques from state championship matches before I got into USPSA and promptly... found myself classified at about 50% in C class. Which is par for the course - everyone has that wakeup call when they make the switch.

 

We know what IDPA is about, and USPSA is about. And we want to play where the good shooters play.

 

 

Edited by MemphisMechanic
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

Recalibrate your offense-o-meter...

 

A *lot* of us have disdain for IDPA because we spent years shooting it (8yrs for me) and we want those years back. Its out of a breath of knowledge. Not ignorance.

 

Myself, I had two First Place SSP Master plaques from state championship matches before I got into USPSA and promptly... found myself classified at about 50% in C class. Which is par for the course - everyone has that wakeup call when they make the switch.

 

We know what IDPA is about, and USPSA is about. And we want to play where the good shooters play.

 

 

Where did I say i was offended? If you read this thread and what I've said, that should be readily apparent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
On 3/20/2018 at 7:00 PM, TrackCage said:

I used my G19 when I first entered the sport (which is what I carry). Didn't necessarily think I was giving anything up at the time, especially as a new competition shooter. I did go out and get a G34 shortly after, if for nothing else than I would prefer to make small modifications I wouldn't likely do to my actual carry gun. 

 

I'd be more interested in shooting it again if I didn't have to declare limited minor,  as I carry appendix. But not curious enough to want a division for it.

 

I think it'd be more interesting to have a division for perfectly stock guns. No modifications at all. I'd mess around with that for sure. But alas, it will never happen as enforcement is difficult. Would be kinda cool to throw a stock glock on the stage and say everyone had to shoot with it, at least I think so.

I like this idea a lot.  Throw a stock gun (G43, G48, G19 etc....) on the table.  Bring your mags, ammo, holster, and run the stage.  All my carry guns are stock except the sights, but it’d be a level field if everyone shoots the same gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough with the divisions already. I remember when there were 2. Now we have it so watered down it is pathetic. More divisions make more burdens for everyone involved. How many e Nationals do we need? We need some more divisions with 15 or 20 (or less) competitors at an Area match, works out great.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/19/2018 at 10:03 PM, ltrain7281 said:

I would like to get some opinions on a new proposed division in USPSA geared more towards actual compact sized carry guns.

Isn't this literally what IDPA is supposed to be about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shot IPSC matches in the late '70's (Before USPSA)... As I recall, the first scoring was just 5-3-1 until the guys convinced the powers that be that a hit from a .45 was worth more than a 9mm. The first El Prez I shot didn't have a mandatory reload and the guys shooting Hi Powers killed the 1911s (which were the majority) which is probably why it got changed. There used to be a concerted effort to make stages as power factor neutral as possible. There used to be an emphasis on the 'Practical' part of IPSC.

 The whole major/minor thing got gamed with the .38 supers, 9mm capacity with major power/scoring... and quite a few blown up guns.

 The main thing, as I recall, that was behind the push for Limited was the scopes/dots, they created a big gap in speed and accuracy over iron sights.

 The main thing, as I recall, that was the push for Production was the idea that the Glocks* couldn't compete with the 2011s.

 Personally, I think production got messed up, I don't see nearly as much difference between a 2011, 1911, or Stock 2, as I do between any of those and the polymer striker guns. A 2011 or Stock 2** are more similar than dissimilar for Limited, and any of the 3 would work for L10.

 I don't think there's a huge difference between shooting a G19 or a G34, or at least not so much as someone with a 19 thinking they didn't belong shooting against 34s.

 I do think that the gun being holstered with the butt above the belt is a good idea, and I think appendix carry should be legal in Production.

 I think that production should have Major/Minor scoring based on commercial ammo performance in whatever gun you're using, and there should be an increase in capacity for minor (i.e. 10rnds Major/15rnds minor).

While this arrangement may not be 'newbie friendly' it makes more sense to me, and it may address some of what the OP is pondering.

Just my $.02, and I can't remember if I've taken my meds today...

 

*I'm using 'Glock' and Glock models as generic for all of the polymer striker guns...

**I'm using 'Stock 2' as a generic example...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to be practical, there is more than enough evidence that shot placement and penetration are everything in handgun bullet lethality and bullet diameter (initial or expanded) has little to do with it.

 

IMO the scoring split between major and minor power factor is a relic from the days when handgun bullet lethality was not understood and needs to go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 8:25 AM, elguapo said:

If we're going to be practical, there is more than enough evidence that shot placement and penetration are everything in handgun bullet lethality and bullet diameter (initial or expanded) has little to do with it.

 

IMO the scoring split between major and minor power factor is a relic from the days when handgun bullet lethality was not understood and needs to go away.

 

There is a difference in felt recoil between major and minor though, hence the scoring difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, tanks said:

 

There is a difference in felt recoil between major and minor though, hence the scoring difference.

 

While you're right about recoil I still favor getting rid of differential scoring and letting the clock drive the behavior.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tanks said:

 

There is a difference in felt recoil between major and minor though, hence the scoring difference.

I guess it depends on what you consider to be 'power factor.' Is it the amount of felt recoil or the amount of damage (power) inflicted on the targets? 

 

If you shoot a pocket gun with more flt recoil, should that be a major power factor?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reward for Major PF has always been for power on target, not difficulty of shooting or amount of recoil. 

It's there in a rudimentary form  in Jeff Cooper's 1972 "Rules for Practical Pistol Competition".  It's in the very first 1978 official IPSC rulebook as Major/Minor using a ballistic pendulum.

 

IMO Major scoring of C's makes USPSA a more fun game and way less stand-and-shooty for the best score.  I don't really care what PF it takes to get there.

 

My proposal to eliminate PF without generating a lot of butthurt is to take the low-average of whatever the current cop-load 9x19 is (say 135 PF, it's sure not 125), make that the "New Minor" and give 4 points for a C (D's still worth 1).  Major would still be around, but nobody would care anymore (except maybe Limited shooters... drop a 22 rd limit on that and drive on). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shred said:

The reward for Major PF has always been for power on target, not difficulty of shooting or amount of recoil. 

It's there in a rudimentary form  in Jeff Cooper's 1972 "Rules for Practical Pistol Competition".  It's in the very first 1978 official IPSC rulebook as Major/Minor using a ballistic pendulum.

 

IMO Major scoring of C's makes USPSA a more fun game and way less stand-and-shooty for the best score.  I don't really care what PF it takes to get there.

 

My proposal to eliminate PF without generating a lot of butthurt is to take the low-average of whatever the current cop-load 9x19 is (say 135 PF, it's sure not 125), make that the "New Minor" and give 4 points for a C (D's still worth 1).  Major would still be around, but nobody would care anymore (except maybe Limited shooters... drop a 22 rd limit on that and drive on). 

 

As a PCC shooter I'm all for this elimination of PF to increase fun all around 😈

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way i would be in favor of eliminating PF scoring is if there is no calibration on steel and it must fall to score.  If there is no difference in performance on target, then the steel will obviously fall the same for everyone.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...