Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
Sign in to follow this  
ltrain7281

New USPSA Division Proposal

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, shred said:

...

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). 

 

 

If all Production shooters are shooting the same PF, why do you care? If you look at top shooters in Production at majors (or CO last month), the top shooters not only were very accurate but also had the fastest times.

 

No one was just standing and shooting to get As.

 

In regards to Limited shooters, no one would shoot .40 anymore. We'd all be converting our guns to 9mm. So, a lot of extra expense for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the biggest issue, making all the current 40 guns useless. 

You'd have to put a mag capacity limit on it, not just mag length, then 40 minor guns would be viable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, waktasz said:

That's the biggest issue, making all the current 40 guns useless. 

You'd have to put a mag capacity limit on it, not just mag length, then 40 minor guns would be viable. 

40's would be fine.  I said put a 22 round limit on it and drive on.  Could be 15 or 18 or 20, whatever you can do with both.

 

Nobody shoots regular factory .40 ammo for matches.  It's all reloads or special Federal-type factory USPSA loads.

 

Thus easy enough to load .40 to New Minor and the factory follows along.   It also turns Limited from a one- or maybe two-gun design division into one lots more brands and models can be remotely competitive in.

 

5 hours ago, tanks said:

 

If all Production shooters are shooting the same PF, why do you care? If you look at top shooters in Production at majors (or CO last month), the top shooters not only were very accurate but also had the fastest times.

 

 

Nope.  Hicap Nats taught us a few things. 

  1. Pistol Major with a dot and some reloads throughout the match beats Rifle Minor with a dot and no reloads. 
  2. Pistol Major with iron sights beats Pistol Minor with a dot and a few more rounds.

 

It's pretty clear Major is better for run-and-gun and shooting on the move and all that fun stuff.   You may or may not like that.  Different strokes for different folks and all that.

 

But whatever, It's Not Gonna Happen in my lifetime.   ;) 

Share this post


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). 
 
Minor scoring on target makes the game far more interesting than major scoring.

C zone is far too large relative to total target area to score 4 points per hit.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wtturn said:

Minor scoring on target makes the game far more interesting than major scoring.

C zone is far too large relative to total target area to score 4 points per hit.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
 

That’s what makes major so much more fun. You can be a little more “sloppy” with your sight picture and not as refined like shooting CO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s what makes major so much more fun. You can be a little more “sloppy” with your sight picture and not as refined like shooting CO. 
I suppose fun is in the eye of the beholder.

Squirting bullets has never really been that interesting or challenging in my opinion.

If I wanted to be sloppy, I'd shoot 3gun.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wtturn said:

I suppose fun is in the eye of the beholder.

Squirting bullets has never really been that interesting or challenging in my opinion.

If I wanted to be sloppy, I'd shoot 3gun.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
 

Good point. When I see a production shooter reload 2-3 times that’s what I think also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing division rules is generally dumb because it usually screws the people who are already most-invested in a division.  Screwing current stakeholders in the hopes that it will attract some additional people who aren't as invested is risky, and perhaps a d!ck move.  

 

This is particularly true when it comes to any iron-sighted division.  I think the trends of the last 3 years show that all the iron-sight divisions are going to eventually recede into the distance.  People taking up shooting now are increasingly likely to rely on dots from the beginning.  Iron sights will go the way of stick shift cars... something some of us old guys like, but not something that is even relatable to most younger people.

 

So screwing a bunch of old guys when any iron sight division is going to be a nostalgia division in the not-too-distant future is doubly dumb.  If you want to shoot factory 9mm ammo and not have to worry about reloading a million times per stage, just go ahead and slap a dot on the slide.  It's what you're going to do in a couple of years anyway... no reason to go screw with the limited shooters.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 6:21 AM, wtturn said:

I suppose fun is in the eye of the beholder.

Squirting bullets has never really been that interesting or challenging in my opinion.

If I wanted to be sloppy, I'd shoot 3gun.
 

 

One can't be competitive in Limited squirting bullets at open targets as eventually one will lose in points to guys that are just as fast and still shooting As. Shane Coley won 2017 Nationals by being almost as fast as the other guys but he was much more accurate.

 

On partials and head shots though, yes I will take a Charlie vs taking a longer time (and risk) for an Alpha as losing a point is worth saving the extra time in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 1:07 PM, ATLDave said:

Changing division rules is generally dumb because it usually screws the people who are already most-invested in a division.  Screwing current stakeholders in the hopes that it will attract some additional people who aren't as invested is risky, and perhaps a d!ck move. 

 

 

 

Isn't that essentially what happened when they allowed the 2011's into Limited? Both the 1911 shooters and the 9mm double stack shooters were screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dsb said:

 

Isn't that essentially what happened when they allowed the 2011's into Limited? Both the 1911 shooters and the 9mm double stack shooters were screwed.

 

My personal history with USPSA doesn't go back that far, but I don't think any step was taken to affirmatively "allow" it.  As I understand it, the original gun rules were very, very loose, and there were no divisions.  A large number of technical innovations came about, including some that were considered so advantageous that they needed to be set aside as a special division - or, rather, that everything not using those particular innovations would be "protected" from them in a separate division.  That's how limited and open were created. 

 

So there wasn't ever a rule change, to my knowledge, that "allowed" 2011's.  At some point they were "invented" or adopted by lots of USPSA shooters, and the rules didn't specifically exclude them from limited.  The technology changed (or was adopted), but not the rules.  At least that's my understanding.

 

I think that's quite a bit different than affirmatively changing existing rules.  Also, USPSA is a heck of a lot bigger today in terms of participants - and in terms of total dollars sunk into gear complying with existing rules - than it was way back when.

Edited by ATLDave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

 

My personal history with USPSA doesn't go back that far, but I don't think any step was taken to affirmatively "allow" it.  As I understand it, the original gun rules were very, very loose, and there were no divisions.  A large number of technical innovations came about, including some that were considered so advantageous that they needed to be set aside as a special division - or, rather, that everything not using those particular innovations would be "protected" from them in a separate division.  That's how limited and open were created. 

 

So there wasn't ever a rule change, to my knowledge, that "allowed" 2011's.  At some point they were "invented" or adopted by lots of USPSA shooters, and the rules didn't specifically exclude them from limited.  The technology changed (or was adopted), but not the rules.  At least that's my understanding.

 

I think that's quite a bit different than affirmatively changing existing rules.  Also, USPSA is a heck of a lot bigger today in terms of participants - and in terms of total dollars sunk into gear complying with existing rules - than it was way back when.

 

Would you say that the 2011 capacity over the 1911 was more or less of and advantage than the dot v. iron sights on any given 1911? If it's near as makes no difference then why wasn't something said/done at the time? If it was a mistake, why do we have to live with it forever?

 

The only specific rule that I remember is that I wasn't allowed to run may SVi as a 10mm because they hadn't made enough in that caliber, never mind that people were blowing up .40s and the 10mm made major easily...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of Limited's formation, there was still a large contingent that believed in the original purpose of IPSC -- "all pistols compete together equally, let the best ones win".

 

After enough grousing about dots and supers and equipment races, Limited was born prohibiting those.  As DSB says, there was a rule stating how many guns had to be made and available to the general public for how long in order to keep factory-special gamer guns out.

 

There was, considerable speculation, about how STI achieved the number necessary way back then.  Of course Para Ordnance was already there with the P14-45.

 

That said, USPSA has a number of times made gear useless by changing rules around.  See: .356 TSW and the original magazine rules for prime examples.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, shred said:

At the time of Limited's formation, there was still a large contingent that believed in the original purpose of IPSC -- "all pistols compete together equally, let the best ones win".

Right.  USPSA is fundamentally "experimental" in terms of equipment.  There are certain parameters imposed, but within those parameters, it is a feature, not a bug, that equipment can evolve.  

 

Where evolution of gear, or realization by shooters that something is advantageous (such as production shooters realizing that heavy frame weight actually helps a lot of people versus lighter polymer frames), causes a shift in gear, that's consistent with the spirit and intent of the game.  Making affirmative rule changes that obsolete a bunch of gear overnight seems rather obviously to be different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gear gets obsoleted by the rules all the time.  Single Stack holster positions, Production trigger pull weight limits, DOH holsters in Production, 10 round mags in Carry Optics.  Thumb-rests if they are part of a slide stop, changing Major PF from 175 to 165.  Allowing 9x19 Major at less than 1.250" OAL, Aftermarket hammers in Production, 8-round Revos, adding another 2oz to Production guns, etc, etc...

 

The only thing constant is change.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shred said:

Gear gets obsoleted by the rules all the time.  Single Stack holster positions, Production trigger pull weight limits, DOH holsters in Production, 10 round mags in Carry Optics.  Thumb-rests if they are part of a slide stop, changing Major PF from 175 to 165.  Allowing 9x19 Major at less than 1.250" OAL, Aftermarket hammers in Production, 8-round Revos, adding another 2oz to Production guns, etc, etc...

 

The only thing constant is change.

 

 

 

None of those things involve throwing away your previous gear because the new rule made it less competitive except 8 round revolvers...and even if they did, obsoleting a $65 holster or slide stop is a lot different from making a country full of multi-thousand dollar Limited guns suddenly less competitive. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they be any less competitive?  They could put 20 rounds in the mag and shoot New Minor heads-up against 20-round 9mms at the same PF, or load to Major and get two points for every D if they wanted, same as now.  Aren't there people that say .40 minor in Production is softer to shoot than 9?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could just leave the largest division alone and shoot one of the other 7 divisions that more closely aligned with what you think the grail of practical shooting is, but whatevs.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about Limited, it's about how to get rid of Major/Minor across the board while minimizing the impact if we had to.  How would you do that?

 

Just so happens Limited would have the biggest changes but there are workarounds.  I'd bet Limited would grow massively in popularity if the barrier to entry of hand-loaded .40 went away, but as I said weeks ago, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. 

 

Personally I'm OK with Major/Minor, but there are discussions behind the scenes of how to eliminate it and I'd rather a real plan to change over than somebody just declaring 'No more Major scoring' as one USPSA president suggested it be done.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, shred said:

It's not about Limited, it's about how to get rid of Major/Minor across the board while minimizing the impact if we had to.  How would you do that?

 

Just so happens Limited would have the biggest changes but there are workarounds.  I'd bet Limited would grow massively in popularity if the barrier to entry of hand-loaded .40 went away, but as I said weeks ago, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. 

 

Personally I'm OK with Major/Minor, but there are discussions behind the scenes of how to eliminate it and I'd rather a real plan to change over than somebody just declaring 'No more Major scoring' as one USPSA president suggested it be done.

 

 

 

I haven’t read through all this, but in essence, USPSA would move to a 9mm only sport, no? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

I haven’t read through all this, but in essence, USPSA would move to a 9mm only sport, no? 

 

If we get rid of minor vs major scoring we would need to add a capacity limit of 20 to Limited to not make any gun or caliber obsolete.  As Shred stated in an earlier post,  Major isn't scored higher because of difficulty of shooting major, but because of the extra damage it does to a target.  This would be a target in the real world.   I would think that nearly 100 percent of those who shoot Major reload.  The only thing that getting rid of Major and adding a 20 round magazine limit would make obsolete, would be the current load data for Major. However, this would kill Production in every state without capacity laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, if only there weren't 5 divisions you could shoot if you didn't like major, where minor is either equal to or preferable to major...... 

Share this post


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

It's not about Limited, it's about how to get rid of Major/Minor across the board while minimizing the impact if we had to.  How would you do that?

 

Just so happens Limited would have the biggest changes but there are workarounds.  I'd bet Limited would grow massively in popularity if the barrier to entry of hand-loaded .40 went away, but as I said weeks ago, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. 

 

Personally I'm OK with Major/Minor, but there are discussions behind the scenes of how to eliminate it and I'd rather a real plan to change over than somebody just declaring 'No more Major scoring' as one USPSA president suggested it be done.

 

I think it would be easier to just have a different mag length limit if you're shooting 9mm/.38 in Limited rather than set a capacity limit of 20.  Just need to figure out what length allows only 20 rounds of 9mm in a mag, somewhere around ~135mm probably.  Then ROs don't have to count to 20 for everyone shooting Limited.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...