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

USPSA principles


Gary Stevens

Recommended Posts

USPSA calls it their "principles" but it' really a mission statement.  All successful businesses periodically revisit their vision and mission statements.  Maybe it's time USPSA does the same?  It's GOOD for an organization to evolve to meet the demands of its target market, but the organization needs to be self-aware, honest, and deliberate in the process.  

 

Many of these principles clearly no longer apply... and I agree that without a proper definition of "practical," making a new set of principles will be problematic.  As SteveRA correctly pointed out, back in the 80's everybody was basically using the same gun and rig... and were probably largely involved in military or law enforcement in one way or another... so the idea of "practical" was universally understood even if it may not have been explicitly stated.  Today it's a bit different.  

 

Personally, if I'm shooting a centerfire, it's with either a 1911 or a PCC, both of which I believe are far more practical than an Open pistol which only exists within the confines of a USPSA/SC/Bianchi match.  Of course, removing Open because it doesn't meet my definition of "practical" would be silly.  Let's just revamp the organization's mission to embrace its current evolution.

 

Edited by jkrispies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sarge said:

I'm talking about across the sport in relation to the principles listed. The typical stages we shoot are shot blazingly fast. Very uncommon to have a headshot stage with targets at 20 yards to slow people down. And there is no denying a heavier gun tames recoil better. I'm not saying FOR ME. I'm talking a general fact. So a heavier gun most likely has an advantage in regards to follow up shots etc. The principle says all guns within a division compete without handicap and that just isn't so.

I would say the principle of "without handicap" doesn't refer to equality in shooting but that no firearm because of it's difference with others is given artificial advantage.  The 2nd principle of speed, accuracy, power can't be accurately tested if a heavier gun that recoils less is docked points to make it "fair" for the lighter gun.  The point is to balance all 3 with the platform to rise above all else.  Where the principle fails is the testing does not account for differences in usage, i.e. military, law enforcement and carry use.  IDPA was an attempt, for better or worse, to rectify the issue as relating to carry use.  Course design was supposed to help but designing courses that minimize the weight difference of the firearms tend to become short, boring affairs and us competitors keep demanding a new thrill.

Remember Jeff Cooper was a Marine and though he talked of carry use he always seemed to approach matters from effectiveness not comfort.  

Overall USPSA is a sport, many advancements like red dots on battle rifles and carry guns have been a result of usage in USPSA competition.

Testing, whether it be using R&D or in a sport doesn't always translate into effectiveness once placed in the real world.  

It does seem USPSA/IPSC has morphed out of the original intent, but nothing better has come up yet and again being a sport it's not unexpected.

So we as competitors are probably to blame for some of the divergence from the original principles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kixx said:

They might have an advantage in follow up shots, they’re also slower to draw and transition, and most are more difficult to reload as fast as a plastic gun. The DA/SA guns also have the DA shot to deal with. Plastic and metal guns both have trade offs.

 

I’m pretty sure Max does ok with a plastic gun in CO. 

Of course the whole point of the "principle" was that the sport is intended to be "experimental" with equipment - results are supposed to teach us something about what gear works and what gear does not.  We added equipment divisions to avoid having EVERYONE forced into open-type guns, but the fundamental concept remains.  If steel-framed, DA/SA guns are beating up on polymer striker fired guns, that's a feature, not a bug.  We're learning that, all else being equal, the heavy weight and better trigger pull (after the first shot) is marginally more important than the faster gun movement and consistent trigger of the polymer/striker guns.  That's part of the objective of the sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...