Rnlinebacker Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 We have to change the equipment rules frequently so people will think they need new guns. It's no mystery. Manufacturers run this sport. It's just a matter of time before we have 0.22 legal. Buy now and buy later that's the goal. Are you willing to pay yearly dues to augment the dollars brought into matches by manufacturers?22 will never be a thing lolSent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 2 hours ago, usmc1974 said: Tell me what I'm missing here? A Glock 34 and 35 are already on a Glock 17 frame and a Glock 34 35 slide is basically the same slide in the both already allowed in production Conversions were the hang up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziebart Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 For those that want higher PF for minor. Have you chronographed 115 ball from a G19 or other compact gun that are fairly common in non game circles? There is a fair amount that barely makes PF as is. If it was moved to 140, then I'd shoot 148 or more to ensure I pass chrono. Would you change popper calibration too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, ziebart said: Would you change popper calibration too? Current popper calibration rules are a joke. You are testing a popper that has already been altered from it’s original setting. Yeah.... Let’s run down this rabbit hole because there are two kinds of shooters, those that have been hosed by a popper and those that WILL be hosed by a popper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziebart Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 Sorry, didn't mean to derail this thread into popper calibration. We have plenty of those already. Just saying that moving calibration ammo to 135 would be terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 30 minutes ago, zhunter said: Current popper calibration rules are a joke. You are testing a popper that has already been altered from it’s original setting. Yeah.... Let’s run down this rabbit hole because there are two kinds of shooters, those that have been hosed by a popper and those that WILL be hosed by a popper. I've only been shooting 8 years. Not hosed by a popper yet, but I keep careful track of calibration and adjustment when I work matches, and I keep even more careful track at our local matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 30 minutes ago, motosapiens said: I've only been shooting 8 years. Not hosed by a popper yet, but I keep careful track of calibration and adjustment when I work matches, and I keep even more careful track at our local matches. Not that I am keeping track or anything..... But I got Popper HOSED on the last shot on the last stage of the South Carolina State Match (FREAKING great match btw) about 5 years ago and it was a long 8 hour drive home. At a local stuff is gonna happen, not the end of the world as you can’t expect things to be reset or set up perfectly every time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 Has anyone looked at the powerpoint slides where they break down USPSA revenue? It ain't the manufacturers. They are pikers compared to membership, activity and match fees. This change is to make it easier on NROI and add members by way of less "Why can't I shoot my Gucci Glock in PD?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regor Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 18 minutes ago, shred said: Has anyone looked at the powerpoint slides where they break down USPSA revenue? It ain't the manufacturers. They are pikers compared to membership, activity and match fees. Not sure why they didn't label the y-axis, but I think this is what you are talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-Money Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 17 minutes ago, shred said: Has anyone looked at the powerpoint slides where they break down USPSA revenue? It ain't the manufacturers. They are pikers compared to membership, activity and match fees. This change is to make it easier on NROI and add members by way of less "Why can't I shoot my Gucci Glock in PD?" I agree on sources of organizational revenue. How about match and individual revenue, kickbacks, access, favors, etc? Major match sponsors certainly have a say in how USPSA is run and the equipment rules. Probably not much, but money buys influence. Look at politics in the US for an analogy. Taxpayers pay salaries and the budgets of government but donors and business run things because their money is highly directed and consistently applied. Not saying anyone in USPSA is corrupt, but how can anyone be immune to concerns of sponsors and industry influence? I'm very glad I didn't cut up any guns to make weight in CO. Those guns are now a much harder sell and have had their value diminished. Not that used competition guns are worth anything. Production is dumb and its rules are dumb. What I want to know is why bother with the form stating 500 units have been produced when you can make a race gun out of anything as long as you keep the frame relatively similar to stock? Literally everything else can be replaced. Have 500 units of slide mods, barrel mods, trigger mods, etc been made? Why bother with this requirement other than to kiss the ring of NROI? What guns do they need to keep out? The Alien? It honestly sounds like something IDPA would do, and thus is a bad idea. Just check guns at chrono for DA, weight, and box and off you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, Twinkie said: I'm very glad I didn't cut up any guns to make weight in CO. Those guns are now a much harder sell and have had their value diminished. Not that used competition guns are worth anything. a lighter slide is still better for most skilled shooters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackCage Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, motosapiens said: a lighter slide is still better for most skilled shooters. That $$ coulda bought a lot of practice rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 They have essentially made weight a non issue. There is still a limit, but so high. First it was 35ish, then 45. Well, lets make this problem go away, okay 59 it is. Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, TrackCage said: That $$ coulda bought a lot of practice rounds. people who care about that don't buy fancy guns that need custom machine-work in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 50 minutes ago, Twinkie said: How about match and individual revenue, kickbacks, access, favors, etc? Major match sponsors certainly have a say in how USPSA is run and the equipment rules. Probably not much, but money buys influence. I love a good conspiracy theory. And I'm sure nothing I say will change any determined minds, but... I've been around (behind the scenes at HQ, at Nationals, and on the Board) for more than 20 years.... under Hollar, Voigt, Strader and Foley... and I've never seen "money buying influence". The only place manufacturer money comes into play is when they sponsor something or buy an ad. Do they have a say in how USPSA is run? depends on how you define the term "run". No, they don't have a say in how any Board member votes. Not on rules, not on equipment, not on match administration or staffing, not on Nationals venues, nothing. They *do* have a voice, though, by way of what they produce. We want to be relevant to our members, and so if Some Big Company comes out with a new model that our members are likely to want to use in USPSA competition, we have to pay attention to that and decide how to deal with it. But there's a difference between "paying attention to manufacturers" and "being bought by manufacturers. The weight change was not pushed by a manufacturer, was not vetted with manufacturers, and for damn-sure was not "bought" by a manufacturer. It's a simple reaction to the fact that the market has changed, and the Board had to decide whether to allow heavier in-market guns to compete in the division, or not. Kickbacks? Seriously? Whatevs. Officers and Directors are *required* to declare a conflict of interest if they have a financial relationship with a company, and if a discussion involves that company the person with the conflict has to remove themselves from the matter. Not just the vote - they can't even be part of the discussion. #FactsMatter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rnlinebacker Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 Giving out free vials of testosterone for all the estrogen laden posts in here [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, bgary said: I love a good conspiracy theory. And I'm sure nothing I say will change any determined minds, but... I've been around (behind the scenes at HQ, at Nationals, and on the Board) for more than 20 years.... under Hollar, Voigt, Strader and Foley... and I've never seen "money buying influence". The only place manufacturer money comes into play is when they sponsor something or buy an ad. Do they have a say in how USPSA is run? depends on how you define the term "run". No, they don't have a say in how any Board member votes. Not on rules, not on equipment, not on match administration or staffing, not on Nationals venues, nothing. They *do* have a voice, though, by way of what they produce. We want to be relevant to our members, and so if Some Big Company comes out with a new model that our members are likely to want to use in USPSA competition, we have to pay attention to that and decide how to deal with it. But there's a difference between "paying attention to manufacturers" and "being bought by manufacturers. The weight change was not pushed by a manufacturer, was not vetted with manufacturers, and for damn-sure was not "bought" by a manufacturer. It's a simple reaction to the fact that the market has changed, and the Board had to decide whether to allow heavier in-market guns to compete in the division, or not. Kickbacks? Seriously? Whatevs. Officers and Directors are *required* to declare a conflict of interest if they have a financial relationship with a company, and if a discussion involves that company the person with the conflict has to remove themselves from the matter. Not just the vote - they can't even be part of the discussion. #FactsMatter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 Thank you, Bruce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 Regardless of which opinion is correct about the rule changes, in this modern era why wouldn't you: 1. Let the members vote through a poll on the website, majority rules. 2. Communicate the thinking behind the proposals. ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usmc1974 Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 Wow! The USPSA / IPSC, rule book and rules has become totally mind-boggling. I really am pretty much glad I'm out of it now. I still shoot ipsc, but I use the same gun for everything and 92 Beretta IPSC, USPSA, 3 gun with 20 round mags and steel challenge because it's fun. But I miss the old days in the 80s when everybody carried a 1911 45 probably in the Ernie Hill leather 7 and 8 round magazines. And the power factor of 175 for pretty much everybody. Good luck guys on getting it all figured out. Remember to have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-Money Posted March 4, 2020 Share Posted March 4, 2020 (edited) Bruce, That's exactly what I was saying. Influence is why the money gets spent. The equipment rules are reflecting what influencers want to see. No one wants to make products which aren't legal in USPSA. There doesn't have to be a payoff for influence to be felt. It can as simple as what's good for the sponsors is good for the sport. It let's more people play both manufacturers and shooters so what's the problem? I for one welcome the new weight rules. Hopefully we also can the NROI approved list as well since you can replace literally everything on a gun other than the frame (or serialized part) and be Prd/CO legal. The list was just used by range lawyers, anyway. I would have liked some warning or even maybe some way to vote on the equipment rules before dropping $100 on fancy lightened grips, $600 on an optic, and milling a gun to make weight in what I assumed was a mature division with stable equipment rules. Has it really been two years since CO came out of provisional status? I might be hallucinating but weren't division equipment changes supposed to come no earlier than every couple years? That notion could have been jettisoned with the new living RB, IDK. I'm not really all that salty. Just lightly salted over the perceived opacity to the membership contrasted with the perceived responsiveness of the BOD and powers that be to agile sponsors and manufacturers. Edited March 4, 2020 by Twinkie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 2 hours ago, IHAVEGAS said: Regardless of which opinion is correct about the rule changes, in this modern era why wouldn't you: 1. Let the members vote through a poll on the website, majority rules. 2. Communicate the thinking behind the proposals. ????? LOL!!!!!! Have you read anything in the Rules forums? And that's just the tiny little group who post on this forum... Can you imagine what it would devolve into if every yahoo had a vote. Remember Majority rules = Mob rules and the Mob gets ugly fast. Nolan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 1 minute ago, Nolan said: LOL!!!!!! Have you read anything in the Rules forums? And that's just the tiny little group who post on this forum... Can you imagine what it would devolve into if every yahoo had a vote. Remember Majority rules = Mob rules and the Mob gets ugly fast. Nolan Click Yes or click No. Dead simple and used for club issues the world over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 2 hours ago, IHAVEGAS said: Regardless of which opinion is correct about the rule changes, in this modern era why wouldn't you: 1. Let the members vote through a poll on the website, majority rules. 2. Communicate the thinking behind the proposals. ????? Did you read the presentations given and the meeting minutes? Talked to your AD? The reasons have been communicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, waktasz said: Did you read the presentations given and the meeting minutes? Talked to your AD? The reasons have been communicated Never heard squat until I saw this thread on Enos and the horse was out of the barn. Since I do not get a vote a heads up wouldn't matter I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now