New Carry Optics weight in USPSA 59 ozs.

[CHA-LEE]

1 hour ago, B585 said:

Your points on trying to determine if guns are “stock” enough is valid.  This has been an issue for years.  Measuring weight is not hard to enforce and I fail to see how raising the weight 14 ounces fixes that issue.

 

In terms of participation (and I am only referring to weight), I disagree.   Glocks are very common guns for people getting a start in competitive shooting.  A G19 weighs about 1/2 the new legal limit.  Even in Minor, that is a significant disadvantage.  Seeing this, I would bet a lot of new competitive shooter will turn elsewhere.  Competitive shooters tend to be a significant factor in making their voices heard when it comes to politics/gun rights.  We need as many voices as possible to be heard when legislators start talking about gun rights.  A group of USPSA guys went to the recent VA gun rally which was 5+ hours away.  Again, Making common guns such as Glocks having a significant disadvantage is not good for the sport.
For the record, I am shooting a Legion and I don’t feel a need to find a heavier gun so this doesn’t affect me personally.  If I was less experienced I do think the Legion might now be a little light.

News flash, new shooters to the practical shooting game will be at the bottom of the match results list regardless of what weight blaster they use. I also want to point out that I am yet to see a new shooter come into the game with a totally optimized blaster that they keep using their whole tenure in the game. There will always be an evolution of gear/gun as they figure out the game. 
 

I also don’t understand the claim that a light weight gun is at a significant disadvantage compared to a heavy gun. Especially in a minor power factor division. Many light weight guns have won matches all over the world. 
 

Sure a heavy gun “feels” softer shooting. But is that really a significant performance advantage on the clock? I would suggest you put in the effort and testing to prove your claim is valid instead of just assuming it’s valid. I know that I have. 

[TrackCage]

1 hour ago, CHA-LEE said:

News flash, new shooters to the practical shooting game will be at the bottom of the match results list regardless of what weight blaster they use. I also want to point out that I am yet to see a new shooter come into the game with a totally optimized blaster that they keep using their whole tenure in the game. There will always be an evolution of gear/gun as they figure out the game. 
 

I also don’t understand the claim that a light weight gun is at a significant disadvantage compared to a heavy gun. Especially in a minor power factor division. Many light weight guns have won matches all over the world. 
 

Sure a heavy gun “feels” softer shooting. But is that really a significant performance advantage on the clock? I would suggest you put in the effort and testing to prove your claim is valid instead of just assuming it’s valid. I know that I have. 

Ben shoots a glock in CO for this reason. He likes the faster transitions.

 

Then again, what does he know.

[zhunter]

If anyone thinks a “B” shooter using a Glock is gonna pick up a 50+ oz. DA/SA gun and instantly become a Master is truly kidding themselves.    This is about inclusion, about allwowing Production shooters who are shooting heavy OEM +4 guns to play in CO.

 

 

[usmc1974]

Maybe I don't understand all these rules. I shoot a Beretta 92 34 Oz gun. I wasn't great with it when I started a couple years ago, but I'm getting pretty good with it now. I shoot Steel challenge stage in about three-and-a-half to four seconds. Does that make me a master? No, but I'm getting better.

We're talking about 9 mm for Christ's sake. How heavy and how soft does it have to shoot? Pump a little iron, hit the gym or something. JMHO I could be wrong

[Manwithnoname]

Just add magwell and 170mm mags...... poof......... you’re a insta Open minor GM! Watch out Ben and JJ.  

[B585]

23 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

News flash, new shooters to the practical shooting game will be at the bottom of the match results list regardless of what weight blaster they use. I also want to point out that I am yet to see a new shooter come into the game with a totally optimized blaster that they keep using their whole tenure in the game. There will always be an evolution of gear/gun as they figure out the game. 
 

I also don’t understand the claim that a light weight gun is at a significant disadvantage compared to a heavy gun. Especially in a minor power factor division. Many light weight guns have won matches all over the world. 
 

Sure a heavy gun “feels” softer shooting. But is that really a significant performance advantage on the clock? I would suggest you put in the effort and testing to prove your claim is valid instead of just assuming it’s valid. I know that I have. 

Here’s another news flash.  Someone that is new to the game probably doesn’t have the recoil control that you do.  Yes, a skilled shooter can shoot a Glock as fast as a DA/SA, but that’s not what I am referring to.  I have seen people come from EDC/tactical and see this as not realistic guns and get turned off.  There should be a division or two that new shooters can shoot against similar guns.  They are more likely to stick with the sport. Yes, eventually they will get an optimized gun but they should get a chance to use their home defense gun and have a shot at doing well at locals.  
 

Regardless, how can you agree changing rules in a whim that don’t involve a safety issue be good for the sport?  I am willing to bet you when every other limited major shooter would not be happy if we got rid of major power factor in  limited just one day.  Yes raising the weight is not the same as changing power factors but it’s still messing with the rules that were already in place for no obvious reason.  Ask IDPA how that’s worked out for them.

 

Comparing a newbie to Ben is not legit...apples to oranges.

[CHA-LEE]

2 hours ago, B585 said:

Here’s another news flash.  Someone that is new to the game probably doesn’t have the recoil control that you do.  Yes, a skilled shooter can shoot a Glock as fast as a DA/SA, but that’s not what I am referring to.  I have seen people come from EDC/tactical and see this as not realistic guns and get turned off.  There should be a division or two that new shooters can shoot against similar guns.  They are more likely to stick with the sport. Yes, eventually they will get an optimized gun but they should get a chance to use their home defense gun and have a shot at doing well at locals.  
 

Regardless, how can you agree changing rules in a whim that don’t involve a safety issue be good for the sport?  I am willing to bet you when every other limited major shooter would not be happy if we got rid of major power factor in  limited just one day.  Yes raising the weight is not the same as changing power factors but it’s still messing with the rules that were already in place for no obvious reason.  Ask IDPA how that’s worked out for them.

 

Comparing a newbie to Ben is not legit...apples to oranges.

Are you a match director? Are you involved in every single new shooter situation for your local club? If not then you don’t really know what the real road blocks are when trying to bring new shooters into the game. 
 

I am a match director and the primary roadblock from a gun/gear perspective for new shooters comes down to modifications they have already made which makes their gun illegal for either PRD or CO. The recent rule changes in both PRD & CO relax these gun config restrictions that would make these new shooters guns illegal. 
 

The whole point of these weight limit increases and relaxation of modifications is being done to minimize equipment roadblocks that would keep new shooters from using their existing stuff. If you can’t understand the purpose of that I don’t know what else to tell you. 
 

You are fixated on thinking that the purpose of the weight limit change being associate with a competitive advantage, which it is not. The purpose is to promote equipment inclusion vs restriction. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by CHA-LEE

[zhunter]

7 hours ago, B585 said:

Here’s another news flash.  Someone that is new to the game probably doesn’t have the recoil control that you do.  Yes, a skilled shooter can shoot a Glock as fast as a DA/SA, but that’s not what I am referring to.  I have seen people come from EDC/tactical and see this as not realistic guns and get turned off.  There should be a division or two that new shooters can shoot against similar guns.  They are more likely to stick with the sport. Yes, eventually they will get an optimized gun but they should get a chance to use their home defense gun and have a shot at doing well at locals.  
 

Regardless, how can you agree changing rules in a whim that don’t involve a safety issue be good for the sport?  I am willing to bet you when every other limited major shooter would not be happy if we got rid of major power factor in  limited just one day.  Yes raising the weight is not the same as changing power factors but it’s still messing with the rules that were already in place for no obvious reason.  Ask IDPA how that’s worked out for them.

 

Comparing a newbie to Ben is not legit...apples to oranges.

In all fairness, you can give the newbie a $5000 gun to go out and shoot his/her first few matches and they are not gong to be competitive.  Just not gonna happen.  USPSA has a huge learning curve, and equipment is not much of the equation if you are being honest about learning the game.  As stated too many times to count already in this thread, getting out of “C” class is about practice and figuring out the game.

[B585]

5 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

Are you a match director? Are you involved in every single new shooter situation for your local club? If not then you don’t really know what the real road blocks are when trying to bring new shooters into the game. 
 

I am a match director and the primary roadblock from a gun/gear perspective for new shooters comes down to modifications they have already made which makes their gun illegal for either PRD or CO. The recent rule changes in both PRD & CO relax these gun config restrictions that would make these new shooters guns illegal. 
 

The whole point of these weight limit increases and relaxation of modifications is being done to minimize equipment roadblocks that would keep new shooters from using their existing stuff. If you can’t understand the purpose of that I don’t know what else to tell you. 
 

You are fixated on thinking that the purpose of the weight limit change being associate with a competitive advantage, which it is not. The purpose is to promote equipment inclusion vs restriction. 

 

I am not an MD.  I am not an excellent shooter.  I am a normal USPSA member.  I do squad with plenty of newbies who shoot CO who discuss matters with me regarding our division.  Somebody new to the sport is not very likely to tell the MD that they don’t like this or that about our sport.  This isn’t the point so I won’t discuss this any further.

Here’s what is important:

We have covered whether weight affects the shooting plenty.  We are going to have to agree to disagree on how weight affects the average USPSA member.  That is not what I am fixated on.  I am fixated on the fact that people spent money to lighten their slides to make weight in a division and suddenly the rules on weight change making that a waste of money.  I am fixated on the fact that CO is the fastest growing division and an unnecessary change was made.  I am fixated on constantly changing rules that don’t affect safety or competitive equity are not good for the sport.  As I said in an earlier post, I agree with your point on changing the other rules because it affects competitive equity.  

[Butterpuc]

If the rules change was being made to help relax issues with modifications, then just make the rule state "there is no weight limit".

Why 59oz, why not 60oz, why not 70oz ... 

 

[usmc1974]

28 minutes ago, B585 said:

 

I am not an MD.  I am not an excellent shooter.  I am a normal USPSA member.  I do squad with plenty of newbies who shoot CO who discuss matters with me regarding our division.  Somebody new to the sport is not very likely to tell the MD that they don’t like this or that about our sport.  This isn’t the point so I won’t discuss this any further.

Here’s what is important:

We have covered whether weight affects the shooting plenty.  We are going to have to agree to disagree on how weight affects the average USPSA member.  That is not what I am fixated on.  I am fixated on the fact that people spent money to lighten their slides to make weight in a division and suddenly the rules on weight change making that a waste of money.  I am fixated on the fact that CO is the fastest growing division and an unnecessary change was made.  I am fixated on constantly changing rules that don’t affect safety or competitive equity are not good for the sport.  As I said in an earlier post, I agree with your point on changing the other rules because it affects competitive equity.  

I think this is a very good, post well-written and well-thought-out.  the facts and the real thoughts of the everyday USPSA shooter and how they really feel. And to be honest. this, the little guy everyday shooter is what keeps this sport alive and financed. But the big wigs and the gun manufacturers do not want to hear this. Just saying.

Edited March 6, 2020 by usmc1974

[B585]

With technology today it is extremely easy to poll.  I  wish they would use polls to make decisions on anything that is not safety or competitive equity related.

[CHA-LEE]

8 minutes ago, B585 said:

With technology today it is extremely easy to poll.  I  wish they would use polls to make decisions on anything that is not safety or competitive equity related.

 

Have you reached out to USPSA with your displeasure about the recent rule changes or ideas for doing polls for future rule changes? Take this up with USPSA directly and hopefully they will have the time to explain why these changes have been deployed. Whining about it on a forum isn't going to do anything about changing their minds.

 

I also want to point out that USPSA has always deployed rule changes in a dictator fashion. If you don't like how that is done you can always choose to not shoot USPSA matches and switch to a different type of practical shooting match that doesn't use USPSA rules or polices.

[B585]

4 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

 

Have you reached out to USPSA with your displeasure about the recent rule changes or ideas for doing polls for future rule changes? Take this up with USPSA directly and hopefully they will have the time to explain why these changes have been deployed. Whining about it on a forum isn't going to do anything about changing their minds.

 

I also want to point out that USPSA has always deployed rule changes in a dictator fashion. If you don't like how that is done you can always choose to not shoot USPSA matches and switch to a different type of practical shooting match that doesn't use USPSA rules or polices.

Thank you for informing me that I can shoot some other sport if I don’t like this rule change, but since my complaint was about how this affects others and not myself, I plan to stay put.  
 

 I was hoping we could he could have a productive conversation (although that doesn’t appear to be the case) so that perhaps enough pressure would be put on the USPSA admins that they might consider the membership before changes are made.
 

 I will end this by noting that I am pretty sure the bylaws were relatively recently changed to allow the admin to make their own changes sooner.  Didn’t it used to take 2 years?  If that is the case, at least in the past, the “dictatorship “ had to wait 2 years before enacting a change.