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

Limited Minor


HCH
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

everyone I know personally and have talked to about it (except possbily one guy in oregon) thinks the option to personalize your gun with those things (and others) is a good idea. For sure, the same 10 guys on the this forum are still opposed, for the same old reasons.

 

imho, once the rules allow heavy guns and custom features on factory guns, there's no reason to prohibit people from adding those features and weight to their existing guns.

I may be that guy in Oregon, so let me clarify my position,

A,  do I, considering where we were with division rules at the point when the change to allow lights was made, think lights/weights are bad NO, I out a heavy one on my G17Co gun and actually like it. 

B, do I think that the way the rules were changed without notice or comment or half thought out wording was stupid, YES 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

20 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

everyone I know personally and have talked to about it (except possbily one guy in oregon) thinks the option to personalize your gun with those things (and others) is a good idea. For sure, the same 10 guys on the this forum are still opposed, for the same old reasons.

 

imho, once the rules allow heavy guns and custom features on factory guns, there's no reason to prohibit people from adding those features and weight to their existing guns.

 

So everyone you know things adding tungsten frame weights to production and CO was a good move? See everyone I've talked to think it's silly. I get it, people like guns that are easy to shoot. 

 

I love explaining to gun people that we shoot light loaded ammo out of 50-60 oz guns with 2 lbs triggers so we can post video's on IG shooting fast. That is the world of uspsa of today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jt1207 said:

 I haven't been around long enough to understand what you are saying here

And that is the problem.

 

The organization has not made an effort to distinguish participants from competitors.  I am not talking about  contenders for national titles but those who actually take USPSA seriously as a sport.  As a competitor, I want a stable set of rules and an organization that actually discusses these changes before implementation.  I have no interest in the trends of activity fees or the increased participation of an intersectional coalition of noobs and Timmies.  It has nothing to do with reluctance to change or "manhood" or anything other than the fact that most who take the game seriously (not necessarily do it well) don't care if the  {insert group here} show up or not at matches. 

 

What I hope is that these new shooters morph into competitors.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Balakay said:

And that is the problem.

 

The organization has not made an effort to distinguish participants from competitors.  I am not talking about  contenders for national titles but those who actually take USPSA seriously as a sport.  As a competitor, I want a stable set of rules and an organization that actually discusses these changes before implementation.  I have no interest in the trends of activity fees or the increased participation of an intersectional coalition of noobs and Timmies.  It has nothing to do with reluctance to change or "manhood" or anything other than the fact that most who take the game seriously (not necessarily do it well) don't care if the  {insert group here} show up or not at matches. 

 

What I hope is that these new shooters morph into competitors.  

 

 

 

We need a like button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

9mm and 45 are also downloaded, and competition guns are sufficiently different from duty weapons that pretty much everyone serious shooting those calibers also buys guns and reloaders that they wouldn't get otherwise.

 

At any rate, i'm not sure there's any particular reason to care all that much whether the real race divisions are using the same caliber or same pistols as the local PD uses. F1 and motoGP don't use anything resembling the car I drive, or the bike I ride on weekends.

 

I don't care what the PD uses, but the gun buying public and 95%+ of the PDs want 9mm.  It doesn't make sense to have the most popular caliber in the world (not changing in your lifetime) to have a scoring disadvantage in USPSAs most appealing division.  Production lost its "production" years ago. 

 

It makes sense to toss the whole 'production list" nonsense as well as the few rules we have left keeping it from being limited minor...and just make it limited minor.  Similarly, carry optics is slowly becoming limited minor with an optic...so lets just do it and simplify that whole mess also.  In the end it is simpler and more people get what they want.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

So everyone you know things adding tungsten frame weights to production and CO was a good move? See everyone I've talked to think it's silly. I get it, people like guns that are easy to shoot. 

 

 

yes, people like guns that are easy to shoot, so why not let them make their current gun easier to shoot instead of requiring them to spend $1500 on a custom-shop gun to get one that is easy to shoot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

everyone I know personally and have talked to about it (except possbily one guy in oregon) thinks the option to personalize your gun with those things (and others) is a good idea. For sure, the same 10 guys on the this forum are still opposed, for the same old reasons.

 

imho, once the rules allow heavy guns and custom features on factory guns, there's no reason to prohibit people from adding those features and weight to their existing guns.

I think we are agreeing on this but coming at it from two angles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Balakay said:

And that is the problem.

 

The organization has not made an effort to distinguish participants from competitors.  I am not talking about  contenders for national titles but those who actually take USPSA seriously as a sport.  As a competitor, I want a stable set of rules and an organization that actually discusses these changes before implementation.  I have no interest in the trends of activity fees or the increased participation of an intersectional coalition of noobs and Timmies.  It has nothing to do with reluctance to change or "manhood" or anything other than the fact that most who take the game seriously (not necessarily do it well) don't care if the  {insert group here} show up or not at matches. 

 

What I hope is that these new shooters morph into competitors.  


This is the root of the problem; I enjoyed the challenge of learning how to use a piece of equipment and to be competitive in its use. The changes make the sport easier, for me that reduces the challenge, It’s hard to be competitive when others have the advantage gained by utilizing the rule changes.

 

If the sport is easier, how is it better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jt1207 said:

 I haven't been around long enough to understand what you are saying here. I obviously get the band-aid reference but what division is headed where?

Production and Carry optics are slowly and painfully morphing into Limited Minor and Limited Minor with optic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Balakay said:

What I hope is that these new shooters morph into competitors.  


My guess is that they won’t. They have made no investment in the sport, they have changed the rules to suit the equipment they already have and that made it easier to shoot.

 

When I shot CO with 10 round magazines it was challenging. The dot made me want to shoot faster, but the lower scoring hits and the magazine restriction altered the risk/reward ratio.
 

Now most stages only require a single magazine change, and the extra rounds mean that I can always make up shots with no consequence of a standing reload.


It’s easier, not better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Balakay said:

And that is the problem.

 

The organization has not made an effort to distinguish participants from competitors.  I am not talking about  contenders for national titles but those who actually take USPSA seriously as a sport.  As a competitor, I want a stable set of rules and an organization that actually discusses these changes before implementation.  I have no interest in the trends of activity fees or the increased participation of an intersectional coalition of noobs and Timmies.  It has nothing to do with reluctance to change or "manhood" or anything other than the fact that most who take the game seriously (not necessarily do it well) don't care if the  {insert group here} show up or not at matches. 

 

What I hope is that these new shooters morph into competitors.  

 

 

When you have bonuses being paid out based on profits, participatants are more important than competitors. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

Production and Carry optics are slowly and painfully morphing into Limited Minor and Limited Minor with optic.

Slowly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:


My guess is that they won’t. They have made no investment in the sport, they have changed the rules to suit the equipment they already have and that made it easier to shoot.

 

When I shot CO with 10 round magazines it was challenging. The dot made me want to shoot faster, but the lower scoring hits and the magazine restriction altered the risk/reward ratio.
 

Now most stages only require a single magazine change, and the extra rounds mean that I can always make up shots with no consequence of a standing reload.


It’s easier, not better.

 

Carry Optics is far more competitive now than it was at 10 rds...because it is appealing to more competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

When you have bonuses being paid out based on profits, participatants are more important than competitors. 

 

 

sad but true.

 

 

{political content removed by Admin...knock it off}

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

Carry Optics is far more competitive now than it was at 10 rds...because it is appealing to more competitors.


I disagree, Production division took 2 years to really take off in this country. It became the 3rd most popular division with a very restricted set of rules and a 10 round capacity.
 

CO was not given the same amount of time.

Edited by BritinUSA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

yes, people like guns that are easy to shoot, so why not let them make their current gun easier to shoot instead of requiring them to spend $1500 on a custom-shop gun to get one that is easy to shoot?

Fundamentals are a crutch for the talentless - Kenny Powers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I've yet to see any kind of survey showing what the member ship wants Prod and CO to look like. I find it hard to imagine the majority thought brass and tungsten frame weights were a good idea but here we are. 

I have yet to see a true survey either but I suspect that is because nobody wants to see/deal with the results.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

Production and Carry optics are slowly and painfully morphing into Limited Minor and Limited Minor with optic.

thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A survey is no-good, participants outnumber competitors. It will be mob-rule. We’ll have magwells, ported barrels, maybe even compensators in CO….
 

It will never be enough.

 

Honestly, IPSC’s rules are starting to look better to me… 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BritinUSA said:

A survey is no-good, participants outnumber competitors. It will be mob-rule.

 

Which leads us to the core issue: what is the ultimate goal of the organization?

 

If more activity fees are the answer, then mob rule will be encouraged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

yes, people like guns that are easy to shoot, so why not let them make their current gun easier to shoot instead of requiring them to spend $1500 on a custom-shop gun to get one that is easy to shoot?

 

I know you like to say that, but the rules are creating those guns. IDPA's 43 oz weight limit seems to do a good job of slowing the equipment race, you see lots of plastic guns over there. maybe they were on to something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Balakay said:

Which leads us to the core issue: what is the ultimate goal of the organization?

 

If more activity fees are the answer, then mob rule will be encouraged


That is a great question, a secondary question is this; Does USPSA still comply with all the requirements/objectives laid out in the IPSC Constitution. 
 

If it does not then this may end up happening:

 

Quote

5.7 In the event of a further application for affiliation from a Region in which there is already a recognised affiliated Regional Directorate, the Executive Council shall seek to inform itself regarding the extent to which each organisation meets the criteria previously enumerated and may at the next ensuing Assembly, recommend a transfer of affiliation. The Executive Council shall not, itself, effect a transfer of affiliation. The Assembly may effect a transfer of affiliation by a majority of three-fourths of the votes cast.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Balakay said:

And that is the problem.

 

The organization has not made an effort to distinguish participants from competitors.  I am not talking about  contenders for national titles but those who actually take USPSA seriously as a sport.  As a competitor, I want a stable set of rules and an organization that actually discusses these changes before implementation.  I have no interest in the trends of activity fees or the increased participation of an intersectional coalition of noobs and Timmies.  It has nothing to do with reluctance to change or "manhood" or anything other than the fact that most who take the game seriously (not necessarily do it well) don't care if the  {insert group here} show up or not at matches. 

 

What I hope is that these new shooters morph into competitors.  

 

 

I can understand your position. Although, this sounds like a beef with uspsa leadership, and not so much people who shoot uspsa. And remember, you were a uspsa "noob" at one time too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

I know you like to say that, but the rules are creating those guns. IDPA's 43 oz weight limit seems to do a good job of slowing the equipment race, you see lots of plastic guns over there. maybe they were on to something. 

 

I don't shoot Production beyond the occasional match when I want to leave the revolver at home, go a little faster, and make more aggressive stage plans, so take this with a grain of salt, but: I was perfectly happy with a 'within X oz' limit and a box, and I think the same thing could have been done for Carry Optics given an allowance for optic weight. Pretty sure that ship has sailed, though.

 

8 minutes ago, Balakay said:

Which leads us to the core issue: what is the ultimate goal of the organization?

 

To use the obvious motorsport analogy, I think the organization ought to be more like the FIA—a sanctioning body and rules authority. Or maybe more like FIFA, since motorsport really likes its frequent rules changes (and automotive technology advances way faster than gun technology).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...