USPSA Announces Rules Adjustment For Holster/Mag Pouch Positions

[B_RAD]

1 minute ago, cas said:

So we're trying to bring in new shooters who own pistols with non removable flashlights. Got it.

 

I hope the matches don't get too crowded now.

 

4 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

 

I agree with what you are saying. In the long run I can see how competitors would migrate to specific divisions that have less limitations or more gun/gear features that make participating easier. That reality will always exist regardless of the current divisions or rules that govern them.

 

The more important thing to consider is this.....These division rule changes are biased towards promoting "inclusion for potential new shooters". Always keep in mind that a major priority for USPSA HQ is to increase membership. Increasing membership numbers has always been a primary measuring stick of "Successful Management" by USPSA HQ. Membership dues are the primary revenue stream for USPSA. Minimizing participation limitations and or boundaries = more $$$ for USPSA. I honestly can't fault USPSA HQ for deploying rule changes that increase the potential for increasing membership or their revenue. It takes money to run an organization properly. How effectively the organization utilizes that revenue will always be up for debate. But that isn't the primary discussion point of this thread.

Charlie, as always you make good points and I agree with a lot of what your saying. I’m not trying to just bash on the new changes. 
 

However, it just seems that the current membership always has to adjust so that we can get new shooters involved. I don’t agree with this approach. If new shooters want to play the game, they should meet the criteria required. Instead it seems the criteria, that the people already invested time and money to be in compliance with, is changed to accommodate new shooters.  Things change. I get that and sometimes it’s a good thing. I just don’t agree with this approach. 
 

 

[mrvip27]

8 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

 

Charlie, as always you make good points and I agree with a lot of what your saying. I’m not trying to just bash on the new changes. 
 

However, it just seems that the current membership always has to adjust so that we can get new shooters involved. I don’t agree with this approach. If new shooters want to play the game, they should meet the criteria required. Instead it seems the criteria, that the people already invested time and money to be in compliance with, is changed to accommodate new shooters.  Things change. I get that and sometimes it’s a good thing. I just don’t agree with this approach. 
 

 

 

I agree here.

[Intheshaw1]

8 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

 

Charlie, as always you make good points and I agree with a lot of what your saying. I’m not trying to just bash on the new changes. 
 

However, it just seems that the current membership always has to adjust so that we can get new shooters involved. I don’t agree with this approach. If new shooters want to play the game, they should meet the criteria required. Instead it seems the criteria, that the people already invested time and money to be in compliance with, is changed to accommodate new shooters.  Things change. I get that and sometimes it’s a good thing. I just don’t agree with this approach. 
 

 

I feel like if the org wanted to get new shooters in, they would just gear production towards legit production guns and let round counts mirror what factory mags are. Buy your glock/xd/caniks/etc and compete in production that weekend with the couple mags that came with your gun. But that's an argument that has been beat to death already and we are past anything like that ever coming back.

 

I would hope the org has data points that drive these rules changes based on what new shooters actually want instead of the seemingly random changes to attract new shooters that may or may not actually be working. 

 

I wonder tho, are we going to see an announcement next week saying X company is now the official WML sponsor of USPSA and the rule change was all about that sponsorship money?

[Sarge]

18 minutes ago, mrvip27 said:

 

I agree here.

Same here

[cheby]

29 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

 

Charlie, as always you make good points and I agree with a lot of what your saying. I’m not trying to just bash on the new changes. 
 

However, it just seems that the current membership always has to adjust so that we can get new shooters involved. I don’t agree with this approach. If new shooters want to play the game, they should meet the criteria required. Instead it seems the criteria, that the people already invested time and money to be in compliance with, is changed to accommodate new shooters.  Things change. I get that and sometimes it’s a good thing. I just don’t agree with this approach. 
 

 

Agree

[MHicks]

I find that with most potential USPSA shooters I talk to, if they are hesitant to get out there in front of people shooting, they will find something they don't like to convince themselves to not try. If you change the rules to fit the reason they claim that prevents them from shooting, they just find another reason not to.

 

Obviously there are new members but that is from the small percentage of shooters who are determined to get out shooting. 

[DirkD]

2 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

 

I agree with what you are saying. In the long run I can see how competitors would migrate to specific divisions that have less limitations or more gun/gear features that make participating easier. That reality will always exist regardless of the current divisions or rules that govern them.

 

The more important thing to consider is this.....These division rule changes are biased towards promoting "inclusion for potential new shooters". Always keep in mind that a major priority for USPSA HQ is to increase membership. Increasing membership numbers has always been a primary measuring stick of "Successful Management" by USPSA HQ. Membership dues are the primary revenue stream for USPSA. Minimizing participation limitations and or boundaries = more $$$ for USPSA. I honestly can't fault USPSA HQ for deploying rule changes that increase the potential for increasing membership or their revenue. It takes money to run an organization properly. How effectively the organization utilizes that revenue will always be up for debate. But that isn't the primary discussion point of this thread.

why shouldn't USPSA's priority be focused on their current members, the ones that pay their salaries?
 

[18111811]

I think they need to accommodate the current shooters while looking to the future.  The more people involved with shooting sports is better for everyone, keeps the sport fresh, and gets new faces to replace those that no longer wish to compete.  When I was stationed at Fort Bragg I would shoot skeet competitively.  Aside from one female around my age (mid 20s) everyone else had 20 or more years on me.  Skeet is dying because it didn't appeal to newer shooters and the fact that a lot of the old timers had 15K rolex watches and 30k+ kreighoff shotguns made it a little intimidating since i was shooting a citori as old as i was with briley tubes and a suunto watch i was issued.  putting guns in people's hands and getting them to do more with them outside of leaving them in their nightstand drawer is healthy and smart for uspsa and gun ownership long term

Edited March 6, 2021 by 18111811

[MHicks]

Is there really that much more need and room for higher membership numbers? You need some new members along the way as people age or fade away from shooting. Granted it's been down some for the last year with the current situation.

 

But other then that ,at least in my vicinity, monthly and larger matches are filling up faster then ever. Some larger matches fill up within minutes or hours. Are there that many clubs wanting to add additional days or matches every month and have staff that wants to run them? 

[Intheshaw1]

1 minute ago, MHicks said:

Is there really that much more need and room for higher membership numbers? You need some new members along the way as people age or fade away from shooting. Granted it's been down some for the last year with the current situation.

 

But other then that ,at least in my vicinity, monthly and larger matches are filling up faster then ever. Some larger matches fill up within minutes or hours. Are there that many clubs wanting to add additional days or matches every month and have staff that wants to run them? 

Other than the fact that membership growth is the metric being used to judge leadership, probably not. Sometimes orgs get stuck on metrics that have always been used even if they are no longer valid (or maybe they are). 

 

Most the matches around here fill up pretty fast, so more people trying to shoot won't matter much if there are no available slots.

[oddjob]

I shoot Production, Carry Optics, and Single Stack.  I like the rule changes, but for a different reason.  I had shoulder surgery (left) 40 years ago and am right handed.  Arthritis is making mag changes painful and this should help some of the pain.  Now to the stupid questions category.....

 

   "14. Installed Flashlights permitted Yes, must be functional"

1) So if the shooter removes the battery (or it dies), but its still functional, but not functioning is this good to go?

2) Can the flashlight be attached and/or removed & re-attached  during the match (like a broken mount or it falls off)?

 

 

[matteekay]

4 hours ago, Fishbreath said:

As long as they leave wheelguns alone.

 

Screw that, I'm going Revo Open Optics Carbine. 

 

With a grenade launcher.

[MikeyScuba]

3 hours ago, Intheshaw1 said:

 sponsor of USPSA and the rule change was all about that sponsorship money?

First thing that comes to mind  re:IPSC is production optics light 

[18111811]

6 minutes ago, MikeyScuba said:

First thing that comes to mind  re:IPSC is production optics light 

A Tungsten wml manufacturer?

[MikeyScuba]

19 minutes ago, 18111811 said:

A Tungsten wml manufacturer?

No, It’s for Plastic guns.  I guess glocks and their ilk?  I only have a few STI’s, otherwise my safe is full of metal.

[cheby]

54 minutes ago, matteekay said:

 

Screw that, I'm going Revo Open Optics Carbine. 

 

With a grenade launcher.

Considering that a major rule change comes up every 6 months or so these days, it's probably going to be legal by Christmas 

[Xanatos903]

My local match has 90 shooters and 5 stages. I don't want any more new shooters lol, I'm already skipping matches because I don't feel like being out there for 8 hours. 

[CHA-LEE]

Judging by how many recent IG and FB posts I have seen of existing USPSA members showing off the new location of their mag pouches and holster I would venture to say that this rule change isn't only "Accepted" by prospective new shooters. The general membership does have an opportunity to benefit from these rule changes.

 

I would take it a step further and say that if this rule change gets more USPSA members reengaged with their gun handling training to learn the new locations of their equipment, that is a "WIN" in of itself. This gives a lot of members a chance to revisit their draw and reload practice.

[BritinUSA]

There is a deeper issue here; One that a few people have alluded to, namely the intent to attract new shooters to the sport. On the surface this appears to be a good thing, but reality may be different.
 

There are a finite number of shooting ranges, some of them are not capable, or have any desire, to host USPSA matches.

 

There will come a time when club matches fill up so fast that long-standing members simply can’t get into them. This is already happening in some parts of the country, and with the primary goal of HQ to drive those numbers ever higher then it will become more prevalent.

 

While HQ will be bringing in more shooters, how many will be lost because they can’t get to shoot any more? How many will be lost when they get sick of 20-25 person squads, and being on the range for 8-10 hours?

 

With the current ranges that are available, there is an upper limit to how many active members USPSA can accommodate, while I don’t know what that number is, I do wonder what the plan will be when it hits that number.

[CHA-LEE]

4 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

There is a deeper issue here; One that a few people have alluded to, namely the intent to attract new shooters to the sport. On the surface this appears to be a good thing, but reality may be different.
 

There are a finite number of shooting ranges, some of them are not capable, or have any desire, to host USPSA matches.

 

There will come a time when club matches fill up so fast that long-standing members simply can’t get into them. This is already happening in some parts of the country, and with the primary goal of HQ to drive those numbers ever higher then it will become more prevalent.

 

While HQ will be bringing in more shooters, how many will be lost because they can’t get to shoot any more? How many will be lost when they get sick of 20-25 person squads, and being on the range for 8-10 hours?

 

With the current ranges that are available, there is an upper limit to how many active members USPSA can accommodate, while I don’t know what that number is, I do wonder what the plan will be when it hits that number.

 

DING DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner!!!!

[Schutzenmeister]

2 hours ago, matteekay said:

 

Screw that, I'm going Revo Open Optics Carbine. 

 

With a grenade launcher.

 

What?  No bayonet?

[18111811]

17 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

There is a deeper issue here; One that a few people have alluded to, namely the intent to attract new shooters to the sport. On the surface this appears to be a good thing, but reality may be different.
 

There are a finite number of shooting ranges, some of them are not capable, or have any desire, to host USPSA matches.

 

There will come a time when club matches fill up so fast that long-standing members simply can’t get into them. This is already happening in some parts of the country, and with the primary goal of HQ to drive those numbers ever higher then it will become more prevalent.

 

While HQ will be bringing in more shooters, how many will be lost because they can’t get to shoot any more? How many will be lost when they get sick of 20-25 person squads, and being on the range for 8-10 hours?

 

With the current ranges that are available, there is an upper limit to how many active members USPSA can accommodate, while I don’t know what that number is, I do wonder what the plan will be when it hits that number.

Good point.  I didnt think of that.  THe fredericksburg match here in VA, for example, fills up almost instantly.

[Schutzenmeister]

3 minutes ago, 18111811 said:

Good point.  I didnt think of that.  THe fredericksburg match here in VA, for example, fills up almost instantly.

 

News flash ... I used to shoot there about 20 years ago.  They filled back then too.

[Sarge]

46 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

There is a deeper issue here; One that a few people have alluded to, namely the intent to attract new shooters to the sport. On the surface this appears to be a good thing, but reality may be different.
 

There are a finite number of shooting ranges, some of them are not capable, or have any desire, to host USPSA matches.

 

There will come a time when club matches fill up so fast that long-standing members simply can’t get into them. This is already happening in some parts of the country, and with the primary goal of HQ to drive those numbers ever higher then it will become more prevalent.

 

While HQ will be bringing in more shooters, how many will be lost because they can’t get to shoot any more? How many will be lost when they get sick of 20-25 person squads, and being on the range for 8-10 hours?

 

With the current ranges that are available, there is an upper limit to how many active members USPSA can accommodate, while I don’t know what that number is, I do wonder what the plan will be when it hits that number.

I’m one of the alluders. I have always been a big proponent of letting people “find” the sport on their own. Recruiting new shooters is not necessary. Our locals can be harder to get into than a section match. Got wait listed a few times in 2019 for local matches. That has for a fact turned a few regulars away.

  THEN, compound the problem by some insisting that stages can’t be too “difficult” for new shooters. As an MD that was one thing I never gave into. I would rather keep my loyal long time shooters happy with challenging stages than make 10 newbies feel more comfortable. The very first match I ever shot had uprange starts, uprange movement, unloaded table starts etc. I LOVED it!

[belus]

I'm glad I can put a magnet back on my Production belt. It's a nice quality of life item and maybe 2% of the time helps with a mags on table start.

 

I not too concerned about where the pouches and holsters are. I won't pretend that I shoot a level where it's the equipment holding me back.

 

Though I'm also still hoping for a consolidated Lo-Cap division 8M/10m at some point in the future. It'd be nice to shoot a SS against more than 4 other guys on a good day.