Why USPSA is the best action shooting sport

[Sarge]

5 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

There is no auditable/provable set of stats on this point to my knowledge ... certainly not for ALL member regions.  It's somewhat of a quirk of how membership is tracked at IPSC.  Nevertheless it has been quite apparent for a number of years that Russia has significantly more active members than does the US.  Sad, but true.

That really seems impossible. I'm not doubting you at all. But with the freedoms we enjoy as far as gun ownership it really seems impossible for a communist dictatorship to have more shooters.

[BritinUSA]

17 hours ago, RJH said:

This next part is pointed at no one in general: maybe if you're bitter because you didn't win the USPSA presidency, or because you don't like the way carryops went and the fact that it's now a huge division even though it's very different than how you envisioned it, this thread isn't for you...

When a person lacks the intelligence to form a cogent argument, there is always the last refuge, the personal insult. 
 

For the record I don’t give a single damn about the election results. The USPSA membership voted for someone else and all the good (and bad) decisions and bylaws that resulted from this are the responsibility of those that voted for him and the BOD.

 

After the election, I continued to support the sport, providing photographs, videos and articles for the organization, it’s members and sponsors. If the results bothered me so much then why would I do that? I certainly did not make any money from it.

 

With regard to the CO ruleset, it’s fascinating to hear people state that the growth is solely due to the magazine capacity and the other lax rules. If IPSC’s Production Optics shows growth then I wonder what the reason will be ?

 

I don’t like what USPSA has done to the rules, and I didn’t agree with the concept of un-restrained growth in the sport that led to 20-25 person squads at some L1 matches, so I stopped shooting.

 

I still care about a sport that I’ve been involved in for 30 years, but I see no reason to keep giving my money each year to an organization that pays so little regard to the very people that generate all of its revenue.

[Schutzenmeister]

18 minutes ago, Sarge said:

That really seems impossible. I'm not doubting you at all. But with the freedoms we enjoy as far as gun ownership it really seems impossible for a communist dictatorship to have more shooters.

Sarge ... Please keep in mind that "gun ownership" and "participation in USPSA" (or IPSC in the case of other regions) are most decidedly NOT linked.  (If it were linked, I suppose NRA would have WELL over 100 million members ... They don't!)

 

I remember at a couple of World Shoots several years back the Russian team (They were shooting Production) showed up with one gun.  That's one gun which all 4 members of the team shared.  The UK fielded a couple of teams even though private ownership of handguns has been illegal there for over 20 years.  I've learned not to conflate national laws with the popularity of and participation in the sport.

 

And, BTW, Russia technically hasn't been communist in roughly 3 decades.  (Yeah, I'm about the same age as you ... My eyes roll at what I just typed too!)  They're an oligarchy which, in many ways, is likely worse.

[RJH]

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

When a person lacks the intelligence to form a cogent argument, there is always the last refuge, the personal insult. 
 

For the record I don’t give a single damn about the election results. The USPSA membership voted for someone else and all the good (and bad) decisions and bylaws that resulted from this are the responsibility of those that voted for him and the BOD.

 

After the election, I continued to support the sport, providing photographs, videos and articles for the organization, it’s members and sponsors. If the results bothered me so much then why would I do that? I certainly did not make any money from it.

 

With regard to the CO ruleset, it’s fascinating to hear people state that the growth is solely due to the magazine capacity and the other lax rules. If IPSC’s Production Optics shows growth then I wonder what the reason will be ?

 

I don’t like what USPSA has done to the rules, and I didn’t agree with the concept of un-restrained growth in the sport that led to 20-25 person squads at some L1 matches, so I stopped shooting.

 

I still care about a sport that I’ve been involved in for 30 years, but I see no reason to keep giving my money each year to an organization that pays so little regard to the very people that generate all of its revenue.

 

I don't know, you seem awful bitter. The thread is supposed to be about things that make USPSA the greatest sport ever, yet you get on here and just continually b**** about USPSA. Basically the same thing you do in almost any thread that I see you in. My post wasn't a personal insult, just an observation. We get it, you don't like where USPSA is, you don't like carry optics the way it is, you don't shoot USPSA anymore ever, you apparently don't want to be a member and that's all fine, but don't come on a thread about what's great about USPSA and then b**** about it. Start your own thread about what s***** about  USPSA and roll with that. I'm sure the same four people that b**** about USPSA on basically every other thread will be more than happy to chime in with you on that one. Have a good one

[racerba]

1 hour ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Sarge ... Please keep in mind that "gun ownership" and "participation in USPSA" (or IPSC in the case of other regions) are most decidedly NOT linked.  (If it were linked, I suppose NRA would have WELL over 100 million members ... They don't!)

 

I remember at a couple of World Shoots several years back the Russian team (They were shooting Production) showed up with one gun. 

I can vouch for this as I have lent Russian shooters my gun and mags in two different World Shoots.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

2 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

The fly in the ointment here is that USPSA bylaws, along with our corporate nonprofit declaration with the IRS expressly state one our goals to be participation in and training people for competition internationally.

I'm fairly certain that there is no jeopardy to non-profit status by amending that declaration to say "nationally".

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by Johnny_Chimpo

[Johnny_Chimpo]

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

With regard to the CO ruleset, it’s fascinating to hear people state that the growth is solely due to the magazine capacity and the other lax rules. If IPSC’s Production Optics shows growth then I wonder what the reason will be ?

 

I don’t like what USPSA has done to the rules, and I didn’t agree with the concept of un-restrained growth in the sport that led to 20-25 person squads at some L1 matches, so I stopped shooting.

 

I still care about a sport that I’ve been involved in for 30 years, but I see no reason to keep giving my money each year to an organization that pays so little regard to the very people that generate all of its revenue.

 

1. The gun ownership ecosystem every place where IPSC is shot is radically different from ours.  What shooters find popular or attractive in other countries has no correlation to what we like or don't like.

 

2. You didn't get your way so you left.  So you are you still around?  Serious question, because I don't understand why you continue to comment on a sport you don't agree with.  If you'd rather shoot under IPSC rules every weekend, you will have to move elsewhere.  Simple as that.  Growth is desirable.  It drives innovation.  It drives business.  It drives the sport forward.

 

3. The sport you care about is evidently in another country.  It's not illegal to emigrate from the USA.  The sport in the US pays a significant amount of regard to its members' opinions, the fact that your preferences didn't win out notwithstanding.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

2 hours ago, Sarge said:

That really seems impossible. I'm not doubting you at all. But with the freedoms we enjoy as far as gun ownership it really seems impossible for a communist dictatorship to have more shooters.

 

Exactly because of the freedom we have, formal competitive shooting here is almost always less popular than everywhere else.

 

We need not give a reason to anyone in government why we want to own firearms.  In many states we don't even need permission to carry a concealed handgun, nor involve the government in the sale or purchase of a firearm.  Ours is like that.

 

Almost everywhere else in the world it's the exact opposite.  The freedom to defend yourself with a firearm is unthinkable.  You must give government a reason that they consider valid to obtain permission to own a firearm at all, and that firearm, its ammunition, and its accessories must be something they consider suitable for the reason you give.

 

The most common reasons other governments accept to give their citizens permission to own and use firearms are hunting and formal, nationally or internationally recognized competitive shooting.  So logically, virtually all firearm owners in most countries fall in one of those two categories.  Unlike here.

[Schutzenmeister]

1 hour ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:

 

1. The gun ownership ecosystem every place where IPSC is shot is radically different from ours.  What shooters find popular or attractive in other countries has no correlation to what we like or don't like.

 

Substantially false.  You might know this if you shot more with folks from around the world.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

32 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Substantially false.  You might know this if you shot more with folks from around the world.

 

The restrictions that many countries place on firearms that are wildly popular here affect how popular they are elsewhere.

 

[motosapiens]

5 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Nevertheless it has been quite apparent for a number of years that Russia has significantly more active members than does the US.  Sad, but true.

Interesting. I don't know much about shooting sports in other countries except what I read here from more experienced folks. what do we mean by 'active members'? Is that the number of individual members who shot at least 1 match in the last year? or something else. Just looking at world shoot results, it *appears* as tho the US is dramatically overrepresented at top. I have no idea what the explanation is for that. Perhaps we have more matches? Clearly we are doing something right.

 

As a math guy (and a russian speaker, btw) I know that there a number of ways to dissect data to prove what you want to prove. I would be curious to know:

a) the number of current members or russia's ipsc federation.

b) the number of person-matches (total activity count) shot in russia per year.

 

Sadly, I didn't get to do any shooting when I worked there in 1989, but I sure did a lot of xc skiing in Finland when I wasn't working.

 

This is an interesting discussion when it isn't focused on sour grapes. I would love to shoot some international matches for the same reason I loved racing bicycles when I lived in Germany. Sports are a good way to meet actual humans.

[racerba]

3 hours ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:

 

The restrictions that many countries place on firearms that are wildly popular here affect how popular they are elsewhere.

 

not exactly true...the US has more restrictions than most other countries as far as the gun itself goes.  ownership, however, is more restricted in other countries than in the US.  this and the availability because of the restrictive ownership makes guns a lot more expensive than in the US.  guns in the US cost about half as much as they do in most other countries.

so yes, other countries enjoy the same popular firearms as we do...more people in other countries enjoy less restrictive fully automatics and suppressed firearms more than we do.  

[Johnny_Chimpo]

1 hour ago, racerba said:

not exactly true...the US has more restrictions than most other countries as far as the gun itself goes.  ownership, however, is more restricted in other countries than in the US.  this and the availability because of the restrictive ownership makes guns a lot more expensive than in the US.  guns in the US cost about half as much as they do in most other countries.

so yes, other countries enjoy the same popular firearms as we do...more people in other countries enjoy less restrictive fully automatics and suppressed firearms more than we do.  

 

Ah yes suppressors.  No problem owning one in most places in Europe.....if they let you have a firearm to screw it on.

 

But anyway, we're veering hard off topic here.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Johnny_Chimpo

[shred]

On 4/8/2022 at 2:28 PM, Schutzenmeister said:

???  Shred ... That's not what I read.  C1, 7d

 

Other things I noticed from 2004 and before ... Sometimes the change in the USPSA version was as simple as one word or just a comma placement.  I agree, it's gotten more complex since then.

 

2004 Rulebook C1

7c {IPSC}

If the first shot fired by the calibration officer hits above or below the calibration zone,... the test is deemed to have failed,... and reshoot

US7(c)

If the first shot fired by the calibration officer hits above the calibration zone,... the test is deemed to have failed,... and reshoot

 

Anyway, long since not relevant anymore. 

 

I was told in 2019 that Russia has such large numbers because participation in IPSC is one way to own and shoot a pistol with a caliber greater than 9x18 Makarov.   But, they also have a large amount of active participation as well because they have a large shooting culture and far fewer outlets for sport shooting than the US does.   

 

Not to hard to see if someone says "Ivan, you want a 9x19, you have to go shoot some IPSC" and so Ivan does and thinks "Da, this is pretty fun". 

 

Maria might just be the first great shooter to come from there if they ever get back into IPSC.  They fielded large teams at the WS in France and L4's since then.

 

FWIW, lots of Eastern Europe still likes guns and shooting.  I forgot the exact details, but I sat next to the IPSC RD for Estonia (or maybe Latvia, I forgot which... there was booze involved) at the EHC and they gave me the number of IPSC shooters per-capita there which translated to many million USPSA shooters if we had the same percentages.

 

[Joe4d]

On 4/8/2022 at 2:25 AM, Schutzenmeister said:

Agree to disagree ... I've been doing this too long to accept your premise here.

 

On 4/8/2022 at 2:31 AM, motosapiens said:

can you show me some major match results where guys who are on top on short courses are mid-pack or worse in long courses (or vice versa)? I've only worked 7-8 nationals and another 7 or so area matches, and I've always observed that the same guys are on top on pretty much every stage unless something goes unusually wrong on that stage (malfunction or penalties), or it's a circus stage (where luck plays a role). 

think you need to look the other way around, and probably LOTS of examples to back it up,,,
People who do good on short courses but bad on long, because the skill set on long favors fast runners,  All you need to do is look at the classifiers to match results. Probably also a contributor to all the "paper masters and GM' discussions.
At least when I was in the game the classifiers tended to always be stand and shoots. While the stages were track meets. Sooooooo you ended up with non runners getting high classes (and ridiculed as Paper MAsters) when their match results tended to be in with lower classes.
Now Yes I understand this isnt a rule set issue its a Match issue..
Plenty of movement classifiers, But MD's simply dont offer them, due to the extra set up work.
Could also have plenty of non movement stages,,, but they dont.
I still enjoyed USPSA, just no doubt in my mind it favors speed of movement quite a bit.
It is what it is, every sport doesnt need to be everything or have a place for everyone. It is a sport after all, some folks will always have better suited physical abilities for what ever game we play.
I am really looking forward to see how I do in Steel at my new home. Really enjoyed bowling pins and got pretty good at it, winning and placing quite regularly

 

[motosapiens]

9 hours ago, Joe4d said:

 

think you need to look the other way around, and probably LOTS of examples to back it up,,,
People who do good on short courses but bad on long, because the skill set on long favors fast runners,  All you need to do is look at the classifiers to match results. 

 

We've already addressed this fallacy. It's pretty clear from observation that unless you are borderline disabled, fast running is almost never a factor in USPSA. Guys who are 25-50 lbs overweight absolutely NEVER win track meets, whereas they routinely win USPSA matches, usually beating a number of thin and athletic guys who simply don't shoot as well, and also don't blend shooting and moving as well.

 

For a normal non-crippled person, as long as you can  leave directly after (or while) shooting, and start shooting early on entry, the tiny differences in actual top speed become irrelevant. I think this line of thinking is mostly an excuse used by lazy people who aren't willing to work on movement skills to justify their poor results.

 

The guys that do work on their skills seem to be successful regardless of body type or food speed. For exaple Ben Stoeger, BJ Norris, Rob Leatham, Phil Strader, Charlie Perez, Kenny Terry, Blake Miguez, Travis Tomasie, Chris Tilley, Chuck Anderson, Eddie Garcia, Mike Gnyra, are all guys that aren't going to be competitive in a 40 yard sprint, but they don't appear to be at any disadvantage in USPSA stages, because there really aren't many 40 yard sprints.... or even 20 yard sprints. It's rare to go more than a couple steps with the gun down before it's time to start getting ready to shoot again.

Edited April 10, 2022 by motosapiens

[shred]

IPSC Short Courses can have as much movement as a USPSA stage. Makes the lack of movement skill and accuracy even more pronounced when there's way less targets.  Maybe that's why USPSA shooters without those skills find them intimidating or uninteresting.

 

Here's one from the 2019 L4 EHC.  Probably somewhere in the 12-round range with some pretty long shots on steel and paper in the far corners of the bay.

 

 

and a ~16-rounder with Casey Reed

 

Some people like that style, some don't (IME many top shooters do).

 

Take your Thanos Power Glove and dust away half the targets in a USPSA stage Avengers-style and see what happens.

 

[motosapiens]

7 minutes ago, shred said:

IPSC Short Courses can have as much movement as a USPSA stage. Makes the lack of movement skill and accuracy even more pronounced when there's way less targets.

 

sounds like you are taking the opposite argument of joe4d, that short courses in IPSC are even more of 'track meets', although I doubt you would use that word. It doesn't look to me like there is enough distance in those stages for foot speed to be an issue, but for sure blending movement and shooting would be at a premium with fewer shots in each position. Looks like fun.

[shred]

I would say an increased level of fitness helps at IPSC as well as everything else in life, but it's nothing a medium-potato fifty-year old dude can't handle.  (I was top-10 on a few stages in Open)

 

Top sprinting speed is not an issue, but they do more with prone and other oddball positions than the typical USPSA match does anymore (back in the 90s this kind of thing was a lot more common). Track-meet, not so much.

 

What is most noticeable is the hit factors are considerably lower.  That puts more of a premium on accuracy over running around hair on fire.

 

[motosapiens]

1 minute ago, shred said:

I would say an increased level of fitness helps to do well at IPSC, but it's nothing a medium-potato fifty-year old dude can't handle.  I was top-10 on a few stages in Open.  IME its still not often that top sprinting speed is an issue, but they do more with prone and other oddball positions than the typical USPSA match does anymore (back in the 90s this kind of thing was a lot more common)

 

I appreciate you sharing your experience. Personally I like more of the oddball stuff like odd positions and encouraging 1-handed shooting with props, and try to incorporate it in our local stages. For local matches with old folks of various levels of mobility and commitment, I never *force* a prone position, but I sometimes make it the best and fastest option.

[RJH]

The short course discussion is kinda funny. There is nothing in USPSA rules that disallows having these low round count stages. I like those type stages myself and wish there were a few more at matches. However, I would not advocate for mandating a 3-2-1 match profile like IPSC because that would step on the match director's freestyle. I also like how certain USPSA matches have their own flavor from hose fest to tight targets , and I can pick the matches that I like to shoot. Another plus for USPSA

[-JCN-]

On 4/3/2022 at 2:39 AM, Joe4d said:

been out of USPSA for quite some time,  but really not all impressed with the scoring. It favors speed... You really can miss fast enough to win especially if you run really fast.

 

I think this perception applies if your locals top out with A/M talent. 
 

For GM level competition, you have to be fast and accurate. 
 

 

 

[happygunner77]

On 4/10/2022 at 1:20 AM, Joe4d said:

 

think you need to look the other way around, and probably LOTS of examples to back it up,,,
People who do good on short courses but bad on long, because the skill set on long favors fast runners,  All you need to do is look at the classifiers to match results. Probably also a contributor to all the "paper masters and GM' discussions.
At least when I was in the game the classifiers tended to always be stand and shoots. While the stages were track meets. Sooooooo you ended up with non runners getting high classes (and ridiculed as Paper MAsters) when their match results tended to be in with lower classes.
Now Yes I understand this isnt a rule set issue its a Match issue..
Plenty of movement classifiers, But MD's simply dont offer them, due to the extra set up work.
Could also have plenty of non movement stages,,, but they dont.
I still enjoyed USPSA, just no doubt in my mind it favors speed of movement quite a bit.
It is what it is, every sport doesnt need to be everything or have a place for everyone. It is a sport after all, some folks will always have better suited physical abilities for what ever game we play.
I am really looking forward to see how I do in Steel at my new home. Really enjoyed bowling pins and got pretty good at it, winning and placing quite regularly

 

 

Rob Leatham proved that movement isn't really a factor the last 2 SS nationals.