USPSA Survey results in

[usmc1974]

8 hours ago, LordManHammer said:

I shoot Open Major against other people who shoot Open Major.  The playing field is level.  My score relative to other divisions is irrelevant.

What Are you afraid of?

[Cuz]

I wanted a 10 round Carry Optics Division, or Production with Optics. 

[Scotty_JR]

3 hours ago, Cuz said:

I wanted a 10 round Carry Optics Division, or Production with Optics. 

 

I was surprised at the amount of votes for a 15 round LO. I agree though. I'd like a 15 round true Production Optics and then you can have the unlimited, no comp Optics division to compliment. 

[YVK]

I forgot about a poll that I had started here 

Very similar to USPSA poll. Suggests the engaged members of this forum reasonably well represent the engaged members of organization. 

[echotango]

4 minutes ago, YVK said:

I forgot about a poll that I had started here 

Very similar to USPSA poll. Suggests the engaged members of this forum reasonably well represent the engaged members of organization. 

Probably the same people/members. 

[Dirty_J]

12 minutes ago, Scotty_JR said:

 

I was surprised at the amount of votes for a 15 round LO. I agree though. I'd like a 15 round true Production Optics and then you can have the unlimited, no comp Optics division to compliment. 

There should be:

- 15rd production 

- 15rd production optics 

- Limited with 140’s 

- Limited optics with 140’s 

 

You can’t change my mind. 

 

[Scotty_JR]

2 minutes ago, Dirty_J said:

There should be:

- 15rd production 

- 15rd production optics 

- Limited with 140’s 

- Limited optics with 140’s 

 

You can’t change my mind. 

 

 

I'm 100% on board. It so simple when you think about it. Does your gun have an optic or not? Is your gun factory or not? Go here, go here. It would make my 3 TF 140s almost useless because I'd want to shoot Prod Optics. 

[RuckUp]

Hi Nathanb,

 

That's a good question.  As as one of those who didn't take the survey I'll try to explain my perspective.  But first, since I did not take the survey I realize have nothing to complain about.  I'm good with that and will accept whatever the outcome. 

 

I shot IPSC decades ago.  We had three "divisions" of firearms: Open, Stock, Revolver.  Probably 98% shot Open.  Yes, it was an arms race and at times hard to keep up with.  Personally, I got tired of that around the time I was departing serious shooting due to changes in life priorities.  No regrets or angst.  It was just timing.

 

Yes, I've retained my membership and have watched/read from afar what's happening in USPSA.  Please note, many, many people will grind through one sport/hobby after another as they age.  They just get bored, or interested in another game, or whatevs, and move on.  It's no more complicated than that but we keep our memberships anyway.  So, that's part of the equation.  

 

But also, why invest time in a survey when we really don't understand all of the dynamics of what's happening?  It's like shooting without sights.  Will we be on target with our uninformed/aged/dated opinions?  Perhaps knowing that you might prefer we didn't take the survey?  (e.g. "We should bring back the ballistic pendulum!!"  <-- joking)  Regardless, maybe we shouldn't judge too harshly those who didn't take the survey even though we still hold a membership.

 

Next, watching from afar I've been both pleased and disappointed with the changes.  First, I was really excited about Production.  Iron sights, 10 rounds, all Minor; that's probably as close to a level playing field you might find (SS is there too.)  But then all of these spin-offs were being suggested, or put into play.  For me and others in my "cohort" I sensed that many had this dream that if only they could get their favorite firearm/caliber setup approved, that would be perfect for them, and they'd be a home-town hero at every monthly match.  I'm a bit surprised we haven't created sub classes for the color of each gun.  It's still early yet.  "... High Overall in L-10 in with a turquoise finish is..."  OK, I'm being snarky there, but I think some will share the sentiment.  

 

More importantly, how many divisions must we have to keep everyone happy?  And that begs the question, should everyone be happy?  The martial artists didn't like what happened to IPSC/USPSA so they formed IDPA.  I've never shot an IDPA match but I respect that they put their money where their mouth was and broke off.  Yes, the member's voices should be heard.  But how do we balance those organizational ideals against the withering complaints of the small groups of folks that want change?  With all the flux it makes one wonder if filling out a survey will really alleviate the demands or just create more.  So...why bother?

 

There's a game.  And it has rules and parameters.  If we try to appease everyone, for every reason, what kind of an organization will we be and what kind of game will it become?  And will all of these new divisions and changes really result in membership retention?  I can't be certain, but it sure feels like this is a key driver in attempting to appease everyone.

 

USPSA survived when it was 5,000 members, then 10,000, then 20,000, and more.  It survived a split (IDPA).  Do we really need to accommodate every demand in the name of membership numbers?

 

Food for thought.

 

RuckUp

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by RuckUp
a fantasy division got turned into something else. Strange

[Zachjet]

Safe to say 90% of uspsa members could give a f*#k less they show up. Shoot, and go home. 

[Dirty_J]

5 minutes ago, Zachjet said:

Safe to say 90% of uspsa members could give a f*#k less they show up. Shoot, and go home. 

If they don’t shoot majors… why would they. Skip the drama. Have fun. 
 

Wish I’d stuck with that. Messed around and got too competitive… so here we are. 

[Zachjet]

Just now, Dirty_J said:

If they don’t shoot majors… why would they. Skip the drama. Have fun. 
 

Wish I’d stuck with that. Messed around and got too competitive… so here we are. 

Yeah.  Fell down the rabbit hole. The path I’m on.  And meanwhile.  I just like shooting with my friends and getting to hang out.. granted I do have a competitive side… that being said I’m 10 months into uspsa.   I’m signed up for 3 majors so far this year.  

[Rich406]

56 minutes ago, RuckUp said:

Hi Nathanb,

 

That's a good question.  As as one of those who didn't take the survey I'll try to explain my perspective.  But first, since I did not take the survey I realize have nothing to complain about.  I'm good with that and will accept whatever the outcome. 

 

I shot IPSC decades ago.  We had three "divisions" of firearms: Open, Stock, Revolver.  Probably 98% shot Open.  Yes, it was an arms race and at times hard to keep up with.  Personally, I got tired of that around the time I was departing serious shooting due to changes in life priorities.  No regrets or angst.  It was just timing.

 

Yes, I've retained my membership and have watched/read from afar what's happening in USPSA.  Please note, many, many people will grind through one sport/hobby after another as they age.  They just get bored, or interested in another game, or whatevs, and move on.  It's no more complicated than that but we keep our memberships anyway.  So, that's part of the equation.  

 

But also, why invest time in a survey when we really don't understand all of the dynamics of what's happening?  It's like shooting without sights.  Will we be on target with our uninformed/aged/dated opinions?  Perhaps knowing that you might prefer we didn't take the survey?  (e.g. "We should bring back the ballistic pendulum!!"  <-- joking)  Regardless, maybe we shouldn't judge too harshly those who didn't take the survey even though we still hold a membership.

 

Next, watching from afar I've been both pleased and disappointed with the changes.  First, I was really excited about Production.  Iron sights, 10 rounds, all Minor; that's probably as close to a level playing field you might find (SS is there too.)  But then all of these spin-offs were being suggested, or put into play.  For me and others in my "cohort" I sensed that many had this dream that if only they could get their favorite firearm/caliber setup approved, that would be perfect for them, and they'd be a home-town hero at every monthly match.  I'm a bit surprised we haven't created sub classes for the color of each gun.  It's still early yet.  "... High Overall in L-10 in with a turquoise finish is..."  OK, I'm being snarky there, but I think some will share the sentiment.  

 

More importantly, how many divisions must we have to keep everyone happy?  And that begs the question, should everyone be happy?  The martial artists didn't like what happened to IPSC/USPSA so they formed IDPA.  I've never shot an IDPA match but I respect that they put their money where their mouth was and broke off.  Yes, the member's voices should be heard.  But how do we balance those organizational ideals against the withering complaints of the small groups of folks that want change?  With all the flux it makes one wonder if filling out a survey will really alleviate the demands or just create more.  So...why bother?

 

There's a game.  And it has rules and parameters.  If we try to appease everyone, for every reason, what kind of an organization will we be and what kind of game will it become?  And will all of these new divisions and changes really result in membership retention?  I can't be certain, but it sure feels like this is a key driver in attempting to appease everyone.

 

USPSA survived when it was 5,000 members, then 10,000, then 20,000, and more.  It survived a split (IDPA).  Do we really need to accommodate every demand in the name of membership numbers?

 

Food for thought.

 

RuckUp

 

You took the time to sign up to the forum and write out a book about your opinion. But you couldn’t be bothered to spend 5 mins taking a survey?

[BritinUSA]

26 minutes ago, Rich406 said:

You took the time to sign up to the forum and write out a book about your opinion. But you couldn’t be bothered to spend 5 mins taking a survey?

There's more thought in his post than in a survey, and he explained why he did not complete it. 
 

The org should do what is good for the sport, not what is just good for revenue. As he stated the org flourished when it had far fewer members than it does now, and it did. This is why I think there is room for two practical shooting sports, USPSA and a US-IPSC.

 

I think there are a few competitors who would be more than happy to leave the current org and shoot under an international rule-set.

[outerlimits]

3 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

There's more thought in his post than in a survey, and he explained why he did not complete it. 
 

The org should do what is good for the sport, not what is just good for revenue. As he stated the org flourished when it had far fewer members than it does now, and it did. This is why I think there is room for two practical shooting sports, USPSA and a US-IPSC.

 

I think there are a few competitors who would be more than happy to leave the current org and shoot under an international rule-set.

^^This

[Rich406]

8 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

There's more thought in his post than in a survey, and he explained why he did not complete it. 
 

The org should do what is good for the sport, not what is just good for revenue. As he stated the org flourished when it had far fewer members than it does now, and it did. This is why I think there is room for two practical shooting sports, USPSA and a US-IPSC.

 

I think there are a few competitors who would be more than happy to leave the current org and shoot under an international rule-set.

He didn’t bother with the poll, and hasn’t shot the sport in years. I didn’t bother with his wall of text after that came out. 

[ChuckS]

One more post at another member will close this thread...

[Nolan]

1 hour ago, outerlimits said:

^^This

Ditto!

 

Nolan

[HCH]

They ought to just do it. Make LO a provisional minor only division and check HHF vs CO classifiers. When it’s determined that LO has the same HHF as CO, dump LO as a standalone division and allow SA guns in CO. 

 

I really don’t care if they say no magwells or all the magwells. And I don’t have a LO gun that I want a division to be created around so I can be competitive. IDPA allows SA in CO…  I can’t believe USPSA is getting outplayed by fudds. 

[Dirty_J]

6 hours ago, HCH said:

I can’t believe USPSA is getting outplayed by fudds. 

I can. All comes down to the leadership. 

[shred]

16 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

I think there are a few competitors who would be more than happy to leave the current org and shoot under an international rule-set.

 

I'm sure there are (I do both and have for decades), yet still approximately zero USPSA clubs run IPSC-rules matches even though they're free to do so at any time.  We have a number of shooters locally interested-- right up until they get to the equipment rules.  

 

[BritinUSA]

…and what I find truly bizarre is that the rest of the world gets by just fine with the IPSC Equipment rules, as did USA (for the most part) until 2000.

[RJH]

12 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

…and what I find truly bizarre is that the rest of the world gets by just fine with the IPSC Equipment rules, as did USA (for the most part) until 2000.

 

I suggest that you start you some clubs and see how it goes. I don't know of anyone  where I'm at ever mentioning shooting ipsc style, and I myself don't care to mess with it, but I wish you luck in your venture 

 

 

About the only thing I do hear people saying, and that is just online, is that they wished was like ipsc at all was 15 rounds in production. But I don't hear a lot of clamoring for race holsters or anything in production. And I don't know if people that are shooting Glock 34s are wanting to have to switch to something else to continue shooting production, so I don't know how many of those people actually want to shoot production after all

Edited February 20, 2023 by RJH

[Kwontanamo]

it's interesting that many want Limited optics but the majority wouldn't switch over from CO. Also surprised to see how evenly split some of these results are. 

[motosapiens]

On 2/18/2023 at 7:20 PM, Boomstick303 said:

 

Is it?  

 

The 2500 number is way more than the members that actually debate such rule changes on this board or on any forum I imagine by a far margin.  .  In my eyes this is a huge failure that I think if it starts as a Minor division you will see all kinds of guns, and they mostly will compete at the same level.   

 

 

good point, and obviously the ones who responded are going to be the most interested and probably best informed on the topic.

I don't see any reason that ss or open shooters should really care too much about the whole thing.

[motosapiens]

On 2/18/2023 at 11:05 PM, BritinUSA said:

Adds fuel to the theory that there are only 10% of the members care about what happens at a national level. The other 90% are social/casual shooters who rarely set foot outside of an L1 match. This is the same reason why they don't know about these surveys, they likely don't read the magazine or check the website as they just don't care enough to do so.

 

I'm not suggesting that the org disregard the results here, but there is a big disconnect within the sport and the org does not seem to care about it. I think the majority of the members need to be more involved, or the major issues facing the org will never get resolved.

It seems like you and I can agree that the majority of members don't really care that much, so why should they get more involved? Why not just keep shooting and enjoy themselves?