Production mag capacity

[RJH]

22 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

"Unique" in this context refers to a single count of individuals. The chart in question has counts for both Steel Challenge and USPSA matches. 
 

It means that 19,862 individuals shot at least one SC and/or USPSA match that year, and over 17,000 did not shoot at all.

 

I am seeing that now. It is odd that that many would pay up and not shoot. Those 17,000 might really not be interested in paying the new rates

[MHicks]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

 

I do shoot some outlaw matches in my area, both steel with a handgun and 3 gun matches. I also shoot USPSA club matches and am currently a member but, as mentioned earlier I will probably let it lapse this year. 

 

I don't run  matches any longer so I have no say in what the clubs put on. If they want to give USPSA money for no reason, they have the right to do that. If they wanted to do PSCL or something and put a few hundred dollars extra in the clubs coffers ever year, that's fine with me too, I will shoot either 

 

 

 

 

At least PCSL has their own rule set instead of essentially shooting USPSA without affiliating. The PCSL matches are quite a bit different aren't they? Last year I paid for a 5 year membership good till 2027. I'm 70 now. I hope to still be shooting then!

[RJH]

17 minutes ago, MHicks said:

 

At least PCSL has their own rule set instead of essentially shooting USPSA without affiliating. The PCSL matches are quite a bit different aren't they? Last year I paid for a 5 year membership good till 2027. I'm 70 now. I hope to still be shooting then!

 

It's some different, but it's also a lot the same. I don't think they tried to reinvent the wheel, I think they took the good and tried to get rid of some of the bad. I have not shot an actual PSCL match, but I did read the rule book once because I was curious. But that's been a while so I'm by no means an expert on their rules

 

 

I don't know of any action shooting organization that didn't pull at least part of their rules from IPSC  when they started (even USPSA). That's whether they have an acronym name now or are just some random club

 

 

[UpYoursPal]

It’s official: production capacity will be going to 15 rounds on Jan 31, 2024

 

https://uspsa.org/documents/minutes/20231218.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2K4y_VgEtKj6xF_9ti-oD-CVp9HUEwEM7OeKNNFTu-wkSQctG9Ar8kVNM_aem_ASE2qSNNIqu_lkkgU34E4zYqTcyNQqtOAJqAj4P1EQLKKE9Ndl51o2-R43-YLaqPGQE

Edited December 21, 2023 by UpYoursPal

[fcernese]

[IHAVEGAS]

On 12/20/2023 at 7:16 PM, UpYoursPal said:

It’s official: production capacity will be going to 15 rounds on Jan 31, 2024

 

Glad I let my r.o. certification run out and did not re-up my membership this fall. 

[858]

Changing Production to 15 rounds will fill the budgetary shorfalls from deficit spending.

[aandabooks]

Now they need to roll CO back to 15 rounds.  

[BritinUSA]

2 minutes ago, aandabooks said:

Now they need to roll CO back to 15 rounds.  

I doubt that will happen. A better option would be to abolish CO, Limited-Optics is essentially the same thing anyway. Every CO gun is already LO compliant.

 

Then bring in Production-Optics using the IPSC definition.

[aandabooks]

1 minute ago, BritinUSA said:

I doubt that will happen. A better option would be to abolish CO, Limited-Optics is essentially the same thing anyway. Every CO gun is already LO compliant.

 

Then bring in Production-Optics using the IPSC definition.

I don't find CO to be a very interesting division the way it is.  I'm an Open shooter the last few years and it just feels like when I shoot CO it is still only 1 reload on a course of fire.  A change to 15 rounds would make it more interesting then it would be the new production with an optic.  Also take out the need for magazine extensions.

 

What is the round limit for Production-Optics?

[ColoradoNick]

The way things are going this seems to be a moot argument. I'm not sure USPSA is going to exist a year from now.

[BritinUSA]

15. In IPSC Production-Optics is exactly the same as Production but with a dot.

 

CO is better as a round-restricted division, it increased the disparity between open and CO and invited more deliberation in stage planning.

 

The divisions should complement each other, offering clear distinctions to one another, each offering pros and cons. When you create a division that everyone wants, then every other division will eventually fail, leaving no choices to new shooters.

[BritinUSA]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoNick said:

The way things are going this seems to be a moot argument. I'm not sure USPSA is going to exist a year from now.

I think you may be right and its ok with me.

 

As long as we have a new IPSC affiliate for those few that seek to compete on the world stage.
 

If I had the finances I would set one up. I should buy a lottery ticket, I think it’s up to half a billion….

[terrydoc]

Didnt CO start as a 15 round division?

[whan]

It started as 10, to match production. Was too low to attract participation. I do think 15 round CO is the sweet spot now that LO exists.

 

 I for one am happy that Prod moved to 15. While it's not going to revive the division by any means, I bet there will be a slight bump in popularity

[BritinUSA]

I think it was 10 at the start, then it went to 140mm magazines.

[BritinUSA]

1 minute ago, whan said:

It started as 10, to match production. Was too low to attract participation.

Participation was growing, the division was still provisional and had been running for just one full season when the changes were made. 
 

I think IPSC introduced ProdOptics in 2018, taking effect as provisional in 2019. The division was formerly adopted in 2022, so they had nearly 3 full years of data to make the determination on its future.

 

IPSC’s ProdOptics has been a huge success with a very restricted rule-set and 15 round capacity. IPSC was right, USPSA was wrong.

[shred]

Participation was growing from zero, but not by much until they went to 140mm mags.  I think that 140 was the wrong choice, but it made CO far more successful than remaining at 10 would have been and made life easy for ROs that couldn't be bothered to count.

 

[ddc]

2 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

IPSC’s ProdOptics has been a huge success with a very restricted rule-set and 15 round capacity. IPSC was right, USPSA was wrong.

 

Yes, USPSA was so wrong that the current CO definition has resulted in the most popular division by far and generated so much interest that it justified it's own standalone national championship.  Yeah... bad move for sure.

 

 

 

[BritinUSA]

49 minutes ago, ddc said:

Yes, USPSA was so wrong that the current CO definition has resulted in the most popular division by far and generated so much interest that it justified it's own standalone national championship.  Yeah... bad move for sure.

To the extent that the growth has been to the detriment of all other divisions, yes, it was a mistake. It should have been Production Optics as it was originally intended to be.

 

FYI: Production also had a stand-alone Nationals.

[Sniperboy]

What's done is done I am on IHAVEGAS's team that says things should be left where they are.  15 rounds in Prod will simply blur the lines between Limited and everything else, and maybe this is what is destined to happen.  140mm minor iron sights with no modification limitation. 

 

Between the retro Mustangs trend, fanny packs, front cocking serrations, lack of finger grooves being back in fashion, I think we are naturally going back, which may not be a bad thing.  It's back to a simpler time.

 

At this rate I can see everything reverting back to 199X with just 3 divisions.

LO will definitely encroach on OPEN very soon when people decide major PF is no longer in style.

Optics, PCC & everything else.

[konkapot]

Sniperboy wins the internet today. Spot on. 

 

Fanny packs were never not cool, but agreed with everything else. 

[Blackstone45]

8 hours ago, Sniperboy said:

What's done is done I am on IHAVEGAS's team that says things should be left where they are.  15 rounds in Prod will simply blur the lines between Limited and everything else, and maybe this is what is destined to happen.  140mm minor iron sights with no modification limitation. 

 

Between the retro Mustangs trend, fanny packs, front cocking serrations, lack of finger grooves being back in fashion, I think we are naturally going back, which may not be a bad thing.  It's back to a simpler time.

 

At this rate I can see everything reverting back to 199X with just 3 divisions.

LO will definitely encroach on OPEN very soon when people decide major PF is no longer in style.

Optics, PCC & everything else.

Open still has a comp and frame mounted optic. If anything, getting rid of major PF might help Open. I'd certainly be far keener on shooting Open if I could just shoot 9mm minor through it.

[shred]

Eh, minor-only Open would end up with people cramming 10 grains of some slow powder under a 90-grain bullet or something.  And it would be a lot less fun.

 

 

[aandabooks]

21 minutes ago, Blackstone45 said:

Open still has a comp and frame mounted optic. If anything, getting rid of major PF might help Open. I'd certainly be far keener on shooting Open if I could just shoot 9mm minor through it.

Issue there is open guns are built the way they are to handle major PF and comps/popple holes won't be effective with minor ammo.  My open guns don't run reliably on minor ammo and I am already only running 7lb recoil springs.