Future Of Uspsa Revolver Division

[BritinUSA]

As I stated above they should remove all scores from other divisions in the Classification Database and then grade on a bell curve.

They should allow the HHF to change and allow people to move both UP and DOWN in the classification Database. Having a classification that only moves up is stupid, irrational, illogical and has no basis in reality.

As to the whole popularity/growth issue, that is up to the Revolver shooters to figure out. If you want your division to grow then you guys need to step up to the plate and help it grow. Organise some local REVO matches, most people have one somewhere in their gun safe.

[Nemo]

The truth is simply that a very small segment of our USPSA membership has a real, demonstrable interest in shooting revolvers. Y'all are passionate about them, no doubt about it. But you are currently almost a rounding error in the demographics.

Bruce

Sounds like the story of my life. I like that Mr. Gary. I'm making it part of my signature.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Nemo

[Carmoney]

There aren't enough shooter in revolver to provide a meaningful sample.

The Revolver HHF are screwed up.

I think, a better method, would be to go through them and see what they require. And, use Jerry's abilities as a baseline.

- We can figure out his draw time and A-hit at 5-10-15y etc.

- We can figure out his standing reload time.

- We can figure out his splits.

- We can figure out his transitions.

- We can figure out his time to reload while moving to a position 5y away.

Then, it's just math (which is how a lot of us GM's look at breaking down stages).

Well, now wait just a sec.... Making our HHF the absolute max that our #1 top shooter can theoretically perform the stage? C'mon. That's sure as hell not the way it's done anywhere else. USPSA has over 13,000 revolver classifers in its databanks. That averages out to several hundred per classifier, which is more than enough to develop some sort of realistic HHF, the same way it's done in the other divisions (whether it's the best run on record, or an average of the best ten runs, or whatever). It would be so easy to do, just run our data through the exact same formula, and you're done.

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

I do not think it is "If" the revolver division will be eliminated. I think it is "When". No matter what we do, no matter what we say, as long as "They" don't want it, "They" can eliminate it.

So, let me ask you this... What have *you* personally done to try to promote and preserve revo as a separate division within USPSA? Have you lobbied the BoD through your AD and the President? Have you offered them possible solutions to the problems you see in the course of your lobbying, or just complained that you're getting the bum steer?

To answer your question head on, I have lobbied, I have participated, I have loaned equipment to those who wish to try including my ammo so don't attack my resolve on this.

I posted what I see as an inevitable goal of the current president and BOD of USPSA. If and when it comes to pass, I will continue to shoot revolver in whatever division they stick it in.

As far as prize tables, that doesn't mean squat to me. As for speaking to the SC about it, it is not in his realm to control that. It is up to the hosting club.

If you want Revolver to succeed (long term) as a division, it's up to you to make it happen, and not for the BoD to do it all for you.

It is up to the BOD members to represent every member in their section. NOT go to the table with preconceived ideas as to what the demographics show. It is up to each and every BOD member to put their personal feelings aside and support the paying members of the organization.

As a group, the revolver division shooters take last place in all that is discussed in this organization and have since the division was started. As growth begins to take place, talk of dropping the division and using the past statistics as the fodder is used. With a new growth should come a new discussion from all with open minds. It appears to me that will not take place from what I have seen discussed here.

It is also nice to see that someone who has no Revolver Classification can be so knowledgeable. This shows me what you have personally done for the revolver division.

Regards,

Edited June 30, 2006 by Round_Gun_Shooter

[TreblePlink]

So where would that leave us .45 guys ? We would be forced out and directly to IPDA. If you want anything like a 1911 - it would essentially mandate .40 doublestack.

Two weeks ago I got to talk to Area 1 Director Bruce Gary at the Area 1 Champ. about the Revolver Division's future.

His opinion is that there are too many divisions and that his idea is to keep Open, Limited & Production Divisions and to have the rest as catagories. ...

Jerry V.

[bgary]

Just wanna do a little housekeeping, and provide some clarity to a couple of points before they get cemented in people's thinking. If nothing else, I'd like to keep this conversation not only constructive, but based in as much "fact" as possible.

I'll re-read the thread, but I don't recall the poster that said revo would be as big as the other divisions if those things were fixed. I guess it could be, but I didn't see the claim.

Technically you're right - nobody said "if USPSA fixes all the problems we'll be as big as the other divisions". What I was responding to was

"I am not saying that we would be the dominant division in USPSA, but I can honestly believe, if it had been given a reasonalble amount of support, that it could have already attained a 10%-12% following among all USPSA entries."

With 6 divisions, if we have even distribution, each division would represent 16% of overall USPSA activity (assuming no overlap and a bunch of other stuff). I interpreted the poster's comment to be saying "if USPSA gave us more attention, we would be [gee, pretty darn close to a sixth of all activity]".

So yeah, we chose the equipment we shoot and are contented (in the main) with competing only against other revo shooters, but that's not what started this thread; what started this thread is the discussion that the division is on the chopping block for reasons that are largely, in my opinion, constructs of the opposing sides in the other discussions.

Fair enough - but that was before *I* was invited to join ("be careful what you ask for...") ;-) You're right, I *did* morph the conversation from "what should revolver division be" to "what's the right divisional structure for our sport". I personally believe that the two topics are intimately related - and that revolver is *not* a unique situation. The next whiz-bang-gotta-do-it sub-segment of our member's interest is going to come up, whether it is hi-cap Production or something else, and we as an organization *have* to figure out to structure things so that we can deal with changes in market interests, incubate new or low-participation populations, grow across the board.... without having to add a new division and re-write rulebooks every time we do. As stated above, my instinct is that simple-and-flexible is a better approach than having 6 or 10 or more distinct sub-groups, each treated as separate and unique. That's just my opinion. But, it is a meaningful context, because I never said I think we should get rid of Revolver division - what I said is I think we have too many divisions now, and we need to find a way to deal with different interests without segmenting ourselves too severely.

bringing that into a discussion with Non revolver competitors who ultimately do not want revolvers in the sport will sway them to the decision to abandon the division

it is an opinion from the top on down that revolver shooters do not belong in this game

It is obvious he is also against this division and nothing that is posted here will change that

No matter what we do, no matter what we say, as long as "They" don't want it, "They" can eliminate it.

I love conspiracy theories. Really. I do.

Believe what you want, I guess. If you want to look for a malevolent agenda, I suppose you can parse words until you think you've found one. But I assert that it is not there (at least, not from me - I can only speak for me). What I have said - if you read my posts objectively you just might see it - is that I want to fix *problems* with the way the org works. *One* possible approach to that is to reduce the number of stand-alone divisions, while also *adding* flexibility within those divisions to allow smaller/growing/special-interest sub-groups to receive specific recognition and attention. There are, no doubt, other possible solutions, and I would be very open to discussing them. If you think this is about "Bruce doesn't like revolvers and wants to get rid of them"... well, sorry. Just not true.

it has been stated in this discussion that Revolver division was a knee jerk reaction to IPSC.

By whom was that stated? Not by me...

I was running for election to the Board when what become the 2000 IPSC rulebook was voted in at the GA. Because that was positioned - on short notice - as somewhat of an ultimatum to USPSA (after years of maintaining its own rulebook, IPSC basically said "adopt this one in its entirety or be disaffiliated"), the whole rulebook spawned a knee-jerk reaction to IPSC. the USPSA President negotiated an interim solution which led to USPSA issueing the "toilet-paper" rulebook on a temporary basis until the new IPSC rules could be assimilated for USPSA use.

I was involved in the rules stuff starting early in 2001, and was very involved in the discussions about the divisions. I can assert that adopting a revolver divisions was *not* a knee-jerk reaction. Given the situation and the environment, it made sense. What *was* somewhat of a knee-jerk was deciding which of IPSC's constraints to impose on the USPSA shooter. Their rule said you can only load 6 rounds in a revolver. period. We didn't think that was a good solution, especially with 8-rounders being so prevalent at the time. At the same time, though, we had the idea that revolver (like production) should be an entry-point into our sport, where you could bring a box-stock gun and not at a competitive advantage, same as production, so 6-round neutral made sense. We compromised, and said that 8-round revolvers would be allowed, but competitively neutered to make sure that there was not such a distinct equipment advantage over 6-rounders. Did we screw up some of those decisions? Absolutely. Does that mean that USPSA implicitly tried to screw revolver shooters right from the get-go? Absolutely not. We probably put more work into trying to make the revolver division "work" than we did any other aspect of that rulebook process.

I like that Mr. Gary. I'm making it part of my signature

Please understand that "rounding error" comment in the context in which it was given. I am *not* being disparaging to you, or anyone else. What I have been trying to articulate is that USPSA has scarce resources, and sometimes has to make hard decisions about where to invest and where to... not invest. ONE of the things we look at is where can we get the biggest bang for the bucks? If we do something that hits Lim/Lim-10 shooters, we've served nearly half of the USPSA membership, according to the *numbers* that come in. If we devote those same resources to revolver, we've hit very-very-few USPSA members. It is *not* a perfect world, we can't do everything we want to do, and so... part of the responsibility we have is to make decisions about what our members want, and the only way we can do that - or, at least the best way *I* know of to do that - is to pay attention to what shooters are *telling* us they want, by watching what they actually *do*. The simple fact is that very-very-few USPSA shooters have *demonstrated* an interest in shooting revolver. I'd love for that to change. I suspect you would, too. But please don't take a math-focused comment, and turn it into a perceived insult. If you do that, you lose a pretty important part of the reality of running USPSA.

It is up to the BOD members to represent every member in their section. NOT go to the table with preconceived ideas as to what the demographics show. It is up to each and every BOD member to put their personal feelings aside and support the paying members of the organization.

TOTALLY agree. How can I prove it to you? I'm *here*. Whatever you believe my "pre-conceived ideas" and "personal feelings" may be, I (and others) are *here*, listening, trying to learn what the problems are, and trying to spark a dialogue about how *we* might solve those problems.

At the same time, I think it is fair that *you* do some listening, too. Perhaps it will be insightful to learn how the Board makes its decisions... and that those are not based on pre-conceived ideas and personal feelings, but data and trends and member inputs and opportunities for growth. In that light... consider who the paying members of USPSA are, when you start trying to paint me/us as not paying attention to you. We *are* paying attention to you - you get *way* more than 3% of our attention, despite the fact that you're paying for less than 3% of the organization. That "support the paying members of the org" thing cuts both ways... we *do* support the paying members of the org, and ... 97% of them are *not* shooting revolvers.

Sorry if any of that sounds harsh. I don't think, though, it does any good to blow sunshine up people's skirts. There are real challenges, at the organizational level, to giving the right level of support to the right areas of operations with scarce resources. At the same time, it is clear that there are some things that we can do to solve problems with the Revolver division and make it a more supported area of our game. I think that *between* us, we can get some of those things solved. But conspiracy theories and unfounded generalizations about what the Board members think and want, aren't going to get us there.

We *do* work for you. I am very clear on that. But... you have to be able to help us get you what you want, and you have to [at least try to] understand that there are *lots* of interest groups in USPSA, each with more requests than we can satisfy, and we have to make decisions about what we can and cannot do. If we don't devote as much resource to revolver as you want, consider that it might just be because we can't afford to do what we want, at a big picture level... and not because we "just don't like revolvers".

Let me know what I can do to help. But, please, lets cut down on the blame, and start looking at solutions.

Bruce

[Barrettone]

OK. I *really* gotta quit coming here, and get some work done (Jerry_V, are you sorry you got me into this yet?)

A couple of last observations

*Perhaps* revolver has not gotten as much attention as the other divisions. We could argue why that is, but probably not agree.

*Perhaps* the way the 2001 rulebook was mangled caused USPSA revolver shooters to go to ICORE. We could argue about what the right thing to do with those rules might have been, but probably not agree.

*Perhaps* there is an equipment race in Revolver. We could argue that it is no difference than equipment races in other divisions, but probably not agree.

*Perhaps* the president should watch what he says, because whether he knows it or not his on-camera opinions *do* change perceptions. I'll give you that one.

BUT

all of those things add up, in your mind, to... again, I mean no disrespect here, you're citing those things as if they are all reasons why Revolver participation is low in USPSA.

I mean. I really don't mean to be disparaging, and I really am trying to understand the issues so I can help fix them... but... on the one hand you tell me how much harder a revolver is to shoot well, and that it is so different that it is really an entirely separate game, and that there just isn't any way to reasnably compare shooting a revolver to shooting a semi-auto, and that revolver shooters are at such a big disadvantage against autos because of capacity and trigger pull and reloading challenges, and how important it is to recognize revolvers only against other revolvers, separately from all the "other" type of gun, because they're so different, and....

...and then you tell me "but, the reason more people don't shoot revolvers is because USPSA didn't market the division properly, and USPSA dorked-up the revolver rules, and the USPSA president made a joke about revolvers on TV, and if only we had been given more attention we'd be just as big as those other divisions..."

Isn't it possible that people pretty much choose to shoot the kinds of guns they like to shoot, and that Revolver participation is, in fact, a pretty accurate reflection of how many USPSA shooters actually want to contend with all those unique and challenging aspects of revolver shooting in USPSA competitions?

Bruce

Gary,

I appreciate you listening to my points. The only thing you got wrong was that the "equipment race" I mentioned has nothing to do with revolver division itself...I was implying that course design changed as a whole with the advent of hicaps in other divisions. Also, I felt that out of the 5 divisions in existence up until a few months ago (not 6), we could have delivered 10-12% of overall activity...a far cry from being statistically even with the others when they would acount for an average of 22% per divsion (we'd be bout half of that average...a fairly conservative number IMO). Other than that, you know where I stand, and I understand your points. I feel we need the tools first to do the job, and the BoD wants us to produce shooters before we get the keys to the toolbox. As I said...a mexican standoff. OK, I will not beat this issue any further. I'm out of the discussion unless some other pivitol issue arises that I feel I need to chime in on. Sorry I didn't have any disparaging remarks for you...I'll try harder next time. Thanks for all your efforts.

Cheers,

Jeff

Edited June 30, 2006 by Barrettone

[Nemo]

I like that Mr. Gary. I'm making it part of my signature

Please understand that "rounding error" comment in the context in which it was given. I am *not* being disparaging to you, or anyone else. What I have been trying to articulate is that USPSA has scarce resources, and sometimes has to make hard decisions about where to invest and where to... not invest. ONE of the things we look at is where can we get the biggest bang for the bucks? If we do something that hits Lim/Lim-10 shooters, we've served nearly half of the USPSA membership, according to the *numbers* that come in. If we devote those same resources to revolver, we've hit very-very-few USPSA members. It is *not* a perfect world, we can't do everything we want to do, and so... part of the responsibility we have is to make decisions about what our members want, and the only way we can do that - or, at least the best way *I* know of to do that - is to pay attention to what shooters are *telling* us they want, by watching what they actually *do*. The simple fact is that very-very-few USPSA shooters have *demonstrated* an interest in shooting revolver. I'd love for that to change. I suspect you would, too. But please don't take a math-focused comment, and turn it into a perceived insult. If you do that, you lose a pretty important part of the reality of running USPSA.

Bruce,

Please note the wink smilie at the end of my post. It was a joke. Takes a bit more than that statistical comment to insult me. No problem here. Thanx for your involvement.

But wait... I'm a Puerto Rican revolver shooter... Maybe I'M REALLY a demographic rounding error... I'm so confused...

Do we need a "Who-should-be-a-division-or-a-category-in-USPSA" poll?

Flex's post covered the match recognition issue. Still wanna chop... er... streamline the divisions list? Fine by me but please keep the autos with the autos and the revolvers with all other silly round things that spin.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Nemo

[XRe]

To answer your question head on, I have lobbied, I have participated, I have loaned equipment to those who wish to try including my ammo so don't attack my resolve on this.

It's a valid question to ask. I still haven't seen you propose any solutions to the challenges facing Revo, and you don't detail any that you've provided in the past. It's good that you've taken some action by loaning gear, and speaking with, well, someone (who you also don't detail).

As far as prize tables, that doesn't mean squat to me.

It apparently does to some, and is something of a sore spot with them. Read above in the thread.

As for speaking to the SC about it, it is not in his realm to control that. It is up to the hosting club.

The section match is the SC's (actually, the Section's - and he's the head of the Section) match, just as the Area match is the AD's. Ultimately, he has a large amount of influence over the content and format of the match - or he's not much of an SC.

It is up to the BOD members to represent every member in their section.

It is up to the AD to represent his entire Area, true. It is not up to the AD to reprsent one lone voice against the majority. If 99% of the people in his area are telling him that there are too many divisions, and one person saying "The BoD hasn't given Revolver a fair shake", what do you really think the result is going to be????

It is up to each and every BOD member to put their personal feelings aside and support the paying members of the organization.

And what does he do when the "paying members" (who don't pay him, BTW) are at odds with each other as to what they feel the best directions are?? Oh, right, he's supposed to put Revolver above everything else, I forgot....

As a group, the revolver division shooters take last place in all that is discussed in this organization and have since the division was started.

Apparently not. But, then, that would take you actually reading Bruce's posts...

With a new growth should come a new discussion from all with open minds.

Yes, it should. Fact is, as someone with no direct horse in the race, it's pretty easy to see why it isn't happening...

It is also nice to see that someone who has no Revolver Classification can be so knowledgeable. This shows me what you have personally done for the revolver division.

Perhaps you haven't read my posts above. Posts such as the one of yours I responded to add absolutely nothing positive to any discussion. If anything, it detracts from your position.

I have limited time and resources and choose to pursue the part of the game I've long loved. I don't have the required equipment to play in Revolver, and my shooting goals would make it irresponsible to budget for it at the expense of ammo and match fees. That obviously makes me stupid and worthless and incapable of holding an intelligent discussion regarding a part of the sport I particpate in.

While you're at it - ask AustinMike how much I've badgered him to get his 625 out and run with it, and the discussions we've had about my feelings on Revo, and the encouragement I give other shooters who talk about trying the division out. Yeah, I've done nothing... sure...

At the same time, I think it is fair that *you* do some listening, too.

That's the problem, Bruce - if you want to have an objective, open discussion about it (and not a one-sided "USPSA hates Revolver" discussion), no one will listen to what you have to say....

But, please, lets cut down on the blame, and start looking at solutions.

Good luck with that one

[Barrettone]

Settle down boys (specifically Dave and Gary)...Let me remind you of the forum guidelines...personal attacks are UNACCEPTABLE!!!

Now...back to our regularly scheduled program....

Edited June 30, 2006 by Barrettone

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

I love conspiracy theories. Really. I do.

Believe what you want, I guess.

I suggest you re-read the initial post of this thread.

Let me know what I can do to help. But, please, lets cut down on the blame, and start looking at solutions.

Bruce

Read THIS THREAD

Assist in implementing the changes discussed, and then allow the division to grow. To me this is the most important first step and it took me a while to get on board with that

Regards,

[Merlin Orr]

Well, the thread started out with a noble purpose.... Actually had some constructive comments before it went to hell.

What happened...???

Die thread, die.

[professor]

Just looking at it at a surface level, it looks like the classification system is working *perfectly*. If we agree that Jerry's performance sets the standard, I'm really having a much harder time believing that "skewed HHFs" is keeping people's classifications artificially false. It looks to me like Jerry's standard is making it so other people's classifications line up *exactly* with their demonstrated performance. My general belief is that when people shoot a match against the best in the world, and their match percentage is pretty close to their classification average... things are working pretty well. From that standpoint, it looks like Revolver classifications are *better* aligned than most other divisions!

Bruce

Clarification to the classifier HHFs and "Jerry M vs the rest of the revolver shooters". Gary, comparing revolver classifier averages to JM's classifier average of 100% is comparing apples and oranges. Why? Because JM's average of 100% is based on 5 major match wins and one classifier score of 100% [on CM03-05]. The top 4 Master revolver shooters' classifier averages are 90.7% to 94.6%, but their averages are based almost exclusively on their classifier scores, not on shooting and winning major matches. Only Cliff Walsh has a major match score in his 90.7%, and his 85.4% in the 2005 Nationals relative to JM brought down his average.

JM has only 10 classifier scores on his record, if you use those scores to compute his classifier average, eliminating all those major match wins, his latest average would be 89.7%, and he would still be ranked a Master class shooter. Of those 10 classifier scores, only 1 was GM range, 3 were Master range, and 6 were A class range.

You want head to head comparisons of JM and these other shooters. Well, all 5 have shot classifier CM03-05 during matches. JM scored 100%, but Jack Graham and Cliff Walsh also shot that one at 100%, Rich Bitow had a GM score of 98.3%, and Tom Kettells just missed GM score at 94.1%. Please note that all four of these individuals have classifier averages which exceed JM's classifier average of 89.7%, and all four have shot significantly more classifiers in competition.

Based on classifier averages, with JM as the standard, all four deserve to be ranked as GM.

Your assertion that a revolver shooter needs to beat JM head to head to become a GM is equivalent to saying that Limited and Limited 10 shooters have to beat Leatham, Production shooters have to beat Sevigny, Open shooters have to beat J J Racaza in order to get their GM ranking. Of course not. These other divisions have HHFs that are realistic enough to enable outstanding shooters to attain classifier averages in excess of 95%, and those shooters are not as phenomenally gifted as JM is in revolver, so that they can be beat.

Also, I find it insulting to revolver shooters your comment that we would avoid shooting a "low" classifier to keep from moving up in rank. Those low HHFs occur because the administrative staff who set the HHFs for the CM03 series applied a flat percentage of 70% to the Limited HHFs. I had done a lot of work analyzing the CM99 series classifier scores, pointing out the inequalities of the flat rate of 10% of Ltd to the BOD through my Area8 representative. I also voiced my opinion that the HHFs for Revolver ought to be based on Revolver shooter scores. They weren't, but Sedro Wooley did reduce the CM03 HHFs to 70% [Production HHFs went from 95% to 85%]. This produces additional inequities in the HHFs.

The golfer who hooks his first ball out of bounds to the left, and slices his second ball out of bounds to the right, can claim that ON AVERAGE he hit both balls right down the center of the fairway. Applying a flat 70% factor to the CM03 classifiers produced with "low" HHFs, and many with high HHFs because of the equipment differences of our Division.

For example, one classifier [CM03-08] requires "shoot 7, mandatory reload, shoot 7". The Ltd shooter does 1 reload. The revolver shooter must do 3 reloads to follow the stage protocol. That classifier has a Ltd HHF that allows 6.79 seconds to the Ltd shooter who scores all Alpha, to score 100%. The "70% of Limited" rule for Revolver increases the time allowed to 9.70 sec, all As. The extra 2.91 seconds might account for the equipment differences, IF the revo shooter only had to do the single mandatory reload. It is totally inadequate to make up for having to do THREE reloads. And that's the problem with trying to apply Ltd HHFs to revolver division. Another classifier, which doesn't require extra reloads, might allow enough time for revo shooters to score 100% more easily. But that doesn't make up for the ones where we don't have a chance of scoring at or above Class level.

Also, all of the fixed time standards have the same HHF for all divisions [the maximum point score possible]. Yet many require reloads followed by additional shots. Because revolvers can't be reloaded in less than a second like Open guns, we don't have a fair chance of scoring 100%.

I haven't looked at all the CM06 numbers yet, but the one I did shoot, CM06-05, uses the Open HHF for all divisions, despite GMs in all four "other" divisions shooting much lower than the Open GM who set the standard.

Until classifier HHFs are based on shooter performances using the equipment of the division, these HHFs won't be fair under the present way of doing things.

[Carmoney]

Well, the thread started out with a noble purpose....

Thanks, Merlin. No reason why we can't get the discussion back on track.

So......

We pretty much know where we stand with one member of the BOD. Bruce Gary has bravely and clearly stated his viewpoints, and I respect him for doing so right out in the open. I really think what Bruce needs to see from us is continued growth in Revolver division. One of the more immediate ways we can help facilitate that is to ask the BOD (through Gary Stevens' sponsorship) to pass the equipment rule change proposal that we put together and informally polled here on the forum:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...=36769&st=0

This will throw the door open to more revolvers (Bianchi guns, bull-barreled guns, PPC guns, guns with lightened ray-gun barrels, etc., etc.) that have not been allowed to play in Revolver division in the past. That's a good thing--so says 96% of us according to the informal poll we took. It will certainly encourage more shooters to pick up their wheelguns, including those which were not in accord with the old rules, and use them in USPSA matches. So let's get that done post haste.

Then we also need to engage in a constructive and polite dialogue with the other 8 members of the Board of Directors. (For those who may not be familiar with the intricacies of USPSA's organizational structure, the BOD is comprised of the 8 Area Directors plus the President of USPSA.) Let's talk with each of them, show them the continuing growth in our division, help them understand the reasons why we need to stay a separate recognized Division.

Finally, we all need to do everything we can to spread the word about how much fun it is to shoot Revolver in USPSA. Because of the challenge, because of the unique personalities involved at the highest levels, and because of the great comaraderie we enjoy before, during, and after every match.

Talk it up! It makes a difference! People really do show up and shoot the wheel! And some (not just Jerry) manage to do it extremely well!

Edited June 30, 2006 by Carmoney

[Carmoney]

I just received excellent news from Kim at USPSA--registrations for the 2006 US Revolver Nationals are up 70% from last year.

More empirical evidence of the growth trend I keep mentioning.

[Barrettone]

I just received excellent news from Kim at USPSA--registrations for the 2006 US Revolver Nationals are up 70% from last year.

More empirical evidence of the growth trend I keep mentioning.

So, exacttly how many shooters are registered then...I don't wanna do the math...my head still hurts from all the other revo discussions...

[hopalong]

Carmoney,

In response to your post number 89.

+++++++11111111

I have been trying to get more participation and interest in the Revo Division for the last nearly 3 years now...................for I could see the writing on the wall back then.

It is about time others notice and get in on it.

I don't know if my ranting and raving in the past has done a damn bit of good, but since then there has been a almost doubling of Master class revolver shooters and this year alone The matches I have shot have all at least doubled the number of revolver shooters compared to last....Seems pretty good to me........200% growth, If we do it again next year that will be pretty impressive........hell this year is pretty impressive............any other divisions seen that kind of growth? take the Mississippi state match for example....

Revolver shooters in 2005...............3

Revolver shooters in 2006...............17

Some might say "well 17 is not that many" but that is 500+% increase in participation.

So like Carmoney says, and I have said in the past.....

Get out there with your guns, make friends with the other shooters and promote shooting a Revolver in USPSA...........IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE !!!!!!

Also contact your AD and have a polite and honest discussion about the subject, tell him what you would like to see, and listen to what he would like to see and then go from there.

My suggestion to the BOD.

It is obvious there is interest in the Revolver division (as all the others) and yes the revolver division is the smallest Division by numbers in USPSA.

Yes there is discourse among the membership of USPSA about the number of divisions within USPSA, does it warrant tossing the lowest just because the biggest most popular divisions shadow them? Likely not. I started this game shooting Limited, and still do but somewhere in there I started shooting a revolver and it has gotten into my blood.

So If it can do this to me, it can do this to others, and Vise Versa.

Let's give the Single Stack provisional division its time, and then make a decision on it.

Carmoneys informal poll has some merit (a little) and maybe if the BOD would implement those changes and sit back and see if what interest and growth that seems to be happening goes on and gets bigger or just sits there take some kind of action if it warrants it.

I have no problem with the 5 divisions as they are, a little tweek here and there of equipment rules may be needed but they pretty well cover any gun I can buy and then use in USPSA.

Just a few thoughts from a dummy that shoots!!!!(a revolver, a LTD gun, a production gun and other guns)

SAM KEEN

[Carmoney]

So, exacttly how many shooters are registered then...I don't wanna do the math...my head still hurts from all the other revo discussions...

34 and counting!

I have been trying to get more participation and interest in the Revo Division for the last nearly 3 years now......

Sam, more than anybody else, I think you deserve the title of "Goodwill Ambassador of the USPSA Revolver Division." You were the guy who really got me going on the big match circuit early last year, beginning with the Florida Open, when you helped me learn how to break down a stage and showed me how to calculate a hit factor!

The fun of shooting in Revolver Division tends to be a contagious thing, doesn't it?

[AFDavis11]

Seems like a good moment in time to check out IDPA.

Maybe we could have like 20 different autoloading Divisions and fit revolver in there somewhere?

I've got it, one Division! Any jam not cleared in under 5 seconds and you receive no points on the stage. That would atleast make it like real life . . . a little.

Maybe I'll move to Open Division; mmmmmm how do I convince anyone that its a gun though?

I don't want to move to Single Stack . . . thats Provisional? mmmmmmm

So its Production or Limited maybe. Those have to be kept seperate for a while right? No maybe not, this propensity to stick all the guns in the same Division seems . . . somehow profitable.

Nobody actually carries a Limited gun either.

Does anyone really see any challenge is shooting an Open or Limited gun? Why not just move to the Laser/Airstrike Division and be done with it.

Wait, maybe this sport has nothing to do with reality, well just the money part it looks like.

OK, so Open is out as being silly. Nobody carries a .40 Limited in a holster all day. Revolver is headed out for some financial reason I can't understand, Single Stack is cool but may not last. Does that leave me with Production?

OK, so now I have an important question. Whats with the stupid rule on mag/moonclips having to be behind the 3/9 line in Production. Do guys that make the rules just not understand what guns, equipment, and positions people actually use any of this stuff in? Ok, maybe another thread for that.

Ok, so what Division does USPSA want to maintain and finds profitible? New shooters like me want to know. I want a Division that uses real guns using real methods after Revolver dies. Is that too much to ask or do I have to deal with IDPA?

Surely, coming up with atleast one realistic Division besides Revolver can't be that hard?

Or is the entire point to only have Divisions that support a specific, very expensive gun type?

Ohhhhh, I get it now. Nevermind.

[wolfie40cal]

I love my wheelies, and I will go where a

sport supports them. When IDPA split the revolver pond, I started shooting more USPSA. If USPSA dumps revolver, I will let my USPSA membership go. No hard feelings. You don't have anything for me, I don't have dues money for you.

[wolfie40cal]

You know, I never post, and here is two in a row.

I am the rare IDPA/USPSA crossbreed. I shoot both, I like both. I ran two State matches for IDPA. I've been a Chief SO at their Nationals forever. I also love USPSA. The equipment tickles me, and I love the field courses. With that in mind, and hopefully understanding I love both sports, here goes.

Many USPSA members were pissed when IDPA started. IDPA started because of a arrogant, "we know what you'll shoot BOD at USPSA". You would shoot Open, and you would like it. USPSA continued this until IDPA started, and they started losing money. And baby, if you don't understand it is about money - quit reading now.

When they started losing money to IDPA, things changed. New Divisions opened up, we would even put articles about some of your amusing little guns in our magazine. Membership and participation picked up.

Meanwhile, IDPA got arrogant and stupid. A rule book with no relation to effing reality was put in, and people went back to USPSA.

NOW USPSA thinks they are back in the drivers seat, and its time to remind the little people who the hell runs things.

Well, there is always ICORE.

[Carmoney]

Everybody needs to just relax and give the USPSA board a chance to do the right thing here. Just because a couple people may not express the kind of support for Revolver that we might hope for does not necessarily mean they're out to hurt us.

I know a couple board members, and they are good guys.

I'm not saying stay quiet. I think we definitely need to talk to them. Email them. Campaign them. But please keep the tone positive. Getting pissy will not help anything--believe me, I do persuasion and conflict for a living.

[Carmoney]

Here is email contact information for the board of directors:

Pres Michael Voigt president@uspsa.org

1 Bruce Gary area1@uspsa.org

2 Chris Endersby area2@uspsa.org

3 Emanuel Bragg area3@uspsa.org

4 Kenneth Hicks area4@uspsa.org

5 Gary Stevens area5@uspsa.org

6 Charles Bond area6@uspsa.org

7 Rob Boudrie area7@uspsa.org

8 George Jones area8@uspsa.org

[Randy Lee]

Greetings,

I've pretty much stayed out of this discussion because I can see the points of frustration on both sides of the fence. Also because I haven't even had the time to classify in Revolver, or Production for that matter.

From a slightly different perspective, I've been tracking the numbers and types of guns that have come thru the shop over the past 3 years. In 2004, I performed 105 trigger jobs/revolver buildups. Roughly 75% were .38/.357 or 38 supers slated for either Icore or Steel Challenge competition. In 2005, I did 260 trigger jobs with about 50% being on 625s or 25-2s. So far in 2006, I've surpassed the 300 mark with roughly 80% being 625s, 25-2s and 610 Smiths.

In looking at my file of customer letters from this year, the vast majority have been directed towards USPSA revolver competition. Although my observations may be off the mark when it comes to the actual #s of revolver competitors seen throughout the states, it does appear to me that the # of revolver shooters is growing. The question is "how fast?"

If the Revolver is moved under a different division, can or will it be afforded the same priveleges as other divisions where there are equal numbers , or be re-established as an independent division once the numbers equal or surpass say Production? I believe this is a matter of "when" and not "If".

[LChico]

Okay, after several days of lurking, I finally have to jump in on this one. I don't shoot revolver. I shoot single stack open, at the rare local match that I shoot. What I do best is crunch numbers.

Yes, I think revolver participation is growing. Every match I have worked during the last 2 years has had more revolver shooters than the year before, majors & local. At my local match, we usually see more revolver shooters (3 or 4) than singlestack shooters or L-10 shooters (0 to 2). This year, for the first time ever, I had enough revolver shooters at my State Section Championship to award 3 prizes for Revolver (High Overall, State Champion & 1st place C class). I have tried to help the revo shooters with their efforts to put a record number of revolver shooters into the Summer Blast.

Posting on the forum in the Revolver threads is not enough to get the message out. I'd like a volunteer to write an article for Front Sight about the revolver gathering at Summer Blast. I will be happy to help with details & will make sure we have pictures to go with it. This is in addition to the usual match report about the match in Front Sight (not instead). I would also LOVE to have a new revo shooter from Summer Blast for a sidebar article in that Front Sight (We have a few Revo shooters who are at their first major match & I'd like one of 'em to write it up). Sidebar articles can be real short.

Please think of the amount of "ink" 3 Gun shooting & Single Stack have gotten in Front Sight over the last year. While a large number of you post & read on this forum, the bulk of the membership is not aware that this exists, but everyone gets Front Sight. The bulk of our membership will never attend a tournament level match, so you need to get the word out-- about the fun, about the challenge, about the camaraderie.

And we need an advocate on the board. The "ink" in Front Sight is only a small part of the reason support is high for 3 gun and singlestack (even if & when the numbers did not warrent it yet). Many thanks to Bruce Gary & Gary Stevens for honestly sharing their opinions, but there are 6 other board members. Do you know how yours would vote on division changes? I sent Charles Bond (my Area Director) an email today to ask him.

Sorry if I only have a few suggestions, but we need to start somewhere.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

Edited July 1, 2006 by LChico