Latest Bod Minutes

[Chuck D]

"Of course other states would not have the 10 round limit for those matches and those that choose to compete from restricted states can either acquire some magazines at the match to shoot it, or compete with the 10 round magazines and see how they do against the hi-cap shooters."

No....

One of the benefits of L10 is that the guys and gals in restricted states can be competitive nationwide without having to beg, borrow, steal, or stash hi-cap mags in order to remain competitive when traveling to "free" States.

Interestingly enoough...no one to the best of my knowledge has "restricted" themselves by going to a Nationals and purposely used 10 round only mags to prove their point...

It's the match director's decision whether to recognize a division at a match regardless of stature. If USPSA didn't want to recognize L10 in a divisional capacity at Nationals...they don't have to.

"There is no reason why the same proposal would not work within USA between States and USPSA. I see no reason why those states with restricted capacity could define each division as 10 round only."

No....

Just as I don't want my ability to shoot L10 in a divisional format taken away from me...I don't want to strip those of the ability to use their hi-cap magazines in their division of choice (Production excluded for obvious reasons).

"The same things is happening with USPSA. Some states have bad gun laws and the National organisation can either alter the rules for everyone so that those states can compete or it can choose not to."

Point missed.....

the rules were "altered" a long time ago....now, all L10 shooters are looking for from USPSA is for them to keep their word.

[Tman33_99]

A lot of people have suggested that limiting the divisiotns at the match level is the easy solution, but according to the poll done just a couple of weeks ago, that is suicide for a club that wants to keep its membership.

Yeah, we all want competition, but only when it is convienant for what we want to do. Look at the Poll

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39953

Only 27% thought limited divisions to increase competition is a good thing.

I even suggested when PSSD came out, to alternate matches being race gun (Open, Limited, L10) and stock gun (Production, PSSD, and Revo). I suggested this for the very reason that we often have matches with only 4 or 5 max in a division, and most with only 2 or 3.

The facts are, we have too many divisions w/o enough real differences to play all divisions in all small matches. Sure it works at the Area Matches, State Matches, etc, when you have 100s of shooters, but it doesn't work well at local matches with only 30 shooters or less.

As MD, I would love to do something like alternating matches like I suggested above, but my membership responded similar to the poll.

[Flexmoney]

Note:

Just a quick point of record. I edited a few posts to remove the talk of voting. This thread is political enough without adding that into the mix.

[Rob Boudrie]

One of the benefits of L10 is that the guys and gals in restricted states can be competitive nationwide without having to beg, borrow, steal, or stash hi-cap mags in order to remain competitive when traveling to "free" States.

Interestingly enoough...no one to the best of my knowledge has "restricted" themselves by going to a Nationals and purposely used 10 round only mags to prove their point...

Also, whose going to want to spend a lot of $$ to go to the big match and use magazines that have not personally tested, in their match gun, to the point of absolute confidence?

As to the second point - when this issue was depated a long time ago, the same people who were claiming "there is no advantage with good course design" were also saying "don't take away the advantage I paid big money to buy."

Some of my thoughts:

As an Area Director, it is my responsibility to look out for both the good of the sport as well as the interests of the current members. Sometimes, it may be necessary to vote against popular sentiment for the long term health or good of the sport (if that were not the case, we could have an on-line voting system for all issues and due away with the expense of board meetings).

I listened to all that was said regarding L10 to see if this was one of those times, and if there was a reason to compel those currently dedicated to L10 to bite the bullet. I could not find out how the presence of L10 was causing harm to USPSA - sure there are more divisions, but I've never heard of someone refusing to join because USPSA had too many divisions. As to "not enough competition in a divsion" - I don't think that one really becomes "better" in a division simply because you have a bunch of people with guns that are at a disadvantage propping up the scoresheet. I have received one member complaint about the large number of divisions, however, I have to discount his comments somewhat since he's an open shooter who has expressed a willingness to get rid of some divisions other people shoot. If I start to get this sort of comment from a large number of members who have mostly L10 classifiers on record, it would have considerable additional credibility.

The other factor in my decision was not based on current membership reaction, but the long term health of the sport and the organization (which I regard as my primary responsibility). The fact of the matter is that we have to recruit members in states that have mag bans - some like MA and NY have grandfathering, some don't (NJ and HI), and one (CA) has grandfathering but only for people who personall owned pre-ban equipment (i.e., NO legal way to buy them at ANY PRICE if you do not already have them).

I believe that it is very important that USPSA present a welcoming image to prosepective members in these, and other, hostile jurisdictions. Telling them that their only option is either production or Single Stack (defined in a very limited, near out of the box manner) is to tell them that they don't have the option of pushing the edge with their gun design. Even if a shooter from one of these does not ultimately choose L10 and opts for Ltd or SS instead, the message of welcome an inclusiveness enhances the appeal of our sport.

As I have mentioned, there are times when it may be necessary to vote against popular sentiment, in which case I will owe the membership an explaination of my reasoning. I did not consider this to be one of those times.

[zhunter]

If you live in a 10 round state, then Limited when shot in that state should be L-10, NOT limited ( the whole grandfathered magazine thing is BS in my opinion). When you travel to an out of state match, you can THEN shoot Limited and use your NOW legal L-10 gear in Limited.

We have all voiced opinions, so here is another of mine, but it is MY opinion that MANY competitors who live in non-10-round states elect to shoot L-10 to run away from the tough competition in Limited.

Z,

A couple points you miss here. Not all 10 round states are 10 rounds. In NJ we have 15, in NY, you can have a grandfathered Standard Cap, or a post ban 10, Same in Calif. In HI it is my understanding is that it is 10 rounds period.

As to hiding, we have a group of us here that will ask what the other is shooting and switch TO that division. Sometimes we shoot Limited, sometimes L-10 and often Production. This group includes G, M and A shooters. We aren't hiding, we like to shoot different games.

Jim

Jim

I am not advocating that is is always the case, but I DO know it goes on, and I would HATE to see people voting and/or arguing to they can hide in a division.

I agree with the BoD's that have spoken, the LONG TERM good of the organization is what is best.

I personally don't see a problem with shooting SSD as a Category of a Division. Once again, personally, I shoot for my own self gratification, NOT a medal or a prize.

Let's do what is good for the good of all, NOT individuals

[TxD]

It seems to me we don't know what kind of sport we want to be.

Dale. I agree, these arguments do tend to recycle.

In looking at the Nov/Dec issue of front sight page 46, there is an article written by the Area 5 Director titled " New Category Of Competition Proposed!".

It speaks of a new class as a supplement to the existing classes with the following criteria:

Firearms:

1. Min caliber 9X19.

2. Replace barrels with barrels of the same diameter.

3. Replace sights as long as they don't overhang.

Etc. Etc.

Ammunition:

1. Only those calibers that are produced by at least three commercial ammunition manufacturers and are generally available at retailers across the country and make the major power factor may be scored as major.

2. Reloaded ammo is permitted.

Proposed Names:

1. Defence class

2. Stock class

3. Practical class

4. Sportsman class

5. Tactical class

Footnotes:

1. Weight restrictions were examined and found to be unworkable.

2. Limits on size were reviewed. It was suggested that a box with fixed dimensions be used.

3. A maximum retail value has been suggested to help keep down the cost of admission.

4. Cost limitations on modifications were explored.

5. A frequent suggestion was that professional shooters could not compete in this class.

Interesting.

The article paraphrased above is from the Nov/Dec issue of Front Sight.

!!!!!!! THE YEAR IS 1991 !!!!!!!

So Dale is correct.

15 years later, "WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF SPORT WE WANT TO BE."

Edited November 22, 2006 by TxD

[Tim James]

I'm new to USPSA and would like to ask a question. I've noticed some posts on this forum scolding people for hiding in lesser divisions and stating that the winners in those lesser divisions (or the various categories like High Senior, etc.) don't deserve trophies or accolades because there are so many niches that it's easy to win. I've also seen statements that practical shooting is a competition sport, and it shouldn't be designed so that everyone is a winner.

Is this the prevailing personality in USPSA, or is it just a few Type A bullies that want to belittle others? I've been told to just come shoot my own game and have a good time, but from some of the high-strung comments here it seems like that is looked down on.

Thank God I haven't encountered any assholes like that at the local level, or I'd go find something else to do.

[JFD]

IMHO it's just "a few Type A bullies that want to belittle others".

I've never heard anyone but a few here complain about what division anyone else is shooting. I've seen some of this so-called "hiding", but I could care less what division anyone else wants to shoot, or when they want to shoot it.

[joseywales]

Tim,

This is definitely NOT the prevailing opinion in USPSA. Most USPSA shooters are in this for the fun of it, and while we enjoy the competition with others, we are mostly competing against ourselves in the never-ending quest to improve.

Sounds like you've been around folks that enjoy the game and like to have a good time with it. That's more the spirit of USPSA - than some of the musings you've read on the internet. Stay safe & continue to have fun.

[walangkatapat]

I'm new to USPSA and would like to ask a question. I've noticed some posts on this forum scolding people for hiding in lesser divisions and stating that the winners in those lesser divisions (or the various categories like High Senior, etc.) don't deserve trophies or accolades because there are so many niches that it's easy to win. I've also seen statements that practical shooting is a competition sport, and it shouldn't be designed so that everyone is a winner.

Is this the prevailing personality in USPSA, or is it just a few Type A bullies that want to belittle others? I've been told to just come shoot my own game and have a good time, but from some of the high-strung comments here it seems like that is looked down on.

Thank God I haven't encountered any assholes like that at the local level, or I'd go find something else to do.

As far as I'm concerned Tim if you shoot a stage and come out smiling regardless of how the run went you're a winner. As for the a holes, I've ran into a couple since I began back in 93 and had to deal with one when I was a director of a club, but for this sport compared to others a holes are pretty non existent deal. Shoot and have fun.

Edited November 22, 2006 by walangkatapat

[Tim James]

Just checking. I think I need to get off the forums and go shoot!

Carry on.

[pskys2]

Rob Boudrie, your argument was the most intelligent, well reasoned I have seen. That it seems to fit my thoughts is mostly secondary. The health of the the sport must be paramount.

[omnia1911]

Tim,

"hiding in lesser divisions?" There is no such thing a lesser division; just diferent. Don't let anyone sell you that line of BS.

The "hiding" accusations have been going on since we went from "shoot what you brung" to an Open and Limited division. It's the same old and tired trash talk; just more BS.

You'll find that most USPSA shooters are above all of this.

Good post Rob.

[JFD]

I think Rob needs to move to Area 6

[zhunter]

There was NO trash talking and I did NOT intend to be an 'a-hole". I was merely pointing out that I ( MY OPINION) think some of the people are arguing for reasons that seem less than valid to me (once agin, my opinion, as I stated in my previous post ).

If someone is stuck in a state that imposes limits, I can see the reasoning behind the support of L-10. It is the NON-Banned state people that I have a hard time understanding their passion for the elimination of L-10.

I am not and have not advocated getting rid of L-10.

[Rocket35]

If someone is stuck in a state that imposes limits, I can see the reasoning behind the support of L-10. It is the NON-Banned state people that I have a hard time understanding their passion for the elimination of L-10.

I am not and have not advocated getting rid of L-10.

I reside in a "non-banned" state and find this attitude an insult. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Let me shed some light on a few of the reasons I shoot L-10. I started shooting L-10 before the "ban" was lifted and gained a certain affinity for it as apposed to other divisions for several reasons. First and foremost is the different dynamics a 10 round limit brings to shooting higher round count stages. When I started, I came from IDPA and L10 was the type of division that allowed me to shoot a gun that was set-up to "race", yet it was similar to the stage dynamics I was used to in IDPA(10 round mag capacity). For me to go to Limited without the 20 round capacity wasn't competitive. I continue to shoot L-10 because I like to reload, and find it more of a challange to shoot and strategize stages. If this makes me one of those that "hide" in a lesser division- so be it. I enjoy shooting L-10 because it is FUN, and will continue to shoot in this division until it is no longer recognized. And that is all that should matter.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Rocket35

[Rocket35]

Furthermore, I fail to see how eliminating a division that a large percentage of USPSA members shoot on a regular basis is "for the benefit of the organization".

[caps]

This issue is basically a microcosm of what is happening vis-a-vis IPSC and USPSA. IPSC is trying to implement global rules that cater to some countries dumb gun laws.

What rules are they changing and which divisions is IPSC planning to add or drop?

[tightloop]

Furthermore, I fail to see how eliminating a division that a large percentage of USPSA members shoot on a regular basis is "for the benefit of the organization".

The inclusion of L10 was a bandaid measure implemented because of the Clinton AWB which included large capacity mags...the organization leaped before it looked IMO, and now it is reaping the harvest of that ill advised decision..whatever happens not everyone will be happy with the outcome..

If you want to make the divisions more competitive, do away with the 170mm mags...that will tighten up Open, Limited and Poduction...then perhaps the wisdom of making 9mm major in only Open will be scrutinized...Not picking on the Open shooters, but they have it ALL their way, small caliber major, huge magazine capacity and optical sights...if they had to shoot 40/10 to make major the differential in divisions would not loom as large as it does now...and since this is all conjecture, that is my .02...

It just seems that it has gotten out of control, trying to make a division/category for every single type of pistol made...I suppose single action revolver is next, to cultivate the SASS shooters...Man can you see that, a shooter decked out in 10 gallon stetson, chaps and a bandolier of ammo to shoot a 30 round field course...of course his time could be measured with a sundial, but he would get style points for his dress....LOL

[zhunter]

Furthermore, I fail to see how eliminating a division that a large percentage of USPSA members shoot on a regular basis is "for the benefit of the organization".

The inclusion of L10 was a bandaid measure implemented because of the Clinton AWB which included large capacity mags...the organization leaped before it looked IMO, and now it is reaping the harvest of that ill advised decision..whatever happens not everyone will be happy with the outcome..

If you want to make the divisions more competitive, do away with the 170mm mags...that will tighten up Open, Limited and Poduction...then perhaps the wisdom of making 9mm major in only Open will be scrutinized...Not picking on the Open shooters, but they have it ALL their way, small caliber major, huge magazine capacity and optical sights...if they had to shoot 40/10 to make major the differential in divisions would not loom as large as it does now...and since this is all conjecture, that is my .02...

It just seems that it has gotten out of control, trying to make a division/category for every single type of pistol made...I suppose single action revolver is next, to cultivate the SASS shooters...Man can you see that, a shooter decked out in 10 gallon stetson, chaps and a bandolier of ammo to shoot a 30 round field course...of course his time could be measured with a sundial, but he would get style points for his dress....LOL

Bwaahaaahaaa

TL strikes again

[driver8M3]

If you want to make the divisions more competitive, do away with the 170mm mags...that will tighten up Open, Limited and Poduction...then perhaps the wisdom of making 9mm major in only Open will be scrutinized...Not picking on the Open shooters, but they have it ALL their way, small caliber major, huge magazine capacity and optical sights...if they had to shoot 40/10 to make major the differential in divisions would not loom as large as it does now...and since this is all conjecture, that is my .02...

are you arguing that the divisions are too different? it seems like a lot of people are concerned that the divisions are too similar...

[omnia1911]

Furthermore, I fail to see how eliminating a division that a large percentage of USPSA members shoot on a regular basis is "for the benefit of the organization".

The inclusion of L10 was a bandaid measure implemented because of the Clinton AWB which included large capacity mags...the organization leaped before it looked IMO, and now it is reaping the harvest of that ill advised decision..whatever happens not everyone will be happy with the outcome..

If you want to make the divisions more competitive, do away with the 170mm mags...that will tighten up Open, Limited and Poduction...then perhaps the wisdom of making 9mm major in only Open will be scrutinized...Not picking on the Open shooters, but they have it ALL their way, small caliber major, huge magazine capacity and optical sights...if they had to shoot 40/10 to make major the differential in divisions would not loom as large as it does now...and since this is all conjecture, that is my .02...

It just seems that it has gotten out of control, trying to make a division/category for every single type of pistol made...I suppose single action revolver is next, to cultivate the SASS shooters...Man can you see that, a shooter decked out in 10 gallon stetson, chaps and a bandolier of ammo to shoot a 30 round field course...of course his time could be measured with a sundial, but he would get style points for his dress....LOL

Ban the 170mm mag?

Is this another shot fired at L10 by making a SS less competitive there?

I suppose you can consider any division a band aid for the "shoot what you brung" matches we used to run.

Why don't we make all 6 of our divisions categories of "shoot what you brung" matches? Do you think that the competitors would gravitate to "Open" type equipment to finish higher in the combined scoring? I do, and the other "categories" would die a slow death. The same is going to happen when you combine 2 or 3 of our divisions together. The categories will be dealt a death blow.

Edited November 23, 2006 by omnia1911

[shred]

Funny.. the 170mm mag was brought in to appease the single-stackers that wanted 10 rounds of 45 ACP... how the world turns..

[Alan Meek]

An observation I have noticed in this thread....

There seems to be a group that would like to see (insert your favorite division) eliminated. Most of the people advocating the removal of (insert your favorite division do not appear to participate in the divsion that they want to remove.

The people that shoot in the divisions that have been mentioned to just put such and such division as a category in a different division.

The ones that are advocating the creation of categories apparently do not for the most part compete in those divisions that they have suggested to be made into categories.

Categories should be based in criteria that the competitors have no control over, which is what they currently are based on.

Divisions should establish the parameters of the equipment used to compete.

That being said, I feel in my opinion that the current 5 Divisons and the Provisional Division are adequate to cover the vast majority of guns used in USPSA competition.

If any current division is placed as a category in a division I feel you would see over a fairly relativly short term that the number of people competing in sub category of division would diminish and basically become non-existant.

But if everyone still insists on having sub categories let's make them sub categories of open

Alan

(I found another .02 on my way home from work)

[Jim Norman]

Alan,

Well said.

Jim