USPSA Category Awards

[SA Friday]

Some background info for the debate.

Air Force Instruction 36-2226 regulates (amongst many other things) how USAF issued weapons can be used in civilian training and sporting events. Bottom line the info for you; you can only used military issued ammo in these guns. The current 9mm ammo issued for M9 and M11 training is a 95gr +P frangible round and it makes about 123-125pf. Another section of the same instruction regulates how much ammo should be forecasted for each shooter in a unit. You have to justify your annual orders based on the criteria of the instructions allowances. There is no allowance for sporting events. Ultimately, you can get about 400 rounds a year for proficiency fire for a shooter per year. That's it. You can't get around it. I tried. I also tried to get AFI 36-2226 rewritten to allow for other types of ammo; i.e. commercially made ammo. It was a no-go. I was in a position to try to influence this as I was assisting in writing a parallel instructruction for AFOSI a couple years back. The military as a whole has no understanding of the benefits of shooting sports short of the AMU, and again short of AMU do not support their troops appropriately to use their duty gear.

If USPSA stipulated that military shooters had to use their duty gear, you will essentially kill this category (at least for the AF shooters).

[Chills1994]

LPatterson on page 3 wrote:

Where did you get the idea that someone in USPSA HQ had anything to do with the survey?

I didn't say one way or the other as whether I thought USPSA HQ was the driving force behind this survey.

What I was suggesting...or rather asking in a really round about way was : Did the board have a meeting and they came up with a vision of growing the sport with a goal of having more women shooters?

Was the news of such a meeting explicitly published and/or broadcasted either via the Front Sight magazine and/or the USPSA.org website?

That's all I am asking, dude. A simple yes or no question .

If the previous posters suggested that they saw too many women related stories in the Front Sight magazine and it either caught their attention or rubbed them the wrong way, then I have to wonder or rather speculate if their is a bigger entity at work trying to push an agenda.

And by agenda, I mean that sans its typical negative connotations. Neither bad nor good.

As for being married or not, if I am having woman problems, that's just all the more reason for me to go to the range or go shoot a match. Matches are like my mini-vacations... where I can kinda escape from the hum drum of the every day world.

I set as a ground rule to never, ever bring up my matches. FWIW, I never ask to go to any matches.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Chills1994

[konkapot]

I was going to make a post on this until I realized that Ben and HuskySig totally expressed my view....just better than I would have done it.

In general, be it in recruiting for jobs or marketing for a recreational activity I disapprove of targeting special groups.

My direct experience with targeting special groups is that it results in a "I'm special" attitude.....horrible in the work environment, not that great in a recreational environment.

FY42385

[Charles Bond]

thread drift but my point does involve new participation.....

Last weekend I convinced my wife to bring my son and stop by the range while I was shooting a local match. Years ago (before my son) I had convinced her to shoot some bullseye leagues with me and she liked it (and was awarded high lady). So I thought it would be cool if she took up USPSA style shooting and we could spend more time together, etc, etc. Now my son is young and still too young to shoot but he knows a lot about what I do from me reading shooting magazines to him and showing him the pictures. He's got his own set of eyes and ears and wears them around the house daily as he shoots stuff with his water gun. So at the match I was approached by another VERY OUTSPOKEN shooter who told me that the range was no place for my son....I ignored the shooter's comments. I told my wife about it later that night and she commented about how uncomfortable she'll feel in the future if she ever does come to another match. AWESOME!!! Then to add insult to injury I get an email from the MD who tells me that children under 12 are not welcome at the range for liability reasons. WTF????? I did some research and wasn't able to find any such rule, I contacted the MD and appologized for not following the rules and I told him I wouldn't let it happen again. It turns out that he was approached by other shooters (I think I know who) who told him he should say somethign to me about it. I think we're still waiting on an official word from the club as to what the minimum age requirement is for kids. What a heartbreaker it will be to find out I can't bring my little guy back until he's 12.

I guess I'm not sure how my experience ties in with the survey but I thought that some people should know that there are shooters who are outspoken enough to scare others away from the sport. Sorry about the drift.....

For the record the MD has expressed his apologies to me and does not necessarily agree with the opinion of other shooters.

Well you are not from my area but let me be the first to tell you that the club which you did not name is certainly following anything USPSA is trying to foster. They are going to be hard pressed to come up with anything NRA has to say on the subject. I would very much urge you to take this entire matter up with you section coordinator and your area director.

I have a daughter who was at her first state match at the age of two and we have photographs of her in the stroller eating her raisins with her eyes and ears on. Down south we have lots of kids at matches some of which paste right along side mom and dad and I am talking about 5 year olds. I recall several years ago I had a now nationally famous shooter who brought his son to the range and if you squadded with him his son picked up brass for the entire squad for all the stages. Not once have I ever seen a child cause a problem at a match. I only wish I could say the same for some of the more senior shooters.

If I was to speculate I would wonder if the shooter who objected had a dad who never took him anywhere or had a son that would never go anywhere with him.

[konkapot]

I filled out the survey, which helped me articulate what I'm trying to say.

People don't try or stick with USPSA because it's hard. Hard on your ego, hard on your wallet, hard on your time.

Someone here has as their signature "It's easier to make excuses than it is to load and make ready."

I do not think that we should be trying to bribe people to come shoot. "Come shoot a match and we'll give you a prize."

Recognizing "Second from last non-Somalian left handed lactose intolerent shooter" just becomes a spoof or a parody of recognzing people for their performance.

FY42385

[wide45]

I did not fill out the survey. Few who don't feel strongly about the issue will. That's the flaw with it, and why the results will be skewed.

More women playing the game would be a good thing. Special awards for special people, not so good.