AIWB now legal in all divisions?

[Manbearspider]

I'm excited about all this. I was getting into shooting USPSA for fun/to tighten up my skills, but the investment to get a rig up to snuff lost out in priority to getting my carry setup built and dialed in. I just couldn't wrap my head around spending that much on gear and gun that wasn't practical for any other use. Now I can participate in USPSA (and eventually deicide if I want to get deeper than shooting local matches for fun) while keeping the investments pretty focused when money is tight and ammo is pricy as hell.

[LittleLebowski]

Man, I wish that ToddG was here to see this.

[GJM]

This exact topic came up on Stoeger's podcast, with Matt Pranka on the side of the stock glock being usable to win Nationals, and Stoeger being surprisingly adamant that stock Glocks are not competitive anymore. IIRC he also hinted that back when rules were more restrictive, some supposedly "stock" glocks were not quite stock. Now obviously winning Nationals is different from winning a local match but if you get a consistent 3-5% performance increase that is actually a big deal to me.

These changes don't seem likely to cause a technology race BUT I have 0 faith in the board to have the level of foresight to prevent one from occurring with future rules changes. It just so happens that these recent changes don't offer an absolute advantage because gun weight has diminishing returns. However it's also pretty obvious from past rule changes that the board doesn't always think these things through. I suspect they did not expect non-timmie USPSA competitors to want to put on lights and I also don't think they considered the effect of being able to use a light with irons in different lighting, or the possibility that someone ends up making a "flashlight" that is basically an aiming device. If I recall the old X200 had a version that put out a beam that was like 8" wide at 25 yards.

Seems like a common theme to your posts in this thread is a distrust/displeasure/disrespect for the USPSA organization. Having been around this organization for quite some time, I believe the USPSA organization has made more good changes in the last few years than at any other time I can remember. Comparing USPSA to other action shooting organizations, I view USPSA’s leadership positively considering the website/classification/app development plus the various new divisions and equipment rule changes. If you feel differently, you should get involved more with the organization.

[Eyesquared]

Seems like a common theme to your posts in this thread is a distrust/displeasure/disrespect for the USPSA organization. Having been around this organization for quite some time, I believe the USPSA organization has made more good changes in the last few years than at any other time I can remember. Comparing USPSA to other action shooting organizations, I view USPSA’s leadership positively considering the website/classification/app development plus the various new divisions and equipment rule changes. If you feel differently, you should get involved more with the organization.

No offense but I usually find the "if you don't like things the way they are, change them yourself" argument to be an attempt at shutting people up rather than a serious suggestion.

Do you think someone like me has any chance at running for a USPSA board position, which is where these rules decisions apparently get made? Realistically speaking, I don't see any way for me to influence these kinds of decisions. I am active at the club level with helping to set up my club match, tear down stages, sync pads, inventorying our club supplies, etc. If someone wanted stage designs I'd be happy to provide some but we have a backlog of stage designs that have yet to be used. However I don't see any way to parley local club participation into having a voice at the table anytime soon. Maybe in 5-10 years. If you have any suggestions I'm all ears.

I would be very happy to change things myself but I don't see any way to do that or even come close to doing that in the near term. Until the time comes I am simply along for the ride.

[LittleLebowski]

What's important to me is that we grow the sport in today's political climate.

[GJM]

No offense but I usually find the "if you don't like things the way they are, change them yourself" argument to be an attempt at shutting people up rather than a serious suggestion.

Do you think someone like me has any chance at running for a USPSA board position, which is where these rules decisions apparently get made? Realistically speaking, I don't see any way for me to influence these kinds of decisions. I am active at the club level with helping to set up my club match, tear down stages, sync pads, inventorying our club supplies, etc. If someone wanted stage designs I'd be happy to provide some but we have a backlog of stage designs that have yet to be used. However I don't see any way to parley local club participation into having a voice at the table anytime soon. Maybe in 5-10 years. If you have any suggestions I'm all ears.

I would be very happy to change things myself but I don't see any way to do that or even come close to doing that in the near term. Until the time comes I am simply along for the ride.

Do you know your area director? I do, and he is open to listening to member opinions. You might ask your area person how you can get involved. Maybe cut the organization a little slack, and try to be constructive, and you will likely be more successful at influencing policy.

[Eyesquared]

Do you know your area director? I do, and he is open to listening to member opinions. You might ask your area person how you can get involved. Maybe cut the organization a little slack, and try to be constructive, and you will likely be more successful at influencing policy.

Do you mean that you know your Area Director or you know mine? I know who mine is and have heard good things but have never met him in person. I am curious to see what his response will be to some suggestions.

[GJM]

Do you mean that you know your Area Director or you know mine? I know who mine is and have heard good things but have never met him in person. I am curious to see what his response will be to some suggestions.

What I mean is I know our director, and he is involved and open to discussing issues. Might be worth reaching out to your guy and asking how you could become more involved.

[NoTacTravis]

I was listening to The PARAcast podcast this morning Season 5 Episode 9 and I found the general sentiment to be very close to what @Eyesquared has been posting on this thread. I think the frame weight/flashlight thing gave a lot of people a general bad feeling for the rule changes who wouldn't have been nearly as upset if it was just holster and mag pouch deregulation.

Although many of the different viewpoints I've read on this thread definitely have plenty of merit and a couple have actually changed the way I think about the issue to some degree, I think it's of note that Eyesquared represents a viewpoint publicly shared by many people who are also experienced and accomplished within the sport.

I have to admit that the first thing I thought when reading the rule change was "greaaat, so we're doing frame weights and new holsters now?" Then I promptly googled cost of a TLR1.
(side note: I'm not planning on buying or running a light for at least a year regardless so this doesn't meaningfully affect me either way)

@JCN pointing out that Shadow 2 owners likely won't run one and this just allows a cheap Glock some competitive equity it didn't have before is probably logically more sensible (and mentally healthy) than my first inclination to be annoyed at seeing the literal arms race ramp up another notch.


A comment by @YVK though keeps coming back to me when I re-read this thread.

In regards to the rule's change, I've this comment: last year a man lost his life during a match, and USPSA allowing non-drop safe guns or mods was partly responsible for the outcome. .

I kind of have to wonder that if there's a rules change meeting of all the org's executive leadership which takes the time to bump the weight limit at SS by 2oz after the head of DNROI got bumped to open for being too heavy at SS nats, that doesn't address a death in the sport that could have been prevented with a rules change if people aren't correct in their evaluation of the motivations of leadership being suspect.

[JCN]

I was listening to The PARAcast podcast this morning Season 5 Episode 9 and I found the general sentiment to be very close to what @Eyesquared has been posting on this thread. I think the frame weight/flashlight thing gave a lot of people a general bad feeling for the rule changes who wouldn't have been nearly as upset if it was just holster and mag pouch deregulation.

Although many of the different viewpoints I've read on this thread definitely have plenty of merit and a couple have actually changed the way I think about the issue to some degree, I think it's of note that Eyesquared represents a viewpoint publicly shared by many people who are also experienced and accomplished within the sport.

I have to admit that the first thing I thought when reading the rule change was "greaaat, so we're doing frame weights and new holsters now?" Then I promptly googled cost of a TLR1.
(side note: I'm not planning on buying or running a light for at least a year regardless so this doesn't meaningfully affect me either way)

@JCN pointing out that Shadow 2 owners likely won't run one and this just allows a cheap Glock some competitive equity it didn't have before is probably logically more sensible (and mentally healthy) than my first inclination to be annoyed at seeing the literal arms race ramp up another notch.


A comment by @YVK though keeps coming back to me when I re-read this thread.


I kind of have to wonder that if there's a rules change meeting of all the org's executive leadership which takes the time to bump the weight limit at SS by 2oz after the head of DNROI got bumped to open for being too heavy at SS nats, that doesn't address a death in the sport that could have been prevented with a rules change if people aren't correct in their evaluation of the motivations of leadership being suspect.

From last point to first, it's not necessarily firing pin blocks that are required to be mandated.
@NoTacTravis I think a number of people (including myself) didn't realize we were making our Shadow 2's NOT drop safe by adding the RAMI extended firing pin that's touted on the internet as "standard upgrade" for USPSA.

@YVK the Shadow 2 and TSO looks like it's relatively drop safe with a stock firing pin and spring, even without a firing pin block. The biggest offender seems to be the extended pin on testing that people did on Enos when the death happened.

From the letter of the rules, you could argue that the firing pin and spring are the drop safety mechanism (like an LCP) and by altering them, you've disabled a factory safety mechanism which I think is illegal anyway?

I think from the competitor standpoint, I think some people don't like change regardless of what it is. The more high strung the competitor, the more they dislike change and I can see that on podcasts you might see that opinion over-represented....

But the money to the organization comes from "regular Joes" and even a 1% increase in younger competitors or the new gun owners that don't want to get dedicated competition gear means a lot more to the future health of the organization than the top 0.001%.

There are over 110,000 USPSA numbers... only about 50-100 high level competitors. The organization lives and breathes from getting the next generation interested and invested.