AIWB now legal in all divisions?

[JCN]

has led to making it easier to buy performance.

Well, to be fair... they did just move the HHFs a couple years ago, so they keep scaling the performance to achievement and progress. You could make GM a few years ago with what would currently be an M classifier run.

@Eyesquared this stuff happens all the time and should be expected regarding equipment. Also see re: HHF adjustment a couple years ago. If you had a C-class friend who was sitting on a 59.9 and then all future classifiers got adjusted... they could complain that they were screwed out of their chance to make B.

What would you say to them?

Same thing with equipment. There are a number of GMs and Ms shooting Glocks and they won’t really have much sympathy about the Legion not having as wide of a performance gap on them.

[Hot Sauce]

It is a Springer, and the raw metal one seems to work better than the coated ones (which I have to whittle on).

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Eyesquared]

Well, to be fair... they did just move the HHFs a couple years ago, so they keep scaling the performance to achievement and progress. You could make GM a few years ago with what would currently be an M classifier run.

@Eyesquared this stuff happens all the time and should be expected regarding equipment. Also see re: HHF adjustment a couple years ago. If you had a C-class friend who was sitting on a 59.9 and then all future classifiers got adjusted... they could complain that they were screwed out of their chance to make B.

What would you say to them?

Same thing with equipment. There are a number of GMs and Ms shooting Glocks and they won’t really have much sympathy about the Legion not having as wide of a performance gap on them.

1. There was a decently long stretch of rule stability before current USPSA leadership.

2. I'm not complaining about losing some kind of performance edge. I just think it's fucking annoying that one can't even buy a gun without the rules changing in less than 2 years to make that purchase unnecessary. Just my sour grapes at being committed to a system that is more expensive than it really needs to be now. If they had communicated these things in advance that might help.

3. In the end even for people shooting from concealment in their proper divisions, they will still have the handicap of shooting from concealment. IMO the argument that people will now be able to shoot in the division where they are most competitive misses the mark there. I hate the idea of adding yet more divisions but they should have just left prod and CO alone and put all this stuff into a separate division for timmies. Kill L10 to free up space.

[Eyesquared]

This conversation feels a lot like one I had with a coworker a few years ago when the topic of guns came up where he suggested that I didn't need thing X or thing Y when it came to guns (mags above 10 rounds, etc.). My response was that it wasn't on me to justify needing thing X or thing Y but rather on him to tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to have it.

In that vein, I ask you again: how does removing restrictions on holster and mag carrier placement in Prod, SS, and CO hurt the sport? Does it hurt developing shooting skills? I really don't see how it's problematic, but I'm willing to have my mind changed if you can demonstrate some actual harm.

The obvious answer is that constant rule changes result in having to try different equipment setups instead of working with what you have. Rules stability is good for creating a level playing field with clear expectations re: what equipment will work well which is inherently a good thing for a sport where that stuff all costs money. The mag pouch and holster placement rules don't necessarily cost money but this is apparently yet another change in a long series of changes.

[JCN]

I'm not complaining about losing some kind of performance edge. I just think it's fucking annoying that one can't even buy a gun without the rules changing in less than 2 years to make that purchase unnecessary. Just my sour grapes at being committed to a system that is more expensive than it really needs to be now. If they had communicated these things in advance that might help.

The point is that it was never “necessary.” You can make M with a stock-ish Glock or Walther.

Spend what you like on what you enjoy, knowing that it’s never an “investment.”

I have four lightened CO slides that are just sitting around unused. But thems the breaks!

If you ever want to sell your Legion and mags, I’ll buy them off of you!

[Eyesquared]

The point is that it was never “necessary.” You can make M with a stock-ish Glock or Walther.

Spend what you like on what you enjoy, knowing that it’s never an “investment.”

I have four lightened CO slides that are just sitting around unused. But thems the breaks!

If you ever want to sell your Legion and mags, I’ll buy them off of you!

I guess I see things differently. When I got into USPSA I wanted to just go out and buy a decent gun that would give me zero room for excuses. At the time that that meant Q5SF, X5 Legion, Stock 2 or 3, or Shadow 2. Obviously you can do well with a stock glock but even people like Ben Stoeger will argue that it is definitely a disadvantage. So I picked the cheapest "no excuses" gun.

In the near term I don't really intend to change it out for anything else given that I'm already committed to the platform with mags, spare parts, holsters etc.

[JCN]

I guess I see things differently. When I got into USPSA I wanted to just go out and buy a decent gun that would give me zero room for excuses. At the time that that meant Q5SF, X5 Legion, Stock 2 or 3, or Shadow 2. Obviously you can do well with a stock glock but even people like Ben Stoeger will argue that it is definitely a disadvantage. So I picked the cheapest "no excuses" gun.

In the near term I don't really intend to change it out for anything else given that I'm already committed to the platform with mags, spare parts, holsters etc.

Yes, but your gun is still fully prepped and isn’t at a disadvantage still.

The only thing that changed is that other people can now be more competitive (compared to being underprepped before) while spending less.

So you still have zero room for excuses and what other people do or shoot doesn’t change your performance. Just relative performance compared to underprepared people.

It’s like being annoyed that you paid X for a TV that was cheaper two years later. You got to use the TV for two years so what’s the problem?

[olstyn]

The obvious answer is that constant rule changes result in having to try different equipment setups instead of working with what you have.

If you're a top GM trying to eke out every last quarter percent vs the other top GMs, that might be necessary. Those guys won't spend a lot of time complaining about it, though; they'll get out on the range and determine whether it makes a real-world difference for them or not and act accordingly. For basically everybody else, I think the bolded section of your statement is hyperbole.

Rules stability is good for creating a level playing field with clear expectations re: what equipment will work well which is inherently a good thing for a sport where that stuff all costs money. The mag pouch and holster placement rules don't necessarily cost money but this is apparently yet another change in a long series of changes.

I can empathize with your position, as I've definitely experienced rules changes in other games which I personally disagreed with, and I agree that rules stability in general is good. I don't disagree that changing the rules less frequently would be good (I wasn't really a fan of the recent-ish max weight change for production, as it felt fairly silly), but the holster/mag pouch placement rule change makes sense to me. As I've said earlier in the thread, I feel that it's a course correction to how things should have been to begin with.

[Eyesquared]

Yes, but your gun is still fully prepped and isn’t at a disadvantage still.

The only thing that changed is that other people can now be more competitive (compared to being underprepped before) while spending less.

So you still have zero room for excuses and what other people do or shoot doesn’t change your performance. Just relative performance compared to underprepared people.

It’s like being annoyed that you paid X for a TV that was cheaper two years later. You got to use the TV for two years so what’s the problem?

IMO the difference is that everyone knows technology gets cheaper, you pay less for the same specs, etc. You can decide if you want to wait. Not a good analogy for rule changes that aren't communicated in advance. I don't think the USPSA board is anywhere near being that predictable. If you had asked me even last week what the odds were of this change happening, I would have have been totally off base. I'm sure some people will say they saw this coming but I think the vast majority of us did not expect flashlights to be allowed in all divisions. Certainly wouldn't have seen this coming from 1.5 years ago when I started shooting USPSA.

Like I said earlier in the thread it's more annoying that this stuff has to come as a surprise. It should not be hard for the board to propose rule changes for comment before making them. Or make some long range general statements about what they want to do to divisions before doing stuff.

[GJM]

IMO the difference is that everyone knows technology gets cheaper, you pay less for the same specs, etc. You can decide if you want to wait. Not a good analogy for rule changes that aren't communicated in advance. I don't think the USPSA board is anywhere near being that predictable. If you had asked me even last week what the odds were of this change happening, I would have have been totally off base. I'm sure some people will say they saw this coming but I think the vast majority of us did not expect flashlights to be allowed in all divisions. Certainly wouldn't have seen this coming from 1.5 years ago when I started shooting USPSA.

Like I said earlier in the thread it's more annoying that this stuff has to come as a surprise. It should not be hard for the board to propose rule changes for comment before making them. Or make some long range general statements about what they want to do to divisions before doing stuff.

In terms of how USPSA a operates, I think it is reasonable for the USPSA BOD to have a formal comment period for proposed rules, before they are implemented. That said, we have been discussing flashlights, appendix and holster/mag positions for years, so I am not sure what new would come from the comments.