Honestly I would've been a lot more excited about optic division for G19/p365XL sized and weighted guns with 5 lbs min trigger pull and 15 rounds in the mag than adding another I-can-split-faaast out of a horse dick sized mags option.
Honestly I would've been a lot more excited about optic division for G19/p365XL sized and weighted guns with 5 lbs min trigger pull and 15 rounds in the mag than adding another I-can-split-faaast out of a horse dick sized mags option.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
Dude they just need to let 2011s into CO.
The guys who win will still win.
Remember that time where all three of the top shooters in limited division nationals were running a Glock, a Sig and a fucking Canik?
Pepperidge farm remembers.
For those who think a 1911 or 2011 will increase their performance...let them eat cake. For those who just want to play in carry optics with their 2011...fuck yeah sounds awesome!
Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
I would be glad to hear your take on all this. I'm sorry if I came across as unappreciative of industry partners and sponsors. It's great when companies care about USPSA enough to field teams and sponsor events. Hopefully this generates enough sales to make it worthwhile financially. I've certainly spent a lot on CZ and CGW parts...Originally Posted by foxj66
I am less excited about industry having a say in how the sport is played, officiated, or administrated. As well, the USPSA BoD exists to serve the sport and membership, and should be free from obligations to industry.
As the model of USPSA has shifted from a sport to a business, I've seen the quality of major matches (especially Nationals) decline steadily, and a disturbing pattern of rushed rule changes, including poorly thought out division definitions. I would like to see this change for the better, in the form of rules stability so competitors' equipment doesn't need to change often or at all. USPSA should be about practical shooting competition, not the latest equipment. If industry partners can help make this happen, that would be awesome. But, industry partners are in the business of selling guns and equipment and I absolutely do not want that tail wagging the dog.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Sounds like the thinking behind "Production Optics Light" in IPSC.
The thinking, mind you, given that it has obviously already been gamed and people minmax to metal pistols in that division *as well* now..
Not that I'd shoot in it, but this seems to be covered by existing divisions.
I’ve heard IDPA BUG division is very popular with more participants than CO.
Said nobody ever.
Nobody has won popularity or participation by artificially limiting guns capacity, especially to six rounds. Is IPSC optics light less popular than optics heavy?
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
You know that joke about a drunk is someone who drinks more than you and a teetotaler is one that drinks less?
6 round capacity on a 15 round IDPA COF is as unpalatable as a 10 round on a 28 round USPSA COF.
Many modern handguns come with more than 15 rounds standard.
Even a stock G19x or P365 Macro come with more than that.
When people want to race guns, they want racing guns.
There have been attempts at making stock shitbox autocross classes and you know what? It always dies.
People like the fantasy of cool stuff that makes them better than they are.
Last edited by JCN; 09-14-2022 at 08:33 PM.
Yep, USPSA has certainly cracked that code. I myself wouldn't mind racing my Audi, in the snow and on the hills, but I guess there is no venue and speed traps are all over.
IDPA is probably the same but I am going to check them out this off-season. You all lemme know if I can run my Shadows C&L in CO when I come back.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
You’re making my case.
The Glocks and P365s you’re wanting to run are like Camrys and Accords.
An Audi is more like a Shadow 2 and a Porsche might be an Infinity.
Last edited by JCN; 09-14-2022 at 09:20 PM.
Reply With Quote