PCC best practices

[Bcampbell]

I had a good PCC practice today but not PCC BEST PRACTICE

 

[jakemartens]

I had a good PCC practice today but not PCC BEST PRACTICE

Swept yourself?

 

[Bcampbell]

NO but my dog looked down the barrel a couple times.

 

[rvb]

Holy Hell USPSA frustrates me with their lack of a change management processes for rules / document. Jake, get them to fix that crap. My comments to leadership/nroi on this have fallen on deaf ears, obviously. I just realized the PCC Rules Addendum has been updated at some point. Only possible way to tell is in the file name. The document has no date or revision information. No way at a glance when I have both the old and new open to see they are different, or rev info on the website. I just happened to open the doc from the webpage vs my pc and thought something (range commands) looked different than I remembered. At a minimum, the docs need a date on them, or something like "Rev A." Change tracking from previous versions would be super helpful. Ugh, I'd get fired if I kept just updating/publishing stuff like that and my customers would want to shoot me.

I'm going to have to review the update. Looks like a couple of my comments to nroi may have been addressed, but I still see other glaring issues. If they want consistency in enforcement, they need consistency in their rules/practices. I see they still have contradictions about needing a flag or not... some places say "must" use when carrying between stage and un-bagging, some say you have an option of bolt-open. The flag should be like a holster, IMO. Always required if gun's not cased, comes out at MR, goes in at ULSC. Period. Like you say, Jake, simple is best... USPSA needs to remove those "options."

Sometimes tough love is required. See someone with sloppy PCC handling (sweeping), then DQ (or at the very least a warning it's DQ-able if you aren't the RO). I've backed off on the PCC-handling part of my shooter's meeting as it seems like folks have it figured out, but I used to say the gun has to be either straight up, straight down, or pointing at a berm while you bag in a safe/staging area, anything else is a DQ. I believe PCC 5.2.1.3, 10.5.2.1, and 8.3.7.1 support this. IMO it doesn't even need to sweep someone to be unsafe gun handling per the rules (which say the gun must be vertical). I've not seen sweeping, or had shooters at our club complain to me about seeing it happen. All feedback I've heard has been the opposite, how it's been so much safer/smoother than they expected.

The classification thing I can see how it might be a concern for some folks. IMO HQ should have waited to start the PCC classification system until they had some data to set HHF. I think it surprised them how much faster/cleaner folks could shoot some of the classifiers, especially if longer range, no re-load ones, where pistols have to turn, etc....

PCC is a ton of fun. It's its own division so it isn't technically interfering in any way with the pistols. I've yet to see a real quantifiable adverse affect. Hasn't slowed the matches down, etc. I'm a fan of the division.... now they just need to get the rules cleaned up some more.



-rvb

 

[Grelber]

 

[jakemartens]

Holy Hell USPSA frustrates me with their lack of a change management processes for rules / document. Jake, get them to fix that crap. My comments to leadership/nroi on this have fallen on deaf ears, obviously. I just realized the PCC Rules Addendum has been updated at some point. Only possible way to tell is in the file name. The document has no date or revision information. No way at a glance when I have both the old and new open to see they are different, or rev info on the website. I just happened to open the doc from the webpage vs my pc and thought something (range commands) looked different than I remembered. At a minimum, the docs need a date on them, or something like "Rev A." Change tracking from previous versions would be super helpful. Ugh, I'd get fired if I kept just updating/publishing stuff like that and my customers would want to shoot me.

I'm going to have to review the update. Looks like a couple of my comments to nroi may have been addressed, but I still see other glaring issues. If they want consistency in enforcement, they need consistency in their rules/practices. I see they still have contradictions about needing a flag or not... some places say "must" use when carrying between stage and un-bagging, some say you have an option of bolt-open. The flag should be like a holster, IMO. Always required if gun's not cased, comes out at MR, goes in at ULSC. Period. Like you say, Jake, simple is best... USPSA needs to remove those "options."

Sometimes tough love is required. See someone with sloppy PCC handling (sweeping), then DQ (or at the very least a warning it's DQ-able if you aren't the RO). I've backed off on the PCC-handling part of my shooter's meeting as it seems like folks have it figured out, but I used to say the gun has to be either straight up, straight down, or pointing at a berm while you bag in a safe/staging area, anything else is a DQ. I believe PCC 5.2.1.3, 10.5.2.1, and 8.3.7.1 support this. IMO it doesn't even need to sweep someone to be unsafe gun handling per the rules (which say the gun must be vertical). I've not seen sweeping, or had shooters at our club complain to me about seeing it happen. All feedback I've heard has been the opposite, how it's been so much safer/smoother than they expected.

The classification thing I can see how it might be a concern for some folks. IMO HQ should have waited to start the PCC classification system until they had some data to set HHF. I think it surprised them how much faster/cleaner folks could shoot some of the classifiers, especially if longer range, no re-load ones, where pistols have to turn, etc....

PCC is a ton of fun. It's its own division so it isn't technically interfering in any way with the pistols. I've yet to see a real quantifiable adverse affect. Hasn't slowed the matches down, etc. I'm a fan of the division.... now they just need to get the rules cleaned up some more.



-rvb

There is an green version that is in discussion that would be an app so that when updates etc are done it would show as need to be updated.
It is part of a tech update that is being considered after the long awaited website and infrastucture update, same with our own classifier calculator that has true hhf, this would be part of the uspsa app.

It would be awesome if they would just get it done, but right now there is just 1 guy finishing the current project, along with the daily crap that get's piled on.

 

[rvb]

There is an green version that is in discussion that would be an app so that when updates etc are done it would show as need to be updated.
It is part of a tech update that is being considered after the long awaited website and infrastucture update, same with our own classifier calculator that has true hhf, this would be part of the uspsa app.

It would be awesome if they would just get it done, but right now there is just 1 guy finishing the current project, along with the daily crap that get's piled on.

What I'm wanting to see doesn't require infrastructure. It requires 5 seconds to type a Date and/or revision at the top of the document and another 5 seconds to type the date and/or revision in the URL hyperlink text. (So you'd see "PCC Rules Addendum Rev 4 May 2017" w/o having to hover the curser in order to see the file name).

[Have there really been 4 revs? Who knew!]

Enable track changes in word before publishing to pdf, and bam, something useful that I don't need to run a diff on to figure out what changed, if anything at all ....

-rvb

 

[romack991]

Holy Hell USPSA frustrates me with their lack of a change management processes for rules / document. Jake, get them to fix that crap. My comments to leadership/nroi on this have fallen on deaf ears, obviously. I just realized the PCC Rules Addendum has been updated at some point. Only possible way to tell is in the file name. The document has no date or revision information. No way at a glance when I have both the old and new open to see they are different, or rev info on the website. I just happened to open the doc from the webpage vs my pc and thought something (range commands) looked different than I remembered. At a minimum, the docs need a date on them, or something like "Rev A." Change tracking from previous versions would be super helpful. Ugh, I'd get fired if I kept just updating/publishing stuff like that and my customers would want to shoot me.

I'm pretty sure they don't care.

 

[Bosshoss]

This was discussed on the range today and I can see how it can be confusing.

-reloads from pockets are fine, just like in all the other divisions

Stage Procedures

• Where stage procedures specify reloads, they apply to carbines as well.
•All ammunition is carried on the belt, just like with handgun ammo. There are noplacement restrictions for mag pouches.
• Except for start positions, all other stage requirements will remain the same.

 

[jakemartens]

This was discussed on the range today and I can see how it can be confusing.





Stage Procedures

• Where stage procedures specify reloads, they apply to carbines as well.
•All ammunition is carried on the belt, just like with handgun ammo. There are noplacement restrictions for mag pouches.
• Except for start positions, all other stage requirements will remain the same.

Looks like best practices doesn't line up with the rules.

PCC appendix D8
No magazine couplersallowed, magazines must becarried on the belt or inapparel pockets. See rule5.2.4. No restriction onlocation on the belt. No thighrigs or tie down magazineholders.

5.2.4

1. During the course of fire, after the start signal, unless stipulatedotherwise in the stage procedure, spare ammunition, magazines and/orspeed loading devices shall be carried in retention devices attached tothe competitor's belt and specifically designed for that purpose. Unlessspecifically prohibited in the Written Stage Briefing, a competitor mayalso carry additional magazines or speed loading devices in apparelpocket(s) and retrieve and use them, providing that the location of theapparel pocket does not violate the requirements of Appendix D, Item12 (subject to the provisions of Rule 6.2.5.1).