twodownzero

I would love to reload for SASS, but I can't find any shot to buy. I was going to get started and primers are available again, but without shot, what's the point? It is absolutely cost effective to reload shotgun even at $100 a thou for primers.

If that was true, we would have had no reason to add divisions, other than for rifles.

From reading your other posts, we agree on most of it. I don't agree with dots outside of open, but if we had to, having another low cap division instead of making welfare open would have been far superior to what we got. I have a suspicion that someday soon, I'll be forced to get a carry optics gun or stay home. I hate to say it, but I very well may stay home. If Limited and Open really are dead and it's just all rifles and welfare open, the game is done.

Because the divisions no longer matter. They just care about the overall results. Which suggests that maybe we ought to get rid of them entirely and just shoot heads up.

Maybe to you. I think the "no dots outside of open" rule should have been so burned into the rules that it should have been like an untouchable, third-rail sort of thing that never should have even been considered. We now have simultaneously created an arms race AND killed the classic things that made divisions worth having in the first place. My view is never going to be adopted but I am shocked at how far astray we have gone. I would have never guessed that something like this would have ever even been seriously discussed at all, especially not before there was a significant segment of people experimenting in Open with that kind of equipment before it got its own place to play.

Because there's so many divisions now that everyone just ignores them. We could have just left things alone and got rid of L-10, but instead we had to give every niche, even rifles, a place to play. Now we have to pay the price.

Everything already changed to make everyone happy. Once dots were allowed outside of open, that was the beginning of the end.

I don't think it's that simple, because as he's done the math above, the faster/lighter bullets have more energy no matter how you calculate it. I can't explain it to you, but I can show it to you.

It seems that you are confusing a theoretical understanding and an empirical one. That heavier bullets at the same power factor knock steel down better is common knowledge. As to explaining why, I'll leave that to you. But that heavier bullets knock steel down more reliably is a fact. Whether it's energy transfer, the rate of energy transfer, or something else, I don't know. But some equation that tells you how much energy a bullet has when it hits a plate obviously does not answer the question, because what you call "anecdotal observations" is no such thing with the level of experience we're talking about here. I ran 300 shooters through the same stage in a 3 day period once. That isn't anecdotes; it's data.

I am also an RO (and have been certified for 13 years) and I have no problem telling the NROI they are wrong where they are wrong. If someone has a foot out, they are out, period, adding the word "completely" doesn't change a thing. Out is out. Out is completely out. If you want both feet in the box, that needs to be specified. If someone taught you otherwise, that person is wrong. Even though the other poster is in denial, both examples cited above follow my recommendation--that if you want to specify both feet out, do so. Say what you mean.

Did you read the article you linked to? It says exactly what I've been saying this entire time: First, it answers the question in the affirmative that one foot outside the shooting box is "outside the shooting area." It goes on to suggest how it could be clarified to require the shooter to be what other posters are calling "completely" outside the shooting area: "However, a carefully crafted WSB can prevent this situation and have the competitor truly outside the shooting area. If the WSB said “both feet completely outside the shooting area” or “completely outside the shooting area with toes on rear fault line” then the competitor would need to have both feet outside and the RO should not proceed with the range commands until the condition is met." My position all along has been that if you want both feet outside the shooting area, then you need to say more than "completely outside" the shooting area. One foot out is "completely outside" as far as the rules are concerned. If you want people to be on the outside of the shooting box entirely, you need to be more specific than that. "Completely outside" is not sufficiently specific to require both feet outside the shooting area, because the rules explicitly define one foot out as "out." The title of the NROI question presented is poorly written, but the actual analysis of the article supports my position and not yours. "Completely outside" is not specific enough. If you want both feet outside the shooting area, you need to say so, or specify something specific enough that will so require. At my local matches, the typical start position is "outside the shooting area, toes on X's." And in that instance, if you wanted to have one foot inside the box with it turned sideways touching the X with the other one outside the box with your foot on the ground and your toe on the X, I'm not sure even that would be prohibited. Point being, one foot out is still out, so you need to have an explicit instruction about "both feet" or like the example you cited states, by telling them they have to be outside with their toes on the fault line, there's no realistic way they can comply with both conditions while having a foot inside the box.

Except we have a definition for outside the shooting area that applies if only one foot is out. So that precludes your dictionary definitions and all those other arguments because there is an answer in the rules already explicitly. If you shoot outside the shooting area, whether it's one foot or one finger, you don't have a defense that you were only "partially" outside the shooting area. You're either in or out. So adding "completely" outside the shooting area changes nothing; one foot out is "completely" outside the shooting area for our purposes even if you don't like that. If you want people to be your version of "completely" outside the shooting area, then write the WSB to require them to have "both feet outside the shooting area."

The rule cited has nothing to do with the proposition discussed. That rule deals with whether it's 1 per shot or 1 procedural when someone shoots outside of the shooting area. Extrapolating that definition given for that purpose for the start position is improper. That text doesn't address the issue discussed at all, because a shooter cannot begin the course of fire in the improper start position, so there are zero scenarios where that rule would ever govern what we're talking about.

One foot outside is still "completely outside" as far as the rules are concerned. If you want both feet outside of the shooting area, you need to say that.

Not just the 2011, either. All 1911 platforms are made for at least 1.260" cartridges. My 9mm 1911 likes 1.150" just fine but longer is definitely better. That said, my CZ even after reaming the barrel won't take fat bullets at full SAAMI COAL, so it isn't just 1911s--many guns like what they like.

Also: if you look at my classifier record, I enjoy shooting single stack, too. I bought a limited gun in 2009 or so, and I've still shot a LOT more SS than Limited. I wouldn't automatically think you're going to love some other gun so much, though. Last year I bought a CZ Shadow 2 for Production. After 10 months of shooting it, I'm still not sure it's for me. It's a damn nice gun, but I really like my single stacks--even though my single stack isn't particularly nice and was probably 1/3 the cost. I thought a Shadow would get me all excited about shooting Production, but it really doesn't. I do like my 2011. It's a lightly customized but otherwise stock STI Eagle. Would I like it more if it was an SV or Brazos or whatever is the flavor of the month this month? Perhaps. I figure I'll buy an even nicer 2011 when I wear this one out. 13 years with this one so far and it's not worn out yet. All this to say, don't assume you'll automatically like Limited more than SS. I enjoy both and I especially enjoy Limited at bigger matches because the stage plans are easier. But nothing feels at home in my hand like my single stacks. All other guns are compromises for me besides my single stacks.

The answer to your question is no, it does not make any sense to shoot limited with a minor gun. Also: limited is a division, not a class. People seem to think limited is dying, so there are bargains out there--and there certainly will be in the fall/winter.

I don't know how long that has been there, but it seems incomprehensible in application. .357 Sig and 10mm/.40 are not the same diameter, so which is it? There can only be one answer.

Neither can make major in Limited because of bullet diameter (.400" minimum), but likely either could in Open (.357 Magnum is much more powerful than 357 Sig, 357 Sig was designed to match 357 mag with 125 grain bullets, but 357 magnum has heavy loads for 158 grain commonly and uncommonly much heavier bullets).

Revolvers are legal in Production and I bet Limited too.

The biggest division based on actual data is still Limited, so I call BS on your flavor of the month division. Once the firearms industry has sold all of you a CO gun, I'm sure they'll remain popular, but not as popular as they are, being the newest and best-marketed thing going right now. I'm not going anywhere but I am focuses on my other shooting sports.

dupe post

Competitive equity is the concept of matches giving people the same challenge for each shooter. Like any sport, it's a concept of fairness in competition that each shooter faces the same challenge. Divisions are a subset of that. Production exists because it's perceived as unfairly challenging for those shooting striker fired or traditional double action guns against the 1911s in single stack. Limited exists so that shooters who choose to shoot irons and 140mm magazines don't have to compete against open guns. Revolvers are allowed in production because nobody thinks it's unfair that someone could choose to use a revolver in a division dominated by 9mm automatics. And so on. The idea behind divisions is to level the equipment playing field such that every shooter has similar equipment when compared to the people he is actually competing against in the match. In my opinion, creating Carry Optics didn't improve competitive equity. We already had a division for shooters who wanted to aim with a dot--Open. We already had a division for those who wanted to have the fewest equipment rules--Open. Instead of telling them what we told every other "innovative" shooter who wanted to try something new, we created a special safe space for open shooters who were okay shooting minor only in exchange for not using a magwell and having to deal with a traditional double action or single action trigger. If these distinctions didn't or don't matter, or add to competitive equity, then I propose letting me shoot my 1911 in Production and allowing 2011s in Carry Optics. Or letting someone shoot a A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want gun with no magwell on it in Carry Optics. And so on. Also, just for everyone who doesn't know: I'm an outlier. I hate carry optics and PCC and if I had the power, I'd get rid of both of them tomorrow. Don't worry, I am not running for anything and I never will. But neither of these changes should have been made. CO should be in Open and PCC should be at a 3 gun match. I also think Revolver never should have allowed more than 6 shots and that the Limited 10 division should have been replaced by Single Stack in 2005 when SS became a full time division. And I'd even entertain arguments to get rid of my favorite divisions if it meant we could have fewer of them. I also think we should get rid of classification all together and shoot heads up, even though I'm a mediocre B class shooter on my best day and a sloppy C class shooter if I'm hungover that day.

This game worked really well for a long time and we resisted the urge to change or add more divisions for almost the entire time I've been shooting it. Then, recently, in the sentiment of everyone wanting a trophy, we have had so many recent rule changes that have done nothing to improve competitive equity or advance our sport. I'm sure I'm not alone in considering focusing on my other shooting sports if this game can't get its act together. I actually thought until recently there was a good chance at combining some divisions and going to purely heads up competition, changes I would support even though I shoot the inferior divisions and have no chance of competing at the highest level anytime soon. Instead, we've gone absolutely the other direction. This post would just make it worse, because now the extreme arms race we already have would be reset entirely, including permanently eliminating power as a principle of practical shooting competition. I can't even express how out of line that is. That said, if this really was so great, someone would create a new sanctioning body and do it. Since that worked so well with IDPA, what we really need are 3 pistol games with minor and irrelevant distinctions from each other so we can all complain about it.

CO should be in Open, too. That never should have been allowed. There is much more to this game than reloading the gun or not reloading the gun. It isn't about sport where equipment is not segregated by equipment creating a competitive advantage.