whan

Ended up buying it since it’s only $184 on Amazon before tax, and very easy to return on Amazon as well. Initial impressions generally positive, the 3moa dot does look larger than that which I like, as I feel the SRO 5moa size is ideal. Seems to get pretty bright, will need to test on bright range day with tinted eyepro on. Some distortion at edges, a bit more than 507 comp but manageable.

Sight picture 1, 2moa dot only. I wanted to like the 8moa ring but it feels way larger than 8moa and honestly was too distracting. Ultimately I wish they had a 5 or 6moa option comparable to the 5moa SRO - that’s the perfect size IMO

Anyone ever use one of the Ghost Hydra Holsters? Opinions? Switching to LO but haven't ever really used full race holsters before, and like the Hydra P I was running for CO so was thinking about getting the Hydra. I've seen a few guns dropped with race holsters so like the fact it has muzzle support and sort of will protect gun from tipping forward if not locked https://ghostholsterdirect.com/product/hydra/

Yeah, for 2011s typically the magwellls are more specifically designed to fit with certain grips (unlike 1911s which are usually universal)

This - for production/production optics a defined round count makes far more sense vs. trying to game and get the latest and greatest follower/mag/extension combo. FWIW apparently now a new company is coming out with 25 round 9mm 140mm extensions…

I've been running the 2MOA as well. I felt the 8moa ring looked a lot bigger than 8 - compared to my EPS carry on my CCW which is 6MOA, it looks almost twice the size, and definitely feels closer to at least 10moa At that point it is just a bit too big for my preference - I really wish they made a 6moa variant as I find the dot on my EPS absolutely perfect in size. Holosun, pls make 407 competition thx

On my 5” gun I’m having built with Venom, I’ve chosen to go with an aluminum grip but brass magwell. I was on the fence between aluminum and steel so this combo split the difference and should be a high 40s but sub 50oz gun with unloaded mag.

Bit of a necropost, but any updates on those with this dot? Also does anyone know if the latest version has a plastic or glass window? How is it holding up? Sort of interested in the dot since it’s got a low deck height and green dot appears to be around 5MOA. Have a holosun 507comp but really wish it was a 4-6moa instead. Find the 8moa ring to be too big (comparing to my 6moa EPS carry looks closer to 10moa)

Yes, dot on my CCW and HD gun, but I am very picky about having grip angles match via all my guns. Because I mostly shoot my competition CO gun, it’s important to me that my CCW and HD guns have approximately the same grip angle, so that the presentation is the same across all platforms. In this case, it’s a P365, P320 and Tanfoglio Stock 2, but they also match my 1911 as well. I actually chose the Stock 2 over the Shadow 2, since the CZ in my hands points slightly high

Re Steel vs. Aluminum, I'd think the main reason steel feels softer is solely because it's heavier? Steel is stiffer than aluminum after all so would transmit recoil more in theory, except for the fact that it's heavier. Personally, on my pending build I'm going with an aluminum grip and a brass magwell that splits the difference between an aluminum grip and a steel grip. Targeting a 46-48oz gun with empty mag, which is the sweet spot for me for recoil control / transitions

Just picked up an AEMS Core Green to replace my 510C green. So far seems like a great optic. I prefer a single dot, so didn't need the full AEMS with that reticle. Nice that it comes with a lower 1/3 mount which I prefer. Glass clarity is good, like that it is fully enclosed in case of rain. Importantly for me, gets about 2 settings brighter than the 510c, which was my main gripe about that optic. The 510c was still reasonably visible at max brightness for sunny days, but dimmer than I would like for a 2moa dot and sometimes found it harder to track. AEMS is nowhere near as bright as the 507comp though - that optic gets another 3 settings above the AEMS it feels like (max brightness is too much even on the brightest days)

Pretty sure they’re different frames so probably not possible

I think there's a place for both ELO and classifications. I do think classifications are the more broadly valuable of the two, as it sets consistent standards that are meaningful and accessible to all competitors. As I've mentioned before, it's like the belt system in martial arts - even if you're new and aren't going to ever be competitive nationally, it means something to go from C to B class, just as it would moving out of being a white belt. But ELO adds a decent bit of extra information for the top shooters out there, as there can be a wide range of skill output within the M and GM classes. It also in theory actually helps prevent grandbagging/sandbagging as it becomes apparent when your ELO doesn't really match your classification (either too high or too low)

An interesting takeaway from 2022 IPSC worlds, Americans won all of the optics divisions but none of the irons divisions. What it means, I don't know. Perhaps it's mostly just the US leading the charge on pistol optics. To some extent wouldn't be surprising - there's a much bigger market for firearms innovations / accessories in the US, so American competitors would have the lowest barrier to entry and highest acceptance of new tech

Ah got it - yes makes sense re: the USPSA division pie. And yes, I think one nice thing is that with USPSA being a national org with established history, classifications actually mean something. While they can be gamed *cough* tony cowden *cough*, generally a GM shooter is better than M, which is better than A, and so forth. And so you can typically find that an A class shooter is going to be someone with pretty solid/decent skills at a minimum. Relative ranking system similar to what they use for chess - ELO is the name of guy who invented it. Essentially you get a constantly changing score that moves based on wins/losses and the strength of your opponents.

I agree with you re: classification system. Max just had an instagram story where he mentioned that it is in the works, but will take some time to spin up. Will be divided into standards type (stand and deliver, accuracy/manipulation focused) and field course type, and you'll need both types for your classification. Also think he mentioned he'd like to add in ELO as a separate thing as well I agree with you, although I would say I do think the pie has been increasing, particularly in recent years. In mainstream gun culture, there is a bigger emphasis on actual skills, and I do think it's translating into increased competition shooting participation. Most influencers/instructors at the very minimum acknowledge competition can be a useful training tool. Easy one to point to is Trex arms - a lot of recent content is USPSA-styled and know that he's been collab-ing with Stoeger. We're also seeing more influencers use HF scoring and USPSA targets more generally as well.

Speaking for what is most likely to happen, it's definitely going to be Prod 15. The fact that USPSA sent out those surveys points to that IMO. I also happen to agree with Prod 15 as a concept as well, better matching IPSC. I've mentioned before but would also like to see CO become 15 rounds instead of 140mm too, otherwise it's redundant with LO (which I'd bet good money becomes a permanent division without really any changes from provisional) The other part of it is that Prod 10 was originally developed during the federal AWB and mag limit. That's gone now, and if excluding that factor it seems 15 is probably the logical choice, hence why IPSC went that way. On a side note, I do think that in a few years, the SCOTUS is going to overturn nationwide mag cap limits. For CA, there have been some recent developments that will push it there...

Re: Limited waning popularity, this upcoming weekend is one of our largest ever locals at 172 shooters. Limited is pretty much second to last (excluding Revo/L10 which no one shoots in general)

Interesting - what would you say were the key areas where it was more difficult? Was it relative to having lo-cap irons, or more broadly difficult? NVM - see you had examples

That’s a fair point and I do agree. Perhaps some of it is due to modern stages vs stages of the past, but the game has evolved to where working on efficiency of movement really helps. To some extent it’d be like how basketball for an era had lots of big men (shaq, Yao Ming) that were very physical, which is not really a basketball technical skill. I think today, for the more average shooter, one can more easily get away with not being super accurate, but being fast, and placing on the upper end at locals. But at the very top, they have both accuracy and movement speed. I fully agree with @Racinready300ex. My point is that modern techniques have continued to evolve and make people better. Yes, perhaps a lot of how the current top shooters are better than the past is more from movement and not accuracy, but it’s not like the top shooters are incapable or any less accurate than they were in the past. They can do it, while being faster as well

It was 2023 CO nats - sorry wasn't trying to rag on you but had mentioned you thought it was not a very difficult match. To me it seems given that a lot of shooters including top ones shot sub 90%, it means there was quite a bit of room to differentiate yourself in accuracy as well. If it was a technically easy match, most people should be shooting 90%+ and the differentiating factor would only be time. On the comparison of modern vs past GMs, I agree it's not comparing prime against prime. But the match I had mentioned was 2021 Locap nationals where both Christian and Rob shot the same match in L10 and SS respectively, so in this case it was the same stages at the same matches with similar enough guns. Even excluding the time factor, Christian still shot better points than Leatham, and Nils shot more accurately as well (although he shot minor). That's as close as you can get to a comparison of the GMs of old (Rob being 62) and new (Christian being 22). Don't get me wrong, I do think Rob, Todd or Jerry in their prime would still be upper GMs today, but the best GMs today are even better. Yes, quite a bit of it may come from efficiency of movement and cutting time on field courses. But I'd wholly disagree with any assertion that today's top GMs were any less accurate than top GMs in the past. Even in IDPA which is a more accuracy focused sport, at 2022 nats you have JJ shooting pretty much the same accuracy as Rob

I disagree - looking at nats the 85% cutoff was actually at around 40th place. 10th was at 92%, and that’s only because Christian gapped Nils in second by 2%. If he wasn’t there, the spread between 1st and 10th would only be 6%. the Also not trying to pick on you, but it appears that you shot 80% of available points at nats? Given the competitive standard is to hit 90-92% in minor, and even most of the top 10 didn’t meet that, to me that implies that the targets were on the more difficult side. Also disagree that today’s top GMs aren’t better than those from the past. You’re already seeing the new crop of SuperGMs outperform the old ones. Yes, of course they’re younger and can move faster, but even from a points perspective they’re outperforming. At locap nationals 2021 you have Christian sailer shooting a higher points percentage and nils shooting a higher number of Alphas and fewer penalties than Rob Latham. Thats on top of the faster time as well. This isn’t to rag on The Great One (he still far exceeds my skill) but it’d be crazy to think that shooters haven’t gotten better over time. It’s pretty obvious that shooters in the 90s were better than those from the 70s when ipsc first started, why wouldn’t that be the case today? Technique continues to evolve as people learn more and more - that’s the nature of any sport or skill.

The 2011 platform was originally designed for 45 ACP, so generally is more of a built gun than platforms designed for 9mm. The external diameter of a 1911/2011 barrel is the same, whether it's 45, 40 or 9mm, so the 9mm actually has thicker barrel walls. This is why before the weight limit increase in single stack, it was harder to have a 9mm make weight vs 45acp - often you'd have to switch out the mainspring housing to aluminum to make weight. As a result, the 2011 has been probably the most durable platform for open division. Fairly certain that the only other platform that has worked alright in open, the CZ Czechmate, is also based off the "large frame" CZ for 40 and 45. Similar concept in that it was designed for more powerful rounds. If I recall correctly even some of the earlier 40 cal glocks in the past had issues because it was based off the 9mm frame

Another fun comparison looking at the most recent 2023 CO nats vs. a vintage 1990s USPSA nats. Both matches were considered at the time to be on the more challenging side - interviews at 21:10 mark of 1990s nats, some said it was too difficult for non M shooters. Certainly very different styles with modern nats being far more field course like and old nats being positional stand and deliver. In some respects modern nats does indeed have more room for gain on purely movement. But at the same time I'd argue that a lot of the shots at modern nats were just as difficult, if not more so than old nats. Poppers seemed to be more difficult, and swingers/movers were at further distances. In general lots of long distance shots at 2023 nats. Particularly the stage with the 3 triangles - taking the shots from the rear must have been 40+ yards.

Went back and found this thread from over 20 years ago. Sort of fun to see how there are a lot of the same themes. Back then it seemed the complaint that people have today about dots and minor PF was about the hicap 1911/2011.