whan

Just for additional info, I went through and looked at the 22 LO shooters at our recent local, and what division they shot consistently most recently before provisional LO went into place. Below was the breakdown for the 22 LO shooters 8 from Open (top 4 LO shooters were all previously open shooters. Generally the better LO shooters previously shot Open) 9 from CO 1 from Limited 1 from PCC 3 N/A (unclassified, no USPSA #, or first match back in a while) For those of you who want LO to be major/minor, what division do you shoot right now? If LO is major/minor, would you actually shoot LO as your main division? I feel like the people most vocal about making LO major/minor are those who currently shoot, or have Limited guns. But based off recent participation, that's a small division, and if those are the people making the switch, we'll just end up with very small / non-competitive L and LO divisions. If the goal is to have multiple healthy divisions, we need to be splitting up the CO shooters.

I understand that major is a unique shooting style and is interesting in that context, but I think ultimately it will come down to what is popular / in demand. Fundamentally it seems there is the largest demand for higher capacity (at least >10rd) 9mm minor divisions with optics. The three most recent divisions (CO, PCC, provisional LO) have all gained popularity due to that format. At our most recent local match, those three divisions alone made up 67% of all shooters (45 CO, 33 PCC, 22 LO, of 150 total) With the number of competitors shooting CO, there's obviously enough demand to try splitting it up to figure out which piece of the formula is driving it. Is it about capacity (is 15 rounds vs. 10 rounds enough to make a difference), the dot, or the loose ruleset for the gun that's essentially already pseudo-limited. Or some combination of those factors? One thing seems obvious to me, is that a format of high capacity, loose ruleset, and major PF is a losing combination (IE Limited Major). Our last local had 7 limited shooters out of 150, and even then 2/7 were minor. There were over twice as many production shooters. For that reason, trying to make Limited Optics a Major scoring division isn't the smart play, and risks it being a somewhat dead division on arrival. LO barely has anyone to draw from Limited. New USPSA shooters are almost certainly not going to shoot major given current trends. Perhaps some Open shooters or CO shooters might jump, but that's taking a big gamble. They'd both have to set up with completely new ammo. Making LO minor only has a far bigger pool to draw from with CO crowd that likes the "open-lite" feel of the current CO ruleset. And if you shift CO to a more practical pistol with 15rd limits, that may keep the people who want to train with duty/HD type pistols or don't want to chase the latest gear (like thumbrests, brass grips, etc.)

That's a good question, I think it's partially because they view the decline in production participation as more of an issue vs. the overlap between CO and LO at this point. But if prod goes to 15, and LO stays as a minor-only division, I think they'd have to address changing CO to 15 rounds as well next I've actually been seeing an interesting trend at my local club (large club with 125-150 shooters per match). A lot of limited optics participation is actually coming from open shooters moving over, vs. CO shooters jumping into LO. I don't know what it means quite yet, but if the trend does continue it actually does provide a significant argument for killing major power factor, as open is the main division IMO keeping the overall concept of major PF alive. I doubt that'd happen anytime soon however

Probably because in hindsight allowing CO to go to 140mm mags from 10 rounds may have been a step too far, at least in the context of Prod/CO originally being designed to allow relatively accessible out of the box factory equipment to be successful. IMO 140mm mags are a pretty specialized race equipment, particularly with non-lockback followers to max out capacity I do think there's space for more of a true factory gun division (both irons and optics) particularly with LO now being a thing. 15 rounds fits best with that ethos, allowing essentially any out of the box gun to be competitive. A top shooter could theoretically buy a new Glock 17, Holosun, and a few extra mags from the local gunstore and win the next day in CO with a 15 round capacity. Whereas right now, the 23-24rd 140mm basepads are mandatory to win. Ultimately I think the below would be ideal for a new set of divisions. You can also the nationals per the below as well, as I think stage designs can be well tailored for each pair. Otherwise something like this year's iron sight nationals will be interesting to see if they can actually make it good for both Limited and Revo shooters... Low-Cap Divisions Revolver, scored major with minor ammo, since no one even shoots major PF L10 w/ Optional Optics, and 10rd minor/8rd major Factory Gun Divisions Production, 15 rounds, current box Carry Optics, 15 rounds, production box with optics cutout, will make slide-stop thumb rests not fit with the door closed Limited Gun Divisions Limited. Major/Minor is fine to keep to help with some competitive parity vs. LO, but don't feel strongly Limited Optics. Minor only, otherwise just provisional rules High-Cap Divisions Open. As is PCC. As is

Generally the same sentiment as others - production to 15 round (and also CO for that matter), LO minor only. Production capacity being limited by box size is dumb as it'd favor certain guns with slightly more advantageous dimensions. IE low bore axis striker fired guns with steeper grip angles (IE glock) could fit in more rounds than hammer fired shallower grip angle guns (IE Beretta) Having experience being from a compliance state, I actually wouldn't nuke L10 and instead would just treat it as a compliance division catch-all that allows for optional optics. Kill/Roll Single Stack into it as well and make it minor-10/major-8.

If Christian Sailer was allowed to use one and won with one at nats, I'm sure it's fine for the rest of us

Very valid points from all - I agree that weight/size is probably the biggest reason I wouldn’t consider it as a carry gun (I like how my P365XL just disappears and takes no effort to conceal). Also agree that for enthusiasts and very experienced/dedicated operators it can work well. RangerTrace, would be curious to hear more about your experiences with the 2011 in a duty capacity. Obviously you have a lot of expertise with the platform - did you need to use that expertise to make sure your guns ran perfectly (IE knowing how to choose the right ammo, mags, etc.) or were they pretty much plug and play? I guess the gist of my question is, for broader population who only have experience with glocks/p320s that are very plug and play with any ammo/drop-in parts, is switching to a 2011 actually a good move for them

The 2011 platform has rapidly grown in popularity outside the competitive shooting community over the past year or two, driven by STI's rebranding and focus on the tactical market as Staccato, as well as the expiration of the 2011 patent resulting in a ton of new manufacturers/builders. We're now seeing more and more people outside the competition world using them as duty and carry guns. Yet, I wonder whether this will be end up being another fad, or if it will be here to stay. At risk of sounding a bit elitist, it feels like the "normies" are enamored by the shootability of the platform, which admittedly is why they've been so popular in competition. But a lot of us have been around the platform long enough to know that it's not the easiest to keep running 100%. Tuning mags (feed lips, mag catch heights), pickiness of ammo OAL and bullet profiles, extractor tuning, sensitivity to lube, potential to break ejectors on slide-lock reloads, are all things I've had to deal with in my years shooting single-stack and playing around with 2011s as well. I'm sure some of it is due to the 2011/1911 being a "platform" vs a single manufacturer's design who can control all dimensions/tolerances. But I feel that a good part of it is just the platform's fundamental drawbacks, and am doubtful that these issues are suddenly gone with the advent of guns like the Staccato P. And I wonder if the sudden surge in popularity with Staccato will eventually fade a decent bit (at least in usage as duty/ccw guns), as those people also start to face some of the realities with the platform. Or perhaps those people don't actually shoot enough to realize it? My perspective is that while I'd be mostly comfortable carrying a 1911/2011 or using it more of a HD/duty type role if needed, I honestly don't quite trust them like I do a Glock or P365. But welcome other's thoughts - would you trust it enough to use over other guns like glocks, M&Ps, etc.

My Tanfo Stock 2 weighs 46oz with unloaded mag, with Tevo thumbrest, 140mm basepad, Holosun 507Comp milled. Feels just abought right to me, wouldn't want to go heavier as making the mag fully loaded adds another 10oz

Just got my green 507comp in. Will live-fire this weekend, but didn’t end up liking the 8moa circle (either with or without 2moa dot) nearly as much as I would have thought. I’m coming from a 5moa SRO, and at least in dryfire found the 8moa circle a bit imprecise in use - perhaps 8moa is just a bit too big for my taste (though I have no problem with the 6moa green dot on my CCW with EPS Carry). The 8moa circle also feels slightly distracting and tends to draw my focus, even with the center 2moa dot I perceive it as a circle/dot combo vs just an 8moa dot If anything I was surprised how much I liked the 2moa dot option, coming from running mostly 5-6moa dots previously. My eyes pick up green quite a bit better than red (hence why I bought the holosun to try), and have no issue picking up the dot despite small size. Also if run on a slightly higher brightness it really feels more like 3.5moa or so. Separately, I’m impressed with how bright the optic gets. My older 510c green doesn’t come close, comparing 2moa vs 2moa at least

I think it did change at some point to encourage a more fair balance between DA/SA and striker guns, but previously it was the 5lb across the board rule.

That's true, and I'd agree that I wouldn't mind seeing CO revert back to a more stock optics type division, since I also feel current CO is so close to LO it almost makes no difference. These days, I don't know if I'd revert back to a full "leave the gun how it came from factory", just given the different climate in guns today vs. when production first came out. There's just so many variations in "stock" models that are set up for competition, that certain guns have become go-tos like the Shadow 2, which aren't the easiest things to find in many stores. Thus still ending up with a bit of a problem where people are looking to buy the ideal factory "race ready" gun. So I'd be open to the trigger weight measurement, mostly just an issue that I could see pushback on the implementation vs. it actually being a good thing for the division. But agree that combine it with max gun weight and size, and people have much lower incentive to swap out a ton of nonfactory parts

@Racinready300ex Ha - I'd hope we can count to 15 as well as our IPSC counterparts But think we're definitely in alignment. I think it'd also be interesting that this version of CO (15rd + weight limit) also would have the most real-world applicable gear. Even for USPSA shooters, I'd bet most of their HD (or duty if LEO) guns are some form of a Glock/P320/M&P with flashlight and RDS, and not their Shadow2. I know mine is a P320AXG, despite shooting a 45oz Tanfoglio Stock 2 in CO. Even though I'd probably move to LO, I'd still probably shoot this new CO with the P320 just to test my abilities with a more practical gun

I think I'd prefer specifying 15 rounds vs. 126mm, mostly to avoid another arms race around basepads/followers/springs to max out capacity. Makes it easier for people to compete with just factory OEM mags That's true, IPSC does do it well, though I will say that no other division in USPSA has a min trigger weight requirement so it would stick out a bit being the only division requiring it. I think requiring the guns to be under a certain weight probably would be my choice of next step, as it does have precedent as a requirement for single stack. Maybe something like 40oz with mag so that middleweight guns like a P320 AXG are still allowed, but heavyweight ones like an S2 or my Tanfo Stock 2 are not. But most typical service pistols with flashlight would easily make it. Again, this avoids people having to go and buy a ton of special brass grips and items to try to make their gun most competitive. Add in a width requirement (to exclude thumbrests) and think it's a great division for factory equipment and new shooters to just run their home defense gun.

With LO now in place, I think the low hanging fruit and smart decision is to limit CO to 15 rounds. This makes it a pretty different game from 140mm. Requires at least a reload on almost all field courses, and 2 reloads for larger 32-round stages. Adds back a bit of thought into stage planning for round counts. Also has the benefit of being the better division for more factory equipment. There is a bit of an arms race in terms of stuffing max capacity into 140mm mags (some followers can do 24), which is more of a race gun thing. 15 rounds means you can be competitive with factory mags vs. being required to buy specialized equipment to be competitive in a division. Other changes that could be considered would be weight limit, trigger pull weight, fitting in a box. Trigger weight would be hard to enforce, and don’t think USPSA is really set up for it. Weight limit is reasonably doable, as with fitting in a box with optic cutout and width requirement to remove the massive thumb rest slide stops (FWIW I use one), but those may be less popular as they’ll force a decent number of people into LO. But perhaps that’s fine - it’s less of an issue forcing the types of people with raced out shadow 2s with brass grips, thumbrests, 24rd 140mm mags into LO instead.

In general it's going to be interesting to see what they do with the LO and to some extent CO rulesets over the next year or two. As it stands there's pretty minimal functional difference between the two divisions. But perhaps that's fine - when I shot single stack minor it was pretty much the same as production. At least here there's enough demand to support both of the divisions easily. It's just the broader question of whether divisions should be designed to create distinctly different strategies I'd honestly be open to seeing CO dropped down to 15 rounds to better match IPSC production optics. That would make it a distinct game from LO. Wouldn't require anyone to buy any different equipment (can just load current CO mags to 15 or CO shooters can move to LO). Also would be interesting if IPSC ends up creating a Standard Optics division to mirror our current LO ruleset

Anyone know if aftermarket 45 degree safeties work with the OEM trigger? Have a gun that should be delivered next month but I've preferred shorter throw safeties on my ARs Edit: NVM, see that it may have been covered in another thread

I agree to a certain extent - there is a skew towards newbies having issues across platform due to a lack of knowledge (in general across different guns). But the 2011/1911 platform IMO still have a higher chance of occasional issues, even for experienced operators. For example, the Staccato C2 malfunction I saw was the carry gun of a guy who is an experienced M class Open Shooter. The guy who had the SVI 2011 malfunction also came up in SS with me, and has 10s of thousands of rounds through various 1911s from different manufacturers. You can't tell me that those issues were due to their lack of understanding of the platform. I love 1911s, probably 50% of all pistols I've ever owned have been of the 1911/2011 platform (Les Baer 45, STI DVC 3gun, Infinity Commander 2011, Colt GCNM 9mm, Infinity 1911). I chose to spend my first 2.5 years in USPSA in single stack, a relatively dead division, just because I liked the guns. I've adjusted my own extractors, replaced my own ejector, fiddled around with various springs, diagnosed mag issues during this time. But it's left me wondering if the juice is really worth the squeeze. There's just less issues and things to take care of with other platforms. Fact is that to be comfortable with a 2011, I'd have to be cleaning it 2-3x as frequently, probably cleaning out mags and worrying about feed lips, etc. At this point, I'd rather have a platform that I shoot well and that I don't have to worry about as much. Hell, Tanfo Timmy just made GM in LO with his Tanfo running fully in CO guise (hammer down start too), so I know the gun isn't holding me back much Again, everyone can make their own decisions, and I get why people shoot 2011s for the performance advantage, just that for me I don't know if that advantage is really worth it anymore

I started with a modified Colt for a year and then shot an SV single stack 9mm for another 1.5 that I specced brand new. The Colt had some issues, and the SV ran well but I could tell there was still a lot less room for error vs. other platforms. Both were picky on bullet profile (for example didn't like syntech 150gr due to flat nose). Still had a handful of FTFs from slidelock reloads from not fully chambering. During a match with cold weather in the 40s, the SV wasn't forgiving of the thicker blue oil provided by infinity and malfunctioned until I cleaned it out during the match and replaced it with a light oil Yes, these are all things that I can iron out by keeping the gun clean, choosing the right ammo and oils, etc. and indeed my SV ran quite well, but it still was noticeably more finnicky than other platforms. And that excludes some other one-off issues I have had (firing pin hole drilled crooked from factory in the Colt GCNM which had to get fixed when I sent it to be customized, broke an ejector on a slidelock reload, cracked infinity extractor) From observing others, excluding Open guns, I still have seen multiple people's 2011s from top builders have issues during matches. This includes someone's new Atlas on my squad this past weekend, and another's Infinity a few months ago (on a HHF classifier that that). At our CCW outlaw match last month, someone brought a Staccato C2 which I also remembering having a FTF during a stage as well. My experience has been that 1911s/2011s are just a lot more finnicky and less forgiving overall. You can definitely get them to run 100% but it also seems there's a lot more to worry / think about and a higher probability of having a gun that doesn't work 100%.

One point that hasn't been mentioned is the relative reliability and maintenance upkeep of 2011s vs. a CZ based platform (excluding Open which is its own separate thing). I shot single stack minor for 2.5 years before switching to CO and landing on a Tanfo. One of the key reasons I'd be hesitant to switch to LO using a 2011 now is the lower reliability of the 2011/1911 platform. I seem to see far more 2011s choke or have issues, both pre-LO and now with provisional LO vs. people shooting CZ platforms. While I agree I'd likely shoot a 2011 that 5% better than my tanfo, I'm actually not sure if it's worth the relative tradeoff in reliability if it means the increased possibility of having a bad malfunction that would drop a stage much more than that. I also feel more comfortable with extended cleaning intervals on my Tanfo vs. my 1911, especially shooting 9mm, which is just nice overall not worrying too much about cleaning before local matches

I switched to a DA/SA Tanfo at the beginning of the year, previously only shot striker or SA guns. Was taught the thumb roll by experienced S2 shooters, and it feels very secure for me after a bit of practice. Key thing is that it doesn't rely on friction at all, so no real chance for slippage. Also easier to control the speed of the hammer, especially towards the end, by rotating the thumb out more slowly for the last bit

I have large and skinny hands (so the easiest to reach controls) and have always shifted grip to activate the mag release, particularly for 1911s. I think the large majority of guns will need you to rotate it somewhat in your hand to get the mag release. Extended releases can help with consistency but you may be better served just learning a new technique vs. really trying to find a gun specifically for this purpose. You'll overlook a lot of other important factors for something that could be solved with training and that wouldn't disadvantage you at all Given your questions around this and auto-forwarding on slide lock, I think you might be a bit focused a bit on the wrong things. Even if you were shooting locap and went to slide lock on occasion, the amount of time that would be saved having the gun auto slide-forward vs. being able to efficiently use the slide release or slingshot would be negligible. Same with worrying about any time lost shifting your grip for a reload. On a field course, you should be doing reloads on the move, so the time should barely matter. For the gun, the primary considerations should be around reliability, how well you feel you can shoot it accurately, if it returns consistently in recoil for you, and how well it naturally points / indexes.

Also depends on division you're shooting. When I was shooting single stack minor, probably better to plant and shoot for a multitude of reasons. Limited capacity, using movement to reload, minor scoring requires better hits (shooting on move less accurate), irons on the move being more difficult than dots given more sight alignment error. Think if you shot something like open, and to a lesser extent CO, definitely shoot on the move for the opposite reasons Closer / easier targets that require more positions, shoot more on move. More difficult targets or can all be seen between two positions, may be better to plant, especially if the distance between those two positions is large. Larger the distance, the more time you spend at top running speed and can optimize for that vs. leaving or coming into position which requires acceleration/deceleration.

100% agree with you. Part of the reason why small non-profit orgs often have such poor politics (think Home Owners Associations) is because people who are actually qualified typically have professional careers and aren't looking to take on another job essentially for free. So what you are left with are people who are both underqualified, but also those with a lot of free time and desire to play politics for the power, as they may not have an active career where they can advance there

As an aside, I explained the situation to my wife, who has spent her career in audit including at one of the big 4 firms, and the first thing she said is that the org needs better controls. First recommendation she made was that there should be consecutive term limits for board members (IE can run again later, but not consecutively)