tdneuf

But not the easiest option. And it would be a pain change out I do kind of have an issue with this statement in that there are many production shooters who have sold off their plastic guns in favor of >35oz steel guns. I think they may be excluding a large number of folks that would be willing to try a dot on a CZ or TF. Even though I started this thread, I don't plan on purchasing another firearm just to shoot a provisional division.Exactly So if your trying to "make it easy for the shooter to try the Division without putting out a lot of money." Then my issue and point are still very valid. How 'easy' do you want to make it? Cost of; (leaving the sight costs out, as they vary from $200 - $600) Milling the slide ($75-$125), cover plate ($35-$75) ($120-$200) (to return to almost production) and sight. or Springer or similar adapter ($60), sight, gunsmith costs (ouch, unknown) or your time and expertise to switch adapter and re-install rear sight or purchase another slide ($200+ if available) ($250+) (not readily available for all 'production' guns) set up to swap them out, plus fitting. or Frame/rail mount ($75), sight & holster ($65) ($140) Ease of use, Slide on, tighten screws, have fun. Loosen screws, slide off, have fun. Oh ya, install on other gun, have more fun with both. I think "time and expertise" is maybe an overstatement of what it takes to put on a rear dovetail sight mount. If you can change a rear sight (incredibly easy) then you can put on a dot. It isn't hard, and I surely wouldn't pay a gunsmith to do it. And if you did take it to a gunsmith, it would only cost as much as fitting a rear sight, so really that would probably only be like what, 50 bucks at the MOST? Probably less for just a rear? Still the least expensive option. But a frame mount is still easiest way. Plus dovetail would be a pain changing out at the range, if as a competitor you wanted to shoot both divisions in one day.

I do kind of have an issue with this statement in that there are many production shooters who have sold off their plastic guns in favor of >35oz steel guns. I think they may be excluding a large number of folks that would be willing to try a dot on a CZ or TF. Even though I started this thread, I don't plan on purchasing another firearm just to shoot a provisional division. Exactly So if your trying to "make it easy for the shooter to try the Division without putting out a lot of money." Then my issue and point are still very valid. How 'easy' do you want to make it? Cost of; (leaving the sight costs out, as they vary from $200 - $600) Milling the slide ($75-$125), cover plate ($35-$75) ($120-$200) (to return to almost production) and sight. or Springer or similar adapter ($60), sight, gunsmith costs (ouch, unknown) or your time and expertise to switch adapter and re-install rear sight or purchase another slide ($200+ if available) ($250+) (not readily available for all 'production' guns) set up to swap them out, plus fitting. or Frame/rail mount ($75), sight & holster ($65) ($140) Ease of use, Slide on, tighten screws, have fun. Loosen screws, slide off, have fun. Oh ya, install on other gun, have more fun with both.

Another advantage to a frame mounted sight mount is you don't have modify the only slide you have, and you can still use the same gun in IDPA comp too, just take the mount off and store it in your bag

Holsters would have to be made to conform, or slightly modify the rules. The rules would change anyway if you added frame mounted sight mount

Uh, that would be open class

Thanks atbarr. Just sign on, waiting for return email so I can get in. I will definitely follow up. alma, big advantage, kinda like CZ & TO have gotten in production class, or STI in Open? When a better mousetrap gets the oil... why not use it? There's other advantages to a frame mounted dot too. It can be used on multiple guns for developing accurate loads. (original purpose of the one you see pictured)

Area Director email, good idea. may email them all since the frame mount I'm refering to is in almost every state in the country. And most of them are owned by USPSA members. 'Our' Forum, uspsa.org? Not following you, I'm not aware (or can't see it) of a Forum on the USPSA.org website. Thanks for the thoughts.

So, to clarify, the big gun manufactures are driving the industry? The thousands of small inventors and accessory makers are not a part of the 'Industry Offerings? So this isn't a 'provisional' (provisional - adjective - 1 arranged or existing for the present, possibly to be changed later) division. It's a division that's been set up for certain manufactures? The big manufactures aren't really interested in offering a solution like this. If they were they'd have already done it. Their interested in make a decent product and selling gazillions with minimal cost, highest return, and let the little accessory guys do the rest. It's called business partnership.

I have zero interest in "a training platform to move up to Open" If I wanted to shoot Open I would already be shooting it. I don't think that was the premise behind this proposal at all. With all due respect, have you read this thread? And yes I know it's super long. zhunter, thanks, I was wondering if I had missed the point of the previous 70 pages of the conversation. Beyond that, I think 'Production Optics, is the already, inevitable arrived future that we can still define and shape. I'm not in agreement with limiting the division to slide only optics at all. that's like putting watered-down gas in Porsche! Anyone that thinks this is missing the whole point of adding an optic to a production gun. IF The idea is to add an optic to a production (stock gun (ie leaning towards tactical/carry)), why does it have to ONLY be slide mounted. There are advantages (tactical & competitive) to mounting it to the frame. The slight added weight decreases recoil and improves target trackability, just for starters.

While I'm a demi-old timer, and life member of USPSA (L419), I remember the old classes, and rules, and baby we've (USPSA) come along way since then. I've been watching many of the sites that are commenting and following this new division. My 2 cents. It appears that on one hand the current Pres may be attempting to appease the plastic gun manufacturing folk with a custom division. On another hand I'd agree with the thought that within a given division certain guns may at times appear to take over in the winning circles. Only time will truly tell, and someone will inevitably make a better mouse trap at some point in time. It's obvious, right now, the CZ design (considered one of the best for a really long time) has the upper hand in production class. USPSA/IPSC and all the associated organizations and memberships thereof have pushed the manufactures for years to develop, and we've gotten to a point of stagnation over the recent years. Recently its the manufactures who have dictated what's coming out. I think this (production optics) is part of a new phase of timeless change in development, which belongs to the independents and the shooter/developers of our industry and the shooting world in general. With that in mind, limiting the optics to the slide (very expensive to replace), does the exact same thing as limiting the weight and effectively creating a custom class for certain manufactures. So it's kinda like a double whammy! If USPSA were truly interested in expanding the optic division, they would allow it to include all production guns and external RAIL mounted optics as well. This would allow the shooter to only have to purchase one gun, which they could use in, production, production optic & IDPA. And ultimately it's a training platform to move up to Open class, if they wanted to afford it.

About time I added this form to my daily routine.