Production optics

[Nik Habicht]

This was my proposal:

Create a new Production Optics Division using the existing Production Division rules including magazine capacity, holsters etc. with the following alterations to accommodate the optics.

7. Maximum Size - Distance from the base of the mag-well to the bottom of the magazine base pad must not exceed 0.500".

13. Optical/electronic sights permitted - Yes, slide mounted red-dot scope only.

18. Weight - Within five (5) ounces of factory specification.

Why are you proposing a change to mag size/length? What do we solve by that? If someone wants to run a 19 with 17 length mags (or even with the 33 round mags) loaded to ten after start signal, why would that matter?

[BritinUSA]

NOT SURE WHAT THE DISTANCE FROM BASE OF MAGWELL TO BOTTOM OF MAGAZINE BASE PAD ACCOMPLISHES.

Item 7 in the current Production Rules provides for a box that the gun and magazine must fit into. I think the objective was to prevent extended base pads on the magazines. A box won't work for Prod/Optics so I changed Item 7 to measure how much the magazine extends past the grip. This prevents extra length base pads being used to aid in reloading. It keeps Prod/Optics inline with the 'spirit' of the existing Production Rules.

[Chris iliff]

NOT SURE WHAT THE DISTANCE FROM BASE OF MAGWELL TO BOTTOM OF MAGAZINE BASE PAD ACCOMPLISHES.

Item 7 in the current Production Rules provides for a box that the gun and magazine must fit into. I think the objective was to prevent extended base pads on the magazines. A box won't work for Prod/Optics so I changed Item 7 to measure how much the magazine extends past the grip. This prevents extra length base pads being used to aid in reloading. It keeps Prod/Optics inline with the 'spirit' of the existing Production Rules.

So, where is my "here's your sign".........lol

Thanks for the clarification, I can live with common sense.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Chris iliff

[Nik Habicht]

NOT SURE WHAT THE DISTANCE FROM BASE OF MAGWELL TO BOTTOM OF MAGAZINE BASE PAD ACCOMPLISHES.

Item 7 in the current Production Rules provides for a box that the gun and magazine must fit into. I think the objective was to prevent extended base pads on the magazines. A box won't work for Prod/Optics so I changed Item 7 to measure how much the magazine extends past the grip. This prevents extra length base pads being used to aid in reloading. It keeps Prod/Optics inline with the 'spirit' of the existing Production Rules.

I don't think that's what the box was intended to do at all. I think the box was intended to constrain choice -- and under current rules if someone wants to shoot a mini-blaster with full size mags, they can -- as long as it fits in the box.....

A long mag going into a standard size gun isn't an aid to reloading.

The box also limits us in other ways -- the G-17L/24 or other large blasters are too big to fit.....

On the topic of mags the current rules work well, because everything goes. And why can't we have a box for PO -- that's perhaps a bit taller to accommodate the sights? Dropping something in a box is easier than measuring mags.....

[Chris iliff]

Those are good points Nik.......

My thinking about "No Box" was that the combinations of different guns and different sights are endless. I felt, maybe I am in the minority, I wouldn't want to exclude a combination by making a set size box and learning later that pistol "P" coupled with slide sight "S" does not fit.

If it could be done with a box I would be all for it. I was just not sure how, .....so throwing the box out seemed like the best alternative.

I guess, finding the biggest Production Legal gun and adding the biggest slide mounted Optic and then stretching the current box to fit that would be do-able. But, I'm an Open shooter, my knowledge of Production guns is limited, I'd have to defer to the Production guru's.

I do know that the Cmore slide ride was designed to sit atop a Glock. Since then Cmore has introduce two smaller sights. I'm thinking that the largest slide riding sight, outside of the Cmore slide ride, that I know of, is the Dr., which is bigger than the Burris, Leoupold, or any number of other knock offs.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Chris iliff

[leas327]

Just throwing this out concerning the frame mounted optic and fitting in the box. The box has a lid and is 1.625 deep. A c-more is roughly 1.25 wide and 2.25 tall. So all sideways mounts are out. There is already a lot of interest in a c-more killer as was witnessed by the thread that was taken down about jid2's new optic. it would be tough to fit a tradition upright c-more and a gun with ambi safeties in a box.

I see production optics pushing optics more than gun development initially.

[pmt]

NOT SURE WHAT THE DISTANCE FROM BASE OF MAGWELL TO BOTTOM OF MAGAZINE BASE PAD ACCOMPLISHES.

Item 7 in the current Production Rules provides for a box that the gun and magazine must fit into. I think the objective was to prevent extended base pads on the magazines. A box won't work for Prod/Optics so I changed Item 7 to measure how much the magazine extends past the grip. This prevents extra length base pads being used to aid in reloading. It keeps Prod/Optics inline with the 'spirit' of the existing Production Rules.

I don't think that's what the box was intended to do at all. I think the box was intended to constrain choice -- and under current rules if someone wants to shoot a mini-blaster with full size mags, they can -- as long as it fits in the box.....

A long mag going into a standard size gun isn't an aid to reloading.

The box also limits us in other ways -- the G-17L/24 or other large blasters are too big to fit.....

On the topic of mags the current rules work well, because everything goes. And why can't we have a box for PO -- that's perhaps a bit taller to accommodate the sights? Dropping something in a box is easier than measuring mags.....

Are the G17L/24 on the approved list. If not, no box is necessary. If yes, no box is necessary. Other divisions don't have an 'approved gun list' - they need a box.

[alma]

They are too long for Production.

[BritinUSA]

So the box is only used by NROI to determine if a gun is legal for Production? If thats the case then we just change the wording to inducate that the box is only used for that purpose and its not required for the gun to fit the box after the scope is added.

[Nik Habicht]

So the box is only used by NROI to determine if a gun is legal for Production? If thats the case then we just change the wording to inducate that the box is only used for that purpose and its not required for the gun to fit the box after the scope is added.

It's one of the criteria.....

And realistically we need some version of the box to test the final product -- gun + scope + modifications +unloaded mag.......

[ZackJones]

FWIW I asked Jack Suber (Candidate for USPSA Present) and he didn't tell me to go shoot open like another candidate did. Here's my post and his response. Anyone care to guess who has my vote?

"Jack, lately there has been some talk on Enos and here on FB about a production optic division. Basically production as we know it now except for a slide mounted red dot. Would you support such a division? I know you shoot open so I will also ask this as well - do you think you could be as competitive in open as you are now if you were shooting an M&P C.O.R.E. with a red dot? Thanks in advance for your feedback."

and

"Zack, I actually had a discussion about production optics a couple of months ago. I am not opposed to a new division provided there is enough interest to support it. I think the key is to introduce it as a provisional division in order to determine whether or not there is sufficient interest. Thanks for the post."

Edited July 21, 2014 by ZackJones

[Thomas H]

Thomas H..........

There is a distinct difference in a $2500 Limited gun WITH ALL THE BELLS AND WHISTLES and a $500 Production gun. So no, I do not want Limited Optic, that my new found friend, is OPEN......lol.

Hence my point. I was responding to your comment about "no weight limit" and your response of "Who cares?" when someone mentioned that it would change "Production" into something else with different choices available.

After all, several of the requirements of production limit what can be done to the gun, which limits how much a competitive Production gun can cost. (Which, I note, is solidly more than $500 dollars.) Your rule about no weight limits makes it even more likely that people will make costly changes to their firearm, which (as I said) rather takes it away from your contention that there is a large body of carry folks with $500 guns with dots on them who really really want to play this game.

I'm not necessarily against ProdOpt. However, far as I can tell, there isn't much push for them currently. (Other than several vocal people here.) I'm curious how many people those vocal folks know, who don't currently shoot USPSA, who would start if we did indeed have a ProdOpt division? (How many current USPSA folks would move?)

Isn't that rather the important question?

It wouldn't surprise me if in the future, USPSA added such a division. However, I don't really see enough support for it right now, and I certainly think that the division rules and requirements would need to be thought through considerably more carefully than some of the opinions I've read on this thread.

[BritinUSA]

So we do need a box (to help restrict other mods etc and to make it easier than trying to measure a magazine). The trick is going to be how to have a box when the height of the gun is going to be affected by the height of the scope. One option would be to increase the vertical size of the box to accommodate a typical slide mounted dot (for example the height of a DeltaPoint + the height of a mounting plate).... I'm just using the DeltaPoint as an example.

Would that work ?

FYI; I shot the gun today at our sections Nationals Qualifier, it seems I have solved my ammunition issues (1.130 OAL with the Berry's 147 plated bullets). I had a brain-fade on one stage where I neglected to grab a briefcase while I shot the first array of targets, eight procedural errors... ugh !

[trgt]

Shot a match today, ran my CZ SP01 with a Shadow Top end milled for a DeltaPoint (Open Minor). While most of the better shooters (Open and Limited) were for the most part indifferent to what I was doing, on two different stages, I had folks shooting stock looking guns ask me about the optic on my stock looking gun. One really liked the idea of the red dot because thats what he uses on an AR. The other was an older guy asking as something for both competition and nice for carry.

Not sure of the take-away on this - there was interest from these guys, but it wasn't clear that what was keeping them from trying it was lack of a division for the gun, or just not having seen anyone shoot with a stock looking gun with optic on top, that you were allowed to do this.

[RIIID]

I would have to say make it Open Production as a category of Open Division. You know it won't be too long before someone wants Single Stack Optics or Revo Optics or LTD/Lim10 Optics. This whole idea is just adding an optic to a Prod. gun. I see no where for it to go, just a novelty to do a couple of times for most. Also for this to get any traction you would have to allow frame mounted optics to allow a wider selection of optics.

Rich

[Sarge]

I would have to say make it Open Production as a category of Open Division. You know it won't be too long before someone wants Single Stack Optics or Revo Optics or LTD/Lim10 Optics. This whole idea is just adding an optic to a Prod. gun. I see no where for it to go, just a novelty to do a couple of times for most. Also for this to get any traction you would have to allow frame mounted optics to allow a wider selection of optics.

Rich

That probably would make more sense. Call it Open Carry. This eliminates the weight issue. Make a box with a cut out like somebody mentioned to keep mags under control. 15 ROUND LIMIT. No race holsters. Slide mounted optics only, blah, blah,

[pmt]

Why is everybody so brainwashed for the box? In a few posts people have said modify the box or make the box bigger to accommodate optics. What is the point of a box if your solution to a problem is to increase the size of the box? What size is an IPSC Production box?

[Nik Habicht]

Why is everybody so brainwashed for the box? In a few posts people have said modify the box or make the box bigger to accommodate optics. What is the point of a box if your solution to a problem is to increase the size of the box? What size is an IPSC Production box?

If you want to recreate some version of Modified, that's one thing -- the thing under discussion here is something else.....

To possibly create a provisional division for carry or house guns that happen to utilize optics -- be they slide mounted optical sights, lasers, and/or flashlights....

[Chris iliff]

Well, my whole point for supporting this division is because it is a growing segment of the concealed carry crowd.

THIS IS NOT A NOVELTY. THIS IS GROWING RAPIDLY AND I WANT THOSE SHOOTERS IN USPSA.

What are they carrying? It's slide mounted optics on Production guns.

So, no, I am not for frame mounted optics. For me, that is beyond the scope and purpose of Pro-Op. There is no current group of shooters doing that and carrying.

Stay focused people.

Current box with upper RIGHT 1/4 slot cut out would work nicely.

VERY NICELY.

So far, Manny is not on board. I sent him a link to this thread. Hopefully he will change his mind.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Chris iliff

[BritinUSA]

I don't think this should be a sub-category of Open Division; Open allows virtually any modification whereas Production-Optics only allows the addition of a slide-mounted scope... Thats it, that is all this is... Wording the rules to ensure that this is all that can happen seems to be the only sticking point but we are really close to coming up with something that will work.

The only future development of the technology in this division will be the size and reliability of the dots. If we can encourage more people to use this setup then the dots will become more reliable (and cheaper), just as they did when they were first added to Open guns.

If those running for office don't see the benefit that this technology could bring, not only to USPSA but to concealed carry/law enforcement etc. then perhaps I'll throw my hat in the ring and run on this platform.

[pmt]

Why is everybody so brainwashed for the box? In a few posts people have said modify the box or make the box bigger to accommodate optics. What is the point of a box if your solution to a problem is to increase the size of the box? What size is an IPSC Production box?

If you want to recreate some version of Modified, that's one thing -- the thing under discussion here is something else.....

To possibly create a provisional division for carry or house guns that happen to utilize optics -- be they slide mounted optical sights, lasers, and/or flashlights....

I'm not trying to create anything, and I know what is being discussed here. My question is - why the infatuation with 'the box'? What purpose does it serve if a gun is already on the Prod Div approved list?

[kneelingatlas]

perhaps I'll throw my hat in the ring and run on this platform.

So far, Manny is not on board. I sent him a link to this thread. Hopefully he will change his mind.

Why does this new division have to come from the top down? How many of you who want this division have shot your ProOps guns in a local match? let's see the scores

Talk is cheap and there is nothing stopping anyone from breaking the scores out separately and showing everyone how much interest there is in this division.

[Sarge]

Why is everybody so brainwashed for the box? In a few posts people have said modify the box or make the box bigger to accommodate optics. What is the point of a box if your solution to a problem is to increase the size of the box? What size is an IPSC Production box?

If you want to recreate some version of Modified, that's one thing -- the thing under discussion here is something else.....

To possibly create a provisional division for carry or house guns that happen to utilize optics -- be they slide mounted optical sights, lasers, and/or flashlights....

I'm not trying to create anything, and I know what is being discussed here. My question is - why the infatuation with 'the box'? What purpose does it serve if a gun is already on the Prod Div approved list?

The box is how magazines are kept in check for one thing.

[BritinUSA]

I think the problem with the box is this;

The box is mentioned in the rules but it should not be. The box is the criteria for NROI to determine if a particular make/model of gun is eligible for Production Division (there are other criteria as well). The criteria for which make/models are eligible for the Production Gun list should not be listed in the rules but listed in the Production Gun List document.

Once NROI has determined that the gun make/model meets all the criteria then the box becomes irrelevant to the competitor, as long as the modifications done to the gun by the owner are within the rules in the Appendix then the gun is good to go. The box is no longer an issue...

Right ?

[Sarge]

If those running for office don't see the benefit that this technology could bring, not only to USPSA but to concealed carry/law enforcement etc. then perhaps I'll throw my hat in the ring and run on this platform.

If this is enough of a platform for you to run for office on then you certainly wouldn't get many votes. There are MANY, MANY, MANY, more important problems that need dealt with in our organization than the introduction of a pet project. PO isn't even a blip on the big picture.