Production optics

[RJH]

Tac ops, sweet. How could anyone with Glock perfection feel outgunned against a jammomatic 1911? And besides its the Indian not the arrow right? I've read both these statements on this and other forums so it must be true.

[eric4069]

Call it tac optics

that would also be a fine name: either Tac Optics, or Carry Optics, or Minor Optics

Eric

[Onepocket]

Call it OPEN MINOR.

[atbarr]

So Comps and Magwells are ok?

[gdboytyler]

Here's my "Carry Optics" 1911 with slide mounted red dot (Aimpoint Micro T1). It might not fit the future rules of the theoretical division, but it is now my carry gun for when I visit free states and my bedside gun for California. It fits my existing carry holster without any modifications.

I'll compete mainly with the frame-mounted STI and maybe dabble in IDPA (not for classification) with the slide mounted RIA.

[Reshoot]

The board of directors has already chosen a name for this new provisional class! Once the new class is under way, participation over a 12 month period will determine if the class is adopted or canned.

Since the next president will be but one voice, the name is likely to stick. Well, unless the majority of directors can be persuaded to change their mind.

And, this is going to all come about regardless of who is elected president

[d_striker]

The board of directors has already chosen a name for this new provisional class! Once the new class is under way, participation over a 12 month period will determine if the class is adopted or canned.

Since the next president will be but one voice, the name is likely to stick. Well, unless the majority of directors can be persuaded to change their mind.

And, this is going to all come about regardless of who is elected president

What's the name of the new provisional division?

[Southpaw]

I heard it was unanimously voted today, 4/1, to be "Murse Carry Optics"

[d_striker]

I heard it was unanimously voted today, 4/1, to be "Murse Carry Optics"

[Reshoot]

Minutes of the March 10 board meeting refer to the discussion as Optics, non comped.

[PatJones]

Will there also be a "Comped, non-optics" class?

[terrydoc]

yes its called open div

[rbebeau]

I agree with Russell, what is the new division designed to do???

(1) If the argument is: "PO (or whatever the hell it's called now) will expand the sport and cause more people to come to matches". Then shouldn't we instead make a "carry division"? FAR more people have a concealable gun than a gun with a slide rider. A lot of those people also only go to indoor ranges where they can't practice 'practical shooting', so they would jump at the change to actually draw and reload!

(2) If the argument is: "people show up with odd things on their Glocks, like stippeling, holes drilled for optics, odd grips, or other "at home mods" and I don't want to make them shoot in open". Then shouldn't we focus on changing the production rules? (I know that's heresy, but there are some silly (in my opinion) rules).

(3) If the argument is: "people show up with slide rides on M&P's and I don't want to make them shoot against open guys because their $800 gun can't keep up with the $3k one". Then my answer is; every division is ruled by one or two guns at the major match level, and all of them are quite expensive. The new division will be no different. At the local match who cares??? Its for fun!

(4) if the argument is: "older people have a hard time seeing or may have bad wrists". Then my answer is there is a senior and Super senior tag already. DISCLAMER: I am a young college kid.

(5) if the argument is: "USPSA should be developing new techniques and technologies". Then I would say make the division as open as possible while still keeping it 'tacti-cool'.

(6) if the argument is: "I have a cool slide ride and I want to shoot it in a division." Then shoot open.

[terrydoc]

My question is why all the negativity against it? If people don't want to shoot it they won't, let it happen and either it will work or it won't.

Edited April 4, 2015 by terrydoc

[BritinUSA]

I've never understood the negativity either. If some people don't like the new provisional division then don't shoot it, if enough people agree with that opinion that the provisional division will not attract the numbers that we hope for and the division will not become permanent.

I don't see the harm in trying this for a year to see what happens. I've been shooting Production Optics since June, 2014 and I'm looking forward to seeing what the BOD comes up with for the testing period.

[PKT1106]

I've been shooting Production Optics since June, 2014

This is what I don't like. The assumption that its already in the bag. No, you haven't been shooting "Production Optics" since June 2014. You have been shooting Open Minor.

I have been researching red dots and slide-ride mounts for my G22 to see if I want to try it out. The problem for me is that it's not really a set-up for racing, which is an aspect of our game because we keep time. To me, a production gun with a slide ride would be more for tactical scenarios that unfold, not racing like we do in USPSA.

I have been seriously looking at a Burris Fastfire and a Burris mount, but I just don't see the utility for them in USPSA in a division created specifically for those set-ups. Seems they would be better suited in IDPA or another scenario-based shooting sport where clearing threats was more a priority over getting hits in the fastest time you can.

[Ultimo-Hombre]

I've been shooting Production Optics since June, 2014

This is what I don't like. The assumption that its already in the bag. No, you haven't been shooting "Production Optics" since June 2014. You have been shooting Open Minor.

I agree. For a game that adheres very strictly to rules, the PO crowd just seems to cram their agenda down everyone's throats, rules be dammed.

really don't care if it happens or not... It is just the attitude and way folks have gone about this that sits so poorly with many.

I kind of feel like the production optics crowd are the environmentalists of practical shooting.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Ultimo-Hombre

[Swanny10]

I agree with Russell, what is the new division designed to do???

(1) If the argument is: "PO (or whatever the hell it's called now) will expand the sport and cause more people to come to matches". Then shouldn't we instead make a "carry division"? FAR more people have a concealable gun than a gun with a slide rider. A lot of those people also only go to indoor ranges where they can't practice 'practical shooting', so they would jump at the change to actually draw and reload!

(2) If the argument is: "people show up with odd things on their Glocks, like stippeling, holes drilled for optics, odd grips, or other "at home mods" and I don't want to make them shoot in open". Then shouldn't we focus on changing the production rules? (I know that's heresy, but there are some silly (in my opinion) rules).

(3) If the argument is: "people show up with slide rides on M&P's and I don't want to make them shoot against open guys because their $800 gun can't keep up with the $3k one". Then my answer is; every division is ruled by one or two guns at the major match level, and all of them are quite expensive. The new division will be no different. At the local match who cares??? Its for fun!

(4) if the argument is: "older people have a hard time seeing or may have bad wrists". Then my answer is there is a senior and Super senior tag already. DISCLAMER: I am a young college kid.

(5) if the argument is: "USPSA should be developing new techniques and technologies". Then I would say make the division as open as possible while still keeping it 'tacti-cool'.

(6) if the argument is: "I have a cool slide ride and I want to shoot it in a division." Then shoot open.

This post is far to logical and thorough to ever be taken seriously.

[BritinUSA]

I agree. For a game that adheres very strictly to rules, the PO crowd just seems to cram their agenda down everyone's throats, rules be dammed.

How does a provisional division violate the rules ?

How are we cramming this down everyones throats when the BOD has stated that the provisional division will be tried for a period of time to determine if it is viable?

The members will decide if this division succeeds based solely on their participation.

really don't care if it happens or not... It is just the attitude and way folks have gone about this that sits so poorly with many.

So how would you suggest that members propose a new division in USPSA ?

The BOD rejected the idea outright last year.

It was the BOD not me nor any other USPSA member that put it back on the March agenda.

It was the decision of the BOD to try it provisionally.

No-one is holding a gun to the head of the BOD and forcing this…

I kind of feel like the production optics crowd are the environmentalists of practical shooting.

Well, now you're just being mean…

[Nik Habicht]

I've been shooting Production Optics since June, 2014

This is what I don't like. The assumption that its already in the bag. No, you haven't been shooting "Production Optics" since June 2014. You have been shooting Open Minor.

I have been researching red dots and slide-ride mounts for my G22 to see if I want to try it out. The problem for me is that it's not really a set-up for racing, which is an aspect of our game because we keep time. To me, a production gun with a slide ride would be more for tactical scenarios that unfold, not racing like we do in USPSA.

I have been seriously looking at a Burris Fastfire and a Burris mount, but I just don't see the utility for them in USPSA in a division created specifically for those set-ups. Seems they would be better suited in IDPA or another scenario-based shooting sport where clearing threats was more a priority over getting hits in the fastest time you can.

By that logic the only divisions that should exist are Open and Limited.....

Why is it more important that everyone else conforms to divisions you approve of, rather than you allowing for the possibility that others might want a different experience from USPSA?

I'm happy to go race -- but I prefer that race be run in Production, with capacity limits, minor scoring, iron sights, pouch and holster position restrictions, and a gun list.....

[PKT1106]

I've been shooting Production Optics since June, 2014

This is what I don't like. The assumption that its already in the bag. No, you haven't been shooting "Production Optics" since June 2014. You have been shooting Open Minor.

I have been researching red dots and slide-ride mounts for my G22 to see if I want to try it out. The problem for me is that it's not really a set-up for racing, which is an aspect of our game because we keep time. To me, a production gun with a slide ride would be more for tactical scenarios that unfold, not racing like we do in USPSA.

I have been seriously looking at a Burris Fastfire and a Burris mount, but I just don't see the utility for them in USPSA in a division created specifically for those set-ups. Seems they would be better suited in IDPA or another scenario-based shooting sport where clearing threats was more a priority over getting hits in the fastest time you can.

By that logic the only divisions that should exist are Open and Limited.....

Why is it more important that everyone else conforms to divisions you approve of, rather than you allowing for the possibility that others might want a different experience from USPSA?

I'm happy to go race -- but I prefer that race be run in Production, with capacity limits, minor scoring, iron sights, pouch and holster position restrictions, and a gun list.....

I am not telling people to conform to what I think, I think that's the vibe I am getting from the "PO" crowd. Agree with us or you're a hater. Frankly, I am sick of it. I have nothing against people using production style guns with slide ride red dots, I just don't think there needs to be a new division created to accommodate them.

[motosapiens]

My question is why all the negativity against it? If people don't want to shoot it they won't, let it happen and either it will work or it won't.

I have some negativity about a PO division, mostly because I don't believe there are enough people actually interested in it to make it viable, and rather than showing up and shooting in open, and putting on some semi-outlaw PO matches, the proponents of PO just want the organization to cater to them right from the start.

Ever since this conversation started, I've been saying 'demonstrate the need'. Show up with those guns and shoot. Most of the proponents cry that they won't be 'competitive' if they shoot open, which tells me they really are just looking for a watered-down division they can win in rather than a test of their own skills and development and practice, and a chance to provoke some interest in a new division.

If you want people to really get interested, I would suggest putting on an 8-10 stage match for slide-ride optics only (1911's and production-type guns, to cast the net as wide as possible). Make the stages fun, maybe work a special with some local shops to be able to outfit existing guns, and start gathering data. See who shows up. See how much fun they have. See which guns are popular. Something like that could totally get me to change my outlook on PO.

People have great success with glocks-only matches and 1911-only matches. Why can't PO proponents do the same?

[d_striker]

I've never understood the negativity either. If some people don't like the new provisional division then don't shoot it, if enough people agree with that opinion that the provisional division will not attract the numbers that we hope for and the division will not become permanent.

I don't see the harm in trying this for a year to see what happens. I've been shooting Production Optics since June, 2014 and I'm looking forward to seeing what the BOD comes up with for the testing period.

I don't get it either. I don't have any plans to shoot it but why should I care if others do???

I keep hearing people say that PO would "dilute the sport." Who cares if people switch divisions? They're still shooting USPSA.

I think the real test is will it attract new people to USPSA like many advocates believe it will.

Edited April 5, 2015 by d_striker

[d_striker]

My question is why all the negativity against it? If people don't want to shoot it they won't, let it happen and either it will work or it won't.

I have some negativity about a PO division, mostly because I don't believe there are enough people actually interested in it to make it viable, and rather than showing up and shooting in open, and putting on some semi-outlaw PO matches, the proponents of PO just want the organization to cater to them right from the start.

Ever since this conversation started, I've been saying 'demonstrate the need'. Show up with those guns and shoot. Most of the proponents cry that they won't be 'competitive' if they shoot open, which tells me they really are just looking for a watered-down division they can win in rather than a test of their own skills and development and practice, and a chance to provoke some interest in a new division.

If you want people to really get interested, I would suggest putting on an 8-10 stage match for slide-ride optics only (1911's and production-type guns, to cast the net as wide as possible). Make the stages fun, maybe work a special with some local shops to be able to outfit existing guns, and start gathering data. See who shows up. See how much fun they have. See which guns are popular. Something like that could totally get me to change my outlook on PO.

People have great success with glocks-only matches and 1911-only matches. Why can't PO proponents do the same?

You seem very concerned about what other people are doing when it doesn't affect you at all.

I don't have any plans to shoot PO but a match like that would probably get me involved.

Edited April 5, 2015 by d_striker

[motosapiens]

You seem very concerned about what other people are doing when it doesn't affect you at all.

I don't have any plans to shoot PO but a match like that would probably get me involved.

It *does* affect me, both as a serious competitor and as an assistant MD. there's a limited amount of bandwidth in terms of time and effort for a national organization. I'm not convinced that PO is worth consuming very much of that bandwidth at this point. It means other topics will get less attention.

FWIW, a match like that might very well get me involved too.

Edited April 5, 2015 by motosapiens