Production optics

[BritinUSA]

I've shot a couple of local matches with my Production/Optics setup... I don't see it being competitive against a GM Open competitor, reloads every 10 rounds will slow you down a lot on medium/large field courses as it usually takes away the fastest path through the course of fire.

[trgt]

As best I can tell the arguments presented in favor of the division have been lo cost and inclusion for people who don't want to buy "real" open guns.

AND a LOT of folks that for whatever reason choose not to reload. Open division is reloaders-only land. Production Optics friendly to folks buying factory 9mm, similar to how a lot of production shooters are using factory or bought ammo - not reloading.

You can shoot open with factory 9mm making minor. Or you could shoot open with factory 40 making major. Add your slide ride, and a 170mm mag and you won't be at that much of a disadvantage. I'm sure you can still make GM with a open glock 40, and beat most shooters at a match if you're good with it.

You're not going to see that 170mm mag for the most part with our production shooters. A great many of our production folks here in California are running factory ammo, factory 10 round mags.

But you are absolutely right regarding skill, we've got enough Masters+ in Production, that depending on turn out, we could have a Production match winner over Open.

This is all a very healthy discussion. I've launched a LOT of products over 20 years in tech, and the better ones were preceded by lots of data points, not just one persons opinion. So glad to see all the viewpoints!

[bikerburgess]

As best I can tell the arguments presented in favor of the division have been lo cost and inclusion for people who don't want to buy "real" open guns.

AND a LOT of folks that for whatever reason choose not to reload. Open division is reloaders-only land. Production Optics friendly to folks buying factory 9mm, similar to how a lot of production shooters are using factory or bought ammo - not reloading.

You can shoot open with factory 9mm making minor. Or you could shoot open with factory 40 making major. Add your slide ride, and a 170mm mag and you won't be at that much of a disadvantage. I'm sure you can still make GM with a open glock 40, and beat most shooters at a match if you're good with it.

A friend of mine made master (and was able to shoot to that level at area matches) with a G35 no comp just a dot (slide ride till he killed it then a frame mount) he tried a major 9 Glock first but didn't like fighting with it so he went to the 40.

[Jadeslade]

I didn't say it would not aid in the development of that particular sight what I sud was it would not alow for the development of anything else. My argument is compact red dot sights are not at the end of their development and writing rules that won't allow new developments that may be frame based is not conducive to exploring all the options

I think you are trolling. But I will try one more time. Don't change any rules, except to let production guns have scopes on them. Slide mounted. Nobody thinks frame mounted scopes are any good for anything but Open Division. In other words, practical guns. Not race guns. Like in United States Practical Shooting. Back to our roots, if you will.

[bikerburgess]

I didn't say it would not aid in the development of that particular sight what I sud was it would not alow for the development of anything else. My argument is compact red dot sights are not at the end of their development and writing rules that won't allow new developments that may be frame based is not conducive to exploring all the options

I think you are trolling. But I will try one more time. Don't change any rules, except to let production guns have scopes on them. Slide mounted. Nobody thinks frame mounted scopes are any good for anything but Open Division. In other words, practical guns. Not race guns. Like in United States Practical Shooting. Back to our roots, if you will.

So a frame mounted laser is less practical than a slide monted dot? I don't buy your logic

I began this thread opposed to the idea of another optics legal division, since then through the discussion here and with people I shoot with I am convinced that the idea has merit. I would like to see something that will get closest to achieving the goals of including more guns that don't fit the other divisions, allow for 10rd minor for ease of ammo and be non free state friendly. What I am against is drawing up a rule set that is so narrow in its equipment scope that new shooters are kept out because their gun either has the wrong type or shape or mounting type on its sight. Also I would like it not to be based on production rules as they are today, too many ways to be illegal and may of the guns that people want to shoot in this new division are all ready illegal in production for one reason or another. I also think it should allow 8rd major scoring as well as 10rd minor and single stack guns with dots should be legal as well.

[Jadeslade]

Yeah, a frame mounted scope is less practical than a slide mount. If you don't think so, more power to you. Good luck carrying it in a standard holster. That is not where technology is leading us. There are many guns legal in Production; which guns are you talking about, that aren't, that shooters would actually want to buy and use? Production is the easiest to get started and least expensive division. If you want to create a new crazy quilt division, good for you, and good luck. That is not what is really being proposed here. That would be a new, different thread. This is about Production Optics.

[motosapiens]

I didn't say it would not aid in the development of that particular sight what I sud was it would not alow for the development of anything else. My argument is compact red dot sights are not at the end of their development and writing rules that won't allow new developments that may be frame based is not conducive to exploring all the options

I think you are trolling. But I will try one more time. Don't change any rules, except to let production guns have scopes on them. Slide mounted. Nobody thinks frame mounted scopes are any good for anything but Open Division. In other words, practical guns. Not race guns. Like in United States Practical Shooting. Back to our roots, if you will.

What does 'practical' really mean? What most people carry is compact or subcompact plastic guns. Maybe we need a division for those too, so that people that only have an m&p shield will have a place to be competitive with other operators.......

I think the most practical guns to get started with are a glock or m&p or xd or 75b in 9mm with a few extra mags.

Edited July 17, 2014 by motosapiens

[Jadeslade]

What's your point? How do you know what most people carry and how is that relevant? What is an operator and how does that pertain to Production Optics? What does practical mean to you? It used to be a just a substitute for the word combat, because International Combat Shooting Confederation was not politically correct. The meaning has changed somewhat in our sport. If you think the M&P Shield is a good carry gun, do it. If you want to have a division for it, go for it. I don't think you will get many supporters. I think you are in opposition because you want to be. If you don't like the idea, just say so. Stop bringing in specious arguments that have no bearing on the question.

[bikerburgess]

Yeah, a frame mounted scope is less practical than a slide mount. If you don't think so, more power to you. Good luck carrying it in a standard holster. That is not where technology is leading us. There are many guns legal in Production; which guns are you talking about, that aren't, that shooters would actually want to buy and use? Production is the easiest to get started and least expensive division. If you want to create a new crazy quilt division, good for you, and good luck. That is not what is really being proposed here. That would be a new, different thread. This is about Production Optics.

The point I am trying unsuccessfully to make is enforcing production division equipment rules now is hard enough (you know a lone wolf extended mag release for a gen 3 glock can get you bumped to open because it is not from the OFM right) now you want to add more variables into the all ready hard to enforce mix. I am proposing we be more liberal in the rule writing so more guns fit and less people own guns that are excluded Edited July 17, 2014 by bikerburgess

[peterthefish]

May I make a modest proposal? A new division along these lines. Let's call it the Harrison Bergeron class. Players will be allowed enhancements or required to use handicaps as necessary so all shooters are on a level playing field.

Those who are young and fit will be required to wear lead vests and ankle weights so they are no faster or more nimble than the slowest shooter at the match.

Those with poor eyesight will be allowed to use red dots, while those with 20/15 vision will be required to use GI style sights.

Those with strong arms will be required to shoot 'Super Major' PF ammo with no scoring benefit, and those with outstanding dexterity will be capped at 5 rounds / mag, while the recoil shy will be allowed to shoot 'Sub-Minor' with no penalty and those slow to reload will have no capacity restrictions.

I know what you're thinking; it will be tough to implement, and I agree. But we'll know we have it right when everyone's classification is the same and winning or losing comes down to sheer chance instead of one player's unfair advantage over another's, whether that advantage is gained through biological good fortune, age, or practice (which really just reflects how much free time someone has and unfairly discriminates against those with kids, two jobs, or other time commitments).

Edited July 17, 2014 by peterthefish

[The Antichrome]

It's about trends in handguns and staying abreast of a changing landscape in shooting... ... One can easily imagine them in your glovebox or nightstand or in a concealed holster. Like other production guns.

Sounds like it would be a good division for IDPA.

This.

[Sarge]

I don't think we need Production optics for a few reasons. I guess you can keep the current production rules in place and that's fine. But what about fitting the box? What about weighing the gun? Do we come up with another box for a division that some if not many guys have admitted they have not even seen a gun like this being used yet? So, HQ in it's infinite wisdom says it does not need to fit the box. Then guys start putting extended mag base pads on unless there is going to be a new approved weight list with every possible gun/optic combo. Just does not seem realistic to do all of this for potentially so few shooters.

Then what about hit factors? Certainly optics should make shooting classifiers easier than a standard production gun. What about match recognition? It will be like revolvers where nobody shoots them in a major unless there are enough signed up to be recognized.

Growing the sport? I don't think PO will have that much of an impact. Just one well placed TV spot on the right channel at the right time would do much more for growing the sport.

Why are we so worried about shooters who can't afford to shoot certain divisions or who can't reload. I knew coming into this game there was no way I was going to be able to shoot on a regular basis without investing heavily in reloading gear. I also knew it is not a game for those on a tight budget or very limited funds. I started in production and thought I could never afford anything else but I scrimped and saved for two years to have an Open gun built. I don't make a lot of money and I often have to make a choice as to what I am going to spend money on in a given month. So I KNOW a shooter can shoot open if he really ,really wants to.

[Sarge]

It's about trends in handguns and staying abreast of a changing landscape in shooting... ... One can easily imagine them in your glovebox or nightstand or in a concealed holster. Like other production guns.

Sounds like it would be a good division for IDPA.

This.

Wholeheartedly agree! Seems the biggest arguments being made in favor are that they are becoming common carry setups.

[motosapiens]

What's your point? How do you know what most people carry and how is that relevant? What is an operator and how does that pertain to Production Optics? What does practical mean to you? It used to be a just a substitute for the word combat, because International Combat Shooting Confederation was not politically correct. The meaning has changed somewhat in our sport. If you think the M&P Shield is a good carry gun, do it. If you want to have a division for it, go for it. I don't think you will get many supporters. I think you are in opposition because you want to be. If you don't like the idea, just say so. Stop bringing in specious arguments that have no bearing on the question.

I see, you're one of those guys that terms arguments irrelevant when they contravene your personal opinion.

I urge you to stop expecting others to do the work for you. Start promoting a production optics match in your own area (or even just offer to break out the scores separately), and see how many people show up, then use that as real evidence instead of all this speculative nonsense (my arguments included). Don't expect the rest of the organization to do your work for you.

[The Antichrome]

Want to address the guns that most people actually carry?

Then I guess we really need a J-frame & LCP Division.

There's a hell of lot more of those out there than red dotted production guns.

All these guns are already in Open and dont meet the criteria to be divided out into other Divisions, so they stay in Open.

It seems odd that people want to advance technology, but dont want frame mounted optics, because they would then need more advanced (race) holsters. They dont want advanced technology like compensators, or mag wells, because, gosh darn it, just because.

What they really want is a subsection of a Division. They want the pie sliced into smaller pieces. Marginalizing the Divisions does not make the field stronger.

Its like those guys that show up for autocross in a minivan.

You dont get a special trophy for a 10K because you wore cowboy boots instead of running shoes.

[Jadeslade]

There is a lot of bad information and nonsense arguments on here. Nobody knows what people actually carry, do they? No data. Doesn't matter anyway. If you want to shoot IDPA, go for it, it's there. If you want to wear lead boots, be my guest. Nobody has said we want to take your division away. Sorry you got the red licked off your candy. I think Production optics is a good idea. If you don't, fine. But don't go comparing it to Open, or J frames or whatever. That's a specious argument.

[bikerburgess]

But you brought PRACTICAL into the discussion

[kneelingatlas]

you got the red licked off your candy

What does this mean???

[motosapiens]

There is a lot of bad information and nonsense arguments on here. Nobody knows what people actually carry, do they? No data. Doesn't matter anyway. If you want to shoot IDPA, go for it, it's there. If you want to wear lead boots, be my guest. Nobody has said we want to take your division away. Sorry you got the red licked off your candy. I think Production optics is a good idea. If you don't, fine. But don't go comparing it to Open, or J frames or whatever. That's a specious argument.

Why don't you *prove* it is a good and viable idea instead of just complaining on the internet? What are you doing that is actually constructive towards a production optics division? It might be a good idea, but convincing people of that takes action, not internet posts.

If all you are doing is complaining on the internet instead of putting on matches, you can expect to be mocked (or at least not taken 100% seriously) by the people that *are* putting on matches.

Edited July 18, 2014 by motosapiens

[BritinUSA]

Without knowing how many Production-legal guns are out there with a slide mounted dot its hard to quantify how popular it could be. A more important consideration is this; How many people will eventually get one, and where can they compete with them? We can wait for the numbers to inncrease and run the risk that another sport will offer a division before us or we can create the division now and help to GROW/CREATE that market.

For an analogy consider this; A few years ago there was limited demand for tablet devices but Steve Jobs introduced the iPad anyway, and in the process CREATED a market for it.

Edited July 18, 2014 by BritinUSA

[kneelingatlas]

I don't know about you, but I'm not a stakeholder in USPSA, so if another sport (IDPA? SASS?) brings this wildly popular division to market, grows it's membership and crushes USPSA... I'll shoot those matches.

[BritinUSA]

Why don't you *prove* it is a good and viable idea instead of just complaining on the internet? What are you doing that is actually constructive towards a production optics division? It might be a good idea, but convincing people of that takes action, not internet posts.

If all you are doing is complaining on the internet instead of putting on matches, you can expect to be mocked (or at least not taken 100% seriously) by the people that *are* putting on matches.

I'm shooting one now. Just a couple of local matches so far, but I plan to shoot Area-3 with this setup and Nationals in September.

[motosapiens]

Without knowing how many Production-legal guns are out there with a slide mounted dot its hard to quantify how popular it could be.

Exactly my point. that is why I've been suggesting that people who care about it put on a match in their area focused on production optics, or add it locally as a provisional division and break out the scores separately. Sure it would take a little work, but there's no better way to prove it's viable. There's no reason whatsoever to have the whole organization expend effort and take a chance on something that it doesn't appear more than a handful of people really care about.

I personally have seen 2 production optics guns now (at the weeknight steel challenge match I run). If I saw 3 or 4, I might consider scoring that division separately, but if 6 people complain about it and none of them show up to shoot those guns, I will just ignore them.

[motosapiens]

Why don't you *prove* it is a good and viable idea instead of just complaining on the internet? What are you doing that is actually constructive towards a production optics division? It might be a good idea, but convincing people of that takes action, not internet posts.

If all you are doing is complaining on the internet instead of putting on matches, you can expect to be mocked (or at least not taken 100% seriously) by the people that *are* putting on matches.

I'm shooting one now. Just a couple of local matches so far, but I plan to shoot Area-3 with this setup and Nationals in September.

Outstanding! I'm glad to hear that. pester a few of your buddies to shoot theirs too. I look forward to meeting you at nationals.

[trgt]

I personally have seen 2 production optics guns now (at the weeknight steel challenge match I run). If I saw 3 or 4, I might consider scoring that division separately, but if 6 people complain about it and none of them show up to shoot those guns, I will just ignore them.

This also might be something where interest is different in different areas.

If you run a steel match where only two of 20 show up with optics, I can see your point of view. Same deal if your USPSA matches are mostly limited class and few production, it wouldn't look like there's a market - since you get no sense of demand for either optic or production - clearly not worth the effort in your area.

In our area, weekday fun steel is over 10 of 25 with optics (any both centerfire and rimfire), and USPSA matches are hitting 80-100 folks a match, where of that there are 25-30 production shooters a match. And our night match had over 40 shooters where all of them had weapons mounted lights for what were largely production rigs (with tac rails), and a few with light/laser combo. So my arguing 'for' probably based off what I see is a lot higher potential for this, than what you see from your area.

And that OK, one isn't better than the other, we each have to understand that our experience isn't the same as others.

Edited July 18, 2014 by trgt