Production optics

[bikerburgess]

I like either of these options:

Option A: 10rd minor/ 8 major, allowing any factory produced gun,(ie traditional production guns, single stack 1911's, and revolvers, no double stack 2011s). No major rule rewrites, whatever gun you bring in conforms to the division it would usually otherwise fit in if it didn't have an optic. (ie. production has to meet production rules, single stack has to meet SS rules, revo the revo rules etc). The only exception is an optic milled into the slide. You essentially smush production, revo, and SS together and allow optics on them.

That actually sounds really intriguing and maybe even workable, especially as a provisional division. Cast the net wide with minimal muss and fuss and see what/who shows up. Good idea.

I like the wider net idea. I think the strict PO promoters also liked it, but may not want to admit it, remember when IDPA talked about making a optics division and the PO crowd got real exited, that proposal included 2011s with small mag wells, as I recall the PO crowd was super exited about that proposal and said that IDPA was leading the way.

[eric4069]

I don't think anyone here is clamoring for compensators or magwells, let alone frame attached optics.

Agree.

Eric

[bikerburgess]

I don't think anyone here is clamoring for compensators or magwells, let alone frame attached optics.

Agree.

Eric

Well not Compensators anyway, I don't like the idea of specifying how the sight is mounted I would rather have a size limit (such as the box with part of one long side removed) and let that be the limit that way we don't prohibit someone from making something better that we all may benefit from in the end. I believe most are afraid if regular C-mores are allowed then that will end up being "THE" sight like it is in Open. a simple size limit enforced with the box as has been suggested would do that. Here is a picture of the production BOX with 1/2 of one long side removed as a example. I would also specify that the gun has to fit in the box with the barrel roughly parallel with the long axis to avoid the Modified type work arounds.

PS the opening is also shorter than the C-more so sliding it further back would not make it fit. also the opening could be made smaller if needed.

[zhunter]

If SS 1911's were allowed, would the start hammer down?

This is the issue. First shot DA on a long and/or partial target is a big difference

only for people who don't practice. As i mentioned earlier, the slight advantage on the first shot would be more than made up for by the lower capacity (if 15 rds was chosen, which it probably won't be), and the more challenging singlestack reloads.

I practice a LOT

Do you or have you shot much DA/SA? Or just read it on the Internet

I'd love 15 rounds, but I doubt it will happen, but it would take care of the SA only issue of SS's

[motosapiens]

Do you or have you shot much DA/SA? Or just read it on the Internet

I'd love 15 rounds, but I doubt it will happen, but it would take care of the SA only issue of SS's

I shot mostly production the last couple years, for uspsa and steel challenge, but I also dabble in limited and SS. My production gun is a fairly run of the mill cz 75b with a drop in cgw hammer/disconnector, and a 13lb mainspring, so nothing fancy. For me personally (A class) i find no difference in time/accuracy between sa and da out to 12-15 yards, and beyond that it takes about an extra .1 or .2 second at most for that first shot (20 yard plate rock, for example, or 25-30 yard open targets). That's about the same as I lose on each ss reload vs double-stack reloads.

For steel challenge (which I shoot every wed night for half the year), it appears to make no significant difference whether I start with hammer down or cocked and locked, so I start hammer down just for the practice. It's possible my experience is unusual and I'm a much better than average shot in DA, but based on what I've seen from other folks, I don't think that is the case. I think it just really doesn't matter that much.

[bikerburgess]

If SS 1911's were allowed, would the start hammer down?

This is the issue. First shot DA on a long and/or partial target is a big difference

only for people who don't practice. As i mentioned earlier, the slight advantage on the first shot would be more than made up for by the lower capacity (if 15 rds was chosen, which it probably won't be), and the more challenging singlestack reloads.

I practice a LOT

Do you or have you shot much DA/SA? Or just read it on the Internet

I'd love 15 rounds, but I doubt it will happen, but it would take care of the SA only issue of SS's

I have shot quite a bit of DA/SA as well as just DA I started with a Tanfoglio before they were cool and shot revolver for a while, I have also shot in Single Stack, Limited, L10 and Open, that one DA shot in my opinion is not a difference maker, for me personally I actually shoot a straight DA trigger slightly more accurately.

Edit to add, Currently B in Production, Limited, Open, and C in Revolver, Singles Stack, L10

Edited March 26, 2015 by bikerburgess

[zhunter]

Maybe I'm just not good at it

I do feel my DA is just not as accurate

[eric4069]

I don't think anyone here is clamoring for compensators or magwells, let alone frame attached optics.

Agree.

Eric

Well not Compensators anyway, I don't like the idea of specifying how the sight is mounted I would rather have a size limit (such as the box with part of one long side removed) and let that be the limit that way we don't prohibit someone from making something better that we all may benefit from in the end. I believe most are afraid if regular C-mores are allowed then that will end up being "THE" sight like it is in Open. a simple size limit enforced with the box as has been suggested would do that. Here is a picture of the production BOX with 1/2 of one long side removed as a example. I would also specify that the gun has to fit in the box with the barrel roughly parallel with the long axis to avoid the Modified type work arounds.

PS the opening is also shorter than the C-more so sliding it further back would not make it fit. also the opening could be made smaller if needed.

Please only slide ride optics in my opinion

eric

[bikerburgess]

I don't think anyone here is clamoring for compensators or magwells, let alone frame attached optics.

Agree.

Eric

Well not Compensators anyway, I don't like the idea of specifying how the sight is mounted I would rather have a size limit (such as the box with part of one long side removed) and let that be the limit that way we don't prohibit someone from making something better that we all may benefit from in the end. I believe most are afraid if regular C-mores are allowed then that will end up being "THE" sight like it is in Open. a simple size limit enforced with the box as has been suggested would do that. Here is a picture of the production BOX with 1/2 of one long side removed as a example. I would also specify that the gun has to fit in the box with the barrel roughly parallel with the long axis to avoid the Modified type work arounds.

PS the opening is also shorter than the C-more so sliding it further back would not make it fit. also the opening could be made smaller if needed.

Please only slide ride optics in my opinion

eric

Why?

[rvb]

Interesting the pro ops guys are already fearing the 1911. The #1 selling pistol in America, and it cant be in a stock type class, because why?

That's how I would do it. ... Buy an RO or a Trojan, buy mags, go shoot. Or whatever. It's more about shooting than equipment imho.

I do. If it's an off the shelf 1911 with little to no mods (no magwell, extended mag release/slide stop etc). Why not, it's a Production gun?

i'm not seriously proposing to merge prod and ss, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable idea.

Combining SS and Pro would be fine with me. Leave the divisions exactly as they are now with the exception of allowing 8 major in pro guns.

I've been promoting this idea for years. I usually get laughed at.

SS+Prod = some kind of 'factory' division.

SS+Prod+Dot = some kind of 'factory optics' division.

high cap (140s) and lots of mods - optics/comp = Limited (what we have now)

high cap (170s) and lots of mods + optics/comp = open (what we have now)

ditch L10.

4 divisions. oh, and revo.

merging SS and prod would be easy, basically the two rulesets as they are could still apply to each type of pistol. 8maj/10min for everyone. pick a holster location.

I know that's not where the BoD is going, but if they do adopt this new optics division and don't want to water the divisions down to much, it's an idea....

-rvb

Edited March 26, 2015 by rvb

[bikerburgess]

^^^^^ unfortunately the above makes too much sense to ever happen.

[zhunter]

^^^^^ unfortunately the above makes too much sense to ever happen.

Yes it does

But I'm still a "production optics" guy as laid out in the original proposal

[bikerburgess]

I just looked at my clubs results for the last 8 months (since we went to Practiscore) and every month the overall Production winner beat the overall SS winner also the 1st B Production beat the 1st B SS and 1st C production beat 1st C SS so for those that think SS with optic would dominate over production with optics, are you seeing different results?

PS I didn't run the numbers for A and above individually because the numbers are too small in the upper classes so I just looked at overall winner, B and C classes because that is where the vast majority of the membership is classified.

[motosapiens]

I just looked at my clubs results for the last 8 months (since we went to Practiscore) and every month the overall Production winner beat the overall SS winner also the 1st B Production beat the 1st B SS and 1st C production beat 1st C SS so for those that think SS with optic would dominate over production with optics, are you seeing different results?

PS I didn't run the numbers for A and above individually because the numbers are too small in the upper classes so I just looked at overall winner, B and C classes because that is where the vast majority of the membership is classified.

mostly shooting SS major? I'm beginning to believe that 8 round major is a disadvantage at most matches (that aren't set up specifically to reward major and avoid punishing 8-round capacity).

OTOH, I thought that about our match last weekend, but the overall winner shot SS major, so maybe it's just a disadvantage for spodes like me that lost track of their trigger control and had to take make-up shots on steel.

[atbarr]

I don't think anyone here is clamoring for compensators or magwells, let alone frame attached optics.

Agree.

Eric

Well not Compensators anyway, I don't like the idea of specifying how the sight is mounted I would rather have a size limit (such as the box with part of one long side removed) and let that be the limit that way we don't prohibit someone from making something better that we all may benefit from in the end. I believe most are afraid if regular C-mores are allowed then that will end up being "THE" sight like it is in Open. a simple size limit enforced with the box as has been suggested would do that. Here is a picture of the production BOX with 1/2 of one long side removed as a example. I would also specify that the gun has to fit in the box with the barrel roughly parallel with the long axis to avoid the Modified type work arounds.

PS the opening is also shorter than the C-more so sliding it further back would not make it fit. also the opening could be made smaller if needed.

Please only slide ride optics in my opinion

eric

Why?

Wouldn't frame mounted optics, require a Race holster?

[MGMorden]

mostly shooting SS major? I'm beginning to believe that 8 round major is a disadvantage at most matches (that aren't set up specifically to reward major and avoid punishing 8-round capacity).

OTOH, I thought that about our match last weekend, but the overall winner shot SS major, so maybe it's just a disadvantage for spodes like me that lost track of their trigger control and had to take make-up shots on steel.

A lot of it probably depends on sample size. At my local club usually the single stack participation in a 50-60 shooter match is between 1 and 3 people. Production will be 15-20. It's hard to get reliable results on samples that small.

FWIW, it probably has far more to do with just being more practiced with one versus the other, but I personally seem to do a LOT better with my Production gun (M&P) versus my Single Stack gun.

[bikerburgess]

I don't think anyone here is clamoring for compensators or magwells, let alone frame attached optics.

Agree.

Eric

Well not Compensators anyway, I don't like the idea of specifying how the sight is mounted I would rather have a size limit (such as the box with part of one long side removed) and let that be the limit that way we don't prohibit someone from making something better that we all may benefit from in the end. I believe most are afraid if regular C-mores are allowed then that will end up being "THE" sight like it is in Open. a simple size limit enforced with the box as has been suggested would do that. Here is a picture of the production BOX with 1/2 of one long side removed as a example. I would also specify that the gun has to fit in the box with the barrel roughly parallel with the long axis to avoid the Modified type work arounds.

PS the opening is also shorter than the C-more so sliding it further back would not make it fit. also the opening could be made smaller if needed.

Please only slide ride optics in my opinion

eric

Why?

Wouldn't frame mounted optics, require a Race holster?

So have holster rules like production (must cover slide to 1/2 inch from ejection port) but if someone wants to develop a way to make a frame mounted sight work within the constraints and possibly improve the avaliable products that sounds like a good thing to me

[bigcalidave]

So many guns coming out direct from the manufacturer cut for a slide mount RDS. It has to happen eventually

[copecowboy22]

Interesting the pro ops guys are already fearing the 1911. The #1 selling pistol in America, and it cant be in a stock type class, because why?

That's how I would do it. ... Buy an RO or a Trojan, buy mags, go shoot. Or whatever. It's more about shooting than equipment imho.

I do. If it's an off the shelf 1911 with little to no mods (no magwell, extended mag release/slide stop etc). Why not, it's a Production gun?

i'm not seriously proposing to merge prod and ss, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable idea.

Combining SS and Pro would be fine with me. Leave the divisions exactly as they are now with the exception of allowing 8 major in pro guns.

I've been promoting this idea for years. I usually get laughed at.

SS+Prod = some kind of 'factory' division.

SS+Prod+Dot = some kind of 'factory optics' division.

high cap (140s) and lots of mods - optics/comp = Limited (what we have now)

high cap (170s) and lots of mods + optics/comp = open (what we have now)

ditch L10.

4 divisions. oh, and revo.

merging SS and prod would be easy, basically the two rulesets as they are could still apply to each type of pistol. 8maj/10min for everyone. pick a holster location.

I know that's not where the BoD is going, but if they do adopt this new optics division and don't want to water the divisions down to much, it's an idea....

-rvb

I like this the most of anything proposed. KISS

[motosapiens]

mostly shooting SS major? I'm beginning to believe that 8 round major is a disadvantage at most matches (that aren't set up specifically to reward major and avoid punishing 8-round capacity).

OTOH, I thought that about our match last weekend, but the overall winner shot SS major, so maybe it's just a disadvantage for spodes like me that lost track of their trigger control and had to take make-up shots on steel.

A lot of it probably depends on sample size. At my local club usually the single stack participation in a 50-60 shooter match is between 1 and 3 people. Production will be 15-20. It's hard to get reliable results on samples that small.

FWIW, it probably has far more to do with just being more practiced with one versus the other, but I personally seem to do a LOT better with my Production gun (M&P) versus my Single Stack gun.

Good points. It may be enlightening to consider the results of major matches like battle in the bluegrass, which has LOTS of ss and production competitors.

[bikerburgess]

^^That's a great data source.

and shows them to be pretty equal

2013 Overall production 100% SS 90 % B Pro 82% B SS 77% C Pro 69% C SS 72% ( places 2-7 separated by 5% 3 Pro 3 SS)

2012 Overall Production 94% SS 100% B Pro 83% B SS 79% C Pro 75% C SS 71% ( places 2-7 separated by 5% 2 Pro 4 SS)

[BritinUSA]

If you merge existing divisions there is a likelihood that you will annoy a percentage of those that participate in those divisions. An entirely new division is unlikely to drive people away but changing existing divisions or structure might do so.

As I mentioned earlier, 1911/2011 type guns probably account for at least 50% of the guns used in USPSA, I think we need more diversity in the equipment choices and a Prod/Optics division based on the existing Production gun list would allow for that. Although not relevant to USPSA matches, this is most likely the direction that IPSC will go if they vote to try this division in 2017.

[zhunter]

I don't think anyone here is clamoring for compensators or magwells, let alone frame attached optics.

Agree.Eric

Well not Compensators anyway, I don't like the idea of specifying how the sight is mounted I would rather have a size limit (such as the box with part of one long side removed) and let that be the limit that way we don't prohibit someone from making something better that we all may benefit from in the end. I believe most are afraid if regular C-mores are allowed then that will end up being "THE" sight like it is in Open. a simple size limit enforced with the box as has been suggested would do that. Here is a picture of the production BOX with 1/2 of one long side removed as a example. I would also specify that the gun has to fit in the box with the barrel roughly parallel with the long axis to avoid the Modified type work arounds. PS the opening is also shorter than the C-more so sliding it further back would not make it fit. also the opening could be made smaller if needed.

Please only slide ride optics in my opinioneric

Why?

Wouldn't frame mounted optics, require a Race holster?

Correct, the original intent was current production holsters, slide mounted optics keep with this intent.

[wtturn]

I'm opposed to anything that will dilute the divisions further and decrease the pool of competition.

We could get rid of L10, that would help a little

Absolutely in favor.

[RJH]

Briton, how does not allowing the #1 pistol in America help grow the sport? Seems like fuzzy math to me. Mosher's idea is the most inclusive and in my opinion the best new optic division idea I have heard by far. If the idea is to grow the sport and not a "You were the best at being you in Purse Carry Optics today" ribbon, then inclusiveness is what we should aim for.

Also how does not allowing a model of gun (1911), increase diversity? Are you the new judge of diversity?

Edited March 26, 2015 by RJH