zhunter Posted January 2, 2016 Author Share Posted January 2, 2016 I'd be more behind the idea of killing CO as it stands now and just allowing a slide mounted dot in L-10. Tac Sport, so CZ would still rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Weight limit was put in place by the 3 gun manufacturer's that lobbied for it and got it put in place.I don't think this is a correct statement.Where did the weight limit come from?Smith and Wesson, Glock and Springfield do not dominate production, CZ does, the 3 manufacturers lobbied USPSA for carry optics, only reason for a weight limit was to exclude other guns. There was no lobbying or conspiracy by the three gun makers you mentioned. I think for most of them the USPSA population is too small to care about much anyway. Strader proposed the weight limit as a way to get back to what he saw as the intent of Production division, where the guns used do look like more typical guns that you find behind the counter and would in fact use for carry or duty. He discusses that here on a Stoeger podcast https://youtu.be/57amGsXImQo I personally like the move simply because it doesn't lave us with an obvious best gun to get to be competitive in CO. There are now a lot of options that could be equally competitive. Smith & Wesson, Glock and Springfield did lobby for carry optic, that is why we now have that division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caspian guy Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I'd be more behind the idea of killing CO as it stands now and just allowing a slide mounted dot in L-10. Tac Sport, so CZ would still rule Umm... pretty sure that normal limited guns rule l-10 so that'd be STIs or other 1911 variants? starts sounding modified 10 divison to me but if thats what people wanted it would be ok I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Smith & Wesson, Glock and Springfield did lobby for carry optic, that is why we now have that division. And where is your evidence for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Smith & Wesson, Glock and Springfield did lobby for carry optic, that is why we now have that division.And where is your evidence for this? I believe it was the president of USPSA that put out a briefing on the adoption of carry optics, it was said the 3 went to USPSA to get carry optics as a division. This was posted on the various forums, it is not a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Smith & Wesson, Glock and Springfield did lobby for carry optic, that is why we now have that division.And where is your evidence for this? I believe it was the president of USPSA that put out a briefing on the adoption of carry optics, it was said the 3 went to USPSA to get carry optics as a division. This was posted on the various forums, it is not a secret. USPSA Seeking feedback, companies expressing their views of current USPSA trends, and the Pres and BoD responding is not the same as those companies coming to USPSA saying, "we want you to make this." It seems to me that members of this forum were the driving force behind the initial concept and that once the BoD saw the industry's movement towards carry guns with Optics, the board decided it was time for USPSA to make a place for this platform instead of having to play catch up later. I think this is the Pres and BoD reacting to the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Some USPSA members were also lobbying for a Production Optics division, me included. I am not privy to the behind the scenes discussions that were going on among the board members leading to the creation of this new division. If the division helps to attract new members or help to retain existing members then it can only be a good thing. I hope they leave everything as it is for this year at least, there has been very little time for members to get behind it, especially as it was introduced part way through the previous season and few people will switch platforms mid-year. I would have liked to have seen more promotion of the sport during the off-season (maybe there will be something in the next Front Sight). I suspect there will be some new CO eligible equipment at Shot Show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Last Sunday the monthly match sold out. 84 shooters. 3 in carry optics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToddKS Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Last Sunday the monthly match sold out. 84 shooters. 3 in carry optics. For fair comparison:How many in L10? How many in revolver? Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted January 3, 2016 Author Share Posted January 3, 2016 Last Sunday the monthly match sold out. 84 shooters. 3 in carry optics. There is still a lot of uncertainty in CO, namely what it is going to be going forward. I think a lot of people are waiting to see what happens with: Weight Limit Magazine capacity Eligibility in Level 2 and 3 matches I believe that if the weight limit is rescinded many will jump in right away as they already have the guns, IF the weight limit is kept at 35 oz. then those that want to shoot CO will tool up and play the game. I think many more will test the waters IF they don't have to buy a new gun to shoot the weight restricted division. With the 35 oz rule you will get fewer testing the waters so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhop Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Smith & Wesson, Glock and Springfield did lobby for carry optic, that is why we now have that division. And where is your evidence for this? Here all the evidence you are seeking. https://www.facebook.com/groups/31472669314/permalink/10153148827054315/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhop Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) USPSA Seeking feedback, companies expressing their views of current USPSA trends, and the Pres and BoD responding is not the same as those companies coming to USPSA saying, "we want you to make this." It seems to me that members of this forum were the driving force behind the initial concept and that once the BoD saw the industry's movement towards carry guns with Optics, the board decided it was time for USPSA to make a place for this platform instead of having to play catch up later. I think this is the Pres and BoD reacting to the environment. Phil took what little feedback the members have discussed on this forum and others and threw it out the window when they created carry optics, none of the members wanted a weight limit. He said in a post on Facebook that "urged the BOD that these manufacturers(S&W, Glock, Springfield) and Sig were very interested in this division, and would continue to sponsor because of it". This looks like pandering to specific manufacturers. Edited January 4, 2016 by mhop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Thanks for pointing that out. Edited January 4, 2016 by alma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BASE772 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I still don't understand people's argument about weight limit for Carry Optics. If you want to shoot a heavier gun just shoot Open Division. It's already there. Pretty sure that all the major gun manufactures make a pistol that will be compatible for Carry Optics. Single Stack has a weight limit and it's still going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I still don't understand people's argument about weight limit for Carry Optics. If you want to shoot a heavier gun just shoot Open Division. It's already there. Pretty sure that all the major gun manufactures make a pistol that will be compatible for Carry Optics. Single Stack has a weight limit and it's still going. Because the weight limit is excluding a certain manufacturer. If your product can't compete, make a division that has rules to exclude the manufacturer you can't compete with. Carry optics is just going to be cheap open, slide ride dot, no comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) And a whole lot of people who already have production legal guns can't try out this new division without buying a new gun. As Zhunter said, you want to open the flood gates and see who is really interested then you need to remove the rule which is keeping a whole bunch of us from shooting it because we're not going to buy a new gun to try this out .... and please let's not do the "go shoot open" argument since taking my CZ Shadow with an optic to shoot open is not in the same league with shooting an STI open gun ... Edited January 6, 2016 by Nimitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Florida State Championship 1 carry optics 7 L10 9 revolver I guess they will take 1st and last place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcs Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 And a whole lot of people who already have production legal guns can't try out this new division without buying a new gun. As Zhunter said, you want to open the flood gates and see who is really interested then you need to remove the rule which is keeping a whole bunch of us from shooting it because we're not going to buy a new gun to try this out .... and please let's not do the "go shoot open" argument since taking my CZ Shadow with an optic to shoot open is not in the same league with shooting an STI open gun ... Sorry, I don't buy there is a flood awaiting the opening of the weight limit gates. The Division is called "Carry Optics" how many people carry (concealed) 40-50 oz guns....not many. Many wanted this Division and didn't get exactly what they wanted. I am not going to carry a CZ SP01 Accu Shadow on my hip all day, not to mention investing $1700 in a carry gun.. If you are, your not the median. (Weight Issue) Round Count? Look up actual shootings....if you need more than 2 rounds, you probably should have kept your gun in the holster and retreated to a safer location. Carry Optics (gun wise) is like Production--Cheap for the average competitor. The optic is more than half the cost of a new gun. If you can't afford to buy a $500 gun, then stay on the porch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Ics, For 20 years I carry a commander or full sized 1911 in .45. Recently went to a G26. Why would anyone want an optic on a carry gun? Do you think sights will even be used in a self defense shooting situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Because the weight limit is excluding a certain manufacturer. What manufacturer is being excluded ? Both Tanfoglio and CZ make guns that meet the requirements of Carry Optics, eg. CZCustom has been selling them almost from day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BASE772 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 OK, how about us get back to the discussion. So from what I understand some think that a certain manufacturer was left out but in reality they have a fully compatible pistol? And some don't think they should have to spend the money on a new gun for CO but think others should have to spend a ton of money just to shoot with a red dot? Not a slam on anyone. Just trying to see both sides. I'm a Single Stack shooter but plan on a CO gun. I have shot Open too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 IMO get rid of the weight limit, keep everything else the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) OK, how about us get back to the discussion. So from what I understand some think that a certain manufacturer was left out but in reality they have a fully compatible pistol? And some don't think they should have to spend the money on a new gun for CO but think others should have to spend a ton of money just to shoot with a red dot? Not a slam on anyone. Just trying to see both sides. I'm a Single Stack shooter but plan on a CO gun. I have shot Open too. BASE My CO gun cost $450 (CZ P-09) and the dot was about $500 (they can be had for less). I shot "PO" before it was a provisional division in both wildcat local matches and in Open shooting minor with 10 rounds in the mag. The early shooting was with a CZ Shadow and Optic, the "CO" shooting has been with a CO legal gun, the P-09. Both guns are very good, both have different strengths. The lighter weight gun draws and transitions better, but heavier gun is better for splits and longer/tighter shots. In my opinion, it is a wash. I think the Shadow might win out because of the trigger. I have my P-09's trigger very light, but no one has yet designed a Disco for the P-09 that will lesson the SA pre-travel. Can it be done? Yes, absolutely, but it has to be monetarily worth it to the gun parts gurus and as of now it is not. IMO get rid of the weight limit, keep everything else the same.I agree Edited January 6, 2016 by zhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 If you notice a bunch of post that are no longer visible that was my work. We don't engage in that sort of back and forth bickering here. If anyone is interested the rules can be found here .Lets keep this on topic.Larry DrakeThe Moderating Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trgt Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 BASEMy CO gun cost $450 (CZ P-09) and the dot was about $500 (they can be had for less). I shot "PO" before it was a provisional division in both wildcat local matches and in Open shooting minor with 10 rounds in the mag. The early shooting was with a CZ Shadow and Optic, the "CO" shooting has been with a CO legal gun, the P-09. Both guns are very good, both have different strengths. The lighter weight gun draws and transitions better, but heavier gun is better for splits and longer/tighter shots. In my opinion, it is a wash. I think the Shadow might win out because of the trigger. I have my P-09's trigger very light, but no one has yet designed a Disco for the P-09 that will lesson the SA pre-travel. Can it be done? Yes, absolutely, but it has to be monetarily worth it to the gun parts gurus and as of now it is not. +2 on almost all of this, exact same for me both setups as well, LOL. (currently P09 with RTS2 for CO) Only thing to add is I think reloads easier with the shadow (mag, magwell bevel ?); and when i shot the optic shadow open, I used big sticks just so I wouldn't give up so much more against the real open guns besides minor scoring, I'm slow enough as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now