zhunter Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 FYI for our genius BoD members, a Glock MOS is more expensive than a CZ SP-01 Just saying. Weight limits are dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 So which dot size did you go with? 3.5 MOA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 FYI for our genius BoD members, a Glock MOS is more expensive than a CZ SP-01 Just saying. Weight limits are dumb I knew it was a conspiracy to get us to buy another expensive gun .... I wish I could say I'm surprised .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 I signed up in Carry Optics division at a Level I match in Colorado today, using the same equipment I've been shooting for a year now; XDM 5.25 and DeltaPoint all other Production Rules applied. Screen Shot 2015-07-25 at 6.29.58 PM.png Link to PractiScore Results So if I am reading the results correctly you were 1 out of 79 shooters that shot WO. And you best several Open Masters. Why exactly do you just not shoot open? Your example proves to me WO is not needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmt Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I signed up in Carry Optics division at a Level I match in Colorado today, using the same equipment I've been shooting for a year now; XDM 5.25 and DeltaPoint all other Production Rules applied. Screen Shot 2015-07-25 at 6.29.58 PM.png Link to PractiScore Results So if I am reading the results correctly you were 1 out of 79 shooters that shot WO.And you best several Open Masters. Why exactly do you just not shoot open? Your example proves to me WO is not needed Actually his example proves that Open is not needed. Why spend $4k on a race blaster when you can do just as well or better with a sub $1k plastic fantastic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I signed up in Carry Optics division at a Level I match in Colorado today, using the same equipment I've been shooting for a year now; XDM 5.25 and DeltaPoint all other Production Rules applied. Screen Shot 2015-07-25 at 6.29.58 PM.png Link to PractiScore Results So if I am reading the results correctly you were 1 out of 79 shooters that shot WO.And you best several Open Masters. Why exactly do you just not shoot open? Your example proves to me WO is not needed Actually his example proves that Open is not needed. Why spend $4k on a race blaster when you can do just as well or better with a sub $1k plastic fantastic? Exactly! Let's get back to the roots of IPSC and ban Open division so that all teh dot lovers out there will either have to shoot Carry Optics or learn to shoot irons in Production .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 So if I am reading the results correctly you were 1 out of 79 shooters that shot WO. And you best several Open Masters. Why exactly do you just not shoot open? Your example proves to me WO is not needed I am not sure it is prudent to make a determination of performance based upon a single data-point. I have been shooting CarryOptics for over a year, my performance has changed over that period of time. As my scores are a reflection of the HHF set by other competitors on each stage the overall percentage is a combination of their scores and mine. Therefore it is not a predictive indicator of the performance of others with similar equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Blah blah blah. Fine take open away and call it WO IF that makes you feel better. Makes no difference to me as long as there is only one optics division. As to to combined results this and comparisons blah blah that the fact remains that gun has shown its adequate in open Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron169 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Blah blah blah. Fine take open away and call it WO IF that makes you feel better. Makes no difference to me as long as there is only one optics division. As to to combined results this and comparisons blah blah that the fact remains that gun has shown its adequate in open By that logic Eric G and Ben Stoegers gun would have been adequate in limited. Think they both would have won standard at world shoot s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Blah blah blah. Fine take open away and call it WO IF that makes you feel better. I have never advocated for the removal of Open Division. Makes no difference to me as long as there is only one optics division. We have numerous iron-sighted divisions, why should we have only one optics division ? As to to combined results this and comparisons blah blah that the fact remains that gun has shown its adequate in open As I explained before, basing that judgement on a single match result is highly questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 As I explained before, basing that judgement on a single match result is highly questionable. And to prove my point, here are the combined results of a match I shot on Sunday: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) As I explained before, basing that judgement on a single match result is highly questionable.And to prove my point, here are the combined results of a match I shot on Sunday:Screen Shot 2015-07-27 at 12.52.34 PM.png Now that's my kind of match small ! Or is that a top ten finish out of a much larger group?All unclassed? Edited July 27, 2015 by Sarge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Thats top 10, they all show as unclassified when they publish the combined results, not sure what software they use to do that for this match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 From Phil Strader: Carry Optics has definitely created some buzz among our membership. As is the norm with social media, there have been some inconsistencies and misinterpretations of the "why's" surrounding this new provisional division.As was pointed out publicly, " talked with S&W, Glock, and Springfield, and that they were not going to continue to support us at the same levels, largely due to the perception that their guns were no longer competitive in Production." I have indeed talked with a number of representatives of these companies, and there are concerns that Production has become a division that cannot remain realistically competitive without a heavier pistol. As the trends have undoubtedly been favoring the heavy, metal framed pistols (some refer to them as Limited Minor pistols), their concerns are valid. With that said, some of these manufacturers have mentioned lessening their support of USPSA (not just at Nationals). Do I think that we would loose them completely? Probably not. Do I see a validity in their argument? Yes.The spirit of Production was to allow a place for entry-level shooters to be competitive without having to spend Limited/Open equipment prices. Production Division was intended to comprise of carry pistols with carry equipment on a somewhat level playing field. The intent was sound, but many have argued that the division was not restrictive enough. My greatest fear is that the majority of Production Division will become exclusive to only a handful of manufacturers.Another public statement was that I "urged the BOD that these manufacturers and Sig were very interested in this division, and would continue to sponsor because of it." The facts are, I have spoken to a number of manufacturers and other companies, and most are very interested in the viability of this division. It is my OPINION that many of them would support USPSA in it's effort to get this division off the ground, but I can't speak for them with regards to their sponsorship. I would never mention companies or contents of private conversations on a public forum, BUT I believe that many of them will stand behind our efforts.Carry Optics is intended to address the growing trend in lightweight carry pistols with slide-mounted optics. The weight limit is there to maintain the spirit of the division and to ensure a relatively level playing field. Nearly every company that currently offers a Production pistol makes additional models that would meet the Carry Optics criteria AND remain competitive.This division was not only intended for the hard-core Production shooter who wishes to give up on iron sights and fit an optic to their slide (not that I personally think there are many of these people out there)...it was also approved to give some of our competitors a place to go who need to transition to a red-dot sight but don't have the money to spend on competitive Open equipment.Historically, USPSA has mandated division specifications, then challenged industry to keep up and build a better toaster. We are now presented with a unique opportunity to respond to an industry trend that could be the new norm for CARRY pistols.I would ask that our membership give this division a chance as it stands. If the BOD receives constructive feedback from its members and helpful input from the industry, it will be able to make informed and thoughtful decisions about the direction Carry Optics should go.Hope to see you on the range! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Proper name is Plastic Production Optics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PKT1106 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 So, Phil basically threw off free-market dynamics and created a fascist division to protect 3 manufacturers who are losing market share anyway. Colt is bankrupt because it relied on a name and never innovated. Now we have a protected class of guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpredictable Posted July 27, 2015 Author Share Posted July 27, 2015 Smith and Springfield already have their own divisions. This must be for glock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 CZ and Tanfoglio both make guns that would be eligible for Carry Optics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterpuc Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I had an opportunity to shoot a M&P CORE pistol this weekend. I was surprised at how easy it was to follow the dot on the mounted DeltaPoint. It was fun to shoot. It has me thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clawson2011 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Who is the lawyer who felt it necessary to re write production rules to make Production optics? Why is it a requirement to change any rule from production other than to add a line that says in "Production optics all production rules apply, all guns must be on approved production list and red dot sight must be SLIDE mounted. Oh yeah and add an 1-3 ounces to the weight to cover adapter and sight." Wow that was so difficult. Edited July 28, 2015 by clawson2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Who is the lawyer who felt it necessary to re write production rules to make Production optics? Why is it a requirement to change any rule from production other than to add a line that says in "Production optics all production rules apply, all guns must be on approved production list and red dot sight must be frame mounted. Oh yeah and add an 1-3 ounces to the weight to cover adapter and sight." Wow that was so difficult. Slide mounted optics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clawson2011 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Who is the lawyer who felt it necessary to re write production rules to make Production optics? Why is it a requirement to change any rule from production other than to add a line that says in "Production optics all production rules apply, all guns must be on approved production list and red dot sight must be frame mounted. Oh yeah and add an 1-3 ounces to the weight to cover adapter and sight." Wow that was so difficult. Slide mounted optics Sorry to much Tequila. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Other than just being childish calling it WO seems to assume that someone can't afford to shoot Open when perhaps they just have no interest in it. Lots of hate for this provisional division in here but thankfully it's moving forward despite the naysayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Who is the lawyer who felt it necessary to re write production rules to make Production optics? Why is it a requirement to change any rule from production other than to add a line that says in "Production optics all production rules apply, all guns must be on approved production list and red dot sight must be SLIDE mounted. Oh yeah and add an 1-3 ounces to the weight to cover adapter and sight." Wow that was so difficult. That was the proposal, but the President sold us out on implied future sponsorship. The President and BoD sold us out. They were not representing the wishes of the members who REALLY do pay the bills. Weight limits are dumb, this has created more of a nightmare. By simply saying, ok all production legal guns are allowed, just add a dot to the slide and we would have been good to go. Everyone would have already known the rules. We could have been up and running at Level 1's last weekend. This group has proven they can screw anything up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Other than just being childish calling it WO seems to assume that someone can't afford to shoot Open when perhaps they just have no interest in it. Lots of hate for this provisional division in here but thankfully it's moving forward despite the naysayers. Alma, I kinda laugh when they say I can't afford an Open gun! I'm not exactly driving a school bus and taking out loans for my toys 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