Carry optics sub forum

[zhunter]

I still like the idea of going to 15 rds like IPSC and I think Production should do the same.

What does 15 rounds do that 10 rounds doesn't do when we have 8 round arrays?

Slide lock reload after the second array.

Plus you might occasionally shoot a match where every stage isn't made up of eight round arrays.

I'm happy with 10, but IF you are going to increase it, please go to 16

[Bigbadaboom]

I like the idea of CO. I don't care that there is a weight limit. I don't care if there's a capacity limit. I shoot this sport by the rules established and enjoy it. I'm sticking with Production because I like open sights and I'm good at it.

The issue I have here is the that there are people on this forum, which I enjoyed for years because of the civility, that suggest USPSA should not support American firearms manufacturers and the USPSA President should be voted out because they want to shoot a gun that is imported.

I started shooting USPSA/IPSC in 1999 and shot every match I could get to until the Florida State Championship in 2008 when I made a change in occupations and had to stop competing. When I was shooting, the big sponsors and the ones that provided the big prizes for the tables where S&W, Glock, STI and Springfield. I don't remember seeing CZ provide anything. S&W, Glock, STI and Springfield Armory have gone above and beyond to support the sport and, yes, I understand they did it for marketing and it helped sell their products but they where there. They had our backs supporting the 2004 Sunset of the 1994 ASW ban. They've lobbied and paid attorneys to fight the anti-gun lobby in order to preserve our 2A rights. We have a relationship with American based manufacturers and that relationship is separating. I applaud Phil for working to reestablish it. We're losing sponsorship and CZ sure as hell isn't stepping in and taking up the slack. In 2014 the top gold firearm sponsors where Sig, Glock and Springfield. CZ was bronze and didn't even sponsor a stage. Go back and look at the companies that have supported us throughout the years and see who's been there and see who hasn't.

I don't care what kind of gun you shoot or in what direction you feel CO should go but you really shouldn't crap where you eat, and by slamming Phil for trying to strengthen USPSA's relationship with those who have supported us for so long you're doing just that. I, personally, believe that utilizing one division out of seven to help strengthen a strained bind is good politics and that's the presidents job.

BTW, It's the Indian, not the bow & arrow. Also, I'm back along with Jeff Degracia. My first classifier after 7 years away from the sport came in at 89.8260% so I'm back with a vengeance and I plan on winning out over many CZ's with my Made in America S&W M&P Pro (28.8 oz's).

Edited August 29, 2015 by Bigbadaboom

[pmt]

The issue I have here is the that there are people on this forum, which I enjoyed for years because of the civility, that suggest USPSA should not support American firearms manufacturers and the USPSA President should be voted out because they want to shoot a gun that is imported.

We have a relationship with American based manufacturers and that relationship is separating. I applaud Phil for working to reestablish it. We're losing sponsorship and CZ sure as hell isn't stepping in and taking up the slack.

I don't care what kind of gun you shoot or in what direction you feel CO should go but you really shouldn't crap where you eat, and by slamming Phil for trying to strengthen USPSA's relationship with those who have supported us for so long you're doing just that. I, personally, believe that utilizing one division out of seven to help strengthen a strained bind is good politics and that's the presidents job.

BTW, It's the Indian, not the bow & arrow. Also, I'm back along with Jeff Degracia. My first classifier after 7 years away from the sport came in at 89.8260% so I'm back with a vengeance and I plan on winning out over many CZ's with my Made in America S&W M&P Pro (28.8 oz's).

People wanted to shoot guns that were already on the Production list, whether imported or not.

Maybe you missed all the advertising:

CZ-USA PRODUCTION NATIONALS

August 4-9, 2015 / PASA Park, Barry, Illinois

According to Phil, the plastic gun makers threatened to withdraw support from USPSA because they said their products would not be competitive. The manufacturers think it's the arrow, not the Indian - Phil sold out to strengthen his own ties.

From Phil's FB post of July 27

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.

[Bigbadaboom]

The issue I have here is the that there are people on this forum, which I enjoyed for years because of the civility, that suggest USPSA should not support American firearms manufacturers and the USPSA President should be voted out because they want to shoot a gun that is imported.

We have a relationship with American based manufacturers and that relationship is separating. I applaud Phil for working to reestablish it. We're losing sponsorship and CZ sure as hell isn't stepping in and taking up the slack.

I don't care what kind of gun you shoot or in what direction you feel CO should go but you really shouldn't crap where you eat, and by slamming Phil for trying to strengthen USPSA's relationship with those who have supported us for so long you're doing just that. I, personally, believe that utilizing one division out of seven to help strengthen a strained bind is good politics and that's the presidents job.

BTW, It's the Indian, not the bow & arrow. Also, I'm back along with Jeff Degracia. My first classifier after 7 years away from the sport came in at 89.8260% so I'm back with a vengeance and I plan on winning out over many CZ's with my Made in America S&W M&P Pro (28.8 oz's).

People wanted to shoot guns that were already on the Production list, whether imported or not.

Maybe you missed all the advertising:

CZ-USA PRODUCTION NATIONALS

August 4-9, 2015 / PASA Park, Barry, Illinois

According to Phil, the plastic gun makers threatened to withdraw support from USPSA because they said their products would not be competitive. The manufacturers think it's the arrow, not the Indian - Phil sold out to strengthen his own ties.

From Phil's FB post of July 27

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.

I didn't miss anything, the manufacturers stated that they have a concern about a "perception" that their guns weren't being competitive (Same word Phil used) . I guess y'all missed that one word, huh? The manufacturers stated that there is a "perception", they didn't say they believed their guns couldn't compete. A perception would be brought about by the shooters and waaaayyyy too many shooters believe it's the bow & arrow. I did read the FB posts. I also know about the "CZ Production Nationals". My question is, where have they been? Answer; in the background while the American based manufacturers where supporting us for many years. I'm stating that CZ alone isn't going to take up the slack left by all those manufacturers pulling out.

Also, the statement

"People wanted to shoot guns that were already on the Production list, whether imported or not."

is subterfuge. I read this entire thread prior to posting and I didn't read where a single person was upset about not being able to shoot their Beretta or their Taurus or their Ruger etc. etc.. Everyone complaining about weight limits that I see on here, FB and other forums are CZ shooters.

I'm saying "Let our Pres. try to reestablish relations with these important supporters" and I'm say that anyone who would want to vote the Pres. out because his efforts to salvage those relations don't line up with them being able to shoot their favorite gun in one out of seven divisions or because they believe he "sold out the members in order to strengthen his own ties" doesn't understand how diplomacy works and should rethink things from outside their own bubble. Those "ties" are what he is using to help the members keep important sponsorship's.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Bigbadaboom

[zhunter]

Daniel

CZ (especially CZ-USA and CZ Custom) has been innovative and supporting shooters needs with guns for competition, innovation for competition, and customizing for competition.

The big box companies have really sold you/us guns off the shelf and left you to get them competition ready on your own via 3rd partys. So I think it is is little high and mighty of you to say the big box companies are the be all end all for USPSA

[3djedi]

Daniel

CZ (especially CZ-USA and CZ Custom) has been innovative and supporting shooters needs with guns for competition, innovation for competition, and customizing for competition.

The big box companies have really sold you/us guns off the shelf and left you to get them competition ready on your own via 3rd partys. So I think it is is little high and mighty of you to say the big box companies are the be all end all for USPSA

But wasn't that the original intent of production? Guns that you would buy off the shelf?

Now we have race guns that are pretty much limited guns without a magwell and a 10 round limit. Specifically the stock 2 with long dust cover and bull barrel. I think it weighs more than my sti limited gun!

MFCEO said these guns should of never been allowed in production but the cats out of the bag now.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[Bigbadaboom]

Daniel

CZ (especially CZ-USA and CZ Custom) has been innovative and supporting shooters needs with guns for competition, innovation for competition, and customizing for competition.

The big box companies have really sold you/us guns off the shelf and left you to get them competition ready on your own via 3rd partys. So I think it is is little high and mighty of you to say the big box companies are the be all end all for USPSA

And cost? I'm finishing up a limited gun for Jeff right now (waiting for the 5.5 inch KKM barrel) based off of a PC C.O.R.E. that he'll be in for under $1500.00, go buy a Accu Shadow or a custom shop CTS limited gun for less.

So, what you are saying is that CZ will fill the prize tables and throw $$$$ in for a gold sponsorship at all the larger matches and fill the spots and make up the funding lost by 3 or 4 other, large sponsors, pulling out?

There tends to be a lot of CZ tunnel vision going on. I'm not "a little high and mighty", I'm a realist and I'm concerned about what is best for the sport and it's members and 3 or 4 trumps 1 every day of the week.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Bigbadaboom

[pmt]

The issue I have here is the that there are people on this forum, which I enjoyed for years because of the civility, that suggest USPSA should not support American firearms manufacturers and the USPSA President should be voted out because they want to shoot a gun that is imported.

We have a relationship with American based manufacturers and that relationship is separating. I applaud Phil for working to reestablish it. We're losing sponsorship and CZ sure as hell isn't stepping in and taking up the slack.

I don't care what kind of gun you shoot or in what direction you feel CO should go but you really shouldn't crap where you eat, and by slamming Phil for trying to strengthen USPSA's relationship with those who have supported us for so long you're doing just that. I, personally, believe that utilizing one division out of seven to help strengthen a strained bind is good politics and that's the presidents job.

BTW, It's the Indian, not the bow & arrow. Also, I'm back along with Jeff Degracia. My first classifier after 7 years away from the sport came in at 89.8260% so I'm back with a vengeance and I plan on winning out over many CZ's with my Made in America S&W M&P Pro (28.8 oz's).

People wanted to shoot guns that were already on the Production list, whether imported or not.

Maybe you missed all the advertising:

CZ-USA PRODUCTION NATIONALS

August 4-9, 2015 / PASA Park, Barry, Illinois

According to Phil, the plastic gun makers threatened to withdraw support from USPSA because they said their products would not be competitive. The manufacturers think it's the arrow, not the Indian - Phil sold out to strengthen his own ties.

From Phil's FB post of July 27

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.

I didn't miss anything, the manufacturers stated that they have a concern about a "perception" that their guns weren't being competitive (Same word Phil used) . I guess y'all missed that one word, huh? The manufacturers stated that there is a "perception", they didn't say they believed their guns couldn't compete. A perception would be brought about by the shooters and waaaayyyy too many shooters believe it's the bow & arrow. I did read the FB posts. I also know about the "CZ Production Nationals". My question is, where have they been? Answer; in the background while the American based manufacturers where supporting us for many years. I'm stating that CZ alone isn't going to take up the slack left by all those manufacturers pulling out.

Also, the statement

"People wanted to shoot guns that were already on the Production list, whether imported or not."

is subterfuge. I read this entire thread prior to posting and I didn't read where a single person was upset about not being able to shoot their Beretta or their Taurus or their Ruger etc. etc.. Everyone complaining about weight limits that I see on here, FB and other forums are CZ shooters.

I'm saying "Let our Pres. try to reestablish relations with these important supporters" and I'm say that anyone who would want to vote the Pres. out because his efforts to salvage those relations don't line up with them being able to shoot their favorite gun in one out of seven divisions or because they believe he "sold out the members in order to strengthen his own ties" doesn't understand how diplomacy works and should rethink things from outside their own bubble. Those "ties" are what he is using to help the members keep important sponsorship's.

'Perception' is their (manufacturers) understanding of something based on input. Input being - market trends, social media posts, etc., the manufacturers understand that their products are not competitive.

Go back and read the initial proposal made to USPSA by Hyland last year. Everyone since that has wanted the Prod Div gun list.

According to a USPSA statement, CZ has been been supporting the sport for many years, and this year stepped up to be the major match sponsor.

No one is voting Phil out. He is not running for the position again. His choice.

[zhunter]

Daniel

CZ (especially CZ-USA and CZ Custom) has been innovative and supporting shooters needs with guns for competition, innovation for competition, and customizing for competition.

The big box companies have really sold you/us guns off the shelf and left you to get them competition ready on your own via 3rd partys. So I think it is is little high and mighty of you to say the big box companies are the be all end all for USPSA

And cost? I'm finishing up a limited gun for Jeff right now (waiting for the 5.5 inch KKM barrel) based off of a PC C.O.R.E. that he'll be in for under $1500.00, go buy a Accu Shadow or a custom shop CTS limited gun for less.

So, what you are saying is that CZ will fill the prize tables and throw $$$$ in for a gold sponsorship at all the larger matches and fill the spots and make up the funding lost by 3 or 4 other, large sponsors, pulling out?

There tends to be a lot of CZ tunnel vision going on. I'm not "a little high and mighty", I'm a realist and I'm concerned about what is best for the sport and it's members and 3 or 4 trumps 1 every day of the week.

IMG_20150825_225315488.jpg

ACCU Shadow is a luxury item choice, certainly not a necessity, so a very poor example. A $880 Shadow with a few springs and some "sand paper" is all you need, but go ahead an exaggerate.

[Bigbadaboom]

Daniel

CZ (especially CZ-USA and CZ Custom) has been innovative and supporting shooters needs with guns for competition, innovation for competition, and customizing for competition.

The big box companies have really sold you/us guns off the shelf and left you to get them competition ready on your own via 3rd partys. So I think it is is little high and mighty of you to say the big box companies are the be all end all for USPSA

And cost? I'm finishing up a limited gun for Jeff right now (waiting for the 5.5 inch KKM barrel) based off of a PC C.O.R.E. that he'll be in for under $1500.00, go buy a Accu Shadow or a custom shop CTS limited gun for less.

So, what you are saying is that CZ will fill the prize tables and throw $$$$ in for a gold sponsorship at all the larger matches and fill the spots and make up the funding lost by 3 or 4 other, large sponsors, pulling out?

There tends to be a lot of CZ tunnel vision going on. I'm not "a little high and mighty", I'm a realist and I'm concerned about what is best for the sport and it's members and 3 or 4 trumps 1 every day of the week.

IMG_20150825_225315488.jpg

ACCU Shadow is a luxury item choice, certainly not a necessity, so a very poor example. A $880 Shadow with a few springs and some "sand paper" is all you need, but go ahead an exaggerate.

And I have $570.00 in my M&P pro. I took my trigger down to 3.5 lbs. with the stock sear and parts and I beat the socks off of several CZ's the past couple of matches I've shot. But we digress because we're discussing sponsorship and utilizing CO in order to help maintain relations so I'll ask the question again; Do you believe we should allow 3-4 major sponsors to pull support without making every effort possible including letting their product stand ahead in 1 out of 7 divisions?

[BritinUSA]

CZ-USA are certainly starting to grow their participation/support of USPSA and the recent Production Nationals is another step in the right direction. Angus over at CZ-Custom is already marketing a CarryOptics ready gun (the P-09). While CZ have not been a large sponsor in the USA, they have been huge across the rest of the world in sponsoring IPSC competitions, so it's great that they are now bringing some focus over here too.

I think the P-09 could become a solid choice for many that choose to shoot in CarryOptics, for me I will stick with my Springfield Armory XDM, my DeltaPoint, my Powder River trigger and Springer Precision base pads.

[Bigbadaboom]

I'm not saying "throw the baby out with the bath water" and I don't dislike CZ. I'm saying that we need to retain relations and support these manufacturers because CZ isn't going to be able to support at the same levels as all those others combined.

[kernelofwisdom]

It seems like creating a division that pushes out certain arrows reinforces the notion that the arrow matters. I get wanting long time sponsors to remain interested participants, but on the other hand perhaps these companies should gets shooters (i.e., lure away Ben to a plastic brand) on board who will win the matches they want won.

Production Nationals it seems to me shows that you can ride plastic right to the top.

It was a Tanfoglio gun used to best the plastic (just barely), and if you can't beat EAA's marketing and product distribution you need to take a close look at your own operations.

Anyway, if somebody takes the P-09 to the top it all turns out to be for nothing anyway (in theory at least). Maybe rather than have an arbitrary weight limit that barely hits the perf of the alleged target (stop CZ/EAA), they just should go ahead and say Carry Optics guns are limited to offerings from companies that contribute a minimum of X dollars to USPSA matches. Put in the open and that's that.

Edited August 29, 2015 by kernelofwisdom

[zhunter]

And my CZ CO gun cost me $460, plus some springs and time.

Trigger at 5.5# DA, 2.6# SA

Shoot what you want, but I personally think that USPSA should cater to the members, not manufacturers.

[zhunter]

It seems like creating a division that pushes out certain arrows reinforces the notion that the arrow matters. I get wanting long time sponsors to remain interested participants, but on the other hand perhaps these companies should gets shooters (i.e., lure away Ben to a plastic brand) on board who will win the matches they want won.

Production Nationals it seems to me shows that you can ride plastic right to the top.

It was a Tanfoglio gun used to best the plastic (just barely), and if you can't beat EAA's marketing and product distribution you need to take a close look at your own operations.

Anyway, if somebody takes the P-09 to the top it all turns out to be for nothing anyway (in theory at least). Maybe rather than have an arbitrary weight limit that barely hits the perf of the alleged target (stop CZ/EAA), they just should go ahead and say Carry Optics guns are limited to offerings from companies that contribute a minimum of X dollars to USPSA matches. Put in the open and that's that.

Correct.

Put a gun in the hands of the best shooters and that gun wins.

Personally I think it's the lure of the SA trigger that is hurting the striker fired companies. I'll make a prediction, the X-Caliber becomes a player in Production and Production Optics games.

Edited August 29, 2015 by zhunter

[kernelofwisdom]

Yeah I've already bought a P09. I've been watching the thread on modding it.

I tend to agree (but I can see the other side) on making the production list as broad as possible, but if the idea is to keep out CZ/EAA due to sponsorship dollars then be honest about it and make it a dollars issue.

We've got glocks and plenty of S&W's in the house; I doubt CZ makes much of a dent in their sales but I don't know.

Anyway, the weight limit obviously isn't going to put a damper on using a CZ. I like the hammer based gun better than the others and from what you've posted the trigger will do nicely.

[CoffeedrinkerinNC]

I like the idea of CO. I don't care that there is a weight limit. I don't care if there's a capacity limit. I shoot this sport by the rules established and enjoy it. I'm sticking with Production because I like open sights and I'm good at it.

The issue I have here is the that there are people on this forum, which I enjoyed for years because of the civility, that suggest USPSA should not support American firearms manufacturers and the USPSA President should be voted out because they want to shoot a gun that is imported.

I started shooting USPSA/IPSC in 1999 and shot every match I could get to until the Florida State Championship in 2008 when I made a change in occupations and had to stop competing. When I was shooting, the big sponsors and the ones that provided the big prizes for the tables where S&W, Glock, STI and Springfield. I don't remember seeing CZ provide anything. S&W, Glock, STI and Springfield Armory have gone above and beyond to support the sport and, yes, I understand they did it for marketing and it helped sell their products but they where there. They had our backs supporting the 2004 Sunset of the 1994 ASW ban. They've lobbied and paid attorneys to fight the anti-gun lobby in order to preserve our 2A rights. We have a relationship with American based manufacturers and that relationship is separating. I applaud Phil for working to reestablish it. We're losing sponsorship and CZ sure as hell isn't stepping in and taking up the slack. In 2014 the top gold firearm sponsors where Sig, Glock and Springfield. CZ was bronze and didn't even sponsor a stage. Go back and look at the companies that have supported us throughout the years and see who's been there and see who hasn't.

I don't care what kind of gun you shoot or in what direction you feel CO should go but you really shouldn't crap where you eat, and by slamming Phil for trying to strengthen USPSA's relationship with those who have supported us for so long you're doing just that. I, personally, believe that utilizing one division out of seven to help strengthen a strained bind is good politics and that's the presidents job.

BTW, It's the Indian, not the bow & arrow. Also, I'm back along with Jeff Degracia. My first classifier after 7 years away from the sport came in at 89.8260% so I'm back with a vengeance and I plan on winning out over many CZ's with my Made in America S&W M&P Pro (28.8 oz's).

Did not S&W sell out the gun public? I seem to remember them supporting the AWB and the 10 Round Mag Limit.

[kmca]

If I'm not mistaken, S&W did agree with the AW ban, when it was owned by a huge conglomerate. They've been making a nice come back since they are now employee owned.

[Bigbadaboom]

Did not S&W sell out the gun public? I seem to remember them supporting the AWB and the 10 Round Mag Limit.

That was Ruger, not S&W.

[kmca]

Did not S&W sell out the gun public? I seem to remember them supporting the AWB and the 10 Round Mag Limit.

That was Ruger, not S&W.

I stand corrected

[BritinUSA]

If I'm not mistaken, S&W did agree with the AW ban, when it was owned by a huge conglomerate. They've been making a nice come back since they are now employee owned.

Correct, it was Tomkins PLC that bought up S&W. Tomkins was a British company that was all too happy to undermine the U.S. Constitution, probably payback for that nasty business in 1776.

[kernelofwisdom]

I do recall S&W trying to manuvuer into bed w the fed govt.

http://www.businessinsider.com/smith-and-wesson-almost-went-out-of-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1

[kmca]

Okay....now I'm confused

[Nik Habicht]

And my CZ CO gun cost me $460, plus some springs and time.

Trigger at 5.5# DA, 2.6# SA

Shoot what you want, but I personally think that USPSA should cater to the members, not manufacturers.

Of course one way to look at the situation is that USPSA is catering to the members, by trying to preserve those sponsorships.......

But when your mind's made up, it becomes harder to see other motivations......

[Nik Habicht]

I do recall S&W trying to manuvuer into bed w the fed govt.

http://www.businessinsider.com/smith-and-wesson-almost-went-out-of-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1

Not S&W so much as their corporate parents......

Who promptly lost a lot of value, and a lot of money when they sold the company, to it's current ownership......

Current ownership then immediately rolled back what Tompkins had agreed to......