Carry optics sub forum

[zhunter]

I'm sorry, but the "ban states" argument doesn't fly. Everyone shooting a match in a ban state is shooting under the same rules, why punish everyone else? I don't care if it's 10 or 15, but please leave the ban state argument out of it!

[Adam B]

I'm sorry, but the "ban states" argument doesn't fly. Everyone shooting a match in a ban state is shooting under the same rules, why punish everyone else? I don't care if it's 10 or 15, but please leave the ban state argument out of it!

I agree, and last time I checked every open and limited shooter in California wasn't shooting 10 rounds only in their mags.

[kmca]

Some banned states allow grandfathered magazines. I don't recall seeing any Open 10 shooters either, and the 10 round limit could be one of the reasons why the production division is growing the most.

[Beastly]

I just like the added challenge of planning and executing reloads for 10 rounds. It is a practical shooting skill and further differentiates from Limited.

[Gooldylocks]

I'm sorry, but the "ban states" argument doesn't fly. Everyone shooting a match in a ban state is shooting under the same rules, why punish everyone else? I don't care if it's 10 or 15, but please leave the ban state argument out of it!

Lots of those open and limited shooters were shooting before the ban happened, and were able to grandfather in every mag that they owned.

What about young people? I would never be able to get any, since in 99 when California adopted their ban I was the ripe old age of 6, and last time I checked they don't sell guns to 6 year olds.

It also changes what guns are going to be the dominant platform in those states I would think. Neither the XDm or P09 like I was talking about existed before the ban, therefore you could not get real capacity magazines for them either way, to my understanding.

Also at majors, where is the competitive equity? If you roll up with your 10 round P09 because its illegal for you to own anything other than that and I have 19 in my mags, seems like that wouldn't be very fair... you could be the best CO shooter in California but 10 more rounds is kind of a big deal.

I just also look at it from a young person's perspective, and how difficult it is to break into this sport even without mag restrictions, since I am one. Think of the children!

[3djedi]

Why should the rest of the country have to live under the restrictions of your communist state? You live in the communist state so live by their rules. If you compete outside your communist state maybe you could borrow some magazines from a non communist. Or buy some to use and sell them when you are done.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Edited August 16, 2015 by 3djedi

[zhunter]

Why should the rest of the country have to live under the restrictions of your communist state? You live in the communist state so live by their rules. If you compete outside your communist state maybe you could borrow some magazines from a non communist. Or buy some to use and sell them when you are done.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

If you are traveling for majors I'm sure you're dedicaticated and smart enough to find mags for the match. The cost of the mags is a drop in the bucket of total match cost.

It's unfair for the rest to suffer

[Nik Habicht]

I'm sorry, but the "ban states" argument doesn't fly. Everyone shooting a match in a ban state is shooting under the same rules, why punish everyone else? I don't care if it's 10 or 15, but please leave the ban state argument out of it!

Sorry -- can't quite go there.

If you consider the IPSC experiment with "whatever the gun holds" for production -- it led to virtually everyone jumping from gun to gun as capacities increased. If we want to include a variety of guns, then some sort of arbitrary limit will be necessary.

IPSC went with 15 for production; we have historically had ten. There one clear benefit to leaving the limit at ten means that everyone in the country can play in the division, competing in local matches, area matches, and Nationals -- at an unchanged capacity regardless of state law.

To those folks suggesting that it's all to easy to buy, borrow, or steal mags to shoot a match out of state -- that's a fine argument, but competitors will actually need to practice with the added capacity. Why? So they're not running the well-established program of move and reload.....

How do you tell a production shooter competing in Limited? Fires 4-8 rounds, drops 20 round big stick on ground and reloads with another.....

Honestly -- once we decide there's a limit, there's simply not a huge difference between 10 and 15, and we've got 15 years of growth in production with the ten round limit to suggest that's the right way. I'm assuming here that you want CO to take off and become successful across the country?

[zhunter]

Nik

As I've stated many times, 15, 10, I don't care. I've ALWAYS said lower capacity rewards those that dry fire more? 15 is meaningless as long as we have 8 shot arrays, now 16 is a different matter.

But my issue is with a few states with restrictive laws deciding what everyone else has to do. So yeah, I have a huge problem with that argument, matter of fact I think it's silly (I used silly instead of what really comes to mind).

IPSC will bring this division in starting 2017 with their new rule book. It seems "silly" to not try to standardize when we are both starting new, and you know they will go go 15 rounds.

Come on, let's be smart here.

10 rounds is antiquated. 10 rounds is like saying being grandma only drives 28 miles an hour on the freeway, EVERYONE should only drive 28 mph on the freeway.

[GOF]

A simple solution is for USPSA to state "CO Division shall require a 15 round magazine capacity after the start signal; except for those states that disallow 15 round magazines. In those states the magazine limit will be set in accordance with State law. National Championship events will default to the 15 round capacity rule."

This will not affect classifier stages, since none I am aware of benefit from a 15 round magazine. So why not? It would seem to minimize a lot of bitching.

Edited August 16, 2015 by GOF

[Bkreutz]

Why do you want to minimize bitching? It seems that's what everyone wants.

[alma]

A simple solution is for USPSA to state "CO Division shall require a 15 round magazine capacity after the start signal; except for those states that disallow 15 round magazines. In those states the magazine limit will be set in accordance with State law. National Championship events will default to the 15 round capacity rule."

This will not affect classifier stages, since none I am aware of benefit from a 15 round magazine. So why not? It would seem to minimize a lot of bitching.

You don't need to say that part about the states. There is already a rule in place covering that.

[BritinUSA]

Regarding the weight limit; I was okay with the proposed rule-set, even the weight limit as I could see the logic in what the BOD was trying to do. Having spent a few days watching the Production Nationals this year it seems obvious to me that the weight of the gun, steel or polymer has no discernible impact on the competitor's ability.

There is no doubt that a perception exists among members that the heavier weight makes the gun more competitive, steel-framed guns dominate the IPSC version of Production but I think that is more a consequence of the trigger pull restrictions than any perceived benefit afforded by the overall weight of the gun. The results of the Production Nationals should be enough to convince any member that this perception is not reflective of reality.

Of the twenty stages, half of them were won by people shooting polymer framed guns versus the steel-frame, so we have an even split. Only four people won more than one stage, three of them, Max, Shane and Nils were all shooting polymer guns, only BJ Norris was shooting a steel-frame gun (Beretta). Two of the top three finishers were shooting Glocks, one of them finished less than two points behind the winner.

If the manufacturers of polymer-framed guns want a bigger slice of the Production pie then they need only publicize the results of this Nationals and promote their products. Sig has been pushing the P320 hard and it seems like a solid platform. Tanfoglio/EAA does very little in this regard, CZ on the other hand seems more motivated to promote sales of their guns in this division.

USPSA needs to get behind Production Optics in a big way and showcase the various options that are out there and really promote this new option for our members, working with Glock, S&W and Sig, CZ, Springfield Armory to show the available options and benefits of the various Production Guns. Its all about marketing.

[trgt]

...

But my issue is with a few states with restrictive laws deciding what everyone else has to do. So yeah, I have a huge problem with that argument, matter of fact I think it's silly (I used silly instead of what really comes to mind).

...

10 rounds is antiquated. 10 rounds is like saying being grandma only drives 28 miles an hour on the freeway, EVERYONE should only drive 28 mph on the freeway.

Yep, 10 sucks for us here in CA. But it is about 22% / one fifth of membership affected with restrictions if I got this correct:

Total USPSA 24018

CA 2140 8.91%

CO 747 3.11%

CT 190 0.79%

HI 246 1.02%

MA 386 1.61%

MD 305 1.27%

NJ 429 1.79%

NY 714 2.97%

USPSA members in states with mag restrictions 5157 21.47%

(derived from: http://www.doodieproject.com/index.php?/topic/2455-how-many-uspsa-shooters-per-state/page-2)

[alma]

...

But my issue is with a few states with restrictive laws deciding what everyone else has to do. So yeah, I have a huge problem with that argument, matter of fact I think it's silly (I used silly instead of what really comes to mind).

...

10 rounds is antiquated. 10 rounds is like saying being grandma only drives 28 miles an hour on the freeway, EVERYONE should only drive 28 mph on the freeway.

Yep, 10 sucks for us here in CA. But it is about 22% / one fifth of membership affected with restrictions if I got this correct:

Total USPSA 24018

CA 2140 8.91%

CO 747 3.11%

CT 190 0.79%

HI 246 1.02%

MA 386 1.61%

MD 305 1.27%

NJ 429 1.79%

NY 714 2.97%

USPSA members in states with mag restrictions 5157 21.47%

(derived from: http://www.doodieproject.com/index.php?/topic/2455-how-many-uspsa-shooters-per-state/page-2)

So none of the competitors in these states shoot Open or Limited? Edited August 17, 2015 by alma

[zhunter]

...

But my issue is with a few states with restrictive laws deciding what everyone else has to do. So yeah, I have a huge problem with that argument, matter of fact I think it's silly (I used silly instead of what really comes to mind).

...

10 rounds is antiquated. 10 rounds is like saying being grandma only drives 28 miles an hour on the freeway, EVERYONE should only drive 28 mph on the freeway.

Yep, 10 sucks for us here in CA. But it is about 22% / one fifth of membership affected with restrictions if I got this correct:

Total USPSA 24018

CA 2140 8.91%

CO 747 3.11%

CT 190 0.79%

HI 246 1.02%

MA 386 1.61%

MD 305 1.27%

NJ 429 1.79%

NY 714 2.97%

USPSA members in states with mag restrictions 5157 21.47%

(derived from: http://www.doodieproject.com/index.php?/topic/2455-how-many-uspsa-shooters-per-state/page-2)

So none of the competitors in these states shoot Open or Limited?

There's a lot of grandmas in the world, but my analogy still holds true like it or not.

[Gary Stevens]

All the talk about the S&W PC CORE is moot unless they offer a non-ported barrel in addition to the ported barrel.

Of course you could always replace the barrel yourself I guess. Sort of a bummer after just buying a new gun.

[Beastly]

Regarding the weight limit; I was okay with the proposed rule-set, even the weight limit as I could see the logic in what the BOD was trying to do. Having spent a few days watching the Production Nationals this year it seems obvious to me that the weight of the gun, steel or polymer has no discernible impact on the competitor's ability.

There is no doubt that a perception exists among members that the heavier weight makes the gun more competitive, steel-framed guns dominate the IPSC version of Production but I think that is more a consequence of the trigger pull restrictions than any perceived benefit afforded by the overall weight of the gun. The results of the Production Nationals should be enough to convince any member that this perception is not reflective of reality.

Of the twenty stages, half of them were won by people shooting polymer framed guns versus the steel-frame, so we have an even split. Only four people won more than one stage, three of them, Max, Shane and Nils were all shooting polymer guns, only BJ Norris was shooting a steel-frame gun (Beretta). Two of the top three finishers were shooting Glocks, one of them finished less than two points behind the winner.

If the manufacturers of polymer-framed guns want a bigger slice of the Production pie then they need only publicize the results of this Nationals and promote their products. Sig has been pushing the P320 hard and it seems like a solid platform. Tanfoglio/EAA does very little in this regard, CZ on the other hand seems more motivated to promote sales of their guns in this division.

USPSA needs to get behind Production Optics in a big way and showcase the various options that are out there and really promote this new option for our members, working with Glock, S&W and Sig, CZ, Springfield Armory to show the available options and benefits of the various Production Guns. Its all about marketing.

So you are OK with the weight limit not because it makes any sense (you make the point that heavier guns aren't more competitive) but because you want to help manufacturers promote non-steel guns? Since there are hammer fired polymer guns, what next? Do we really need a polymer-striker fired division because we want USPSA to help sell such guns?

I don't get it.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Beastly

[BritinUSA]

I think if you read the opening paragraph it indicates that my opinion has changed, note the word, 'was'.

Regarding the weight limit; I was okay with the proposed rule-set, even the weight limit as I could see the logic in what the BOD was trying to do. Having spent a few days watching the Production Nationals this year it seems obvious to me that the weight of the gun, steel or polymer has no discernible impact on the competitor's ability.

[GrumpyOne]

I don't intend to shoot CO, so I don't have a dog in the fight, and it may have been covered elsewhere in this thread, but what happens to someone shooting CO when their gun doesn't make weight, not legal, etc.? Move to open? What happens to someone who shoots their PD gun, without a dot, in CO, if they don't make weight, not legal, etc.? Would they then be bumped to Production, if they satisfied all the rules for Production? Or would they be bumped to Open?

[Nik Habicht]

...

But my issue is with a few states with restrictive laws deciding what everyone else has to do. So yeah, I have a huge problem with that argument, matter of fact I think it's silly (I used silly instead of what really comes to mind).

...

10 rounds is antiquated. 10 rounds is like saying being grandma only drives 28 miles an hour on the freeway, EVERYONE should only drive 28 mph on the freeway.

Yep, 10 sucks for us here in CA. But it is about 22% / one fifth of membership affected with restrictions if I got this correct:

Total USPSA 24018

CA 2140 8.91%

CO 747 3.11%

CT 190 0.79%

HI 246 1.02%

MA 386 1.61%

MD 305 1.27%

NJ 429 1.79%

NY 714 2.97%

USPSA members in states with mag restrictions 5157 21.47%

(derived from: http://www.doodieproject.com/index.php?/topic/2455-how-many-uspsa-shooters-per-state/page-2)

So none of the competitors in these states shoot Open or Limited?

There's a lot of grandmas in the world, but my analogy still holds true like it or not.

Spoken like a guy who hasn't tried to grow either a match or a sport toward increased participation......

You're starting to drive me from supporting CO -- as in Production with an optic -- to agreeing that it's an unnecessary division. Want to load to 15? Want to shoot a heavier gun? There's always open -- problem solved.....

[ChuckS]

Double. .

Edited August 17, 2015 by ChuckS

[zhunter]

Nik

I'm not trying to endear myself to anyone, just posting my opinions.

Shoot what you want to shoot

[ChuckS]

I don't intend to shoot CO, so I don't have a dog in the fight, and it may have been covered elsewhere in this thread, but what happens to someone shooting CO when their gun doesn't make weight, not legal, etc.? Move to open? What happens to someone who shoots their PD gun, without a dot, in CO, if they don't make weight, not legal, etc.? Would they then be bumped to Production, if they satisfied all the rules for Production? Or would they be bumped to Open?

6.2.5 and 6.2.5.1 apply.

[zhunter]

IF my Dr. gives me the OK I'll be shooting CO this weekend! Yeah Baby