Carry optics

[mreed911]

well right, but that's because low-cap divisions are twice as more better than high-cap, so there should be twice as many. By adding PCC, we need to add another low-cap division, maybe for compact carry guns.

Probably because of CA, CT, DC, HI, MD, MA and NY where 10 rounds is the legal limit and new shooters can't legally acquire larger mags in some of those states.

[jrswanson1]

well right, but that's because low-cap divisions are twice as more better than high-cap, so there should be twice as many. By adding PCC, we need to add another low-cap division, maybe for compact carry guns.

Probably because of CA, CT, DC, HI, MD, MA and NY where 10 rounds is the legal limit and new shooters can't legally acquire larger mags in some of those states.

You can own new standard capacity magazines in Maryland, you just can't buy or sell them inside the border.

[mreed911]

well right, but that's because low-cap divisions are twice as more better than high-cap, so there should be twice as many. By adding PCC, we need to add another low-cap division, maybe for compact carry guns.

Probably because of CA, CT, DC, HI, MD, MA and NY where 10 rounds is the legal limit and new shooters can't legally acquire larger mags in some of those states.

You can own new standard capacity magazines in Maryland, you just can't buy or sell them inside the border.

Hence the word "some"...

[Southpaw]

Data suggest that the high cap divisions are both more popular today and are growing while only have 2 divisions to choose from. While low cap participation is less popular and is shrinking across all of its prevision 4 divisions.

So why add another low capacity division in Carry Optics?

to balance out the high-cap division of PCC.

No their were 4 restricted/ low capacity divisions before they added CO making it 5 to 2 (Open and Limited). When we add PCC it will still be 5 to 3. I agree I don see why we added a low capacity division with mags that need to fit the 140mm Gage.

well right, but that's because low-cap divisions are twice as more better than high-cap, so there should be twice as many. By adding PCC, we need to add another low-cap division, maybe for compact carry guns.

Yes definitely. We need a 5 shot BUG division. I'm so sick of hearing people complaining at every match that there's no division for their J frame.

[mreed911]

Yes definitely. We need a 5 shot BUG division. I'm so sick of hearing people complaining at every match that there's no division for their J frame.

They should go shoot IDPA. They have a BUG class.

[JimF38sup]

Don't count on carry optics going away. This weekend their are 7 registered for the North Florida Sections. I just finished building mine and will be shooting it in the next few months. Alternating between open and CO. Why? In open I cannot shoot fast enough to win, but others can miss fast enough to win. Speed is primary.

Hoping they will change the 10 round mag rule. No real reason for a 10 round limit. My production choice Sig P226 is standard at 15 rounds.

[ZackJones]

We have 6 currently registered for the NC Sectional match which is in September. I'm hoping we'll see more shooters sign up in the division.

[GJM]

I have shot CO my four last matches, and am signed up for CO at Area 1. Really enjoying CO!

[M1911]

Hoping they will change the 10 round mag rule. No real reason for a 10 round limit. My production choice Sig P226 is standard at 15 rounds.

For those of us in the states that ban magazines greater than 10 rounds, there definitely is a reason for the 10 round rule. I hope that they keep the 10 round limit for CO and Production -- it gives us a level playing field.

Edited April 29, 2016 by M1911

[Lukedrywalker]

[Lukedrywalker]

Can you use a magnet to hold a magazine for your "make ready mag"? It seems to me the rules mean no using them during the firing of a stage.

[IronArcher]

Hoping they will change the 10 round mag rule. No real reason for a 10 round limit. My production choice Sig P226 is standard at 15 rounds.

For those of us in the states that ban magazines greater than 10 rounds, there definitely is a reason for the 10 round rule. I hope that they keep the 10 round limit for CO and Production -- it gives us a level playing field.

Should limited and open be switched to 10 also?

[mreed911]

Should limited and open be switched to 10 also?

You mean something like Limited 10?

[CHA-LEE]

The requirement for dedicated "10 Round Mag Limit" divisions was nullified when USPSA deployed rule 3.3.1. This rule takes care of all of the states that have magazine capacity limit laws. This rule was also deployed before Carry Optics so I was surprised when the Carry Optics division also had a 10 round magazine limit. To me it would have made more sense to make Carry Optics a 15 or 16 round magazine limit so it would be more differentiated from Production division.

3.3.1 - In states where competitors are restricted by law to maximum magazine capacity, that maximum capacity will be the maximum allowed for all competitors in the contest. Any such limitations must be made known to all competitors by the Match Director/Range Master before the start of the match.

[Strick]

The requirement for dedicated "10 Round Mag Limit" divisions was nullified when USPSA deployed rule 3.3.1. This rule takes care of all of the states that have magazine capacity limit laws. This rule was also deployed before Carry Optics so I was surprised when the Carry Optics division also had a 10 round magazine limit. To me it would have made more sense to make Carry Optics a 15 or 16 round magazine limit so it would be more differentiated from Production division.

3.3.1 - In states where competitors are restricted by law to maximum magazine capacity, that maximum capacity will be the maximum allowed for all competitors in the contest. Any such limitations must be made known to all competitors by the Match Director/Range Master before the start of the match.

Has that rule ever been applied at level II+ matches?

[motosapiens]

The requirement for dedicated "10 Round Mag Limit" divisions was nullified when USPSA deployed rule 3.3.1. This rule takes care of all of the states that have magazine capacity limit laws. This rule was also deployed before Carry Optics so I was surprised when the Carry Optics division also had a 10 round magazine limit. To me it would have made more sense to make Carry Optics a 15 or 16 round magazine limit so it would be more differentiated from Production division.

3.3.1 - In states where competitors are restricted by law to maximum magazine capacity, that maximum capacity will be the maximum allowed for all competitors in the contest. Any such limitations must be made known to all competitors by the Match Director/Range Master before the start of the match.

the problem is that many states don't have strict magazine capacity laws, they have fuzzy ones, that are not that hard to get around if you don't mind playing a little loose with the law.

[thermobollocks]

I don't find that to be a problem.

[motosapiens]

I don't find that to be a problem.

right, but some people do. it doesn't really fit the rulebook definition of ' restricted by law to maximum magazine capacity', but it may prevent people from legally acquiring high cap magazines.

[CHA-LEE]

The point of the rule is that MD can mandate a mag capacity limitation for all Divisions prior to the start of the match. Its up to the MD to determine if the "Vagueness" of the law requires strict adhering to rule 3.3.1 or not. I am not saying that leveraging that rule would be a popular choice that shooters would like, especially if the magazine laws are vague or leave situations where there are "Haves" and "Have Not's" based on when the law was deployed. But it is a valid rule that effectively deals with the magazine capacity restrictions that certain states have.

The point I was trying to make is that since we have rule 3.3.1 we shouldn't be deploying excessive magazine capacity restrictions on new divisions because of states that have laws against high capacity magazines. With the rules that we currently have there is no valid reason for Carry Optics to not have a 15 - 16 round magazine capacity limit instead of 10. Its hard to find a Carry Optics type of pistol that can't produce at least a 15 - 16 round 9mm magazine capacity. Sure if you try to use a compact, or sub-compact type of pistol that could be a problem but then again that "Penalty" should be there for trying to use the wrong type of pistol for the division. We are racing hand guns and its each competitors responsibility to pick the proper handgun to compete in the division effectively. If you choose the wrong tool for the job that is called a hard lesson learned.

[zhunter]

The requirement for dedicated "10 Round Mag Limit" divisions was nullified when USPSA deployed rule 3.3.1. This rule takes care of all of the states that have magazine capacity limit laws. This rule was also deployed before Carry Optics so I was surprised when the Carry Optics division also had a 10 round magazine limit. To me it would have made more sense to make Carry Optics a 15 or 16 round magazine limit so it would be more differentiated from Production division.

3.3.1 - In states where competitors are restricted by law to maximum magazine capacity, that maximum capacity will be the maximum allowed for all competitors in the contest. Any such limitations must be made known to all competitors by the Match Director/Range Master before the start of the match.

The point of the rule is that MD can mandate a mag capacity limitation for all Divisions prior to the start of the match. Its up to the MD to determine if the "Vagueness" of the law requires strict adhering to rule 3.3.1 or not. I am not saying that leveraging that rule would be a popular choice that shooters would like, especially if the magazine laws are vague or leave situations where there are "Haves" and "Have Not's" based on when the law was deployed. But it is a valid rule that effectively deals with the magazine capacity restrictions that certain states have.

The point I was trying to make is that since we have rule 3.3.1 we shouldn't be deploying excessive magazine capacity restrictions on new divisions because of states that have laws against high capacity magazines. With the rules that we currently have there is no valid reason for Carry Optics to not have a 15 - 16 round magazine capacity limit instead of 10. Its hard to find a Carry Optics type of pistol that can't produce at least a 15 - 16 round 9mm magazine capacity. Sure if you try to use a compact, or sub-compact type of pistol that could be a problem but then again that "Penalty" should be there for trying to use the wrong type of pistol for the division. We are racing hand guns and its each competitors responsibility to pick the proper handgun to compete in the division effectively. If you choose the wrong tool for the job that is called a hard lesson learned.

Both of these comments make a lot of sense. I was not aware of 3.3.1, and it certainly does address any issues the restrictive states might present.

As stated many times, I am very happy with 10 rounds, but IF 16 rounds would increase participation I would be all for it.

[Strick]

The point I was trying to make is that since we have rule 3.3.1 we shouldn't be deploying excessive magazine capacity restrictions on new divisions because of states that have laws against high capacity magazines. With the rules that we currently have there is no valid reason for Carry Optics to not have a 15 - 16 round magazine capacity limit instead of 10.

The only issue I have heard against this that I have now started to agree with slightly is that it places a lot of attention on counting shots for the RO. Counting to 10 is a little easier, even more so since most arrays are laid out in a easy to follow sequence. I am not saying it is not possible to do just places some extra burden on the RO. I assume IPSC has not seen issues with it but I have never shot under those rules so I can't really say.

I would rather see a 126mm mag length (or something to that effect), easy to enforce and more equitable.....if you follow your other premise about compacts, .40's, and .45's

[BrianKr]

Dittos here zhunter. Unaware of 3.3.1 and I'm also happy at either 10 rounds or max' cap'. I'm easy.

Mag length makes a great deal of sense if not adhering to 10 rounds.

But I'd hate to see it become "open lite". Lots of old timers might not want to fork out the $ to be competitive and I'd like to see it include as many shooters as possible. (It's my opinion that CO is the retirement division for us oldtimers with older sight).

Edited May 9, 2016 by BrianKr

[CHA-LEE]

I think that creating a maximum magazine length rule will generate an "Arms Race" when its not needed. How many truly competitive CO pistols out there can't get 16 rounds of 9mm in a standard magazine? I searched the standard magazine capacity for all of the major gun manufactures that would probably be used in CO (Glock, Springfield, S&W, CZ, EAA, Tanfoglio, and SIG). All of the popular competition model pistols for these manufactures had a minimum 9mm magazine capacity of 17 - 19 rounds. Keeping CO at 16+1 capacity allows shooters to engage two 8 shot arrays of targets and still have one in the pipe. In my opinion, If that is too hard for RO's to keep track of then they shouldn't be ROing in the first place.

[Strick]

. In my opinion, If that is too hard for RO's to keep track of then they shouldn't be ROing in the first place.

Probably true, like I said I am not sure if it would be an issue or not. I just measured mags from all the guns that mentioned and the longest is the stock CZ 18 round mag at 133 ish. Those would all hold 16-18 rounds.

[CHA-LEE]

Now I guess the question the CO shooters need to pose to USPSA is why was CO limited to 10 round mag capacity when we already have rule 3.3.1 that deals with that issue and just about all competitive CO pistols hold 17+ rounds with standard magazines? With a little bit of research it would make more sense to allow CO to have 16 round mag capacity verses 10 rounds.

But then again, this is why I shoot Limited