2011 and Carry optics

[Cuz]

7 hours ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:

 

Personally I will not switch back even if your proposal gets adopted.  What drew me to CO was the use of an optic on a production type pistol, not the higher magazine capacity.

I switched from Production, which I loved, to CO due to failing eyesight. Going back isn’t really a choice for me either, but when I had to decide if I wanted to play in CO or Open, it wasn’t a financial decision, it was because I liked shooting my production Glock, and milling it for a red dot was a very small change. I would have been fine with a 10 round limit, but after a couple of matches, I must admit I like going with the higher capacity mags. 

[Robertwil18]

I suppose USPSA could just put divisions back to what they were originally designed and named for to begin with before people started messing them all up for muH cOmPeTiTiVe eQuItIEs....

 

Single Stack - Classic 1911 style guns with 8-10 round capacity (min/maj)

 

Revolver - Revolvers, no optics

 

PCC - Fine...

Production - Box stock production guns with only minor changes (trigger, sights, etc).  Abide by the capacity requirements in your location.  

 

Carry Optics - Guns legitimately designed for CARRY, either duty or concealed....with modifications tuned toward carry (sights, optics, minor tuning of small parts) No 50+ ounce pistols, no massive thumbrests, no comps, etc.  The number of people legitimately carrying those for duty or defense is miniscule.  Add 2011s if desired since more people are, in fact, carrying them.  

 

Limited division - The "Catch-All" that is the intermediary between the production and Open world. (No comps, most other mods god to go)

 

Open - Do whatever the hell you want to.

 

10 round divisions Lim10, etc...while underutilized, i understand the intent of them, and though I'm in the minority, agree with them for the states that are restrictive regarding magazine capacity.  That doesn't mean i agree with mag limits, because its stupid and not based on individual liberty in my opinion, but in the interest of the competitor, i see the need. 

 

These are not all inclusive, but you get the idea....

 

The entire sport, whether or not people choose to acknowledge it, is pay to play.  If you want to be super competitive in a given division, you can, and are going to buy high end stuff to do so, or at least put in the time relevant to understand where your individual skill ends and better gear and procedural planning begins.  There are still those who will grab a box stock Glock and kick the s#!t out of many Open shooters.  I think a big issue is the fact Practiscore defaults to OVERALL scores.  People see themselves finishing below other "lesser" divisions and think its an arms race to get to the top, when in fact it's skill based.  Many  casual shooters have no idea they are truly only competing against other in their division, and not the entire field of shooters.  HOA is bragging rights only and means nothing outside of pro shooters competing at the highest levels, and even then....doesn't mean much more than bragging rights.  

 

Rather than making a bunch of incremental changes to the divisions to appease people, just get the sport back to the "roots" of what it was designed for, and place shooters in appropriate divisions based on what they want to shoot.  When the org constantly makes changes to appease the masses, and manufacturers exploit the changes and loopholes to sell more product, and in turn the org makes MORE changes, all it does is create an unsustainable situation that puts us right where we are now.  Is this THE solution...maybe not.  But I cant think of another sport that changes the rules at the behest of the competitor, or worse the manufacturers.  The competitors learns to play within the rules established by the governing body.  While SOME changes are necessary, valid, and needed, the majority seem as though they are not.  

 

 

[euxx]

1 hour ago, Robertwil18 said:

Rather than making a bunch of incremental changes to the divisions to appease people, just get the sport back to the "roots" of what it was designed for, and place shooters in appropriate divisions based on what they want to shoot

 

It is ironic that at the "roots" there wasn't any divisions to begin with. In that regards PractiScore's defaulted to combined results is reflecting those deep roots.

Though I do agree that view shouldn't be called Overall and it shouldn't be the default one.

[Robertwil18]

1 hour ago, euxx said:

 

It is ironic that at the "roots" there wasn't any divisions to begin with. In that regards PractiScore's defaulted to combined results is reflecting those deep roots.

Though I do agree that view shouldn't be called Overall and it shouldn't be the default one.

That's certainly a fair assessment.  

[Johnny_Chimpo]

3 hours ago, Robertwil18 said:

When the org constantly makes changes to appease the masses, and manufacturers exploit the changes and loopholes to sell more product, and in turn the org makes MORE changes, all it does is create an unsustainable situation that puts us right where we are now. 

 

 

 

Can you explain why the current division situation is unsustainable?  What will fail should things continue as they are today?

Edited June 19, 2022 by Johnny_Chimpo

[Robertwil18]

22 minutes ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:

 

 

 

Can you explain why the current division situation is unsustainable?  What will fail should things continue as they are today?

Divisions, in my opinion, are continually being watered down by rule changes that move them incrementally closer to the next closest "race" division.  Carry Optics is the most relevant example currently.  This is not at all a rebuke of Carry Optics, as I do enjoy shooting it as well, but with rule changes as of late, it truly is nothing but Open Minor, with the only real difference being the use of a compensator, and 170 mags.  Slide mounted optic does change things slightly but really not that much for those practiced in both.   The weight increases for most divisions have become almost laughable as people try to make the heaviest gun possible in production and carry optics division.  Additionally, pushing to change divisional requirements, in the context of the most recent SA 2011 in CO, just further waters own divisions as the firearms mentioned already have a relevant division in which to compete if they choose to do so with what they want to run.  For example, if i want to show up and run my duty gear I'm not going to ask to be able to run in CO, when i know the slight, but present magwell on my pistol, puts me in Open.  I won't show up and run my RDS equipped 2011 and ask to shoot it in CO knowing it is an Open gun by divisional rules.  Would i like to, sure.  Would i be more "competitive" in CO, sure.  But it's a choice to run that vs my purpose built Open guns.  I wouldn't expect an org to change the rules for me based on what I, or the few, shooters want to shoot.  

 

Also, while I get the fact this is a sport, a game, and with that in mind there will be things that are not rooted in "practicality", in my opinion, the Practical in USPSA shouldn't just apply to the employment of basic skills, movement and marksmanship, but to some degree to the gear/equipment employed as well in the appropriate division.  Calling an almost 60 ounce gun with a massive TEVO thumbrest a Carry gun is a bit ridiculous.  Again, I understand the game, and maybe it's just me, but maybe just renaming the divisions or the org as a whole makes more sense if the practicality of the equipment simply isn't there anymore. 

 

I also think manufacturers have far too much stake and buy in at higher levels dumping money into an organization in a effort to provide more product for a given division.  This drives, and to some degree, forces, changes that are not necessary just to suit the desires of the sponsors and manufacturers and not necessarily the members.  The competitive equity conversation seems hijacked by the few that wat to run their niche guns, and the manufacturers who want to sell more product. 

 

As far as what will fail... I suppose nothing.  I mean if the trend of constantly changing divisional rules continues, every division will be some version of a "modified" or open division.  Doesn't seem as though that was the intent though.  I honestly love shooting and I'm not going anywhere, but when the org seems to have an inability to even strictly stick to their own rules/bylaws, divisional requirements, etc. it is certainly frustrating.  

 

These are just my observations.  Right or wrong, just what i see from my level of engagement.  I've read a lot of solid feedback here on these topics, and again....while changes are certainly important when they become necessary, many of the current changes seem to seek to appease the masses rather than to define and divide divisions.   To that point, end user feedback is also important, and should drive change, but if it changes the fundamental or foundational concept of a given division, it seems like we're just chasing our tails.  I could very well be wrong, and im interested in opinions, as there have been many given. 

 

[BritinUSA]

The divisions are not sustainable due the manner in which they are changing. As the requirements for divisions are becoming more inclusive they will eventually merge into a single division. This will happen either with rule changes, or via attrition as participation drops below the break-down point.

 

The break-down point is that moment when participation drops so low that participants abandon their chosen division as there is too little or no competition left for them to compete against.

 

The origins of this sport are based on the goal of improving handgun skills, when the technology reduces the need for them, so those skills will begin to decline.
 

As an analogy, consider the technology in cars for parallel parking assist. Using this technology on a regular basis could eventually lead to an inability to parallel park manually.

 

If the continued goal of practical shooting is to enhance skills then it seems reasonable to require that the various divisions be imperfect. Each division should have flaws or weaknesses that the competitor must overcome to reach the potential within that division.

 

As an example; One of the key skills in handgun competition is muzzle-control. The ability to reduce the movement of gun once the bullet has left the barrel. This takes effort and training to find the best solution for each person, and it will vary to some degree based on strength, build and technique.
 

This training and skill can be replicated by adding a brass weight with a 25¢ LED to the end of the gun. The need for that skill has been reduced/eradicated.

 

Does that comply with the principles/objective of the sport? To me it does not.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

16 minutes ago, Robertwil18 said:

Divisions, in my opinion, are continually being watered down by rule changes that move them incrementally closer to the next closest "race" division.  Carry Optics is the most relevant example currently.  This is not at all a rebuke of Carry Optics, as I do enjoy shooting it as well, but with rule changes as of late, it truly is nothing but Open Minor, with the only real difference being the use of a compensator, and 170 mags.  Slide mounted optic does change things slightly but really not that much for those practiced in both.   The weight increases for most divisions have become almost laughable as people try to make the heaviest gun possible in production and carry optics division.  Additionally, pushing to change divisional requirements, in the context of the most recent SA 2011 in CO, just further waters own divisions as the firearms mentioned already have a relevant division in which to compete if they choose to do so with what they want to run.  For example, if i want to show up and run my duty gear I'm not going to ask to be able to run in CO, when i know the slight, but present magwell on my pistol, puts me in Open.  I won't show up and run my RDS equipped 2011 and ask to shoot it in CO knowing it is an Open gun by divisional rules.  Would i like to, sure.  Would i be more "competitive" in CO, sure.  But it's a choice to run that vs my purpose built Open guns.  I wouldn't expect an org to change the rules for me based on what I, or the few, shooters want to shoot.  

 

Also, while I get the fact this is a sport, a game, and with that in mind there will be things that are not rooted in "practicality", in my opinion, the Practical in USPSA shouldn't just apply to the employment of basic skills, movement and marksmanship, but to some degree to the gear/equipment employed as well in the appropriate division.  Calling an almost 60 ounce gun with a massive TEVO thumbrest a Carry gun is a bit ridiculous.  Again, I understand the game, and maybe it's just me, but maybe just renaming the divisions or the org as a whole makes more sense if the practicality of the equipment simply isn't there anymore. 

 

I also think manufacturers have far too much stake and buy in at higher levels dumping money into an organization in a effort to provide more product for a given division.  This drives, and to some degree, forces, changes that are not necessary just to suit the desires of the sponsors and manufacturers and not necessarily the members.  The competitive equity conversation seems hijacked by the few that wat to run their niche guns, and the manufacturers who want to sell more product. 

 

As far as what will fail... I suppose nothing.  I mean if the trend of constantly changing divisional rules continues, every division will be some version of a "modified" or open division.  Doesn't seem as though that was the intent though.  I honestly love shooting and I'm not going anywhere, but when the org seems to have an inability to even strictly stick to their own rules/bylaws, divisional requirements, etc. it is certainly frustrating.  

 

These are just my observations.  Right or wrong, just what i see from my level of engagement.  I've read a lot of solid feedback here on these topics, and again....while changes are certainly important when they become necessary, many of the current changes seem to seek to appease the masses rather than to define and divide divisions.   To that point, end user feedback is also important, and should drive change, but if it changes the fundamental or foundational concept of a given division, it seems like we're just chasing our tails.  I could very well be wrong, and im interested in opinions, as there have been many given. 

 

 

Thanks for clarifying.  We're not very far apart in how we see this.

 

There are a lot of equipment changes to Production and Carry Optics I disagree with for much the same reasons as you do

[RJH]

Y'all purists need to drag out your SS guns. Other than a slight weight increase and holster/mag position, I am pretty sure the SS rules have been pretty stable since inception. And while it wasn't called ss at the time ipsc was built on 1911s in the beginning 

[Boomstick303]

22 hours ago, Dr_Z said:

1. Bump production mag capacity to the same as CO, i.e. 141 mm. So, one mag rule for both "production gun" divisions.

2. Bump limited mag capacity to the same as open, i.e. 170 mm. So, one mag rule for both "race gun" divisions. 

 

Probably the best idea yet, but I doubt it will happen.

 

I could care less how many people compete in each division.  I care about what I want to shoot and how well I shoot it.  My ability to shoot well has zero bearing on how many people are in my division.

 

Like many things in life if people worried about themselves it would be a much better world.  Worrying about what other people are doing does not change the outcome of anything.  Control what you can ignore what you cannot control.  

[-JCN-]

5 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

This training and skill can be replicated by adding a brass weight with a 25¢ LED to the end of the gun. The need for that skill has been reduced/eradicated.

Yeah, but when minimum power factor out of a 5” 9mm makes less foot pounds than a warm 380 ACP… I think that horse has left the barn. 
 

The question is whether we are talking parallel parking assist or manual transmissions with clutch pedals. 
 

When carry guns now come with optics, magwells and compensators from the factory… are we in an era where this is the defacto standard and we just then have to shoot and reload faster to hit 95%. 
 

Methinks yes. 
 

I’m chuckling at IDPA that still doesn’t allow optics in Stock Service Pistol when many agencies are training recruits on optics primarily. 

[BritinUSA]

32 minutes ago, -JCN- said:

The question is whether we are talking parallel parking assist or manual transmissions with clutch pedals

My car has a manual transmission, now commonly referred to as a ‘Millennial anti-theft device’. Which I think proves my point a little

[MHicks]

I'm an old guy primarily SS B shooter. In theory it would be nice if when you considered the pluses and minuses of a division the result was that the percentage of shooters in each division was somewhat evenly divided. That would never happen of course. We all will shoot what we prefer under the rules. 

 

It has been interesting watching shooters in different divisions with varying levels of ability shoot matches. Seeing how they go about shooting stages. I just think USPSA would be slightly less interesting if everyone is shooting in only a couple of divisions. But I'll still be shooting.

[Dr_Z]

2 hours ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

Probably the best idea yet, but I doubt it will happen.

 

I could care less how many people compete in each division.  I care about what I want to shoot and how well I shoot it.  My ability to shoot well has zero bearing on how many people are in my division.

 

Like many things in life if people worried about themselves it would be a much better world.  Worrying about what other people are doing does not change the outcome of anything.  Control what you can ignore what you cannot control.  

Well, I care. Without a reference I cannot accurately gauge my performance. Each stage is unique, one way (the best way in my opinion) to assess my performance and looking for opportunities to improve is competing against and analyze someone at the same skill level or higher than myself. This analysis is much more useful when both of us are shooting the same division. Some say that you are your worst enemy, maybe that's true. However, without a reference to compare and contrast, I wouldn't even know what I did or did not do well enough or how I could do better for a certain stage / scenario.  What I am looking for are the moments like " damn, I could do the same" "I could be more aggressive here" "i like my approach more because.....", just some examples. In my local matches, the second place in my division (limited) usually comes 20% of not more below me. I want to say, this situation has, to some extent, hindered my rate of progression and my ability to enjoy the sport. Sorry for the rant. 

[Boomstick303]

8 hours ago, Dr_Z said:

Sorry for the rant. 

 

No need to apologize.  We are all here for discussion where we all can learn something or look at something in a different light that might help us improve.  

 

Everyone seems to care in reference to match standing to accurately gauge their performance in a competition setting somehow, but should they really use other shooters?  Just because you can measure yourself against any one shooter, does not mean that is always going to be a very good or accurate measuring stick.  Each shooter has strengths and weaknesses and those attributes are never going to align with your capabilities.  With every match the shooting challenges vary from match to match; therefore, a shooter's performance is going to vary on how their skills aligned for that given match.  If you are lucky you have one to a couple of shooters that shoot very consistent in every facet of the game, so you can get some idea of how you shot, but this is also rare, and does not always work either.  

 

For me, if a shooter really wants to excel in this game one has to learn how to grade their own performance for every match (this would be accomplished by video mostly), and understand where their weaknesses are and also understand how to work on those weaknesses.  If someone does not have the ability to do this, they may need to look elsewhere for this help.   Ben Stoeger has a website with various products that allow accomplished shooters grade your match videos you send them and help you understand what to work on along with a huge amount of training material.  I think anyone that has been in the game for a bit and want to excel should work on the skill of grading themselves.  I am currently working on this myself.  I really think this is the difference between true GMs and the rest of shooters out there. 

 

I have muddled around as a A/B shooter and use to have this mindset of measuring my performance based on match standings.  For me to move to M and then GM I will need to identify my weaknesses and fix them.  It has nothing to do with comparing myself to other shooters.  

 

Do not get me wrong.  I think we all enjoy and have that list of people we compete against in our own heads.  There is nothing wrong with that but I do not connect that with measuring my personal performance from match to match.  I think a shooter does that, they short change themselves in truly improving as a shooter.  With that said, this has zero to do with how many people shoot or do not shoot any one division.  At least that is my take.  To each their own.  

[Dr_Z]

33 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

For me, if a shooter really wants to excel in this game one has to learn how to grade their own performance for every match (this would be accomplished by video mostly), and understand where their weaknesses are and also understand how to work on those weaknesses.  If someone does not have the ability to do this, they may need to look elsewhere for this help.   Ben Stoeger has a website with various products that allow accomplished shooters grade your match videos you send them and help you understand what to work on along with a huge amount of training material.  I think anyone that has been in the game for a bit and want to excel should work on the skill of grading themselves.  I am currently working on this myself.  I really think this is the difference between true GMs and the rest of shooters out there. 

Damn, that's some delicious insights I need. Thanks Sir, appreciated. 

[motosapiens]

17 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

 

 

This training and skill can be replicated by adding a brass weight with a 25¢ LED to the end of the gun. The need for that skill has been reduced/eradicated.

 

I think the effect of the weight is somewhat overblown. I have seen many many many shooters in the last year or so and the ones with weights or flashlights have generally had no less muzzle movement. and have not fared better in the results.

[Jim Watson]

12 hours ago, -JCN- said:

I’m chuckling at IDPA that still doesn’t allow optics in Stock Service Pistol when many agencies are training recruits on optics primarily. 

Yeah, but we allow optics on ESP which can be almost anything you like, including the 1911 that USPSA doesn't or a Police Special and call them all Carry Optics.  

 

I think when USPSA started allowing ever increasing modifications to "Production" and hence to Carry Optics, the battle for ordinary guns was lost.  

I would make two changes, I would cut CO back to 126mm magazines and let Production have them, too.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Jim Watson

[waktasz]

Again, coming in here with opinions on how to change the most popular division? Why?

[Jim Watson]

Why not, nothing else going on today.

[BritinUSA]

6 hours ago, motosapiens said:

I think the effect of the weight is somewhat overblown. I have seen many many many shooters in the last year or so and the ones with weights or flashlights have generally had no less muzzle movement. and have not fared better in the results.

Perhaps the ones without the weights have already mastered the skills. 

[Racinready300ex]

1 minute ago, BritinUSA said:

Perhaps the ones without the weights have already mastered the skills. 

 

I do think the better you are the less things like weight and trigger pull will effect your game. 

 

I'm not the greatest, but I certainly can shoot a 45 oz CZ with a 2 lbs trigger better than I can a 25 oz plastic gun with a 4 lbs trigger. You have to work harder shooting the lighter gun, and when you do make a mistake it tends to hurt more. 

 

The local hotshot in CO switched to a glock over the winter, normally he shoots a CZ with brass grips. CZ reliability issues cost him several majors last year.  I shot a club match with him the day before we shot our sectional and he was running his CZ. He said after shooting the glock for a while and picking up the CZ again it was just so much better that it was worth the risk. He won the sectional the next day. I'd be if I asked him he say he wouldn't of won with the glock. Coa was only one point behind him. So if that gun even made .05% difference in his shooting it saved his match. 

[waktasz]

15 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I do think the better you are the less things like weight and trigger pull will effect your game. 

 

I'm not the greatest, but I certainly can shoot a 45 oz CZ with a 2 lbs trigger better than I can a 25 oz plastic gun with a 4 lbs trigger. You have to work harder shooting the lighter gun, and when you do make a mistake it tends to hurt more. 

 

The local hotshot in CO switched to a glock over the winter, normally he shoots a CZ with brass grips. CZ reliability issues cost him several majors last year.  I shot a club match with him the day before we shot our sectional and he was running his CZ. He said after shooting the glock for a while and picking up the CZ again it was just so much better that it was worth the risk. He won the sectional the next day. I'd be if I asked him he say he wouldn't of won with the glock. Coa was only one point behind him. So if that gun even made .05% difference in his shooting it saved his match. 

 

He wants to borrow my Tanfo for a while. Send me some cash and I'll tell him he can't have it

[Racinready300ex]

6 minutes ago, waktasz said:

 

He wants to borrow my Tanfo for a while. Send me some cash and I'll tell him he can't have it

 

That might be a smart move lol. 

 

[Johnny_Chimpo]

Those bemoaning the loss of popularity of iron sight divisions need to understand (or remember) that as firearm technologies change and are adopted by shooting sports, some types of firearms will simply just wither away due to lack of interest.

 

I saw this happen twice in NRA/CMP service rifle. 

 

The Army Marksmanship Unit saw the potential of the M16 as a competitive "production" service rifle over the National Match course of fire and drove the CMP and NRA to accept it in the mid 90s.  After a few seasons of development they got it to where it became the ideal firearm for that competition and started pounding the USMC rifle team (still using National Match m14s) like a rented mule.  Civilian competitors quickly caught on and by the late 90s the M14 was effectively dead as a competitive rifle despite the whining of many old timers and "traditionalists"

 

The same thing happened in the early 2000s with the adoption of low powered optical sights in NRA/CMP service rifle.  Again driven by the military teams as the Army and Marines were driving optical sights as standard on infantry rifles and saw the sport of Service Rifle in danger of slipping into irrelevancy if it didn't keep pace.  Within five years of the change you did not see a single rifle left with iron sights even though (unlike USPSA CO) they are still permitted.

 

While NRA/CMP Service Rifle's popularity is a shadow of what it once was, the decline is due to reasons completely unrelated to the firearms used.  The point to understand is that equipment changes are inevitable as technology changes and matures.