2011 and Carry optics

[Racinready300ex]

21 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

Not just told a $500 plastic gun is just as good, shown. Last year's limited Nationals should have blown everybody's illusions that they had to have a 2011 to win, or even place in the top three out of the water LOL. And a plastic gun one limited Nationals the year before that, and I want to say a plastic gun was third but it's been a couple of years and I've slept since then. And that shooting major ammo (except nils) where I would expect heavy steel gun to actually have a solid advantage. But I guess since we can add weight to plastic guns now it's not a big deal

 

But I do have to agree that gun companies marketing their several thousand dollar guns as the greatest thing ever, but then saying they're the same as a Glock is pretty comical. Sad truth is, I think they are pretty much the same as a Glock, well maybe a canik since a canik has a badass trigger for plastic gun

 

And this is another point I find interesting in the debates. This forum is full of "it's the Indian not the arrow" but in this case we're just ignore the Indian and give all credit to the arrow.

 

What you're saying is "Look how well this arrow did" What we're not saying "look how well this Indian did". Maybe it's good idea to base our divisions off the performance of professionals at nationals, maybe it's not. That's probably the real debate right? 

 

Is anyone who shoots Limited and wants to win seriously considering switching to minor because Nils did, so major must not be a advantage? Kind of the same thing.

[obsessiveshooter]

When we talk about 2011s, we're really just talking about SAO.  If you've felt a Canik with the freedomsmith trigger and springs swap, or a P320 with the gray guns or whatever trigger, can you honestly still argue it would be an unfair advantage for a CZ Shadow to be converted to SAO?

 

Plastic gun triggers can be the equal of a SAO trigger these days, and the plastic guns don't have a thumb safety to mess with.

 

  Again, if you can loosen the restrictions and keep competitive equity, then I support it. 

 

I also think its dumb to have a "production list".  Its kind of presumptuous for USPSA to think that gun manufacturers have the time or desire to navigate USPSA's obstacles, especially if the manufacturer is in some other part of the world.  

[caspian guy]

1 minute ago, obsessiveshooter said:

When we talk about 2011s, we're really just talking about SAO.  If you've felt a Canik with the freedomsmith trigger and springs swap, or a P320 with the gray guns or whatever trigger, can you honestly still argue it would be an unfair advantage for a CZ Shadow to be converted to SAO?

 

Plastic gun triggers can be the equal of a SAO trigger these days, and the plastic guns don't have a thumb safety to mess with.

 

  Again, if you can loosen the restrictions and keep competitive equity, then I support it. 

 

I also think its dumb to have a "production list".  Its kind of presumptuous for USPSA to think that gun manufacturers have the time or desire to navigate USPSA's obstacles, especially if the manufacturer is in some other part of the world.  

I think the production list (like the limitation on limited guns having to have a certain number per year built to make them legal) is based dealing with situations from times in the past where manufacturers did build low volume custom shop versions of guns that were only available to their sponsored shooters and USPSA trying to stop that (sorta like FIA homologation rules) probably that mattered more in the days of no/to extremely limited modifications. Now I'm not sure how much use they are.

[RJH]

24 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

And this is another point I find interesting in the debates. This forum is full of "it's the Indian not the arrow" but in this case we're just ignore the Indian and give all credit to the arrow.

 

What you're saying is "Look how well this arrow did" What we're not saying "look how well this Indian did". Maybe it's good idea to base our divisions off the performance of professionals at nationals, maybe it's not. That's probably the real debate right? 

 

Is anyone who shoots Limited and wants to win seriously considering switching to minor because Nils did, so major must not be a advantage? Kind of the same thing.

 

You're either missing part of what I'm saying, or I'm not getting my point across, I'll try to clarify. 

 

First let me say that by saying Nils shot minor, I'm in no way saying people should switch to minor for limited, I do 100% believe that's an anomaly and while great shooters could probably place in the top 10 consistently shooting minor in limited I don't think that it's the way to go and I don't think even Nils would think it was the way to go.

 

 

Now to the next point, you mentioned should we base our observations off of professionals at Nationals, that's a good question but that's not what I'm doing. I'm an honest to God b class limited shooter that shoots a plastic gun, when I shoot against other honest to God b class shooters, I'm right in the mix regardless of what gun they're shooting. In other words as a b class shooter shooting against other b-class shooters, the gun has no advantage One Way or another from my experience. It also doesn't seem to have any real difference when we're talking professionals at Nationals. So it looks from my experience and observations whether you're a midpack also ran nobody like me, or a professional, the gun doesn't seem to make a huge difference in limited and I think that would carry right over to carry ops 

 

Hopefully all that makes sense

 

 

 

[RJH]

29 minutes ago, obsessiveshooter said:

When we talk about 2011s, we're really just talking about SAO.  If you've felt a Canik with the freedomsmith trigger and springs swap, or a P320 with the gray guns or whatever trigger, can you honestly still argue it would be an unfair advantage for a CZ Shadow to be converted to SAO?

 

Plastic gun triggers can be the equal of a SAO trigger these days, and the plastic guns don't have a thumb safety to mess with.

 

  Again, if you can loosen the restrictions and keep competitive equity, then I support it. 

 

I also think its dumb to have a "production list".  Its kind of presumptuous for USPSA to think that gun manufacturers have the time or desire to navigate USPSA's obstacles, especially if the manufacturer is in some other part of the world.  

 

I can't disagree with any of this

[RJH]

37 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

it lol'd me that they called the division 'practical', when heavy-ass 2011's are the least practical guns available.

 

While I get what you're saying, a staccato XL which is illegal weighs less than a plain jane CZ 75 which is legal. And since a CZ 75 is carried by a crap ton of militaries around the world, it would be hard to say it wasn't practical

[Racinready300ex]

14 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

You're either missing part of what I'm saying, or I'm not getting my point across, I'll try to clarify. 

 

First let me say that by saying Nils shot minor, I'm in no way saying people should switch to minor for limited, I do 100% believe that's an anomaly and while great shooters could probably place in the top 10 consistently shooting minor in limited I don't think that it's the way to go and I don't think even Nils would think it was the way to go.

 

 

Now to the next point, you mentioned should we base our observations off of professionals at Nationals, that's a good question but that's not what I'm doing. I'm an honest to God b class limited shooter that shoots a plastic gun, when I shoot against other honest to God b class shooters, I'm right in the mix regardless of what gun they're shooting. In other words as a b class shooter shooting against other b-class shooters, the gun has no advantage One Way or another from my experience. It also doesn't seem to have any real difference when we're talking professionals at Nationals. So it looks from my experience and observations whether you're a midpack also ran nobody like me, or a professional, the gun doesn't seem to make a huge difference in limited and I think that would carry right over to carry ops 

 

Hopefully all that makes sense

 

 

 

 

You just made the case in the pervious post too look at nationals performances which is why I made that point. Lots of people have made that case in these debates.

 

It's funny, talking to a buddy that sets up a vender both at majors and lets people shoot his nemesis to test it out. He said the common response he gets is it makes major and feels like their CO gun. These CO rules we'd be taking guns that make major feel like minor, and loading them up with minor ammo. 

 

As we move more towards custom tuned up guns we should think about adding a division for stock to relatively stock guns to play. Things your average gun owner might already have. 

[konkapot]

This has become a circular argument.

 

If it truly was the Indian:arrow argument, then let's just shoot heads up with no divisions. Christian S. or Nils could show up with a wrist rocket and a bag of marbles and crush our souls, so clearly it's the indian. 

 

But wait......I don't want to shoot my MRD 2011 9mm in Open because then I'd be shooting minor and that's not fair. But it IS fair to change the CO rules so I can take my arrow and shoot it against select other arrows and indians. 

 

It's the indian not the arrow as long as I come out ahead. If I don't come out ahead, then it's the arrow that's more important. 

 

Not looking to butt heads with anyone who's posted, just seems like this particular windmill spins around and around. 

[RJH]

8 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

You just made the case in the pervious post too look at nationals performances which is why I made that point. Lots of people have made that case in these debates.

 

It's funny, talking to a buddy that sets up a vender both at majors and lets people shoot his nemesis to test it out. He said the common response he gets is it makes major and feels like their CO gun. These CO rules we'd be taking guns that make major feel like minor, and loading them up with minor ammo. 

 

As we move more towards custom tuned up guns we should think about adding a division for stock to relatively stock guns to play. Things your average gun owner might already have. 

 

The reason I make the point about the pros is because most people don't really care what a b class midpack nobody thinks LOL. Or they try to make the point that plastic guns can't win at the highest levels.

 

The next point I'd make is I have a hard time believing that a nemesis or other 2011 gun would feel much flatter than a 46 Oz Accu Shadow from CZ custom. Especially considering you can still add weight to the Accu Shadow if you felt like you needed more. And the Accu Shadow is completely production and carryops legal 

 

 

To your third point, I've brought up having stock division more than once and get completely shot down. I think I've had two people say that they would actually want to shoot it. I know the only way to do it would be to go with something like a Glock or a CZ 75 only, and have it like a old IROC NASCAR style race, where everybody has basically the exact same gun. But nobody wants to shoot that crap because everybody wants to tinker.

 

 

[RJH]

2 minutes ago, konkapot said:

This has become a circular argument.

 

If it truly was the Indian:arrow argument, then let's just shoot heads up with no divisions. Christian S. or Nils could show up with a wrist rocket and a bag of marbles and crush our souls, so clearly it's the indian. 

 

But wait......I don't want to shoot my MRD 2011 9mm in Open because then I'd be shooting minor and that's not fair. But it IS fair to change the CO rules so I can take my arrow and shoot it against select other arrows and indians. 

 

It's the indian not the arrow as long as I come out ahead. If I don't come out ahead, then it's the arrow that's more important. 

 

Not looking to butt heads with anyone who's posted, just seems like this particular windmill spins around and around. 

 

I don't think anybody would argue that open division major has an advantage over carry-ops or production, so some divisional stuff does matter. I also don't think anybody would argue that major has an advantage over minor. 

 

The only real question is does a 2011 have a real advantage over some other gun. I say no, and that's based on b class versus b class, and professional level results in limited division  where 2011's and plastic guns go head to head. You could even extrapolate that out a little further and compare production to single stack results where capacity is restricted, and realize that they're basically interchangeable

[Racinready300ex]

10 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

The reason I make the point about the pros is because most people don't really care what a b class midpack nobody thinks LOL. Or they try to make the point that plastic guns can't win at the highest levels.

 

The next point I'd make is I have a hard time believing that a nemesis or other 2011 gun would feel much flatter than a 46 Oz Accu Shadow from CZ custom. Especially considering you can still add weight to the Accu Shadow if you felt like you needed more. And the Accu Shadow is completely production and carryops legal 

 

 

To your third point, I've brought up having stock division more than once and get completely shot down. I think I've had two people say that they would actually want to shoot it. I know the only way to do it would be to go with something like a Glock or a CZ 75 only, and have it like a old IROC NASCAR style race, where everybody has basically the exact same gun. But nobody wants to shoot that crap because everybody wants to tinker.

 

 

 

First I don't think what the pro's do really matters on the ground at the club level. It may be that no one cares about the B class no body, but that guy cares. Will Johnny C class feel he needs a better gun to stay competitive with Billy C-class? I can guarantee some will.

 

How much time have you spent shooting 2011's? I shot them for years and IMO they preform better. IF CO allows 2011s I'd never seriously consider a Shadow again. 

 

For the third point, we don't need a division for one gun only that would be dumb. I'm saying we need a division like we had about 5 years ago. We called it production back then and it limited the amount of s#!t you could do to your gun. We don't have that anymore. 

[MikeBurgess]

the real problem with the 2011 argument is not actual advantage it is PERCIVED advantage, way way too many of the shooters in this game are hung up on perceived advantage, and would have a hissy fit if they thought that their investment in a 54oz custom CZ was not completely wasted because obviously there is no way it could possibly compete with a custom 2011.

[RJH]

3 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

First I don't think what the pro's do really matters on the ground at the club level. It may be that no one cares about the B class no body, but that guy cares. Will Johnny C class feel he needs a better gun to stay competitive with Billy C-class? I can guarantee some will.

 

How much time have you spent shooting 2011's? I shot them for years and IMO they preform better. IF CO allows 2011s I'd never seriously consider a Shadow again. 

 

For the third point, we don't need a division for one gun only that would be dumb. I'm saying we need a division like we had about 5 years ago. We called it production back then and it limited the amount of s#!t you could do to your gun. We don't have that anymore. 

To your first point, if Johnny c class wants to spend the money that he thinks is needed to elevate him to b class instead of spending the time with what he already has, that's on him 

 

Number two I have shot some 2011's, shot one for a little while and realized that I was never going to put in any time to take advantage of any perceived advantage over a plastic gun to justify the cost, so I sold it. Also when I switched to a 2011 my scores did not dramatically improve, in fact they didn't improve at all. I spent way more time behind a production gun and a 1911 however and scores between those two are also basically the same.

 

Production back then was dumber than it is now. When you weren't able to really mess with your guns, people felt forced to buy a race shop CZ and not shoot their Glock. Now they can throw a vanik trigger in the Glock and go win Nationals. (Not really it just goes to show how not getting the message your guns is stupid) And like I stated earlier scores between 1911s in single stack and production guns are comparable, when comparing comparable shooters. 

 

[RJH]

8 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

the real problem with the 2011 argument is not actual advantage it is PERCIVED advantage, way way too many of the shooters in this game are hung up on perceived advantage, and would have a hissy fit if they thought that their investment in a 54oz custom CZ was not completely wasted because obviously there is no way it could possibly compete with a custom 2011.

 Yep to all of this

[Racinready300ex]

36 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

 

Production back then was dumber than it is now. 

 

 

In your opinion it's dumber. I my opinion it's dumber now. This sport is a meme with it's 59 oz minor guns, that aren't easy enough to shoot s we need magwells and to get rid of the pesky DA fist shot.

 

The beauty of having divisions is we don't need to shoe horn every type of gun into one division. If we change all the divisions to what you like we're leaving nothing for the people who don't see it the way you do. I don't think that's the smart play. 

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

In your opinion it's dumber. I my opinion it's dumber now. This sport is a meme with it's 59 oz minor guns, that aren't easy enough to shoot s we need magwells and to get rid of the pesky DA fist shot.

 

The beauty of having divisions is we don't need to shoe horn every type of gun into one division. If we change all the divisions to what you like we're leaving nothing for the people who don't see it the way you do. I don't think that's the smart play. 

 

No, it was definitely dumber back then when people would buy a CZ shadow that list for 1,500 bucks, but a guy couldn't buy a Glock and put a vanic trigger in it. Or buy Glock and put a flashlight on it to have a little extra weight so he can feel he can compete with a $1500 Shadow for under a grand and not feel undergunned.

 

Johnny c class that you were worried about having to spend money about three posts back, was going to have to spend $1,500 to feel competitive because he couldn't possibly be competitive with his Glock. You have to see the irony and inconsistency in what you're posting right?

[Racinready300ex]

55 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

the real problem with the 2011 argument is not actual advantage it is PERCIVED advantage, way way too many of the shooters in this game are hung up on perceived advantage, and would have a hissy fit if they thought that their investment in a 54oz custom CZ was not completely wasted because obviously there is no way it could possibly compete with a custom 2011.

 

You're not wrong. But perception is still important, especially to newer shooters considering the sport. 

[Racinready300ex]

2 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

No, it was definitely dumber back then when people would buy a CZ shadow that list for 1,500 bucks, but a guy couldn't buy a Glock and put a vanic trigger in it. Or buy Glock and put a flashlight on it to have a little extra weight so he can feel he can compete with a $1500 Shadow for under a grand and not feel undergunned.

 

Johnny c class that you were worried about having to spend money about three posts back, was going to have to spend $1,500 to feel competitive because he couldn't possibly be competitive with his Glock. You have to see the irony and inconsistency in what you're posting right?

 

 

Obviously it's impossible for anyone to not like the things you do. 

 

I do love that you're worried about people feeling outgunned under the old system. Lol talk about dumb. 

 

[motosapiens]

5 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

You're not wrong. But perception is still important, especially to newer shooters considering the sport. 

you are both rightish, and mr burgess is even righter. i dont think a 2011 would be an advantage in CO, but i still would prefer to keep them out.

[RJH]

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

 

Obviously it's impossible for anyone to not like the things you do. 

 

I do love that you're worried about people feeling outgunned under the old system. Lol talk about dumb. 

 

 

The best part of this is you're the one who was worried about Johnny C-Class feeling outgunned. So we agree, your whole point about people feeling outgunned is dumb

[Racinready300ex]

1 minute ago, RJH said:

 

The best part of this is you're the one who was worried about Johnny C-Class feeling outgunned. So we agree, your whole point about people feeling outgunned is dumb

 

Maybe, and those people will tell us with membership dues. Which is probably a more important discussion. How is a organization that basically just needs to keep up a web page, a classification system and host nationals coming up short on money? 

 

Personally I like the idea of haven't different divisions with different equipment rules, it's more interesting that way. 8 divisions with basically the same gun, not so much. 

[RJH]

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Maybe, and those people will tell us with membership dues. Which is probably a more important discussion. How is a organization that basically just needs to keep up a web page, a classification system and host nationals coming up short on money? 

 

Personally I like the idea of haven't different divisions with different equipment rules, it's more interesting that way. 8 divisions with basically the same gun, not so much. 

 

As far as the.org, that's a damn good question and one that I was wondering the other day myself.

 

And in reality I don't mind the eight divisions at all, and don't care if they stay just like they are now. I just don't happen to think of you allowed 2011s into carry-ops it's going to be the end of the world. And if they said 2011s are never going to be in carryops, I'd be 100% fine with that as well. I just like to shoot and talk shooting on the internet

[Racinready300ex]

10 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

As far as the.org, that's a damn good question and one that I was wondering the other day myself.

 

And in reality I don't mind the eight divisions at all, and don't care if they stay just like they are now. I just don't happen to think of you allowed 2011s into carry-ops it's going to be the end of the world. And if they said 2011s are never going to be in carryops, I'd be 100% fine with that as well. I just like to shoot and talk shooting on the internet

 

I don't think either would be the end of the world either. I just like it better separated. I have a 2011 I've considered barreling and putting a optic on the slide. Maybe I'll run it in IDPA or Open minor. But I don't need a special division to play with it. 

[waktasz]

20 hours ago, Gcarr said:

I truly think CO took off and developed into something away from the original idea. But what a great division! Why “Carry” Optics but allow heavy guns and 140 mags…. Nobody “Carries” a gun that heavy with 140 mags and this not IDPA. I think Production Optics with Production rules… there plenty of optic ready guns available. Ready for it… Modified Optics allowing heavy guns and 140 mags. I say keep the minor PF and yes allow SA guns (agreed no great advantage over other guns on the market) 

 

Carry Optics already is Production Optics. CO guns must be on the Production list to be eligible

[BritinUSA]

It's true that the 'base' gun has to be on the Production List, but to call it a production division is absurd. With all the customization that is now permitted it is little different from IPSC's Modified division.

 

I'm surprised that the BOD has not allowed mag-wells and ported barrels yet, I'm sure its just a matter of time.