2011 and Carry optics

[ddc]

6 minutes ago, outerlimits said:

i do as well-kinda like the old days, almost.  and while yer at it, dump pcc in the weeds.

 

I couldn't help but notice that neither of those two most recent division suggestions included PCC. Ok with me.

[BritinUSA]

 

1 hour ago, shred said:

Major scoring changes the game and style considerably if you take advantage of it.  People chasing HOA and the highest possible HF will still shoot Open. 

 

What's killing Open and Limited right now are lack of off-the-shelf factory guns optimized for them.  There are a few options but not like there used to be.  Limited's numbers are buffed up by random noobs that show up match day with an iron sight pistol and 3 mags.

 

Near-mandatory ammo reloading and expensive primers and powder are also putting the hurt down.

 

 

I think its likely the same in the rest of the world. I remember seeing some charts on the IPSC Global Village showing a steady decline in Open. It started shortly after Production was announced in 2000. I'll be willing to bet that the decline has become sharper since Production Optics was started.

 

The cost of Open (and some Limited/Standard) guns is prohibitive. There are some manufactures catering to these divisions outside of USA, notably Tanfoglio and CZ but the 2011 platform dominates. And this would be the problem with bringing in 2011's into CO. It would not be long before it became just another 2011 division.

 

The lower cost divisions are going to pull more people away from the more expensive counterparts. People who want to shoot Major are going to find the competition start to dwindle in a few years. 

 

In the not too distant future I could see Open being replaced with a Limited/Standard Optics division. Its easier to reload ammo in Limited than it is in Open and there are a lot of commercial ammo manufacturers to choose from.

 

USPSA will no doubt do whatever it takes to appease the masses, IPSC will likely take a more measured approach. 

 

5 hours ago, shred said:

The original concept is long gone, so why does the trigger mechanism matter?

 

The original concept for CO (ie. Production Optics) is completed dead in USPSA, but apparently doing very well in IPSC. 

[BritinUSA]

5 hours ago, Joe4d said:

been saying that for at least a decade.  
Never made any rational sense to separate guns by trigger. 

 

Actually it did, the original concept for Production was a DA/SA 9mm, those guns had NO place to shoot and be competitive and (outside of USA) they were the most popular type of gun. Creating a division that deliberately excluded the 1911/2011 SA design opened up the sport to a lot more people. 

[Joe4d]

49 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

 

Actually it did, the original concept for Production was a DA/SA 9mm, those guns had NO place to shoot and be competitive and (outside of USA) they were the most popular type of gun. Creating a division that deliberately excluded the 1911/2011 SA design opened up the sport to a lot more people. 

it was the 9mm and being scored minor.. Nothing to do with trigger made it any more or less competitive other than peoples wrong assumptions. Strikers really made this division obsolete.
Go play with a walther get back to me no way I could take anyone serious that says a 1911 trigger would make any difference on the score

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Joe4d

[BritinUSA]

I was at the General Assembly in Cebu (1999) as a spectator when Production division was proposed in IPSC. I told you one of the main reasons why it was introduced, if you choose not to believe me that is your choice, it does not change reality.
 

The presentation included the reasons for the new division along with a video of Todd Jarret shooting a 10 round LDA with multiple reloads. IPSC wanted a 10 round limit but that was voted down.
 

A few years later they moved to 15 rounds.
 

 

[shred]

 

Quote

The cost of Open (and some Limited/Standard) guns is prohibitive. 

 

The money thing is important in the US, but lots of internationally, IPSC is a white-collar sport.  The difference between a $2+K Shadow 2 OR with a dot and $3.5K Czechmate or even a $6K Limcat is negligible.  The Laguo Alien is a thing.

 

(it's similar here too once you count up ammo and travel and match fees for a serious competitor except for the sticker shock)

 

I'd guess ammo availability and reloading legality is much more of an influencer overseas.

 

IMO allowing 2011s into CO would make it more interesting without diluting competition from other pistols, although it would be worth considering the hated trigger-pull rule again just to even things out.

 

[Joe4d]

9 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

I was at the General Assembly in Cebu (1999) as a spectator when Production division was proposed in IPSC. I told you one of the main reasons why it was introduced, if you choose not to believe me that is your choice, it does not change reality.
 

The presentation included the reasons for the new division along with a video of Todd Jarret shooting a 10 round LDA with multiple reloads. IPSC wanted a 10 round limit but that was voted down.
 

A few years later they moved to 15 rounds.
 

 

No doubting what was proposed, Just stating the trigger portion of the proposal was irrelevant. It was based on false assumptions .
9 minor scoring, stock guns, and mag limits accomplished the goals... Including the trigger part  has been proven to be a non factor in scores in USPSA and IDPA..  More and more people have figured it out. 10 years ago was seeing an awful lot of striker guns in Limited. 
 

[Boomstick303]

It is comical how everyone keeps referring to "Stock Guns".  In what division and what context?  There is no division where "Stock Guns" are currently being used.  Triggers, are modified in just about every gun in every division if the shooter cares to change it, amongst other items depending on the gun.

 

Help me understand how an RO/CRO identifies all of the requirements of this "Stock Gun" when a shooter comes to the line.  Even when the RO recognizes an illegal hammer his ruling was overruled at a major event if my memory serves me correct.  So to what means are we talking about "Stock Guns"?  This would be required to enforce to create a level playing field.  How do we do that?

 

So what are we talking about here. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Boomstick303

[ddc]

1 hour ago, Boomstick303 said:

It is comical how everyone keeps referring to "Stock Guns".  In what division and what context?  There is no division where "Stock Guns" are currently being used.  Triggers, are modified in just about every gun in every division if the shooter cares to change it, amongst other items depending on the gun.

 

Help me understand how an RO/CRO identifies all of the requirements of this "Stock Gun" when a shooter comes to the line.  Even when the RO recognizes an illegal hammer his ruling was overruled at a major event if my memory serves me correct.  So to what means are we talking about "Stock Guns"?  This would be required to enforce to create a level playing field.  How do we do that?

 

So what are we talking about here. 

 

I don't think you can. That was one of the reasons for relaxing the Prod rules. Difficult/Impossible for an RO to look at a "stock" gun and figure out legality in any reasonable period of time.

But then you go down the rabbit hole and end up with what for all practical purposes is limited/minor with a 10 round limit.

[BritinUSA]

36 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

I don't think you can. That was one of the reasons for relaxing the Prod rules. Difficult/Impossible for an RO to look at a "stock" gun and figure out legality in any reasonable period of time.

But then you go down the rabbit hole and end up with what for all practical purposes is limited/minor with a 10 round limit.

IPSC has been able to manage a tight Production rule-set. USPSA wanted an easy-out to the problem that also helped to increase their revenue.
 

There is nothing ‘production’ about USPSA’s Production division, except the name.

[Joe4d]

42 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

I don't think you can. That was one of the reasons for relaxing the Prod rules. Difficult/Impossible for an RO to look at a "stock" gun and figure out legality in any reasonable period of time.

But then you go down the rabbit hole and end up with what for all practical purposes is limited/minor with a 10 round limit.

Should just stop the hypocrisy and just call it what it is... A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want. and call CO Open minor or better yet,,, Modified.
Modified was a division before its time. Didnt have dependable enough slide mounted optics  yet,
For those that dont recall. Modified, was basically anything goes as long as it fits in a box, and maybe had a weight limit.

 

[Racinready300ex]

2 hours ago, Boomstick303 said:

It is comical how everyone keeps referring to "Stock Guns".  In what division and what context?  There is no division where "Stock Guns" are currently being used.  Triggers, are modified in just about every gun in every division if the shooter cares to change it, amongst other items depending on the gun.

 

Help me understand how an RO/CRO identifies all of the requirements of this "Stock Gun" when a shooter comes to the line.  Even when the RO recognizes an illegal hammer his ruling was overruled at a major event if my memory serves me correct.  So to what means are we talking about "Stock Guns"?  This would be required to enforce to create a level playing field.  How do we do that?

 

So what are we talking about here. 

 

You're right. But there was a time Production was pretty much a production gun. And with a production list, if manufacturers started getting carried away with things like the A01-LD we could of just not approved them or something crazy like that. IPSC production is still vary similar to our old system. I believe the still have minimum trigger pull requirements which I'd like to see in a production division too. 

 

But now we're using this bastardized division we call production to justify getting farther away from production guns. Maybe we need to do like IPSC did, and instead of CO light and heavy. Have Production CO and Limited Optic Minor. Roll back Prod-CO rules to the old production rules but keep the 140's. 

 

Most current CO shooters would have to go to Limited Optic or remove stuff from their guns. But they could still shoot the same gear if they wanted. Mean while you give the crazy's like me a division we want. I'm sure there are more people who'd shoot  OG Prod with a dot division than there are L10 and Revo shooters combined. I wonder if what those two divisions would look like in 5 years. Would everyone just shoot the Limited version or would we self segregate into 2011's in one a production guns in the other. 

 

I think the division with the harder to shoot guns would be more interesting. And cheaper is a plus too. 

[BritinUSA]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

I think the division with the harder to shoot guns would be more interesting. And cheaper is a plus too. 

 

This is right on the money in my opinion; This is a sport, its primary purpose is to be competitive and challenging. If the equipment rules are weakened so that the guns are easier to shoot, (fewer reloads, heavier guns that reduce muzzle-flip),  then where is the challenge ?

 

I think the main divisions should have clearly defined boundaries and differences, and no division should be perfect. Every division should have its pro's and con's. The skill is gained by maximizing the potential of the equipment while overcoming its weaknesses.

 

USPSA's main audience is the hobby shooter, they will cater to that group exclusively to maximize the revenue. The past few years have proven that.

 

I'd like to see USPSA split away from IPSC, two separate organisations. I think the top talent would go to a USIPSC org.

[Boomstick303]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

But they could still shoot the same gear if they wanted. Mean while you give the crazy's like me a division we want.

 

Again, how do you Police this???  Do you tear down every "Production Gun" before every match?  It is impossible to police, unless you institute some sort of minimum trigger weight and other ISPC rules to making internal changes of a Production gun useless.  You want to hear some insane whining revert CO (the most popular division in USPSA) to anything less than its current format. This does include pissing off every Tanfoglio, CZ and Sig shooters that have paid hundreds of dollars to modify their triggers in their current CO and/or Production guns.  

 

To what means?  To save a dying division like Production?  So we are back to changing rules to deform the most popular division to placate extremely small percentage of USPSA.  

 

In my opinion utterly stupid.

[BritinUSA]

My opinion;

The rule changes in Production and CO were a mistake. The rule changes cannot be undone. 

 

This is why changing equipment rules should be done carefully and infrequently. Each time the rules are loosened the negative consequence is that existing users have to spend more money to retain competitive equity. 

 

Production is dying because the rule-changes in CO allowed them to shoot their existing Production guns with maximum capacity by just adding a red-dot. If the two divisions had parity (except for the sight) then the reduction in Production would likely have been much lower.

 

I wish we could get the detailed numbers from IPSC, I suspect that while Production may have dropped a little with the introduction of Prod/Optics I am willing to bet that their drop was much, much lower.

[Boomstick303]

5 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

The rule changes in Production and CO were a mistake.

 

I can agree with that with the exception of mag capacity.  You are ignoring the fact that most gun come with mags with 15 rounds or more capacity.

 

6 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

The rule changes cannot be undone. 

 

This is one of the points I am making.  You already opened Pandora's box, there is no going back now, and no one has answered the question of enforcement to ensure competitive equity.

 

10 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Production is dying because the rule-changes in CO allowed them to shoot their existing Production guns with maximum capacity by just adding a red-dot.

 

Not sure I agree with this.  Especially with all of the new Red Dot ready guns available on the market today.  Its pretty obvious Irons are dying in the gun world, not just the competition world.  

 

Something else no one is talking about is the current microwave society we live in today.  No one cares to reload except for hard core production shooters and people playing in L10 or Single Stack.  I am old but new to the sport and I could care less about having more than one reload per stage.  Some consideration should be given to this.   Bigger magazine capacities and dots seem to attract the most amount of people.  No one is clamoring to shoot low cap divisions.  Pretty easy to to see the type of guns the majority or shooters are showing up to matches with.  How many of the current membership have converted based on CO rule sets?  Its obvious CO has people's attention.  

 

I think its pretty clear what makes sense and the direction USPSA needs to go.  Or we can placate a ridiculously small percentage of the membership.  

 

 

[Johnny_Chimpo]

25 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Production is dying because the rule-changes in CO allowed them to shoot their existing Production guns with maximum capacity by just adding a red-dot. If the two divisions had parity (except for the sight) then the reduction in Production would likely have been much lower.

 

Production is dying because optics are better.

 

If CO mag limit had been kept to 10 I would still not be shooting Production.  I suspect I am far from alone.

 

I also have some news for those who think reloading should be a big part of the sport: reloads are almost non-existent in the real practical application of handguns.

[BritinUSA]

That small percentage that you refer to are the Competitors that seek the challenge that the sport offers. The vast majority of USPSA is made up of Participants that want to have fun.

 

The two groups are moving further apart, there needs to be two separate entities. USPSA cannot serve both interests, they have proven that beyond a doubt. Their focus is on the revenue, not the sport.

[Racinready300ex]

37 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

Again, how do you Police this???  Do you tear down every "Production Gun" before every match?  It is impossible to police, unless you institute some sort of minimum trigger weight and other ISPC rules to making internal changes of a Production gun useless.  You want to hear some insane whining revert CO (the most popular division in USPSA) to anything less than its current format. This does include pissing off every Tanfoglio, CZ and Sig shooters that have paid hundreds of dollars to modify their triggers in their current CO and/or Production guns.  

 

To what means?  To save a dying division like Production?  So we are back to changing rules to deform the most popular division to placate extremely small percentage of USPSA.  

 

In my opinion utterly stupid.

 

Well we would police it the same way we did for years in the past. 

 

It sounds like you don't want to change a working division unless it's to make the changes you like. Reasonable, certainly not utterly stupid. 

 

Clearly we're not going back to anything. We can't that ship is sailed, there is to much money spent. What I think is utterly stupid is the constant changing of the rules for some new thing we need to add to make things better. Especially considering we can see that once a change is made there is no going back and divisions are with us forever no matter how little turn out there is. 

 

So while I like the idea of having a division for mostly stock guns, I'm not asking anyone to make it happen. I'm just saying I'd like it and find it more interesting. So, I'll just shoot a mostly stock gun and have fun with in the current rules. That's a thing you can do, you know? Will I be at a disadvantage if I run the gear I want? Sure. Could someone also run a A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want gun in Open? Yup they could.  I'm not going to go online and whine about how we need to allow SAO so I can shoot my 2011 in another division. 

[Racinready300ex]

7 minutes ago, Johnny_Chimpo said:

 

Production is dying because optics are better.

 

If CO mag limit had been kept to 10 I would still not be shooting Production.  I suspect I am far from alone.

 

I also have some news for those who think reloading should be a big part of the sport: reloads are almost non-existent in the real practical application of handguns.

 

I'd probably still shoot CO at 10 also. Once I ran a dot for a while it's hard to want to shoot irons again. Dot's are like you say, better IMO. 

 

I like reloading, and thinks it's a skill that should be tested. But, 10 rounds on todays stages would be annoying. I shot a match over the weekend with 15 round mags, it worked pretty well. My plans were a little different and certainly more risky then the other CO guys. But it was fun. 

[Boomstick303]

28 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Well we would police it the same way we did for years in the past. 

 

Was there a trigger weight rule I am not aware of in prior rule sets?   If there was not how do you police the internals of any gun?

 

28 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

It sounds like you don't want to change a working division unless it's to make the changes you like. Reasonable, certainly not utterly stupid. 

 

It has zero to do with what I like.  My opinion has zero bearing on dwindling production / Low Cap division participation numbers.  My opinion has no bearing on the participation numbers of CO / High Cap divisions.

 

My opinion is that its stupid to change rules of highly successful divisions to placate a ridiculously small percentage of the membership.   

 

28 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Clearly we're not going back to anything. We can't that ship is sailed, there is to much money spent.

 

I think everyone agrees with this point.

 

 

The divisions that I have elaborated before in another thread and that @rowdyb has mentioned in this thread encompasses more guns to play in the game.  Makes the rules far easier to enforce.  This does not prevent you from shooting a Production Gun or any other gun for that matter.   I think tweaks could be made to make almost everyone happy.  If you wanted Open Minor to be limited to 15 rounds and be the same as Limited Min., I think most could live with that.  I think 140 mm mages are easier to police, but like I mentioned before not a hill worth dying on.  If SA guns were not allow in Open Minor I could care less.  I would not understand why "when the gun doesn't matter" but I don't care, and this is the topic of this thread so it is a question.  

 

If you do not create a rule set that keeps advancement in technology in mind you will get what we see today.  A continuously changing rule set.  USPSA should make one full measure and be done with it.  Stop making half measures which seem to open a can of worms every time they do. 

 

Create a rules set with either rounds (no less than 15) or mag size, gun weight and size (i.e. a box to fit in) more in mind than lists of guns, or what can and cannot be in/on the gun and create a rule set where there would be zero reason to change the rule set.   

Edited September 9, 2022 by Boomstick303

[BritinUSA]

21 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

I like reloading, and thinks it's a skill that should be tested. But, 10 rounds on todays stages would be annoying. I shot a match over the weekend with 15 round mags, it worked pretty well.

I think 15 is the sweet spot, it works in the rest of the world.
 

Stage design plays a part in division participation. When I shot in Europe the emphasis was on number of stages, not on round count. There were lots of small/medium courses and very few large ones.
 

It’s a regional thing, but in many parts of USA high round-count is king, and that can (and likely does) drive people away from the lower capacity divisions, as most only shoot in L1 matches.

[RJH]

People like hi cap, the only time low cap was popular was during the Brady bill era and when there was no other real choice. No body wants locap, and I say that as a guy who likes SS. 

 

2011s in CO or production doesn't matter. I will remind everyone that striker guns were 1,2, and 3 at limited Nationals last year and that was shooting "hard kicking" major, well at least 2 of them were. 

 

If you want to change divisions, bump minor to 135 pf, then have three divisions open and limited, and locap, and eliminate major in high cap divisions. And bump major to 175 and low cap divisions, and make low cap 8 major or 10 minor. I guess if you want to have something stupid like open low cap you can do that too. But you would end up with everybody shooting open and limited because they have high capacity, and a low cap divisions wouldn't matter anyway

 

The rest is people crying for a participation trophy

[outerlimits]

what's wrong with just irons and optics?  minor or major your choice.  no limitations on any mods.  current mag length works as well.  rule book would be 1/2 the size.  and rifles are a different match all together-go away.

[BritinUSA]

Under that proposal, competitive equity would come with an enormous price tag.
 

Unlimited modifications are the reason why why Open and Limited guns costs many thousands of dollars. The allowed modifications for CO have driven the costs higher too.