2011 and Carry optics

[cbrussell]

Yeah, probably will go the least popular route, that way almost no one would be happy. Nonetheless, I would like to see the BOD engage the membership and review all the Divisions to see if a better solution is out there. I have heard a lot of ideas kicked around on various Podcasts; would love to see them all flushed out and in one place for discussion. At the very least, it would be informative.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

I have a better idea for the BOD.

 

Do nothing.

[cbrussell]

I can live with that. Doing what manufacturers lobby for most likely sets a never ending bad precedent.

[BritinUSA]

I think the precedent was already set with the changes to CO.

[shred]

Ditch the dot requirement in CO.  Serves no purpose except to beef up Limited noobminor count.

 

[BritinUSA]

1 hour ago, shred said:

Ditch the dot requirement in CO.  Serves no purpose except to beef up Limited noobminor count.

That rule was only necessary during the provisional phase in order to ensure accurate reporting on actual dot use in the division. No reason it needs to stay, there is no mandatory dot in Open.

[cbrussell]

7 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

I think the precedent was already set with the changes to CO.

I think you are right. Manufacturers will continue to bring out new models to fuel purchases so therefore rules will continually change.

[Dazhi]

If it's limited optics, I am curious to see which slide-mounted dots and screws can last more than few live fire sessions on a major PF gun 

[waktasz]

Staccato is only making 9mm guns, surely the division would be minor only

 

[Joe4d]

17 hours ago, shred said:

.40 is way more alive than .38 super, but lots of people still shoot that.

 

Minor-only is a poor choice, but they'll probably do it anyway.

40 offers an advantage secured by the rules, Minimum major caliber.
38 super offers an advantage in open... Max capacity.. well it did until 9mm major came along. So who is still shooting super ?

Simplest and most logical thing to do, would be to drop the trigger distinction in existing carry optics, could drop the dot requirement as well. 
I think coming out with Limited optics would be redundant,, but would also give more proof that trigger doesnt matter.
I think it would be more foolish to create Limited Optics and score it major/40.. 

If I was making the divisions from start today.. Id make them what I have been sayign all along.
Open major.... Current open rules.
Limited major.....Current Limited rules.
Open Minor Current CO rules minus the irrational trigger fear rule.
A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want,, merge of production and limited rules... Scored minor, 140 mags, no trigger rules, maybe a box rule.
Locap 10/8  a 10 round minor 8 round major division. 

Although Johnny Chimpo up there probably has the best idea,,, I mean unless it has changed you cant get into a maior without booking it months out. Even a local where I was you had to pay and register a good week or so out or you couldnt shoot.
And matches turned into endurance events as you had 12,-15 man squads.  Not sure the sport needs any growth, seems to be doing ok.

[RJH]

I just hope we can get past the idea that allowing some changes in carryops made the guns that you need to win super expensive. Hell Nils just dusted everybody at carryops Nationals with a $650 lightweight plastic gun, and it didn't even have a flashlight on it....

[BritinUSA]

Some competitors are ‘outliers’, they are so far removed from the majority of shooters. At that level the gun simply does not matter. For the vast majority of competitors, it can (and often does) make a difference.

 

Using outlier performance to determine division rules is flawed.

 

On the topic of squad size, the last few times I shot an L1 match in Colorado, we had squads of 20-25 people. Some regions of the country would probably appreciate some growth, but there are quite a few that are overloaded.

 

Unrestricted growth on the National level is detrimental.

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

I just hope we can get past the idea that allowing some changes in carryops made the guns that you need to win super expensive. Hell Nils just dusted everybody at carryops Nationals with a $650 lightweight plastic gun, and it didn't even have a flashlight on it....

 

If someone paid Nils to shoot a 2011 and he dusted everyone still would that then mean 2011's are better?

[Racinready300ex]

Does anyone read the BOD minutes?

 

They talked about this recently, the idea floated was a new division to be Limited Optics and it would be minor only. The goal is sponsorship money but sounds like they are still unsure. 

 

[RJH]

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

Some competitors are ‘outliers’, they are so far removed from the majority of shooters. At that level the gun simply does not matter. For the vast majority of competitors, it can (and often does) make a difference.

 

Using outlier performance to determine division rules is flawed.

 

On the topic of squad size, the last few times I shot an L1 match in Colorado, we had squads of 20-25 people. Some regions of the country would probably appreciate some growth, but there are quite a few that are overloaded.

 

Unrestricted growth on the National level is detrimental.

 

Well since he's not really that outlier, I think what he does makes perfect sense to look at. I've said before but you to seem to like to gloss over it, the top three guns at limited Nationals were all plastic last year. That's right three plastic guns that probably cost less than the fourth place gun total destroyed the field. Assuming that s*** works the gun doesn't matter.

 

If people want to spend stupid money on a gun, this is America and they have that choice. But it's been proven time and again that it's the person shooting the gun that matters, not the gun. The only division that the gun might actually make a difference is open and that's because striker guns seem to not work well with open Major. However if the guns were fairly reliable, they could win there too.

[RJH]

37 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

If someone paid Nils to shoot a 2011 and he dusted everyone still would that then mean 2011's are better?

 

No, the result would be the same. Funny how that works, a 2011 or a plastic $600 gun and the same guy wins...

 

 

 

Don't forget, the top three guns at limited Nationals last year were all plastic, so it's not just Nils proving that plastic guns can kick the crap out of $7,000 2011's. And two of those three plastic guns at the Nationals last year were even shooting major

[Racinready300ex]

8 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

No, the result would be the same. Funny how that works, a 2011 or a plastic $600 gun and the same guy wins...

 

 

 

Don't forget, the top three guns at limited Nationals last year were all plastic, so it's not just Nils proving that plastic guns can kick the crap out of $7,000 2011's. And two of those three plastic guns at the Nationals last year were even shooting major

 

Right, pro's win with plastic gun proves plastic guns are just as good. If Pros win with 2011's it would prove plastic guns are just as good. Logical.

 

Or maybe making divisions based on the performance of the top two or 3 guys isn't the best course of action for the org as a whole.

 

Really it doesn't matter, I'd bet in a year maybe two will have a new division for these guns. 

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Right, pro's win with plastic gun proves plastic guns are just as good. If Pros win with 2011's it would prove plastic guns are just as good. Logical.

 

Or maybe making divisions based on the performance of the top two or 3 guys isn't the best course of action for the org as a whole.

 

Really it doesn't matter, I'd bet in a year maybe two will have a new division for these guns. 

 

If the whole point is that a 2011 gives too big of an advantage to let it in a division, but then someone proves multiple times that you don't have to have a 2011 to win that division, the point is kind of stupid and based in emotion and not fact.

[Joe4d]

you dont have to use outliers..
Pic a bigger match.. Pick a random class,,,, Compare 10 round production  to 10 round SS ,  Compare IDPA ESP to SSP, 
Outliers at the top are used because we know what gun they used in divisions like Limited. Harder to get that info down in the pack,, Running major the 2011 may have an edge,,, but thats probably more becasue the platform is designed for major, vs most poly guns are designed for minor 9mm,, then adapted or modded for major.. With various levels of success.

 

[Racinready300ex]

Best thing we can do is write the AD's and tell them we're looking for a SAO option. Clearly it's on the table they just need members feedback. Stop debating here and let them know. 

[BritinUSA]

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

Or maybe making divisions based on the performance of the top two or 3 guys isn't the best course of action for the org as a whole.

 

My point exactly.

 

The higher the skill level, the less the equipment matters.

[motosapiens]

3 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

Some competitors are ‘outliers’, they are so far removed from the majority of shooters. At that level the gun simply does not matter. For the vast majority of competitors, it can (and often does) make a difference.

 

 

nils wasn’t the only shooter doing very well with a cheap plastic gun. i saw huge amounts of glocks, walthers and sigs, and caniks, and a significant number of xdms and m&ps as well.i saw cops running their duty guns and cops running slightly sportier versions of their duty guns.

 

even the shadow 2 isn’t all that expensive. i paid $1500 for mine and changed 3 springs to make itrace ready.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

3 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

On the topic of squad size, the last few times I shot an L1 match in Colorado, we had squads of 20-25 people. Some regions of the country would probably appreciate some growth, but there are quite a few that are overloaded.

 

Unrestricted growth on the National level is detrimental.

 

 

I've shot a combined ten level II and III matches from January 2021 to now in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, and WV and not a single squad has ever had more than 15 people.

 

I've shot close to 100 level I matches since 2019 over six different states and have not seen a single one with a squad anywhere close to 20 people in it.

 

Your USPSA presidency would have been detrimental

[Boomstick303]

3 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

Using outlier performance to determine division rules is flawed.

 

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

If someone paid Nils to shoot a 2011 and he dusted everyone still would that then mean 2011's are better?

 

These comments are completely missing the point of Plastic guns finishing at the top of Limited last year.  I think we can all agree for top shooters the gun truly does not matter (this is true for every shooter but some do not believe this).  Its not one person we are talking about here, and point of bringing up Limited last year it was three different people using plastic guns finishing at the top of Limited, one of which was scoring Minor.  The point of bringing this up is to give credence that people to don't have to invest in a 2011 to be competitive.  You only have to put in the time on chosen platform.  

 

I think we can all agree somewhat that all the bells and whistles of 2011/1911 designs and what competitive shooters do to plastic guns are crutches for average/marginal shooters.  These things might give a marginal shooter a small gain, that will quickly top out when it comes to performing better and placing any higher at any given match.  It will always come back to proper training and a dedication to that training that few posses to be the Nils of the world.  

 

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

Or maybe making divisions based on the performance of the top two or 3 guys isn't the best course of action for the org as a whole.

 

It has nothing to do with basing the performance of three individuals or any pro shooter for that matter, but more to do with catching up technological advancements in firearms, everyone seems so resistant to recognize.  It allows for more guns to play, with larger mag capacity and dots, which if anyone is in disagreement check out the Sig 2022 CO Nationals attendance in regards to mag capacity and dots. Not sure if you get that type of attendance with any other division standing alone.

 

The reason for bringing up Last years Limited results is to give credence that not everyone has to go out and buy a 2011/SA guns if they were allowed in certain divisions.  Only to put in the time with their preferred platform to be successful.  

 

At the end of the day every top shooter at the very top are paid to shoot the gun they shoot so that particular Gun Manufacturer has traction in the competitive shooting world.  The deal for that shooter at that particular Manufacturer is right for them, or they would be shooting for someone else paying them more.  It has nothing to do with what the platform is exactly.  

 

Again these proposed rule changes would NOT STOP you from shooting whatever gun you wanted to.  The only perceived lack of competitive advantage you would "loose" using something other than a 2011/SA gun is on you.   Train harder and become a death stalker or don't.  It has zero to do with the gun and everything to do with the individual training with a given platform.  

 

59 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Best thing we can do is write the AD's and tell them we're looking for a SAO option. Clearly it's on the table they just need members feedback. Stop debating here and let them know. 

 

Agreed.  And I would, but the link for Area 2 Director does not seem to work.  I have sent the appropriate email to USPSA IT with zero response.   Maybe they are too busy for Membership feedback.  

[Boomstick303]

4 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

On the topic of squad size, the last few times I shot an L1 match in Colorado, we had squads of 20-25 people.

 

What year was that?  I have not seen anything remotely close to this in the last 3 plus years in Colorado, or any other National or Level 2 and up event.