Let's talk Sao carry ops

[Boomstick303]

Just now, RJH said:

Since I love 1911s and M1As I'm probably a Fudd

 

Fair enough.

[BritinUSA]

1 hour ago, crg said:

Sorry if this is a stupid question but is there a reason for prohibiting SAO guns from carry optics currently in the sense that they are that much better than DA/SA or striker guns? Or is it just a roundabout way of keeping 2011 style guns out of CO?

USPSA’s Production division was introduced around 2000 and was a copy of the IPSC Production division that was provisionally launched at the 1999 World Assembly in Cebu. The original idea was that they wanted a division for guns that were not 1911 SAO style but were SA/DA 9mm - which at the time were the most popular type of handgun outside of USA (especially in Europe).

These guns were significantly cheaper than custom 1911/2011 designs, which may explain why the division grew so fast in the rest of the world. The USA take-up was a lot slower, if I recall it was about two years before it really started to grow here.

 

The cost of the Production guns has risen due to manufacturers designing guns that are better suited to competition use, such as Tanfoglio, CZ etc. These guns are basically competition production guns, so they cost more but are much better suited to the sport than the guns that were available back in 1999.

 

That the cost of the guns has risen is a direct consequence of the popularity of this division. If what I hear is correct, IPSC is seeing similar growth spurts in their Production Optics division.

[AKJD]

4 hours ago, Boomstick303 said:

Another awesome thread to trigger the Fudds.   

What exactly is a Fudd?

[DavidSeavey]

I don't have much skin in the game regarding Prod, CO, or Lim major. But i've been thinking if SAO CO or whatever it gets called happens, and there's lots of talk these days, here's my most recent thoughts on them:

take CO back to Production Optics but make both Prod and PO 15 rounds

then add Limited Optics with limited rules

major/minor only is where i can see both arguments

 

it would add a bit more divisional distance between CO and SAO CO, but it wouldn't make current CO guns instantly obsolete, just add magwell really, or maybe take off basepads if that's deemed a problem. But it might also fit all the new shooters better into P or PO better with factory mags.

 

[TaterHead]

6 hours ago, AKJD said:

What exactly is a Fudd?

Noun. Fudd (plural Fudds) (derogatory) A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles.

[rowdyb]

Sunk cost is a logical fallacy. Saying not to do something just because a group already has spent money is a mistake. So I'll never buy the argument not to do something because it will cost shooters or an org money.

 

Secondly I'd welcome a frank discussion about what the rules are for. What do we want to accomplish with them? Realizing equipment rules could be very fluid whereas match or stage rules could be very static.

 

I'd also suggest completely removing from the discussion "well shooter X is capable of abcdef shooting Y gun against Z gun". Look at the equipment rules completely in isolation from individual match performances of either the elite or first timer.

[RJH]

3 hours ago, TaterHead said:

Noun. Fudd (plural Fudds) (derogatory) A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles.

 

Well, in that case I'm not a Fudd after all lol. I'm in favor of no gun control but we won't get into that here

[RJH]

8 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

Sunk cost is a logical fallacy. Saying not to do something just because a group already has spent money is a mistake. So I'll never buy the argument not to do something because it will cost shooters or an org money.

 

Secondly I'd welcome a frank discussion about what the rules are for. What do we want to accomplish with them? Realizing equipment rules could be very fluid whereas match or stage rules could be very static.

 

I'd also suggest completely removing from the discussion "well shooter X is capable of abcdef shooting Y gun against Z gun". Look at the equipment rules completely in isolation from individual match performances of either the elite or first timer.

 

1  I agree, though at one time I didn't

 

2  I think the rules should be set up for competitive equity. After almost two decades in this sport I've come to realize that things that matter are: sighting systems, capacity, power factor, compensators. Divisions should be separated based on those things and that's about it (I'm talking pistol divisions here, not PCC or revolver). Things that don't matter but people tend to get caught up over is the weight of the gun,  the trigger of the gun, and the cost of the gun.

 

3  While I basically agree with this thought, it is things that are hard to separate. People tend to go I can't be competitive without the $4,000 gun, but when they get destroyed by somebody with $1,000 gun it starts to show things, namely that the gun doesn't have that much to do with it all. Of course there are anomalies, but they're also trends. When I started everyone thought you couldn't win production with a dasa gun, now most people think you can't win production without a dasa gun (yes I know Nil's just did, but I'm talking generalities here not one specific individual).  So when you see trends like what has happened in limited division of solid competitors winning and placing very highly overall with guns that people wouldn't deem competitive you can't toss those examples completely out, because they start to show a trend, and not just an anomaly. I know that's kind of muddled but hopefully it makes some sense

[Racinready300ex]

 

Limited Optics is the most logical solution. Think about.

 

Add a division, this adds a national and adds sponsorship opportunities without stepping on the toes of existing sponsors. I think the direction of the org, this is a huge selling point and likely reason enough to not mess with CO and just add a division. Plus if we add SAO to CO we'll need to discuss adding it to Prod since the two are tied together.

 

Now, lets say the fans of adding SAO (and magwells) to existing CO are right and the guns are equal. Then what should happen is most shooters in CO will want to just add a magwell to their gun. So the existing CO shooters will slowly move from CO to Limited Optics. Give it two or three years and Limited Optics will be the biggest division and CO will slowly become a hider division too. If that happens what have we done? Well if you think about it we basically added SAO to CO but it took 3 years and let people choose it vs treating it like a bandaid and shoving them into CO. The end result is really the same. 

 

Ideally we'd then kill the OG CO in 3 to 5 years, but we've never done that in the past so I don't know that we'll start now. 

 

Worst case is we split CO in half and have two smaller divisions making up about 20% of the sport vs one that's 40%. I'm not sure people would see this as a bad thing. 

 

[CC3D]

10 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Limited Optics is the most logical solution.

 

Why does adding another division solve any problems? Think about the hit factors these two divisions will produce. They'll be the exact same. Whats the point of having 2 distinct divisions with VERY similar equipment and producing the same hit factor? Divisions are distinct because of the specific advantages that they give and the specific hit factors that they produce.

[RJH]

Just now, CC3D said:

 

Why does adding another division solve any problems? Think about the hit factors these two divisions will produce. They'll be the exact same. Whats the point of having 2 distinct divisions with VERY similar equipment and producing the same hit factor? Divisions are distinct because of the specific advantages that they give and the specific hit factors that they produce.

 

Agreed 

[Racinready300ex]

10 minutes ago, CC3D said:

 

Why does adding another division solve any problems? Think about the hit factors these two divisions will produce. They'll be the exact same. Whats the point of having 2 distinct divisions with VERY similar equipment and producing the same hit factor? Divisions are distinct because of the specific advantages that they give and the specific hit factors that they produce.

 

I think I spelled it out pretty well why it might go that way. I'm not saying its the best option but giving the intent (please sponsors) adding a division will do a better job. You also are less likely to get backlash from existing CO shooters who like the division they are shooting and the rules they are shooting under. Remember, we're dealing with a BOD who are elected and have to listen to us bitch constantly. With a new division if you bitch they can just say "if you don't like it, don't shoot LO". 

 

Put the two divisions head to head and let them duke it out. If the membership prefers one over the other it will be apparent in a few years time. The end result should be the same. If everyone adds a magwell and jumps into LO we've essentially gotten our SAO-CO just in a round about way. You're basically killings the currently CO without ever needing to vote to kill the division. 

 

Edit to add, I also don't think the current admin really cares about how many divisions we have, or "watering down" or any of that. This is seen as a hobby for fun and not a competition by many. If you don't care about the competitive aspect of USPSA you wont care how many divisions we have. Just another reason adding a division will likely be seen as a safer move then changing the current most popular division in the game. 

 

This is fairly typical way for things run by BOD's to work. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Racinready300ex

[CC3D]

7 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

You also are less likely to get backlash from existing CO shooters who like the division they are shooting and the rules they are shooting under

I do not personally support SAO in CO but:

 

If you add SAO to CO really all that will happen is people running their fancy DA/SA guns will just... not de-cock and run cocked and locked from the holster. The people choosing to run striker fired guns already dont care that much about the trigger.. they have the option of the better DA/SA trigger and choose to run a striker anyway. Adding SAO to carry optics doesn't objectively change much. 

 

Now, on principle, I dont think allowing 5-10k dollar custom 2011's to a "carry" division is wise, but that is a different and subjective discussion. 

[Racinready300ex]

1 minute ago, CC3D said:

I do not personally support SAO in CO but:

 

If you add SAO to CO really all that will happen is people running their fancy DA/SA guns will just... not de-cock and run cocked and locked from the holster. The people choosing to run striker fired guns already dont care that much about the trigger.. they have the option of the better DA/SA trigger and choose to run a striker anyway. Adding SAO to carry optics doesn't objectively change much. 

 

Now, on principle, I dont think allowing 5-10k dollar custom 2011's to a "carry" division is wise, but that is a different and subjective discussion. 

 

I think there are probably a few who think like you do. It doesn't really matter what people on enos think or how well Nils does. If some random dude at a club match feels outgunned he's going to bitch to the AD and they're going to have to listen to it. People with negative feelings are way more likely to contact their AD's.

 

If we do want the SAO guns (including the 10k 2011's) in CO and not in a new division we're going to need to convince the BOD that their not going to catch a bunch of s#!t for it after the fact. And with all the s#!t they've caught lately that might be a hard sell.

 

It would also help is CZ and Glock etc. came out and said they we're on board with more competition because they know their products can stand up to it. Those are big sponsors, and we don't want to risk upsetting sponsors in our attempt to gain new sponsors. But, sponsors will likely see more divisions as a good thing.

 

I think the BOD will see a new division will as the safer more diplomatic move.

[RJH]

43 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I think there are probably a few who think like you do. It doesn't really matter what people on enos think or how well Nils does. If some random dude at a club match feels outgunned he's going to bitch to the AD and they're going to have to listen to it. People with negative feelings are way more likely to contact their AD's.

 

If we do want the SAO guns (including the 10k 2011's) in CO and not in a new division we're going to need to convince the BOD that their not going to catch a bunch of s#!t for it after the fact. And with all the s#!t they've caught lately that might be a hard sell.

 

It would also help is CZ and Glock etc. came out and said they we're on board with more competition because they know their products can stand up to it. Those are big sponsors, and we don't want to risk upsetting sponsors in our attempt to gain new sponsors. But, sponsors will likely see more divisions as a good thing.

 

I think the BOD will see a new division will as the safer more diplomatic move.

 

 

There's a lot of this that makes sense, though if they did implement a new division I wish it would be with a caveat that in two or three years they would look at hit factors and if they were the same, then they would combine the divisions into one.

 

I do agree with you that I don't think the .org cares about divisions being watered down, but I tend to prefer less divisions over more. But I'm a vote of one LOL

[Racinready300ex]

38 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

 

There's a lot of this that makes sense, though if they did implement a new division I wish it would be with a caveat that in two or three years they would look at hit factors and if they were the same, then they would combine the divisions into one.

 

I do agree with you that I don't think the .org cares about divisions being watered down, but I tend to prefer less divisions over more. But I'm a vote of one LOL

 

That would be the play IMO. But, I'm not going to hold my breath for it lol. 

[motosapiens]

16 hours ago, Nathanb said:

I don’t think it’s a this year thing. With all the drama around the board and a new president coming in. I’d like to think they’ll start doing things right and try to fix some of the other problems. 

what things do you think are the 'other problems'?

[motosapiens]

2 hours ago, RJH said:

When I started everyone thought you couldn't win production with a dasa gun, now most people think you can't win production without a dasa gun 

what this boils down to is 'when I started, no one could beat ben, now no one can beat nils.'

[motosapiens]

16 hours ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

I beat this point to death, but essentially fell on deaf ears.  Not sure why SA guns are not allowed now.  As it was mentioned in the 2011 thread, creating CO based on Production rules was extremely short sighted.  One has nothing to do with the other, but for some reason people think it does.  Naming it Carry Optics did not help at all.

 

Seeing how current guns in CO are not typically Carry guns, but many will argue that is the reason CO was based on Production rules.

 

We need to stop attaching any rules in CO to Production or vice versa.  At least that is my take.  Production is dying a slow death like SS and the other divisions that have extremely limited participation.  Why do we need to keep doing this?

 

 

why not just take a membership vote, and see how many people want to f** up CO?  If the majority of uspsa members want to do that, I'm not going to complain much.

[RJH]

3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

what this boils down to is 'when I started, no one could beat ben, now no one can beat nils.'

 

I pre-date Ben by quite a bit. When I started no one could beat Dave, Vogel, and TGO, who all striker guns. And back then the prevailing theory was it would be too hard to master that dasa first shot and you had to have low bore axis. Because while a Beretta won the first production Nationals it was quite a while before a dasa gun one another one.

 

Now people want to believe a 50 ounce CZ Accu Shadow is at a huge disadvantage over a 35 Oz staccato, because that dasa first shot is such a disadvantage, and also let's forget that you can shoot a CZ in sa only. 

[RJH]

20 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

why not just take a membership vote, and see how many people want to f** up CO?  If the majority of uspsa members want to do that, I'm not going to complain much.

 

 

Quite honestly would like to know how you think it would f****** carry optics? And how the results would change if SAOs were allowed?

 

But please use arguments based in reason, not "feels"

Edited November 18, 2022 by RJH

[MikeBurgess]

if we want SAO CO we should make it a 10 round division so the 1911 guys can play too.

also this would give shooters in non free states a optics division option

[RJH]

1 minute ago, MikeBurgess said:

if we want SAO CO we should make it a 10 round division so the 1911 guys can play too.

also this would give shooters in non free states a optics division option

 

That would kill it before it ever started it. Nobody wants to shoot low cap. And the rules already allow for people in capacity restricted States. So if you live in Hawaii you're already shooting 10 round carryops. Other than that I do agree 1911s should be allowed in carryops as well

[Boomstick303]

14 minutes ago, RJH said:

Quite honestly would like to know how you think it would f****** carry optics? And how the results would change if SAOs were allowed?

 

It wouldn't screw up Carry Optics.  It is like we discussed before its based on preconceived notions that you would have to have a 2011 to compete.  Also that it would create a "Gear Race" which IDPA has proven is not a thing.  It would not change results at the top as it does not change the results at the top of IDPA.  It might give a marginal shooter an insignificant boost over shooting other guns.   If a shooter is on point with their marksmanship it would not help them much if any.  

 

 

10 minutes ago, RJH said:

Other than that I do agree 1911s should be allowed in carryops as well

 

I don't care if someone would want to use a 1911 in CO, even allow them to run 170mm mags, if they want to run them.  I don't care what gun runs in any division other than open which we all understand is a completely different beast.  If they choose to run a 1911 with normal mags and don't mind reloading, let them.  

 

I want to get away from this allowing certain guns and not allowing others within the confines of normal guns.  Guns with comps, ported barrels etc should stay in open.  

[motosapiens]

26 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

 

Quite honestly would like to know how you think it would f****** carry optics? And how the results would change if SAOs were allowed?

 

But please use arguments based in reason, not "feels"

lol, as if we had never had this discussion before. Please refer to the 10871324123098734 previous posts on the topic.