Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Let's talk Sao carry ops


RJH
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, RJH said:

This really boils down to; do you think that a single action only trigger gun is such an advantage that it is competitively unequitable to the guns in carryops now?

 

 

It probably doesn't really matter. That said, I really do like my 2011's I always have. So I'll switch to one if/when the rule changes and not look back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

So let's look at something with data then, that's been hinted at but not followed through on.

1. For a thought exercise what do you think about opning up SS to allow any gun that shoots 45acp and fits in the box? A la CDP in idpa. A great comparison of guns with the same pf, same capacity but wildly different actions. 

2. To continue in that thread let's look at a place that already has these types of guns in CO.... again, the idpa rules set of CO allows them. How is it working for the shooters and match results there? 

Surely there must be enough shooters and data to make some reasonable inferences......

 

So as a guy who shoots single stack, I've never understood why they didn't just let other guns in as well. I thought at least they should have always let Browning high powers in, but overall I think it matters none.

 

With equal sighting systems, capacity, power factor, and lack of ports between two guns, the two guns are going to score the same in the same person's hands. I understand why they did what they did back when they made single stack, but I actually wish they would have put all the low cap divisions together within eight major 10 minor capacity cap. Obviously talking iron sights etc like single stack/production/limited has now 

 

 

 

 

As far as the IDPA stuff, I'm not as well versed in that as there are no IDPA matches around here. According to the other feller posted on here though, since they allowed Sao guns with dots it hasn't changed and there hasn't been a weapons race LOL but Idk

 

 

 

Edited by RJH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem is not actual performance gains but the perception of performance gains.

What I mean is too many people believe they can buy improved scores, as CO currently is there is enough restrictions to keep most people in a reasonable cost window, now add 2011s and you will find that a large group of shooters will believe their 2 or 3  $2.5k shadows are now hopelessly out classed and the only way they can still finish mid B at their local match is to go buy a 2 or 3 $7k SV custom 2011s, now they have thousands invested in what they believe to be obsolete guns and need to spend tens of thousands for new competitive ones.  Even though the actual performance difference is non existent the perception of one is enough to make many people angry

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

The real problem is not actual performance gains but the perception of performance gains.

What I mean is too many people believe they can buy improved scores, as CO currently is there is enough restrictions to keep most people in a reasonable cost window, now add 2011s and you will find that a large group of shooters will believe their 2 or 3  $2.5k shadows are now hopelessly out classed and the only way they can still finish mid B at their local match is to go buy a 2 or 3 $7k SV custom 2011s, now they have thousands invested in what they believe to be obsolete guns and need to spend tens of thousands for new competitive ones.  Even though the actual performance difference is non existent the perception of one is enough to make many people angry

 

 

I believe you are correct and this is the biggest reason people oppose saos in carryops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Nathanb said:

Let’s see. 
the finances and spend of the organization. How did the org get to a point where it barely breaks even?

 

Flying employees around the country to shoot matches why? 

 

changes being made that don’t follow the bylaws 

 

the behavior of paid staff. Showing up at someone’s work because they said something you didn’t like is unacceptable. If the nail in foleys coffin was his behavior at a nationals why can things like this happen. 

 

banning of individuals for dissenting opinions 

 

Lack of data available or utilized. Let’s not forget the gm scores that came about because they were being set up wrong and was only caught because of an instagram account who managed to cobble together the data. It’s 2022 and the lack of technology utilization is appalling 
 

create some sort of polling to determine things like this.  We all pay to be part of USPSA but they don’t take any feedback. It’s 2022 and it can be done easily

 

I've quoted the above post to highlight an example of why threads get closed, and/or a member gets some individual 'counseling'. 

 

This is totally political noise that has NOTHING to do with the original question posed.

 

Leave the politics at the door. 

 

-Admin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let's touch on the other question in the op of the thread for those that are opposed to allowing saos in carry-ops.

 

 

What are your thoughts adding a division that is basically the same as carryouts but allows Sao guns? The reasons for this division would be the exact same as the reasons for carry-ops, people like dots, people like 9 mm minor, people like high cap, and people like Sao guns, but they can't shoot them in carryops as it is now and being minor they really are never going to be competitive in open without the comp and shooting minor only. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I need to be more clear here.  

 

We all have our opinions.  I welcome anyones opinion on any subject and respect it.  Disagreeing with another person's opinion is fine.  You guys do not agree with many of mine opinions and I am fine with that.

 

My question this whole time has been how exactly does allowing SA guns in CO change anything?   To that questions I have received zero good answers.  I have received a lot of we should not allow them because I think they should not be allowed on what seems to be based on feelings.  I could be wrong, but I have not been given any real answers to make me and other think otherwise.

 

If they keep CO in its current form, I DO NOT CARE.  I will shoot it all the same.  It still does not answer how allowing SA guns changes CO.   

 

The two main arguments against allowing SA guns is they would create a "Gear Race".  While you @Racinready300exthink you cannot use IDPA, I myself and other do not agree.  I think we can all agree that gun people are gun people so why is it that people in IDPA competing in CO do not all shoot SA guns?   If the thought is that "everyone" thinks you need certain gear to be competitive, then why does not bore out in IDPA regardless of the belief that "Equipment doesn't matter because it's bullseye with vests"  It is proven by DATA that 2011s are more accurate than striker fired guns so would you not want the most accurate gun if IDPA is truly only something along the lines of "because it's bullseye with vests".  

 

The second argument is that 2011s make you a better shooter.  This has been proven false by data.  Only the shooter holds themselves back no matter which platform they choose to train and shoot with.  A 2011 might help a marginal shooter who has poor marksmanship and possibly help with splits.  Striker fired and DA/SA guns to not hold anyone back and has nothing to do with moving, mag changes, transitions, stage planning, match management, etc.  I can read volumes upon volumes of threads and posts written by you guys and others in the know that those are the most important elements shooting a match.  If SA triggers made a difference in the standings then EVERYONE would be shooting CZs or Tanfos.  EVERYONE that cares about match standing anyway!!!!  The DATA bores out that not everyone is shooting CZs and Tanfos.  

Weird!

 

Allowing 2011s/SAO guns in CO would not change match results in the least bit.  Proven by data.  Data you may want to ignore, but anyone with common sense can see the data points that are out there.

 

I do not feel anyone has given a valid answer based on data on why SA guns should not be allowed in CO.  The only answers I have received seemed to be based feelings/opinion on the subject, which you are allowed to have.  Which just like you, others and I do not need to agree with.  

Edited by Boomstick303
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a lot of the posters here are focused on one division, either CO or Limited Optics (LO). Instead perhaps try looking at the divisions as a whole.

 

This is what led originally to the idea of the Production Optics division as there was a hole in the line-up. We had Major, hi-capacity, highly customized, expensive iron-sight division (limited) and a Minor, lo-cap, minimal customized division (production). 
 

We had Open which is Major, hi-cap, highly customized, scoped division but no, Minor, lo-cap, minimal customized division (ProdOptics).

 

The four main divisions (as they were originally intended), balanced each other, none of the divisions were perfect, each had their pros and cons and offered real choices.
 

If you make a perfect division then I’m just a few years, there is only one division and no choices.

 

Taking the original intent of the four main divisions we now have to consider changes in technology, the red-dots are growing in popularity. People with Limited guns want a dot but they want to retain all the customization and perhaps Major scoring that they have now. 
 

I think this will lead to a Limited Optics division that will - over the next few years - eventually replace Limited.

 

Open division is declining in some areas (last reports I saw from IPSC was quite significant). So in time I can see Open being replaced with a cheaper Modified division, which would be like Limited Optics but allow porting (no comps) and perhaps frame mounted optics.

 

The sport is changing due to the technology, new divisions are going to occur but they need to be balanced with the other divisions. Choice is a good thing, find the division that your gun fits into and then learn to overcome the weaknesses of that particular division, grow the skills is more important than grow the sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't CO become a provisional division in 2015? Because I remember shooting the very first CO nats....

 

7 years on and still fiddling? If it is so popular as is I'd vote absolutely NO to a 1911 or 2011 in CO without a corresponding complete overhaul of all divisions. 

Edited by rowdyb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know why prod guns were the basis for CO guns? Because at the time, and for years afterwards it was guns on the Prod gun list that oem's were putting on the market with the option to add a dot.

 

I in no way would move to accommodate a few hundred stacatto owners.

Edited by rowdyb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

I guess I need to be more clear here.  

 

We all have our opinions.  I welcome anyones opinion on any subject and respect it.  Disagreeing with another person's opinion is fine.  You guys do not agree with many of mine opinions and I am fine with that.

 

My question this whole time has been how exactly does allowing SA guns in CO change anything?   To that questions I have received zero good answers.  I have received a lot of we should not allow them because I think they should not be allowed on what seems to be based on feelings.  I could be wrong, but I have not been given any real answers to make me and other think otherwise.

 

If they keep CO in its current form, I DO NOT CARE.  I will shoot it all the same.  It still does not answer how allowing SA guns changes CO.   

 

The two main arguments against allowing SA guns is they would create a "Gear Race".  While you @Racinready300exthink you cannot use IDPA, I myself and other do not agree.  I think we can all agree that gun people are gun people so why is it that people in IDPA competing in CO do not all shoot SA guns?   If the thought is that "everyone" thinks you need certain gear to be competitive, then why does not bore out in IDPA regardless of the belief that "Equipment doesn't matter because it's bullseye with vests"  It is proven by DATA that 2011s are more accurate than striker fired guns so would you not want the most accurate gun if IDPA is truly only something along the lines of "because it's bullseye with vests".  

 

The second argument is that 2011s make you a better shooter.  This has been proven false by data.  Only the shooter holds themselves back no matter which platform they choose to train and shoot with.  A 2011 might help a marginal shooter who has poor marksmanship and possibly help with splits.  Striker fired and DA/SA guns to not hold anyone back and has nothing to do with moving, mag changes, transitions, stage planning, match management, etc.  I can read volumes upon volumes of threads and posts written by you guys and others in the know that those are the most important elements shooting a match.  If SA triggers made a difference in the standings then EVERYONE would be shooting CZs or Tanfos.  EVERYONE that cares about match standing anyway!!!!  The DATA bores out that not everyone is shooting CZs and Tanfos.  

Weird!

 

Allowing 2011s/SAO guns in CO would not change match results in the least bit.  Proven by data.  Data you may want to ignore, but anyone with common sense can see the data points that are out there.

 

I do not feel anyone has given a valid answer based on data on why SA guns should not be allowed in CO.  The only answers I have received seemed to be based feelings/opinion on the subject, which you are allowed to have.  Which just like you, others and I do not need to agree with.  

 

For me, I've pretty well moved into your camp of lets just do it. 

 

I do think the gear race has some merit. More so for the new guy coming into the sport. We have a ton of turn over, we need a constant flow of new shooters because in 2-3 years they'll be gone. I worry we'll loose some of those shooters because our gear scares them away. We already have this reputation to some degree. 

 

I've yet to see data that proves it would be a level playing field. Everything is anecdotal at best. Data to me would be put two guns in peoples hands running repeatable classifiers. Use people of all different skill levels, if the guns are equal the results should be easily repeatable. We should see vary similar and consistent HF's from each shooter. I do think the results would be close, but I've not actually seen anything like this. All I've seen is people point to a couple pro shooters results as proof that the gun the same and the shooter isn't better. 

 

If we were talking about changing L10 that's 1% of the sport the conversation might be different. But at 40% this is a massive change that if we're wrong might be a big deal. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

Know why prod guns were the basis for CO guns? Because at the time, and for years afterwards it was guns on the Prod gun list that oem's were putting on the market with the option to add a dot.

 

I in no way would move to accommodate a few hundred stacatto owners.

 

Yeah but for years many of the production guns were getting cut at shops they weren't coming optics ready. And now it's not just staccato owners, there's guns that didn't even exist when production optics came out.  I think  staccato is one of them, but there's also the new sig x5, there's a Springfield prodigy, there's the new Browning Hi power though at this point I don't think it's optics ready.  And I don't think something like the Accu Shadow was optics ready from the factory till a year or two ago. So I don't know that being optics ready from the factory really has any bearing on what should be allowed and what shouldn't. 

 

But I do know I saw a slide ride 2011 with a doctor, way back before I ever saw a slide riding red dot mounted on anything else. So if we're looking for originators of the slide ride, seems like SAOs might be the place to start LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

But I do know I saw a slide ride 2011 with a doctor, way back before I ever saw a slide riding red dot mounted on anything else. So if we're looking for originators of the slide ride, seems like SAOs might be the place to start LOL

 

That's true, I saw open shooters with slide mounted optics a long time ago. But that's not the direction we want to go lol

 

Something I've never seen is a c-more slide ride mounted on a slide. But it must of been a thing right? Off topic I know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

That's true, I saw open shooters with slide mounted optics a long time ago. But that's not the direction we want to go lol

 

Something I've never seen is a c-more slide ride mounted on a slide. But it must of been a thing right? Off topic I know. 

 

So I've never seen one, but somewhere I saw/ red / heard that they were originally made to be mounted on a Glock on the slide. But I have no evidence to back that up other than I remember hearing it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

Know why prod guns were the basis for CO guns? Because at the time, and for years afterwards it was guns on the Prod gun list that oem's were putting on the market with the option to add a dot.

When it first started being discussed it was just Glock and S&W that had an optic plate option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

So I've never seen one, but somewhere I saw/ red / heard that they were originally made to be mounted on a Glock on the slide. But I have no evidence to back that up other than I remember hearing it

 

I have read that also but like you no actual evidence to back it up. It must of cover the ejection port, probably interesting thing. That's probably the OG-CO gun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boomstick303 said:

 Few if any of these guns people show up to shoot Carry Optics at matches are actually carried by them in the real world.  So please Stop with this "Carry" crap argument.  

 

sounds like more feelings. I'm pretty sure you've already expressed every feeling possible on the topic (multiple times, in multiple threads), and I've responded with all the facts and data we have available (multiple times, in multiple threads) so why don't we just stop worrying until we get a chance to vote on it, then live with it like grownups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RJH said:

What are your thoughts adding a division that is basically the same as carryouts but allows Sao guns? The reasons for this division would be the exact same as the reasons for carry-ops, people like dots, people like 9 mm minor, people like high cap, and people like Sao guns, but they can't shoot them in carryops as it is now and being minor they really are never going to be competitive in open without the comp and shooting minor only. 

 

 

what emotional reasons do you have for not allowing major in such a division? I'm all for it if I can mill my limited slide for a dot and shoot major. I'll even let people to weak to shoot major use mags longer than 140.

🤣🤣🍺🍺

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boomstick303 said:

I do not feel anyone has given a valid answer based on data on why SA guns should not be allowed in CO.  The only answers I have received seemed to be based feelings/opinion on the subject, which you are allowed to have.  Which just like you, others and I do not need to agree with.  

 

oddly, you ignore all the data that doesn't agree with your opinion. 

 

I personally don't think IDPA data has anything to do with USPSA. The data from limited shows that if you allow 2011's, they will totally dominate the division except for a few noobs who haven't saved up enough money yet, and a few sponsored shooters who are paid to use something else.

 

If that's what the majority of people want, then fine. But there is no argument that can convince me SA guns should be allowed in CO other than a majority vote of USPSA members. Everything else is just 'feels'.

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

If you make a perfect division then I’m just a few years, there is only one division and no choices.

 

 

You have made many good points in this discussion, but on this topic I disagree with your logic entirely. There is no 'perfect' division, because people have different preferences, abilities and means.

 

Worse, the obvious corollary of your post is that we need to intentionally make divisions suck at least a little to keep them from being too popular....... that sounds pretty lame if you actually say it out loud.

 

Right now CO is incredibly popular. It would be very silly imho to make significant changes to a division that is already doing great. It would make more sense to screw with a dead division like production.... Hey, that's a great idea, let's allow SA guns in production and see if it saves the division. We could totally get some data from that.....

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, motosapiens said:

what emotional reasons do you have for not allowing major in such a division? I'm all for it if I can mill my limited slide for a dot and shoot major. I'll even let people to weak to shoot major use mags longer than 140.

🤣🤣🍺🍺

 

Mostly I think major is falling by the wayside. 40is no longer the go to law enforcement caliber, although I know it is used, and I actually prefer it, but most people would much rather shoot minor, because of cost and such. So I think in reality creating a new division where major is an option will effectively stifle that division.

 

On a slightly side note, completely not meant to derail this thread, I used to be die hard against eliminating major in limited, now I would be okay with it, if it would actually help the division, and I think it would. To be honest, and it pains me to say this LOL, if there was no major in any division other than low cap,and all low cap was thrown together with eight major 10 minor, I don't think it would be an issue and I think overall people would end up liking it. The only reason I think low cap would be a good one to keep the major/minor differences is because single stack is the only division where the major/minor choice is really interesting, and since I think all low cap should be lumped together anyway that's the way I would do it. 

 

 

PS my personal thoughts on 40 that are completely not related to sport, is that it is possibly the greatest carry round ever devised. My 40 ammo is 212 power factor out of my carry gun, and it's pretty awesome lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

oddly, you ignore all the data that doesn't agree with your opinion. 

 

I personally don't think IDPA data has anything to do with USPSA. The data from limited shows that if you allow 2011's, they will totally dominate the division except for a few noobs who haven't saved up enough money yet, and a few sponsored shooters who are paid to use something else.

 

If that's what the majority of people want, then fine. But there is no argument that can convince me SA guns should be allowed in CO other than a majority vote of USPSA members. Everything else is just 'feels'.

 

You should reread what you wrote here, you say that 2011's dominate where they're allowed, so they obviously are what the majority of people want 🤣🤣 There's some data for you 😉

 

 

The logic of not allowing 2011's because people like them, is a lot like not allowing hot chicks into a bar and having a bar for only ugly girls who also have bad attitudes, which sounds pretty lame when you say it out loud 🤣🤣🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

You should reread what you wrote here, you say that 2011's dominate where they're allowed, so they obviously are what the majority of people want 🤣🤣 There's some data for you 😉

 

 

The logic of not allowing 2011's because people like them, is a lot like not allowing hot chicks into a bar and having a bar for only ugly girls who also have bad attitudes, which sounds pretty lame when you say it out loud 🤣🤣🤣

lolz, that's a good point, however.... athletic chicks and good friend chicks and great personality chicks need love too. 3 bars where only hot chicks are welcome is sufficient. some of the other ones can be more 'inclusive and diverse' (i.e. intentionally discriminate against the most dominant and successful members).

 

but if the majority of uspsa members vote to have only hot chicks in every bar.... i guess i will hold my nose and start going to bars again....

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RJH said:

I used to be die hard against eliminating major in limited, now I would be okay with it, if it would actually help the division,

 

Is that really helping the division? That to me would be a fundamental change to the core or what limited is. You're not helping limited you're creating a new division at that point. It's just a new division that looks similar on the outside to the old division. I do think a iron sight, hi-cap minor division would be massively popular. Probably wouldn't matter if it was limited based or production based really. I think that's more of the reason for CO to be popular than the optic is. It's cheap guns, cheap ammo, low recoil and high capacity. 

 

29 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

what emotional reasons do you have for not allowing major in such a division? I'm all for it if I can mill my limited slide for a dot and shoot major. I'll even let people to weak to shoot major use mags longer than 140.

🤣🤣🍺🍺

 

What if we did 126mm mags for Major and 140's for minor. I might like that. 140's and 170's might be simpler, since we don't need a new gauge. But it just doesn't sit as well. 

 

Or what if everyone had 140's but minor gets a dot and major is stuck with irons. Limited and CO have really close HHF's depending on the stages and the shooters. This could be a interesting concept IMO. And this way were not messing with the most popular division, instead were messing with one that is loosing competitors quickly, and we don't have to create another division. 

Edited by Racinready300ex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Or what if everyone had 140's but minor gets a dot and major is stuck with irons. 

we have 'data' (not feels) that prove minor with irons is better than major with irons, probably due to the excessive and uncomfortable recoil of major. I think major needs the advantages to equal it out.

 

🤣😂😅🤣😇

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...