What if CO was a major/minor division like SS?

[OPENB]

I've been reading the several threads about SAO possibly coming into CO, and a thread discussing power being tested in stage design, and I got to thinking what CO would look like if we treated it like SS, with the option of major/minor scoring. If we allowed major scoring with .40's or larger, or minor as we have it now, leaving all other aspects alone. 140mm mags would probably yield 20 rounds of .40 and 23 rounds of 9mm. Would there be a shift to .40 guns for the points, or would 9mm still dominate because of capacity. I'm not advocating for any changes, just a what if. This has nothing to do with SAO, I'm talking about current CO legal guns. 

[crg]

I'm a legit D class. For me the biggest draws of CO are being able to shoot cheap, factory ammo and high capacity. I've been shooting a factory shadow 2 in limited just so I could fill my mags this season and was planning to move to CO next year. If they added major to CO I'd probably just keep shooting in limited and sell my optics to buy more ammo.

[CC3D]

I mean this question is already answered in limited, all you're doing is adding a dot. You can choose to shoot 9mm for capacity or you can shoot major. Major is far and away the better choice over the extra 3 or so rounds. Now I dont see all the CO shooters being happy about suddenly dropping money on .40 guns in this hypothetical scenario but if you wanted to be competitive you would have to. 

 

The reason the choice is significant in SS is because it's a low cap division and those extra few rounds can make a huge difference when planning out reloads etc. 

[OPENB]

3 minutes ago, CC3D said:

I mean this question is already answered in limited, all you're doing is adding a dot. You can choose to shoot 9mm for capacity or you can shoot major. Major is far and away the better choice over the extra 3 or so rounds. Now I dont see all the CO shooters being happy about suddenly dropping money on .40 guns in this hypothetical scenario but if you wanted to be competitive you would have to. 

 

The reason the choice is significant in SS is because it's a low cap division and those extra few rounds can make a huge difference when planning out reloads etc. 

I would also stay in minor because I'm invested in Shadow 2's. Major would be a definite advantage. Both major and minor would require at least 1 reload on an average field course, so the capacity advantage would not be as big a deal. Just a mental exercise while I waste time at work before we shut down court for the holiday.

[motosapiens]

everyone good would shoot 40 unless they were paid to shoot something else. you would need a much bigger capacity difference to make it close to even.

 

A better choice would be a separate division that allowed single action, mag wells, frame mount dots and major 140, minor 170 mags. everyone would still shoot major if they wanted to succeed. I would probably switch to that division.

Edited November 23, 2022 by motosapiens

[RJH]

I Agree with everybody else, in a high cap division that major and minor is an option, there's really not an option, you pretty much need to shoot major. Once you get over a certain round count, high round count in your mag really doesn't matter much. I put that number in my head at about 18 rounds. If your gun will hold 18 rounds of major or unlimited rounds of minor, major is probably going to be an advantage on 99% of the stages still. And once you add in that law enforcement/military tends to be going towards minor calibers, and minor calibers are hugely dominant in the civilian market, adding a major scoring option to anything right now would seem to hurt the division not help it IMO

Edited November 23, 2022 by RJH

[OPENB]

1 minute ago, motosapiens said:

everyone good would shoot 40 unless they were paid to shoot something else. you would need a much bigger capacity difference to make it close to even.

 

A better choice would be a separate division that allowed single action mag wells frame mount, dots and major 140, minor 170 mags. everyone would still shoot major if they wanted to succeed. I would probably switch to that division.

Would you keep the .40 for major rule or allow 9mm major? That would be significant.

[Boomstick303]

The fastest way to wreck CO would to be to include Major.   

[OPENB]

4 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

The fastest way to wreck CO would to be to include Major.   

Kinda like what happened to the 12 or so guys that shoot revolver. My buddy the revolver shooter quit shooting for a couple years over it.

[motosapiens]

7 minutes ago, OPENB said:

Would you keep the .40 for major rule or allow 9mm major? That would be significant.

9 major would be ok and keep everyone at 140mm mags. that would actually be awesome, because it would totally screw over the companies who are advocating for SAO in carry ops too. The whole reason they want it is they can't build guns that will hold up to major in competitive quantities. That would be a hoot to watch.

 

I'd probably start wearing goggles to RO.

Edited November 23, 2022 by motosapiens

[Racinready300ex]

100% me being selfish, I'd rather it stay minor only. I don't really want to shoot major end of story. 

 

I may still shoot it in minor but it's tough to travel to big matches knowing you're leaving so much on the table. If I go back to just doing club matches it wouldn't matter. 

[Boomstick303]

7 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

because it would totally screw over the companies who are advocating for SAO in carry ops too.

 

I find this a weird reason to advocate against allowing SA guns into CO.  

 

 

 

[RJH]

1 minute ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

I find this a weird reason to advocate against allowing SA guns into CO.  

 

 

 

 

 

I think a lot of it boils down to people are butt hurt that STI decided to change their name to staccato and decided to sell their guns to people who use them as they come, instead of chopping them up and wanting them warrantied. Which I don't really understand why STI was warranting chopped up slides in the first place, but some people got real offended over that I think. And I can even see why those people got offended since STI did say they would warranty that stuff.

 

I have no idea why that makes them mad at sv, atlas, Springfield, sig, Rock island, FN, hi point, or any of the other companies building or selling other Sao guns. I guess when panties get bunched it's hard to get them unbunched

[Racinready300ex]

8 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

I have no idea why that makes them mad at sv, atlas, Springfield, sig, Rock island, FN, hi point, or any of the other companies building or selling other Sao guns. I guess when panties get bunched it's hard to get them unbunched

 

I don't think anyone is mad that companies want to sell SAO guns. I certainly don't care. It think it does bug people when those companies are lobbying behind closed doors to change the sport. We are members, not customers we should have a say in what we want our sport to be. We should be asking the membership what they want, we should come before sponsors, but I don't think we do. 

 

It's funny how so many uspsa shooters joke that IDPA changes their rules based on Wilson Combats new products. But USPSA clearly does the same thing. I wonder if Sig were to send Jake that new SAO gun and a pallet of ammo would it speed this whole process of getting a new division along a bit. 

[Boomstick303]

3 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

But USPSA clearly does the same thing.

 

I ask this because I don't know.  What specific companies has USPSA rule changes catered to?

[Boomstick303]

4 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

It think it does bug people when those companies are lobbying behind closed doors to change the sport

 

Also what exact proof do we have this is happening?   The internet?

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I don't think anyone is mad that companies want to sell SAO guns. I certainly don't care. It think it does bug people when those companies are lobbying behind closed doors to change the sport. We are members, not customers we should have a say in what we want our sport to be. We should be asking the membership what they want, we should come before sponsors, but I don't think we do. 

 

It's funny how so many uspsa shooters joke that IDPA changes their rules based on Wilson Combats new products. But USPSA clearly does the same thing. I wonder if Sig were to send Jake that new SAO gun and a pallet of ammo would it speed this whole process of getting a new division along a bit. 

 

No, there's one poster that has said things like that a time or two, he might have even been quoted in the post that I quoted. I wasn't talking about you or really anybody else LOL. 

 

I'm going to stay out of all the politics stuff

[motosapiens]

13 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I don't think anyone is mad that companies want to sell SAO guns. I certainly don't care. It think it does bug people when those companies are lobbying behind closed doors to change the sport.

correct. not so much 'change the sport' as 'change CO'. Obviously it would be a terrible mistake to make significant changes to CO right now, since it's the most popular division.

 

OTOH, I wouldn't be bothered by a new optic division that included tac-tard guns. If I'm being selfish, I'd like that division to drawn up so I can play in it for minimal trouble, which would mean frame-mount optic (milling my existing atlas slide is not really an option), but wutever. There are already enough divisions in uspsa that I really enjoy that it doesn't matter that much to me how a new one would be drawn up.

[Racinready300ex]

1 minute ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

Also what exact proof do we have this is happening?   The internet?

 

They mentioned it at one of the in person meetings. Some thing to the effect of "talking with manufactures about divisions" 

 

Clearly infinity was vary vocal online about wanting this division, so has Akai. That "no talent" guy who shoots for Atlas has said on his podcast open PF should be lowered so he wont break so many parts. Other Atlas shooters come to mind who have been lobbying for SAO in CO for a while. So clearly these guys want this. 

 

So it's reading between the lines a little. Maybe it's not happening, but since the BOD keeps things so close to the the chest it leads to speculation like this. 

[Boomstick303]

Just now, Racinready300ex said:

Some thing to the effect of "talking with manufactures about divisions" 

 

So we do not know what equipment or what manufacturer were part of the discussion?

 

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

Clearly infinity was vary vocal online about wanting this division, so has Akai.

 

So a company wants to sell more of its product?  A company can have an opinion just as we can or is that now allowed?

 

2 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

That "no talent" guy who shoots for Atlas has said on his podcast open PF should be lowered so he wont break so many parts.

 

Is this the only guy talking about lowering PF?  I do not feel that is the case.  I think I am familiar the Podcast you are discussing, and if you are talking about who you are, that guy is far from a "no Talent" and he said that open guns in general.  Not just his open gun.  It is possible we are talking about two different guys here.  

 

3 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Other Atlas shooters come to mind who have been lobbying for SAO in CO for a while. So clearly these guys want this.

 

It is more than obvious Atlas shooters are not the only one so we attach them to the manufacturer?

 

All of this still HAS NOT POINTED to any rule changes in USPSA that was driven by any manufacturer?

 

Still curious about the comment below.

 

30 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

It's funny how so many uspsa shooters joke that IDPA changes their rules based on Wilson Combats new products. But USPSA clearly does the same thing.

 

Again sounds like of internet lore and a LOT of reading between the lines.  

[HesedTech]

The current CO does one very important thing, it keeps the cost of participating at a reasonable level. For under $2K one can compete, equipment wise, with top National shooters. If CO was opened to Limited guns, and Major then the cost will at least double. Money is a factor for the division and it is often compared to Open where the guns can approach $10K. If I had a vote I would just allow a Limited CO division with slide mounted optics, and keep the 40 SW for major with no comps. If 9 Major is allowed then why not go full Open division. My 2 cents.

Edited November 23, 2022 by HesedTech

[Racinready300ex]

15 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

So we do not know what equipment or what manufacturer were part of the discussion?

 

I do not, are you saying it didn't happen?

 

15 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

 

So a company wants to sell more of its product?  A company can have an opinion just as we can or is that now allowed?

 

I think I said the exact opposite of that. Sell what you want more power to you. I don't think you should come up with a product then try to force it on us. If it's really great it'll happen on it's own. Once we make the change if it's not organic it'll be to late. We'll of already broken the most popular division in the sport. 

 

15 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

 

Is this the only guy talking about lowering PF?  I do not feel that is the case.  I think I am familiar the Podcast you are discussing, and if you are talking about who you are, that guy is far from a "no Talent" and he said that open guns in general.  Not just his open gun.  It is possible we are talking about two different guys here.  

 

Surely he is not, I didn't know you wanted me to search all of the internet to find everyone who agrees with him. Maybe if the org was interested they'd pole the membership to see what we wanted. But, he is a representative of the company and publicly being vocal about the change and the reason for the change. Which is I thought what you were asking for. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

All of this still HAS NOT POINTED to any rule changes in USPSA that was driven by any manufacturer?

 

Still curious about the comment below.

 

 

Again sounds like of internet lore and a LOT of reading between the lines.  

 

Clearly SAO is not a thing yet so I can't point to it as a change can I? 

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

29 minutes ago, HesedTech said:

The current CO does one very important thing, it keeps the cost of participating at a reasonable level. For under $2K one can compete, equipment wise, with top National shooters. If CO was opened to Limited guns, and Major then the cost will at least double. Money is a factor for the division and it is often compared to Open where the guns can approach $10K. If I had a vote I would just allow a Limited CO division with slide mounted optics, and keep the 40 SW for major with no comps. If 9 Major is allowed then why not go full Open division. My 2 cents.

 

I don't think anyone really wants to add major to existing CO. I think the point the supports make is that you can still use your cheap plastic gun and do just as well as if you had a 10k dollar gun so the cost is really unchanged unless you really don't like your money. 

[Boomstick303]

2 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

I do not, are you saying it didn't happen?

 

Not at all.  I am pointing out we do not know what was said, who is involved or anything really.  But I guess we can speculate all we want.

 

3 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

I don't think you should come up with a product then try to force it on us.

 

Who has done this and what rules have been changed to suit any manufacturers whims or wishes?  I agree with the premise of your comment, but I am still asking when has the board made a rule change that would back up such a claim?  SA guns have existed for some time now, what product are these companies creating that is being pushed onto USPSA?

 

I am still super confused.  You made this comment did you not?

 

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

It's funny how so many uspsa shooters joke that IDPA changes their rules based on Wilson Combats new products. But USPSA clearly does the same thing.

 

What rules have been changed by USPSA in this way?  I am asking for any rule not SA in CO.  Your comment indicates USPSA does this all of the time or am I taking this quote out of context?

[HesedTech]

14 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

I think the point the supports make is that you can still use your cheap plastic gun

The SAO discussion is clearly about changing the current restrictions on manufactured gun volume, and USPSA recognition of particular models. A 2011 or 1911 style owner would like to play in the Division without purchasing another gun. As this thread demonstrates the problem becomes what else will be allowed and eventually we have an open gun with slide mounted optics.

 

Keep it, the Division simple, those who practice and train will always rise to the top no matter what the platform is. The rest of us become too focused on the bling rather than the work.