Limited Optics

[RJH]

13 minutes ago, cheby said:

Copied and Pasted:

 

Limited Optics Minimum power factor for major - Not applicable

Minimum power factor for minor - 125

Minimum bullet weight - No

Minimum cartridge dimensions - 9x19 (0.354 x 0.748”)

Minimum trigger pull - No

Maximum handgun size- No

Maximum Magazine Length - 5.561” (141.25mm) or 6.742” (171.25mm) in single stack guns only

Maximum ammunition capacity- No

Maximum distance of handgun and mags/speed loaders from inner side of belt - Handgun and Mags – 3 3/8” (length of an overlay)

Optical/electronic sights permitted - Optical/electronic sights REQUIRED; must be attached directly to slide between rear of slide and ejection port, and may not be mounted to the frame in any way

Installed flashlights permitted - Yes. Inoperable units used as weights: Yes.

Use of of lasers allowed Compensators and/ or barrel porting permitted - No

Slide ports Milling of slide permitted - A slide may be modified specifically for the purpose of installing optical sights or cocking serrations. Textured finishes, grip tape, milling or stippling on the slide to provide texture is also allowed. Cuts designed to specifically or significantly lighten the slide, such as holes, are allowed

After market slides and barrels - SLIDES: You may replace the slide with an OFM or aftermarket slide BARRELS: You may replace the barrel with an OFM or aftermarket barrel

Sight blocks permitted - Yes Magwells permitted - Yes

Thumb rest permitted - Yes

Slide Rackers permitted - Yes

Maximum weight - No

Handgun specifically approved for Division - Not applicable

Holster restrictions - No

 

Thanks

[RJH]

Glad to see they kept the original idea that they had put out. I'm looking forward to officially shooting it, one more guy for the good guys to beat LOL 

 

 

[BritinUSA]

CO + magwell + thumb-rest + racking lever = Limited Optics

 

I wonder how many will switch from CO to LO just for the magwell?

 

I'll go on record and say 30% of people will move from CO to LO

Edited March 1, 2023 by BritinUSA

[Boomstick303]

53 minutes ago, RJH said:

Glad to see they kept the original idea that they had put out. I'm looking forward to officially shooting it, one more guy for the good guys to beat LOL 

 

I think the data they collected in regards to 2011 .40 sales and the current .40 market in general opened their eyes a bit.  

[Racinready300ex]

42 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

CO + magwell + thumb-rest + racking lever = Limited Optics

 

I wonder how many will switch from CO to LO just for the magwell?

 

I'll go on record and say 30% of people will move from CO to LO

 

Is that like 30% of member ship or 30% of CO shooters? 

 

Even steeling 30% of CO shooters and not getting anyone from any other division puts it more popular than most of the divisions. 

[Darqusoull13]

54 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

CO + magwell + thumb-rest + racking lever = Limited Optics

 

I wonder how many will switch from CO to LO just for the magwell?

 

I'll go on record and say 30% of people will move from CO to LO

I'd agree, it will cannibalize about that much from CO and other divisions without increasing membership numbers at all. 

There's a lot left on the table with the 50% turnover currently and I don't see how LO is even a drop in that bucket of retention. 

[Dazhi]

Not sure why current CO shooters would want to shoot LO?  Novelty factor?

Best competitions will still stay in CO as those sponsored plastic gun shooters will stay in CO.   I just don't see the incentive at this point of time to ditch CO and shoot LO instead.  

 

Edited - if you get to shoot both in a major match, that would be a different story

Edited March 1, 2023 by Dazhi

[Racinready300ex]

1 minute ago, Dazhi said:

Not sure why current CO shooters would want to shoot LO?  Novelty factor?

Best competitions will still stay in CO as those sponsored plastic gun shooters will stay in CO.   I just don't see the incentive at this point of time to ditch CO and shoot LO instead.  

 

Would you say SAO shouldn't be in CO?

[CClassForLife]

LO will end up absorbing CO.

[Dazhi]

29 minutes ago, CClassForLife said:

LO will end up absorbing CO.

or vice versa. 

 

I think most people agree the current implementation of CO and LO are essentially the same division. 

The correct way to do "CO" is IPSC production optics, 15 round production guns that fix the box.  I look forward to and welcome another round of rule change proposal to combine CO and LO with the introduction of Production Optics division. 

[MHicks]

I just got my first gun with an optic setup for CO. But my other guns that I already have are SAO. If I put an optic on one of them I could use my Da/sa gun for a backup in LO. For CO backup I'd need a new gun. Then either way if they keep LO as a seperate division or eventually combine them and allow SAO into CO I'd be ok. But I'm just an average shooter not trying to push to the top.

[CClassForLife]

25 minutes ago, Dazhi said:

or vice versa. 

 

I think most people agree the current implementation of CO and LO are essentially the same division. 

The correct way to do "CO" is IPSC production optics, 15 round production guns that fix the box.  I look forward to and welcome another round of rule change proposal to combine CO and LO with the introduction of Production Optics division. 

 

I think LO will absorb CO due to it being the more relaxed ruleset. 15 round production will probably never be a thing in USPSA because it will feel like too much of a loss. Time will tell.

[Boomstick303]

To be honest there should be two divisions. Optics Minor and Optics Major.  I proposed versions of this one the forum and to my AD months ago but the board has decided it wants to go this route. Most likely to prevent a revolt by those participating in the current largest division in USPSA. I cannot say I blame them due to their current state of the organization. 
 

Just as there should be A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want and Limited Major.  Which I also proposed. It would simplify so much and also allow so many more guns to participate in these four divisions. There would be specific delineation between all four divisions as well. 
 

Keep PCC the same.

 

Group the rest of low cap into a Classic fission and do your best to create some sort of competitive equality between the low cap platforms. 
 

Maybe after some time the LO participation data will reflect some answers that make sense. 

[whan]

43 minutes ago, Dazhi said:

or vice versa. 

 

I think most people agree the current implementation of CO and LO are essentially the same division. 

The correct way to do "CO" is IPSC production optics, 15 round production guns that fix the box.  I look forward to and welcome another round of rule change proposal to combine CO and LO with the introduction of Production Optics division. 

 

I think this is the right way to do it IMO - current CO gets absorbed into LO, and create a real "Carry" Optics that is restrictive like IPSC PO. I'm certainly not going to actually carry my Tanfo with Nitro Fin and 140mm mags, but would carry a G19 with an RMR

[BritinUSA]

52 minutes ago, Dazhi said:

The correct way to do "CO" is IPSC production optics, 15 round production guns that fix the box.

Agreed; And it's doing well in IPSC, and it was the original intent of USPSA's version, the same rules as Production but with a red dot.
 

The production ruleset was then significantly relaxed and CO changed even more.

 

LO is essentially the same division as CO, the differences are very small. 30% will switch from CO to LO, maybe even higher.
 

It's remotely possible the org just killed CO

[GrumpyOne]

1 hour ago, CClassForLife said:

LO will end up absorbing CO.

That's just LoCo!

[Dazhi]

When will LO National happen? Will it be a combined national with CO?  That will be interesting. 

[RJH]

32 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

 

 

It's entirely possible the org just fixed CO

FIFY

[RJH]

6 minutes ago, Dazhi said:

When will LO National happen? Will it be a combined national with CO?  That will be interesting. 

 

Definitely pluses and minuses to doing it that way. Pluses would be since they're the same guns and going to shoot basically the same hit factors, might as well have it at the same Nationals. Minuses would be since it's a new division they might want to see how many people would shoot it over some other division that is not the exact same. My  hope is that in a few years they go ahead and allow single action guns into carryops and basically combine carryops and limited optics, which is the way it should have been from the word go

[Boomstick303]

I honestly do not think it hurts to have LO as a separate division. It allows the org to collect data. Watch the .40 market and participation numbers when there is a viable 2011 division where minor is on a level playing field. It allows them to see if it truly does become an arms race meaning LO becomes predominantly 2011 division even when scoring is minor only.  As a provisional it gives them a lot of runway for decisions for a number of divisions in the future.  
 

I cannot see how anyone is but hurt over how it is being handled. 

[BritinUSA]

I doubt it will become a majority 2011 division with this rule-set. Those with CZ or Tanfoglio CO guns will likely jump ship, no more DA/SA mix.

 

The vast majority of USPSA shooters are in L1 and they like things easy; Reloads are hard so they like high-capacity divisions, reloads with a magwell are even easier, so they will switch.

 

Magwells (after-market or OEM) are available for just about every Production gun.

 

On the classifiers HHF they should use those values set by CO. The two divisions are essentially the same, they should not use Limited or Open as both are Major_

[RJH]

30 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

I honestly do not think it hurts to have LO as a separate division. It allows the org to collect data. Watch the .40 market and participation numbers when there is a viable 2011 division where minor is on a level playing field. It allows them to see if it truly does become an arms race meaning LO becomes predominantly 2011 division even when scoring is minor only.  As a provisional it gives them a lot of runway for decisions for a number of divisions in the future.  
 

I cannot see how anyone is but hurt over how it is being handled. 

Agreed

[RJH]

10 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

 

 

On the classifiers HHF they should use those values set by CO. The two divisions are essentially the same, they should not use Limited or Open as both are Major_

 

While I think that using CO classifiers would have been the correct call as well, I don't know that major versus minor matters that much in this instance, as the high hit factor is going to have been set with all alphas in most cases anyway.

 

I guess they had to figure on whether the comp and frame mounted dot was a bigger advantage with open guns versus the perceived trigger, magwell and holster advantages that lo has over Co. And maybe since many classifiers require one or multiple reloads and many times multiple draws, they felt that the magwell and holster might be a bigger advantage. Just speculating though

 

 

[waktasz]

17 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

I doubt it will become a majority 2011 division with this rule-set. Those with CZ or Tanfoglio CO guns will likely jump ship, no more DA/SA mix.

 

The vast majority of USPSA shooters are in L1 and they like things easy; Reloads are hard so they like high-capacity divisions, reloads with a magwell are even easier, so they will switch.

 

Magwells (after-market or OEM) are available for just about every Production gun.

 

On the classifiers HHF they should use those values set by CO. The two divisions are essentially the same, they should not use Limited or Open as both are Major_

 

Definitely not. My 2011 shoots a lot better than my Tanfo

[RJH]

Just now, waktasz said:

 

Definitely not. My 2011 shoots a lot better than my Tanfo

 

Serious question; I assume the weight is pretty close, and I know many of the dasa guns have an outstanding single action trigger, so what about your 2011 shoots a lot better than your tanfo?

 

 

For me, I like the way 19/2011s shoot better, but I don't know that I actually shoot them much better than anything else I practice with. But I know you're a much better  shooter, so I'm curious as to what the difference is that you see, because I doubt it's just the double action first shot you are talking about