Limited Optics - Minor Only vs. Major/Minor scoring

[3gunDMD]

There is currently a discussion about this on the "limited optics" thread.  Wondering how people would vote on it. 

[MikeRussell]

Either make it major/minor or just allow SAO in CO.

[rifleman777]

Agreed, if it’s Provisional, run it major/minor and see how the numbers shake out.

[RJH]

38 minutes ago, rifleman777 said:

Agreed, if it’s Provisional, run it major/minor and see how the numbers shake out.

 

I'm definitely a minors only guy for this new provisional division, but you bring up a decent point.

 

But then the next question you have to ask is it what point do you eliminate major. If say 75% of the people shoot minor while it's a provisional division do you then go ahead and say oh it's a minor only division. What about 51%, or 90%? That's a line that would need to be drawn before the provisional division started I think. Because with any of those options you're going to piss off some people that spend some money on major guns if major doesn't stick, and you have to know what percentage of guys you're going to piss off is okay LOL

 

Like I say I think it should be a minor only division, but if they said we're going to allow major but if it doesn't hold x percent of participation I would be fine with that too.

 

Another point that I think Moto brought up that I thought could be interesting for a limited optics division, would be if it was major/minor, allow minor 171 mm mags. It starts to get interesting then IMO

[YVK]

Interesting software feature that you can't vote if you looked up the voting results first. Promotion of independent thinking?

I agree with first two posters above. If SAO minor was the ultimate goal, just plug it into CO. If figuring out what members really want is the purpose, then have to allow both in provisional phase. You have to accept that you can't make everyone happy. Hopefully optic mounting solutions that people choose would allow to install iron sights plate back on.

 

Edited February 18, 2023 by YVK

[Sinister4]

make it major/minor or just allow SAO in CO.

[rifleman777]

Another point that I think Moto brought up that I thought could be interesting for a limited optics division, would be if it was major/minor, allow minor 171 mm mags. It starts to get interesting then IMO
 

This is an idea !

[lroy]

Isn't the point of LO to have a place for popular 2011s to play? Does staccato even make 40 guns anymore?

[konkapot]

I think there is fundamental disagreement as to the "the point" is of LO. Lots of self serving/circular arguments run out of gas because there's no concensus on what the point or purpose it. 

[lroy]

Perhaps, but you'd assume this discussion came about because of high demand. There is no demand for 40.

[motosapiens]

29 minutes ago, lroy said:

Perhaps, but you'd assume this discussion came about because of high demand. There is no demand for 40.

i demand 40.

 

my vote is major/minor, 140mm magazines for major, 170 for minor.

 

If it's minor only, I wouldn't see any reason to shoot it, I'd just keep shooting limited and CO.

[Rich406]

40 is a dead caliber. USPSA should look to the future, not dwell on the past. 

[rifleman777]

3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

i demand 40.

 

my vote is major/minor, 140mm magazines for major, 170 for minor.

 

If it's minor only, I wouldn't see any reason to shoot it, I'd just keep shooting limited and CO.

Exactly 

[Rich406]

11 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

i demand 40.

 

my vote is major/minor, 140mm magazines for major, 170 for minor.

 

What the difference there? 24 vs 29 rounds? I don’t see that even coming close to offsetting the 5% advantage of major over minor. 

[lroy]

16 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

i demand 40.

 

my vote is major/minor, 140mm magazines for major, 170 for minor.

 

If it's minor only, I wouldn't see any reason to shoot it, I'd just keep shooting limited and CO.

 

I don't disagree, but I was more referring to the commercial demand of optic ready 2011s.  As far as I know, no one even makes them in 40; presumably because no one (outside of limited shooters) wants one.

[deerslayer]

If .40 is dead and everybody hates it, allowing major won't hurt because no one will shoot it.

Edited February 18, 2023 by deerslayer

[usmc1974]

13 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

If .40 is dead and everybody hates it, allowing major won't hurt because no one will shoot it.

No, you can bet your ass, that one SOB will show up with a 40 and want to shoot major....lol

[Rich406]

18 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

If .40 is dead and everybody hates it, allowing major won't hurt because no one will shoot it.

That’s not really how it works…..

[3gunDMD]

Just now, Rich406 said:

That’s not really how it works…..

Right - even though people would rather shoot 9mm it's hard to look past the major scoring advantage of 40 if major/minor scoring is allowed.  

[deerslayer]

5 minutes ago, usmc1974 said:

No, you can bet your ass, that one SOB will show up with a 40 and want to shoot major....lol

 

So you are saying there may be some demand for .40...

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Rich406 said:

What the difference there? 24 vs 29 rounds? I don’t see that even coming close to offsetting the 5% advantage of major over minor. 

20 rounds of 40, vs 28-29 of 9mm. I don't care if it's close to offsetting the 3-5% advantage of major.

[motosapiens]

Just now, deerslayer said:

 

So you are saying there may be some demand for .40...

obviously. What the 2011 fanboi's want is a protected division for 9 minor 2011's, because there aren't enough minor-only divisions already.

[deerslayer]

Just now, motosapiens said:

obviously. What the 2011 fanboi's want is a protected division for 9 minor 2011's, because there aren't enough minor-only divisions already.

 

The bad part is I've seen ONE dot-on-slide 9mm 2011 at a USPSA match in my life.  

[Rich406]

2 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

20 rounds of 40, vs 28-29 of 9mm. I don't care if it's close to offsetting the 3-5% advantage of major.

Your suggestions should at least make sense from a competitive viewpoint. A “I don’t care” that my suggestion doesn’t make sense adds nothing other than make you sound like a fudd..

[deerslayer]

2 hours ago, konkapot said:

I think there is fundamental disagreement as to the "the point" is of LO. Lots of self serving/circular arguments run out of gas because there's no concensus on what the point or purpose it. 

 

I suspect that the point of LO (if it will be minor only) is only to gather some data and then decide if SA guns need to be allowed into CO.  I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt there will be separate minor-only CO and LO divisions.