What should carry optics be?

[RJH]

Many times in limited optics threads, people discuss how carry ops should be changed. I'm curious to know what everybody's thoughts on what carry optics should be changed to is? 

 

I don't personally have an opinion on this matter, and carry ops is the only division that I'm not classified in. But with the overlap between it and limited optics and how they tend to get lumped together many times in conversations it does make me wonder what people's thoughts are.

 

So if you are a carryops shooter, or are considering being a carry ops shooter, tell us what you think carryops should be in the future, whether it's different than it is now, or if you think the rules are completely correct as is now

[THS]

If I was king for a day this would be CO.

1,  Holsters and mags back behind the Superior Illiac crest (the old production rule), except for Appendix IWB carry that requires a 1, a covering garment, and 2, ALL magazines carried IWB, and IN FRONT of the SIC.

2. Mags limited to factory capacity- Meaning you can add a pad ( up to .750" thick?) for insertion, but not to increase capacity.

3.  No flashlights

4.  Minor only

 

Limited Optics would mirror Limited, and allow race holsters and mag pouches, 140mm mags, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

[Nathanb]

Cover garments

[Racinready300ex]

As I said in the other thread I'd try to make the guns harder to shoot to separate them some from LO.

 

 

[motosapiens]

I think what CO is right now is pretty darned good, and based on the popularity, it seems most people agree.

 

I can see limiting capacity now that we have a racier more expensive custom-gun division, but limiting to factory length is stupid, which is why no real shooting sport does it. It would simply create an arms race and cz or canik would come out with a giant 'factory length' magazine within a few months. It would also make it unreasonable to shoot compact guns, which some people prefer.

 

If capacity was limited, either to 15 rds or to 120-126mm mags, I guess I'm not really sure whether I'd compete in LO or CO. Probably would pick whichever division had more heat.

[Blackstone45]

Always surprised me that CO didn't have more parity with IPSC Production Optics (or even to USPSA Production). 

[Racinready300ex]

 

28 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

I think what CO is right now is pretty darned good, and based on the popularity, it seems most people agree.

 

 

I think this is basically accurate. There are things I'd like different, but based on popularity it's clearly good enough as is. This discussion will probably have more merit in a couple years once LO is shaken out some. 

 

If at that point CO and LO are the two biggest divisions in the game we can probably leave them alone. If one is dying then we'll need to decide if it still makes sense to have two divisions so similar. If we decide not, then we'll need to either dump one or change one to separate them. The easiest one to dump will be CO since every CO gun is LO legal.

[THS]

39 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

I, but limiting to factory length is stupid, which is why no real shooting sport does it.

 

Who wrote factory length? 

 

None of the current crop of Tunsten infused, blah blah blah are "Carry" guns anyway.  Production Optics would have been a better name.

 

Of course I'm the guy who started in the late 80's and took 20 years off haha.   

Edited June 23, 2023 by THS

[Racinready300ex]

I think when someone says factory length they're thinking the typically 17-19 round standard capacity mags that come with most guns. A more consistent rule would be 126mm as that's about what they are. 

[motosapiens]

19 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

The easiest one to dump will be CO since every CO gun is LO legal.

i would say the easiest one to dump would be LO, since LO is newer, and dumb.   

[whan]

With LO now in place, I think the low hanging fruit and smart decision is to limit CO to 15 rounds. This makes it a pretty different game from 140mm. Requires at least a reload on almost all field courses, and 2 reloads for larger 32-round stages. Adds back a bit of thought into stage planning for round counts. Also has the benefit of being the better division for more factory equipment. There is a bit of an arms race in terms of stuffing max capacity into 140mm mags (some followers can do 24), which is more of a race gun thing. 15 rounds means you can be competitive with factory mags vs. being required to buy specialized equipment to be competitive in a division.

 

Other changes that could be considered would be weight limit, trigger pull weight, fitting in a box. Trigger weight would be hard to enforce, and don’t think USPSA is really set up for it. Weight limit is reasonably doable, as with fitting in a box with optic cutout and width requirement to remove the massive thumb rest slide stops (FWIW I use one), but those may be less popular as they’ll force a decent number of people into LO. But perhaps that’s fine - it’s less of an issue forcing the types of people with raced out shadow 2s with brass grips, thumbrests, 24rd 140mm mags into LO instead. 

Edited June 23, 2023 by whan

[motosapiens]

Just now, Racinready300ex said:

I think when someone says factory length they're thinking the typically 17-19 round standard capacity mags that come with most guns. A more consistent rule would be 126mm as that's about what they are. 

except that as soon as you make 'factory capacity' a rule, cz or canik will come out with a gun with 21-22 as 'factory capacity'.

[Racinready300ex]

Just now, motosapiens said:

except that as soon as you make 'factory capacity' a rule, cz or canik will come out with a gun with 21-22 as 'factory capacity'.

 

That's why I pointed out 126mm would be better way to word it. We need to establish intent of the division then find the best wording to get us there. IMO anywhere in the 15-20 rounds range would be a reasonable difference from where we are now we'd just need to decide how we want to go about ending up there. 

4 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

i would say the easiest one to dump would be LO, since LO is newer, and dumb.   

 

I'm talking a couple years down the road when most likely LO is more popular that CO. 

[Racinready300ex]

7 minutes ago, whan said:

Other changes that could be considered would be weight limit, trigger pull weight, fitting in a box. Trigger weight would be hard to enforce, and don’t think USPSA is really set up for it. Weight limit is reasonably doable, as with fitting in a box with optic cutout and width / lid requirement to remove the massive thumb rest slide stops (FWIW I use one), but those may be less popular as they’ll force a decent number of people into LO. But perhaps that’s fine - it’s less of an issue forcing the types of people with raced out shadow 2s with brass grips, thumbrests, 24rd 140mm mags into LO instead. 

 

I don't think a trigger pull limit would be hard.  Pick a number 3.5? Then hang a 3.5 lbs weight off the trigger at equipment check. Other shooting sports do similar. We could probably get someone to make certified weights for matches and sell them on the uspsa we page. 

 

 

[broadside72]

Dump LO. Drop the production list from CO. Allow mag wells in CO but can't extend more than 1/4" from frame (not the grip)

[motosapiens]

5 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

 Allow mag wells in CO but can't extend more than 1/4" from frame (not the grip)

lol, 2 weeks later we see guns with giant flared 'frames'.

[whan]

 

37 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

That's why I pointed out 126mm would be better way to word it. We need to establish intent of the division then find the best wording to get us there. IMO anywhere in the 15-20 rounds range would be a reasonable difference from where we are now we'd just need to decide how we want to go about ending up there. 

 

I'm talking a couple years down the road when most likely LO is more popular that CO. 

 

I think I'd prefer specifying 15 rounds vs. 126mm, mostly to avoid another arms race around basepads/followers/springs to max out capacity. Makes it easier for people to compete with just factory OEM mags

 

29 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I don't think a trigger pull limit would be hard.  Pick a number 3.5? Then hang a 3.5 lbs weight off the trigger at equipment check. Other shooting sports do similar. We could probably get someone to make certified weights for matches and sell them on the uspsa we page. 

 

 

 

That's true, IPSC does do it well, though I will say that no other division in USPSA has a min trigger weight requirement so it would stick out a bit being the only division requiring it. I think requiring the guns to be under a certain weight probably would be my choice of next step, as it does have precedent as a requirement for single stack. Maybe something like 40oz with mag so that middleweight guns like a P320 AXG are still allowed, but heavyweight ones like an S2 or my Tanfo Stock 2 are not. But most typical service pistols with flashlight would easily make it. Again, this avoids people having to go and buy a ton of special brass grips and items to try to make their gun most competitive. Add in a width requirement (to exclude thumbrests) and think it's a great division for factory equipment and new shooters to just run their home defense gun. 

Edited June 23, 2023 by whan

[Racinready300ex]

@whan I'd be game for 15 rounds, same as you I think it gets the job done and you don't need anything extra. Basically every gun that's reasonable for the division will be able to hold 15 rounds with out base pads or springs or anything fancy. It gets a lot of push back because counting is hard. 

 

I also like the idea of a lower weight limit. Something about 50 oz 9mm's with soft competition ammo that just bugs me. Probably because in my mind USPSA in the pinnacle of practical shooting sports, and it should be home of the best handgun shooters in the world. So why do we always gravitate toward making the guns easier and easier to shoot?

 

Make CO guns harder to shoot than LO guns. That will create some separation in the divisions and it'll create more separation in the results within CO. The better the shooter the less these changes would effect their score. 

 

 

[broadside72]

28 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

lol, 2 weeks later we see guns with giant flared 'frames'.

 

just make it a rule that sides of grips are required to be flat and parallel. I don't know of any handguns that are not already that way.

[whan]

@Racinready300ex Ha - I'd hope we can count to 15 as well as our IPSC counterparts 

 

But think we're definitely in alignment. I think it'd also be interesting that this version of CO (15rd + weight limit) also would have the most real-world applicable gear. Even for USPSA shooters, I'd bet most of their HD (or duty if LEO) guns are some form of a Glock/P320/M&P with flashlight and RDS, and not their Shadow2. I know mine is a P320AXG, despite shooting a 45oz Tanfoglio Stock 2 in CO. Even though I'd probably move to LO, I'd still probably shoot this new CO with the P320 just to test my abilities with a more practical gun

[lroy]

Production, 9, 140 mags, irons

 

CO, 9, 140 mags, dots

 

Done.

[motosapiens]

21 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

 

just make it a rule that sides of grips are required to be flat and parallel. I don't know of any handguns that are not already that way.

my stock cz wood grips were not flat or parrallel. neither are the lok grips on my shadow 2. Lots of guns have some form of contour in their grips.

[Boomstick303]

Not sure regulating the type of grip matters at all.  Weight of the gun, mag capacity (or length), type of holster, no Magwell is all that really need to be regulated in regards to CO.  

[truespode]

Wouldn't changing the mag capacity have an impact on classification percentages? How would readjustments go?

 

I don't see them going away from 140mm for CO.

[broadside72]

18 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

my stock cz wood grips were not flat or parrallel. neither are the lok grips on my shadow 2. Lots of guns have some form of contour in their grips.

the grip portion of the frame, since the frame is what i was originally referring to.