What should carry optics be?

[RJH]

1 minute ago, BritinUSA said:

Aftermarket triggers are permitted in IPSC Production divisions, bigger mag releases are permitted in IPSC as long as they are available from the original manufacturer (Tanfoglio does this with Xtreme parts from Grauffel).

 

Aftermarket grip panels are also permitted.

 

 

I've often wondered why you don't start an ipsc club here in America. Most of your post seem to be griping about the way USPSA does stuff while singing the accolades of ipsc. Start some ipsc clubs in the USA and see how well it works and how many people like it better. 

 

And if you really want to know what people like better, run your match on the same day as a USPSA match in the area and see who gets the competitors

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Non humanoid targets, limited sight pictures, trigger weights, Following guidelines from an org that is made up of many non gun friendly countries who could be telling us what to do to "standardize" the sport.

 

Another list of good reasons to not like ipsc.

 

And can't forget that if you have a sight picture with a towel in your hand it's a penalty 

 

 

 

The more I remember back from when I started close to 20 years ago and our rules more closely aligned with ipsc, the more I realize how much more I like USPSA rules now than I did back then. I'm not saying USPSA does everything perfect, but overall I prefer the way the rule book has moved in the last 20ish years

[BritinUSA]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

I've often wondered why you don't start an ipsc club here in America. Most of your post seem to be griping about the way USPSA does stuff while singing the accolades of ipsc. Start some ipsc clubs in the USA and see how well it works and how many people like it better. 

 

And if you really want to know what people like better, run your match on the same day as a USPSA match in the area and see who gets the competitors

 

USPSA controls all IPSC matches in USA, activity fees, club affiliation etc. would still need to be via USPSA. I don't think there are many practical shooting clubs in my area anyway.

 

I would love to see a USIPSC organization setup in USA, it would at least give another option to competitors. It won't happen until IPSC takes the regional directorate away from USPSA. 

[OpenshooterMclass4lyfe]

11 hours ago, RJH said:

 

Ruleset in general, sure.

 

Glock 34 and XDM 5.25 too gamer, but $2000 CZ and tangfolio is good to go

 

 race holsters in carryops and production is dumb, in fairness though doh type holsters by USPSA was a move in the wrong direction 

 

Can't leave fault lines is another dumb one, though not equipment related

 

126 mm mags in limited

 

Varying pf for major 

 

Only turtle targets

 

I could probably find more but, this is quite a bit of dumb and it just what I remember offhand

 

 

 

 

Why is varying pf bad?  So limited should be the same pf as open? When generally lighter bullets are used in open.    Why are race holsters a problem?  I’m just as fast out a race holster as I am a bucket style holster….. and I don’t see an issue with the only  ipsc targets thing either. I also don’t get the issue with not being able to leave the fault lines lol     These are all just opinions you’ve formed.  Could you expand on them as to why they’re bad?  

[RJH]

17 minutes ago, OpenshooterMclass4lyfe said:

Why is varying pf bad?

 

17 minutes ago, OpenshooterMclass4lyfe said:

So limited should be the same pf as open? When generally lighter bullets are used in open.

 

Consistency is a plus in this instance. Every person in USPSA that shoots open has no issues making major. I can even counter your argument by saying why should an open gun which has a comp get a lower power factor than a limited gun? It makes zero sense, major is Major and one power factor across the board for major is the correct answer

 

17 minutes ago, OpenshooterMclass4lyfe said:

 

 

   Why are race holsters a problem?  I’m just as fast out a race holster as I am a bucket style holster

 

It's not about speed in this instance, it's supposedly about cost. How many times do I read about production being a beginner division that needs to keep the cost down. One easy way of keeping the cost down is not allowing holsters that are several times as much as a plastic kydex type holster. And like I said USPSA dropped the ball on this as well. At one time a $20 Uncle Mike's could compete head-to-head with any holster there was, but allowing doh's and boss hangers and such screwed that up.

 

17 minutes ago, OpenshooterMclass4lyfe said:

 

….. and I don’t see an issue with the only  ipsc targets thing either.

 

Allowing only turtle targets is allowing political pressure to influence your match, and I'm against that. I'm fine with turtle targets, but I'm also fine with humanoid targets, no reason not to have both as both can offer their own challenges. 

 

17 minutes ago, OpenshooterMclass4lyfe said:

 

I also don’t get the issue with not being able to leave the fault lines lol     These are all just opinions you’ve formed.  Could you expand on them as to why they’re bad?  

 

Sure. This is one of my biggest gripes with ipsc. Not leaving the fault lines encourages lazy stage design, and discourages freestyle. Freestyle is a cornerstone of the sport in anything that discourages that I'm against wholeheartedly

[ddc]

18 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

 

USPSA controls all IPSC matches in USA, activity fees, club affiliation etc. would still need to be via USPSA. I don't think there are many practical shooting clubs in my area anyway.

 

I would love to see a USIPSC organization setup in USA, it would at least give another option to competitors. It won't happen until IPSC takes the regional directorate away from USPSA. 

 

Can't any USPSA club run a match using IPSC rules if it chooses to do so?

 

[BritinUSA]

Yes, but they still need to be affiliated and pay USPSA the correct activity fees.

[ddc]

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

Yes, but they still need to be affiliated and pay USPSA the correct activity fees.

 

Good to know. Checking Practiscore I see exactly one IPSC match, the US Nationals.

 

So the option is there but nobody uses it.

[Ben3]

12 hours ago, RJH said:

Every person in USPSA that shoots open has no issues making major.

 

"Every" is a stretch. I've heard discussions from Open shooters about how the higher pressure required to make 165 comfortably (i.e. 170 on match day) puts more wear and tear on the guns. I can't evaluate the truth of the discussion, but I've heard the concern expressed.

 

12 hours ago, RJH said:

why should an open gun which has a comp get a lower power factor than a limited gun

 

The power factor formula measures momentum and not energy, which inherently favors heavy bullets. But the comps of Open guns reward light bullets that generate a lot of gas. An Open gun shooting a 115gr projectile at 1478 fps (to make 170pf) develops 73% more energy than a Limited gun shooting a 200gr bullet at 850 to make the same power factor.

 

Kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times velocity squared, so ((115 * 1478 ^ 2) / 2) / (850^2 * 200 / 2) = 1.73 .

 

12 hours ago, RJH said:

One easy way of keeping the cost down is not allowing holsters that are several times as much as a plastic kydex type holster.

 

Once you factor in a custom-molded kydex shell and a metal belt mount, this isn't necessarily true. But if it were, a race holster can be customized to fit multiple gun more easily. So in the end, a race holster might end up being the more economical option, especially if you want to shoot multiple guns in different divisions. Across an entire match, I doubt if a race holster is measurably faster, but it is convenient for that reason.

 

Also, what Ghost is doing with their Hydra P and P+ holsters is basically wrapping a shell around a race holster anyway, so the difference is quickly disappearing unless DNROI clamps down on what is considered "Suitable for everyday use" which would be the first time the current DNROI has narrowed rules in any way that I'm aware of instead of expanding what's allowed.

 

At the end of the day, what we want to avoid in writing gear rules is allowing anything that is such an advantage that it becomes a de facto requirement to be competitive, for example compensators. The goal is write rules that create a sandbox in which multiple viable options can be tried against each other.

[Ben3]

2 hours ago, ddc said:

So the option is there but nobody uses it.

 

At the end of the day, a local match director wants the rules to be permissive enough to allow them to fill the match. A local match enforcing IPSC rules would mean almost every USPSA-legal gun would end up in Open because most Limited guns don't comply with Standard, most CO guns don't comply with Prod Optics, most USPSA Production guns don't comply with IPSC Production, etc.

 

I would estimate the number of people in the country who make sure to keep their guns IPSC legal (or have the parts to swap onto the gun to make them legal temporarily) to be approximately the attendance of IPSC Nationals each year, i.e. 300-400.

[RJH]

32 minutes ago, Ben3 said:

 

"Every" is a stretch. I've heard discussions from Open shooters about how the higher pressure required to make 165 comfortably (i.e. 170 on match day) puts more wear and tear on the guns. I can't evaluate the truth of the discussion, but I've heard the concern expressed.

 

Same could be said for limited guns

32 minutes ago, Ben3 said:

 

The power factor formula measures momentum and not energy, which inherently favors heavy bullets. But the comps of Open guns reward light bullets that generate a lot of gas. An Open gun shooting a 115gr projectile at 1478 fps (to make 170pf) develops 73% more energy than a Limited gun shooting a 200gr bullet at 850 to make the same power factor.

 

Kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times velocity squared, so ((115 * 1478 ^ 2) / 2) / (850^2 * 200 / 2) = 1.73 .

 

 

Lol, I know how it works. It's all about balancing game. More flatter may be harder on the gun, but nothing makes an open shooter have to shoot  115s, if they're worried about breaking their guns they can shoot 124s

32 minutes ago, Ben3 said:

Once you factor in a custom-molded kydex shell and a metal belt mount, this isn't necessarily true. But if it were, a race holster can be customized to fit multiple gun more easily. So in the end, a race holster might end up being the more economical option, especially if you want to shoot multiple guns in different divisions. Across an entire match, I doubt if a race holster is measurably faster, but it is convenient for that reason.

 

Also, what Ghost is doing with their Hydra P and P+ holsters is basically wrapping a shell around a race holster anyway, so the difference is quickly disappearing unless DNROI clamps down on what is considered "Suitable for everyday use" which would be the first time the current DNROI has narrowed rules in any way that I'm aware of instead of expanding what's allowed.

 

At the end of the day, what we want to avoid in writing gear rules is allowing anything that is such an advantage that it becomes a de facto requirement to be competitive, for example compensators. The goal is write rules that create a sandbox in which multiple viable options can be tried against each other.

 

 

There's a reason I said USPSA has it messed up now too

[motosapiens]

On 6/25/2023 at 5:27 AM, RJH said:

It's not about speed in this instance, it's supposedly about cost. How many times do I read about production being a beginner division that needs to keep the cost down. One easy way of keeping the cost down is not allowing holsters that are several times as much as a plastic kydex type holster.

you make many good points in your post, but I don't think this is one of them. I have a whole box of custom kydex holsters for different guns, but my one moderately priced cr-speed race holster has been used with several different guns, even SS (to shoot steel challenge in limited division) and mrs moto's open gun. Most any race holster easily adjusts to fit a wide variety of firearms.

[motosapiens]

15 hours ago, Ben3 said:

 

"Every" is a stretch. I've heard discussions from Open shooters about how the higher pressure required to make 165 comfortably (i.e. 170 on match day) puts more wear and tear on the guns. I can't evaluate the truth of the discussion, but I've heard the concern expressed.

 

sure, if they're shooting 9mm in a cutting edge race gun with a bunch of cutouts in the slide. It seems like people shooting well-built 38 super guns don't have the same issues. Some people are choosing perceived economy of brass and perceived ultimate performance instead of having a gun that lasts a long time.

[truespode]

Moto... off-topic twist but being from Idaho did you know David Jones? He did a lot of offroading in the area and was a big part of a USENT Group RMD back in the day.

[shred]

Kind of funny the "what should CO change into?" thread was over the CO Nationals weekend

 

Based on conversations there, most people aren't shooting CO because it's the perfect rule set already, so fire away...

 

[motosapiens]

4 hours ago, truespode said:

Moto... off-topic twist but being from Idaho did you know David Jones? He did a lot of offroading in the area and was a big part of a USENT Group RMD back in the day.

I wondered about your screen name. small world. David introduced me to trail clearing in idaho back in around 2002 or 2003. I rode with him and Murray at BG for a couple days in june cutting deadfall and opening up the trails. Very sad to hear of his passing..

[truespode]

7 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

Very sad to hear of his passing..

Yes it was. I never met him but interacted online since the mid 90's on RMD. 

[RJH]

1 hour ago, shred said:

Kind of funny the "what should CO change into?" thread was over the CO Nationals weekend

 

Based on conversations there, most people aren't shooting CO because it's the perfect rule set already, so fire away...

 

 

 

What were some things you heard? 

[Nobody909]

On 6/22/2023 at 10:49 PM, RJH said:

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

I think CO should more closely follow Production Optics in IPSC. With Production and Production Optics being the exact same minus the dot. Both divisions allowing very few modifications and both having a 15 round mag capacity.

[ddc]

27 minutes ago, Nobody909 said:

I think CO should more closely follow Production Optics in IPSC. With Production and Production Optics being the exact same minus the dot. Both divisions allowing very few modifications and both having a 15 round mag capacity.

 

So I keep coming back to what is to me a most fundamental question:

 

What is the motivation for changing the rules for what appears to be a wildly popular division.

And who gives a flyin' f*  what IPSC is doing with their Prod/ProdOptics rules?

 

USPSA CO is popular enough to warrant its own stand alone nationals. Where all the top shooters could compete head to head.

 

Now how often does that happen? Not very often I would guess.

 

But sure, let's change the rules to whatever floats your own particular boat. Sheesh...

 

 

 

[RJH]

11 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

So I keep coming back to what is to me a most fundamental question:

 

What is the motivation for changing the rules for what appears to be a wildly popular division.

And who gives a flyin' f*  what IPSC is doing with their Prod/ProdOptics rules?

 

USPSA CO is popular enough to warrant its own stand alone nationals. Where all the top shooters could compete head to head.

 

Now how often does that happen? Not very often I would guess.

 

But sure, let's change the rules to whatever floats your own particular boat. Sheesh...

 

 

 

 

Definitely a solid point 

[Nobody909]

7 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

So I keep coming back to what is to me a most fundamental question:

 

What is the motivation for changing the rules for what appears to be a wildly popular division.

And who gives a flyin' f*  what IPSC is doing with their Prod/ProdOptics rules?

 

USPSA CO is popular enough to warrant its own stand alone nationals. Where all the top shooters could compete head to head.

 

Now how often does that happen? Not very often I would guess.

 

But sure, let's change the rules to whatever floats your own particular boat. Sheesh...

 

 

 

My motivation for changing the rules is for them to go back to how they used to be.

Over the years things like: Extra modifications, extra weight, more mag capacity, lights, belt placement, magnets, and other stuff were all added randomly in my view.

 

Additionally, USPSA is the daughter organization of IPSC so I believe the rules should be as close to similar as possible so it is an easy transition for those competitors who chose to compete in both.

 

Lastly, yes CO is the most popular division by far which mean we should be very very carful to change rules around willy nilly. That why I believe making the rules go back to how the division was started would be a good starting point.

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, Nobody909 said:

 

 

Additionally, USPSA is the daughter organization of IPSC so I believe the rules should be as close to similar as possible so it is an easy transition for those competitors who chose to compete in both.

 

 

 

But don't forget ipsc was born in America, then kinda lost it's way

[Nobody909]

6 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

But don't forget ipsc was born in America, then kinda lost it's way

You are correct, sir.

In what way has IPSC lost it's way?

[ddc]

14 minutes ago, Nobody909 said:

My motivation for changing the rules is for them to go back to how they used to be.

Over the years things like: Extra modifications, extra weight, more mag capacity, lights, belt placement, magnets, and other stuff were all added randomly in my view.

 

Additionally, USPSA is the daughter organization of IPSC so I believe the rules should be as close to similar as possible so it is an easy transition for those competitors who chose to compete in both.

 

Lastly, yes CO is the most popular division by far which mean we should be very very carful to change rules around willy nilly. That why I believe making the rules go back to how the division was started would be a good starting point.

 

IPSC and USPSA have diverged to the point that I believe any attempt to narrow the gap would result in a whole lot of pushback; more than we have ever seen.

I assume from your posts that you would want USPSA to make most of the concessions. That will never fly in the USA. Sorry.