"Iron Sight" nats with Limited Optics

[rowdyb]

Do you feel this was the appropriate action to take?

[ltdmstr]

No.  And then after they announced 45 slots, they now have something like 74 signed up for LO.

[Racinready300ex]

I think it's telling about how bad of shape our iron sight divisions are that all those divisions couldn't fill up a nationals of all things.

 

Part of me doesn't see the big deal, we all complain nationals is a money suck might as well fill it up. But something about adding a optic division at iron nationals seems dumb.

 

What if it ends up being the biggest division from people switching. 

[Racinready300ex]

Current break down

[RJH]

Since iron sight Nationals couldn't fill up on its own, I think it's a fine idea. Carry Optics sold out by itself, PCC and open have a waiting list, yet five combined Iron-sighted divisions couldn't sell out Nationals.

 

We all know Iron sights is dying, this just shows how badly. 

 

 

I think when they announced the 45 slots, that was what was still available. It's telling that from the time that I saw those announced within 24 hours Nationals was full. I think that there are 88 shooters in limited optics now is from people switching divisions. Basically I think people wanted to shoot a Nationals, could only get into Ironsight nationals because the others sold out so quick, but as soon as they got the opportunity to shoot the gun they actually wanted they switched to limited optics.

 

 

 

Also, 45 * 325 =14,625. Since I'm talking dollars, it's easy to see why they would allow limited optics to sell those last slots. If Nationals is already a losing proposition MoneyWise, no sense losing an extra $14,625 when there's an easy way to get that money in the coffers

[Joe4d]

Thats because USPSA doesnt have an iron sight division out side limited that doesnt suck for the game they offer. And components got so screwey folks dont wanna load 40

Get rid of mag limits for production.  Use a box , 126 or 140mm and score it minor. Would be the largest division over night

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Joe4d

[outerlimits]

14 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

Thats because USPSA doesnt have an iron sight division out side limited that doesnt suck for the game they offer. And components got so screwey folks dont wanna load 40

Get rid of mag limits for production.  Use a box , 126 or 140mm and score it minor. Would be the largest division over night

 

yer saying production would be the largest over night?  are you around fluids?

[Joe4d]

21 minutes ago, outerlimits said:

yer saying production would be the largest over night?  are you around fluids?

Evidently alot less than this clueless organization...
A 9mm service pistol, scored minor, loaded to capacity, reasonable weight reasonable mods division should have started the day after the AWB ended.

[ddc]

5 hours ago, Joe4d said:

Evidently alot less than this clueless organization...
A 9mm service pistol, scored minor, loaded to capacity, reasonable weight reasonable mods division should have started the day after the AWB ended.

 

I think that would be an interesting experiment.

Maybe no optic, fits the box, load to whatever capacity fits the box, striker ok, SAO ok.

I'm tempted to say no comp or porting but the way things are going in the consumer market maybe ok...hmmmm...

Seems like everybody and their brother is pushing some sort of ported pistol these days.

 

[N3WWN]

10 hours ago, ddc said:

 

I think that would be an interesting experiment.

Maybe no optic, fits the box, load to whatever capacity fits the box, striker ok, SAO ok.

I'm tempted to say no comp or porting but the way things are going in the consumer market maybe ok...hmmmm...

Seems like everybody and their brother is pushing some sort of ported pistol these days.

 

 

What you're describing sounds a lot like extinct IPSC Modified division... not that that's a bad thing    I always thought Modified was fascinating! 

[rowdyb]

My thinking, and it is unique to my experience and may not represent any wider trends or beliefs, is this:

• Was the title sponsor consulted before the change? If their name is on the event, what are their thoughts?
• My recovery required that I wait until the last moment to decide if I could enter. Seeing the match have room gave me confidence in my timing. Changing who could enter radically altered my timing.
• A stated goal was to see the viability of a very new, provisional division. Might this have been accomplished in another way? Looking at the entries of local, section and area matches?
• There was a stated cap of 45 entrants, this was not adhered to, again effecting me personally.
• If Nationals indeed looses money, why should shooters in a particular division have to compromise their chances at entry for the Org to still not be profitable?
• The silliness of the name being contradicted by the addition of Lim Optics.
• It appears that 16 or so people changed divisions when LO was offered, so approximately 70 new LO entries were gained for the match, or at least $24,500 gained and yet still a lack of profitability is claimed.

[RJH]

13 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

My thinking, and it is unique to my experience and may not represent any wider trends or beliefs, is this:

• Was the title sponsor consulted before the change? If their name is on the event, what are their thoughts?
• My recovery required that I wait until the last moment to decide if I could enter. Seeing the match have room gave me confidence in my timing. Changing who could enter radically altered my timing.
• A stated goal was to see the viability of a very new, provisional division. Might this have been accomplished in another way? Looking at the entries of local, section and area matches?
• There was a stated cap of 45 entrants, this was not adhered to, again effecting me personally.
• If Nationals indeed looses money, why should shooters in a particular division have to compromise their chances at entry for the Org to still not be profitable?
• The silliness of the name being contradicted by the addition of Lim Optics.
• It appears that 16 or so people changed divisions when LO was offered, so approximately 70 new LO entries were gained for the match, or at least $24,500 gained and yet still a lack of profitability is claimed.

 

Point by point reply:

 

• this is a good question and I would hope that the title sponsor had been consulted. However if I was the title sponsor, and I made it out of the box legal gun for the new division, which sig does, I would much rather have a full Nationals with a waiting list then one that was languishing and not filling up.

 

• I've waited too long wondering about other stuff and not made it into a level 2 match before myself, but that was completely my fault for hoping that a match would not fill up till I made up my mind based on my situation

 

• definitely a lot of ways to find out the viability of a new division. Comparing it head to head to legacy divisions at a Nationals is definitely one way to do it. IDK if it's the best way

 

• I'm not sure if the 45 was just the slots that remained open, or the initial idea of how many they were going to allow in. I would need a little more clarification on their process to make any judgment on this

 

• if Nationals is indeed not profitable, why should all the members that do not shoot Nationals be forced to foot the extra bill for a national that doesn't fill up? Especially when there is a division sitting there that can obviously finish filling it up

 

• the name game really doesn't matter

 

•people switching shows that when given the option many people would rather shoot limited optics. This kind of goes back to the earlier point about assisting division viability

 

 

 

I hope you can get into the Nationals, and if so I hope you have a great match. Good luck!

[shred]

My thoughts;

 

From the org's perspective, selling out a match is always a win for the financials.

 

Slapping LO in last-minute when they said they weren't going to is lame from a consistency standpoint, but personally it will be interesting to see how Major/Irons vs minor/Dot shakes out.

 

"Provisional" divisions are just going through the motions before they become full divisions.  USPSA has never non-finalized a division, nor have they ever removed one.

 

I want to see more combined nationals where all the divisions play together instead of the current mess.  Nearly all other matches are heads-up, but somehow we need to segregate for nationals because pro shooters and reasons?  IPSC manages to put together 1000+ shooter matches.

 

 

[Joe4d]

1 hour ago, N3WWN said:

 

What you're describing sounds a lot like extinct IPSC Modified division... not that that's a bad thing    I always thought Modified was fascinating! 

nothing like modified,,, just production with a reasonable magazine limit, like 126mm or fit in the box..
You know like a division where the most commonly owned pistols in the world and the usa has a competitive division.
This org has been detached from reality for a long long time.
 

[rowdyb]

I realize my situation is my own and not reflective of the whole. And I am off the wait list and in the match. Just as a long time Produciton shooter there is much that just rankles me about the current situation and this Nats.

 

Feelings and anecdote are not fact, I know. Not making money on nats is an easy excuse to do whatever you want. Just like it is easy for me to say, "Make nats cost $500 per person, so they don't have a profit issue."

 

Iron sights should be iron sights, and that's it in my opinion. And if I happen to be squadded with an LO shooter they will feel like early PCC shooters did by the end of the three days. Kidding.

[Boomstick303]

Glad to see you are shooting again @rowdyb.

 

[rowdyb]

1 minute ago, Boomstick303 said:

Glad to see you are shooting again @rowdyb.

 

My medical issues are clearing to the point I am attempting things. I have my own criteria to decide if I continue or bail out of shooting.

[BritinUSA]

9 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

My medical issues are clearing to the point I am attempting things. I have my own criteria to decide if I continue or bail out of shooting.

Happy to hear this, I hope things continue to go well for you.

[guns_and_labs]

I think it's a great idea. Fills the match, and provides some interesting comparisons of iron sights versus optics. 

[ddc]

26 minutes ago, guns_and_labs said:

I think it's a great idea. Fills the match, and provides some interesting comparisons of iron sights versus optics. 

 

It lends credence to the idea that LO will be successful as currently defined.

 

But I feel that is at the expense of iron sight divisions that were supposedly the focus of this match.

 

So it is interesting from a data gathering perspective but it feels like something has been lost in the process.

 

Maybe it was already lost and this is just additional evidence.

[rowdyb]

What would be a more interesting comparison to have matched at a Nats?

Lim Opt vs Carry Opt

or

Lim Opt vs Lim

I definitely say the former.

[Joe4d]

24 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

What would be a more interesting comparison to have matched at a Nats?

Lim Opt vs Carry Opt

or

Lim Opt vs Lim

I definitely say the former.

never happen, would give direct proof about how pointless the division is.

 

[RJH]

33 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

What would be a more interesting comparison to have matched at a Nats?

Lim Opt vs Carry Opt

or

Lim Opt vs Lim

I definitely say the former.

 

That would be an interesting comparison, but CO filled up by itself and had a wait list and iron sight couldn't fill with 5 divisions. 

 

 

Next year LO will probably have it own nats and there will be about 20 people at iron sight Nationals so this won't be an issue

[rowdyb]

4 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

That would be an interesting comparison, but CO filled up by itself and had a wait list and iron sight couldn't fill with 5 divisions. 

 

 

Next year LO will probably have it own nats and there will be about 20 people at iron sight Nationals so this won't be an issue

It's not about the numbers of competitors,  how I phrased it. But which division would be most interesting to compare data against LO. CO or Lim? I think it's CO. 

 

And I agree they wouldn't like what they'd see.

[Dazhi]

What's wrong with having just 1 national a year, like in the old days?

Is it the number of shooter limitation? How many unique bodies shot all the 2022 nationals? 700? 1000?

I am sure there is a way to fit all those unique bodies into a single national across multiple divisions.