SCSA - Limited Optics

[mreed911]

On 2/8/2024 at 9:53 PM, rooster mcbee said:

Revolver Rimfire would be great with me too.  I'm sure several of my shooting buddy's would shoot RR if it was an official class.

Why not shoot it in the existing divisions?  You'd be pretty competitive.

[Darqusoull13]

On 2/17/2024 at 8:10 AM, Hoops said:

This topic is approaching 15,000 views.  I personally know from a close friend (USPSA GM) who has another social media platform that the interest in LO in SCSA is high.

 

I’m glad that LO will be presented to the BOD.  Hopefully the next BOD agenda will be posted soon.  

Hopefully this gets shot down immediately so we don't have to keep bringing it up. 

There is virtually zero difference in practice between LO and either CO or Open in SCSA. 

[mreed911]

12 minutes ago, Darqusoull13 said:

Hopefully this gets shot down immediately so we don't have to keep bringing it up. 

There is virtually zero difference in practice between LO and either CO or Open in SCSA. 

 

I'd be fine with removing the Production gun requirement for CO in SCSA and just making it "frame mounted dot, no compensator, who cares if you have a magwell you won't use."

Edited February 19 by mreed911

[Hoops]

20 minutes ago, Darqusoull13 said:

Hopefully this gets shot down immediately so we don't have to keep bringing it up. 

There is virtually zero difference in practice between LO and either CO or Open in SCSA. 

Input is always appreciated.  I also shoot in A4 where there are several matches/shooters from USPSA and SCSA who want LO’s in SCSA and don’t want to shoot in Open.

 

The genie was let out of the bottle when it was approved on probationary basis in USPA…..where LO has been growing fast.

IMO, it would not be appropriate for it to be summarily shot down by a board of few.  LO is on the next BOD agenda for discussion by @ZackJones, DSC.  Ultimately all members should have a say.  I suppose we will know in a few weeks.  
 

Thanks

[Racinready300ex]

10 minutes ago, Hoops said:

Input is always appreciated.  I also shoot in A4 where there are several matches/shooters from USPSA and SCSA who want LO’s in SCSA and don’t want to shoot in Open.

 

The genie was let out of the bottle when it was approved on probationary basis in USPA…..where LO has been growing fast.

IMO, it would not be appropriate for it to be summarily shot down by a board of few.  LO is on the next BOD agenda for discussion by @ZackJones, DSC.  Ultimately all members should have a say.  I suppose we will know in a few weeks.  
 

Thanks

 

Why though? Why does a completely different game need to pick up a new division because USPSA did? Why doesn't USPSA have all the divisions that SCSA does?

 

I don't think that's a smart way to structure divisions. Both games should be way more methodical about it then just "genie is out of the bottle". But that's certainly not a strong suite of the legacy BOD. 

[mreed911]

17 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Why though? Why does a completely different game need to pick up a new division because USPSA did?

 

I think it's more "there's a difference in a slide mounted dot without a comp and a frame mounted dot with a comp/porting" driving the ask for "why not do it like USPSA did?"  Others make the point that simply expanding the scope of CO to include LO would work.

 

I don't have a dog in the fight but it's an interesting discussion.

[Racinready300ex]

13 minutes ago, mreed911 said:

 

I think it's more "there's a difference in a slide mounted dot without a comp and a frame mounted dot with a comp/porting" driving the ask for "why not do it like USPSA did?"  Others make the point that simply expanding the scope of CO to include LO would work.

 

I don't have a dog in the fight but it's an interesting discussion.

 

But, the scores don't reflect any real difference in CO and Open. So shoehorning another division in between them IMO doesn't seem needed.

 

Only requiring one shot per target I can't see frame mounting helping. After you fire, your eyes go to the next target and wait for the dot, unless you're transitioning in under .06 the slide will be in battery and waiting for you to get the gun over there. With no power factor it's not surprising comps aren't making massive differences either. 

 

I don't really have a dog in the fight either, I also find the discussion interesting and want to understand the logic behind adding this division. 

[zzt]

40 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

Only requiring one shot per target I can't see frame mounting helping. After you fire, your eyes go to the next target and wait for the dot, unless you're transitioning in under .06 the slide will be in battery and waiting for you to get the gun over there. With no power factor it's not surprising comps aren't making massive differences either. 

 

As I've said earlier in this thread and in other similar threads, there is NO DIFFERENCE between frame mounted and slide mounted dots when shooting minor ammo without ports or a comp.  Nada.  There is a difference in major.  That being said, I shoot with two guys who shoot Open major with slide mounted dots and comps.  Zero issues. 

 

I don't understand the requirement for a slide mounted dot in LO.  Years ago, my home club did not allow compensators in their outlaw matches.  I fitted a normal barrel to my main Open gun.  It shot to the same POI as my major ammo.  I just shot factory in it.

 

I built a dedicated 1911 Open gun for SCSA.  I used WAC for 150 PF loads, because that's what the other Open shooters were doing.  Now I use factory 115s.  For one shot targets, the tiny bit more muzzle rise makes no difference.  It is much quieter, cheaper and I'm starting to shoot better with it.

[warpspeed]

17 minutes ago, zzt said:

 

As I've said earlier in this thread and in other similar threads, there is NO DIFFERENCE between frame mounted and slide mounted dots when shooting minor ammo without ports or a comp.  Nada.  There is a difference in major.  That being said, I shoot with two guys who shoot Open major with slide mounted dots and comps.  Zero issues. 

 

I don't understand the requirement for a slide mounted dot in LO.  Years ago, my home club did not allow compensators in their outlaw matches.  I fitted a normal barrel to my main Open gun.  It shot to the same POI as my major ammo.  I just shot factory in it.

 

I built a dedicated 1911 Open gun for SCSA.  I used WAC for 150 PF loads, because that's what the other Open shooters were doing.  Now I use factory 115s.  For one shot targets, the tiny bit more muzzle rise makes no difference.  It is much quieter, cheaper and I'm starting to shoot better with it.

 

1) Agreed 

 

2) Follow the money - only the custom guns are coming with frame mounted dots.  All the mass produced stuff has a slide optic option.  Catering to the gun makers is what's driving this.

 

3) Started out with this set up. If you only plan on SC, it's way better. Cheaper mags for sure

[Racinready300ex]

27 minutes ago, zzt said:

 

I don't understand the requirement for a slide mounted dot in LO. 

 

I don't understand wanting the division at all, slide or frame mounted. 

 

I'd assume overall the popularity of slide mount optics comes from them being more practical overall. 

[Darqusoull13]

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

But, the scores don't reflect any real difference in CO and Open. So shoehorning another division in between them IMO doesn't seem needed.

Bingo!  LO in SCSA is wasted effort with no big picture impact. 

I'd much rather see BOD focus on topics with a tangible outcomes on: 

• Shooter retention
• Improving SCSA RO Cert process
• SCSA Club assistance
• Youth SCSA growth

[Hoops]

6 minutes ago, Darqusoull13 said:

Bingo!  LO in SCSA is wasted effort with no big picture impact. 

I'd much rather see BOD focus on topics with a tangible outcomes on: 

• Shooter retention
• Improving SCSA RO Cert process
• SCSA Club assistance
• Youth SCSA growth

I think these are great ideas.  Typically the BOD respond to member input.  I’m particularly interested in your bullet points 1, 3 and 4.  Would you share your thoughts on these?  

 

BTW, if the BOD could quit having elections and dealing with which AD is in or out, perhaps more member time would be available.  

[Racinready300ex]

19 minutes ago, Hoops said:

I think these are great ideas.  Typically the BOD respond to member input.  I’m particularly interested in your bullet points 1, 3 and 4.  Would you share your thoughts on these?  

 

BTW, if the BOD could quit having elections and dealing with which AD is in or out, perhaps more member time would be available.  

 

I imagine each of those things could be it's own thread with lots of ideas. Page 10 of a LO discussion may not be idea. 

 

I'm all for getting a thread of course though. lol

[Hoops]

10 pages.  A diary of thoughts

[warpspeed]

3 hours ago, Darqusoull13 said:

Bingo!  LO in SCSA is wasted effort with no big picture impact. 

I'd much rather see BOD focus on topics with a tangible outcomes on: 

• Shooter retention
• Improving SCSA RO Cert process
• SCSA Club assistance
• Youth SCSA growth

 

So you agree that the current BoD lacks the ability to see the big picture, focus on more than one thing at a time and seems to only think about the SCSA when one of the people they like brings it up ?

[Hoops]

I made a mistake with the BOD comment.

 

I REALLY would like us to avoid any more comments.

 

if not, I’ll request the moderator’s to shut it down.

 

any comment on LO is fair game.

 

thanks for your cooperation 

 

Hoops

[shred]

9 hours ago, zzt said:

 

As I've said earlier in this thread and in other similar threads, there is NO DIFFERENCE between frame mounted and slide mounted dots when shooting minor ammo without ports or a comp.  Nada.  There is a difference in major.  

 

FWIW there is in USPSA, at least at my level (geezer M).  I tried it when LO was being proposed.  Same 2011 pistol, same dot, same minor ammo with either a frame mount or a slide mount.  Frame mount was better with a better dot track.  Never tried it in SCSA and doubt it would matter much there except for dot longevity.

 

[-JCN-]

I would just support CO/LO as one SCSA division. 

[zzt]

11 hours ago, shred said:

FWIW there is in USPSA, at least at my level (geezer M). 

 

In USPSA, yes.  Yes for any shoot requiring double taps.

[Hoops]

To all:

 

I believe that this topic may be reaching a conclusion.  When I first started this, I wanted input on Limited Optics for SCSA.

 

As expected, there has been expressions of opposition and support regarding adding LO’s to SCSA.  
 

The total number of posts is a small percentage compared to the number of views.  This is typical of most topics in the Enos universe.  
 

The final decision should be put to the SCSA members by the BOD’s lead by @ZackJones who is presenting this for discussion at the next board meeting.  The decision should not be by a few people or influenced by single individuals outside of the board.  It’s the board’s responsibility.  

 

This is my opinion and I respect those who may not agree.  

 

Thanks for your posts.  It’s been informative.

[Darqusoull13]

16 hours ago, warpspeed said:

 

So you agree that the current BoD lacks the ability to see the big picture, focus on more than one thing at a time and seems to only think about the SCSA when one of the people they like brings it up ?

I think there are some directors on the board that genuinely want to do right by the sport. 

Personally I'd like to see more effort spent growing SCSA and improving clubs but all that is discussion for another topic. 

[Racinready300ex]

24 minutes ago, Hoops said:

The total number of posts is a small percentage compared to the number of views.  This is typical of most topics in the Enos universe.  

 

The number of posts will always be a small % of the views. Any one person commenting on this thread could easily account for 20 or more views. A active thread it isn't crazy for someone to come back a couple times a day to read new posts, the views can add up fast.