The Future Of The Limited Optics Division in USPSA

[ltdmstr]

12 minutes ago, RJH said:

Moto has the best argument for that, in that 2011's would still dominate.

 

No idea why this is a problem.  If it's not 2011s, it's gonna be something else.  And if people like to shoot 2011s, and they do, why would you want to discourage that?

 

13 minutes ago, RJH said:

Just to touch back though on the nine major in limited guns, that's not really a realistic argument. Because for a while nine major wasn't even allowed in open guns, but 38 super always was.

 

You're right.  Forgot about that.

 

11 minutes ago, jrb06 said:

The idea that everything should be bare bones basic and off the shelf available (ammo, gun, mag, holster) is a fantasy. The person who comes to their very first match will most likely have off the shelf basic gear but after that one event, there is absolutely nothing stock or what some want to refer to as off the shelf. Everything we use is made and designed to supposedly give us an edge in some form or another including reloading.

 

Some say .40 is an dying caliber for what it was originally designed for as a defensive round and LEO issued caliber which is true. Who cares if it is dying defensive round and LEO issued caliber we are participating in a game, and to some the option to use something not off the shelf and different is what may have drawn them to that division, not everyone is into cookie cutter division with little difference between them. If you don't think the division needs major that's your opinion and good that you gave it. Just do not lecture others on how they are wrong or dumb wanting to stay with something they have invested time and money in just because you don't like it.

 

Well said.

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, konkapot said:

LO should provide an option for shooting major. Choices. Action:reaction. Pro/con. 

 

If minor in LO is "the way" then surely the match results will support that. 

 

Similar to the debate in the other thread about optics in revolver. To allow the "choice" of major in LO isn't really a choice. If you want to be competitive you will shoot major. No one really shoots minor in Limited or Open even though the choice exists. 

 

The question is do we want another small niche division, or should we follow the market and build a division for the guns people are currently buying. IMO, building a new division based on 40 cal Limited guns with optics would be a terrible move. Has zero to do with my ability to shoot 40, or my feeling on how major scoring effect the game. I base my stance solely on if we're creating a new division we should want it to be successful or not do it at all.

[Schutzenmeister]

11 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

Yes, but wouldn't you agree that making a division based around a caliber that nobody shoots and is a reload only round would be foolish?

 

 

I wasn't there back when the first limited division was created, but I have a firm belief that the reason that 40 was made the minimum for major was because 38 super was a basically dead and reload only option, when 40 could be had off the shelf and was easily available. I think they were smart enough then to go, "if we make this based around 38 super, everybody will be tied to that forever and it's just a big pain in the ass, but forty is great because it's everywhere." And there were plenty of non-comp 38 super guns that could make major and didn't blow up. So saying 38 super making major is hard on a gun would be disingenuous

 

Now 20 some odd years later 40 is the dying caliber that 38 super was and 9 mm is everywhere. So let's use the same common sense that they used way back when and know that it's time to move on from 40.

 

 

Also, if you don't want guns that are based around cheap off the shelf ammo, open is always a possibility

 

I WAS around at the time ... and slightly before.  When I started there were effectively 2 calibers ... .38 Super and .45 ACP.  Technically, when I started, there were no divisions.  .38 Super sometimes had a nasty habit of blowing up when you fired it, hence the term "super faced."  .40 S&W (a shortened and downloaded version of the 10 mm) was just getting started and a lot of it barely made major from the factory.  (Note: At that time major was 175.)  There were SERIOUS restrictions on using 9mm (to include 9x21 and 9x23) in Open to make major.  This is all history, folks.  Improvements in components followed and these rounds eventually became safer and more reliable.

 

The great race for more rounds in the mag was on.  Folks would sell their souls just to get 1 or 2 more rounds in the magazine.  Devil be damned with Power or Accuracy.  The race was on to see who could get 30+ rounds into a 170 mm magazine.  (Yes, the ORIGINAL mag limit was 170, NOT 171.25.)

 

The holy grail came to be getting through a CoF with no more than one reload ... NONE, if you could pull it off!  The art of reloading on the run began to die.  That, my friends, is the real reason we keep pushing for smaller calibers ... to get more rounds into the gun and have less need to reload.  A corollary to that is we keep pushing to dumb down power factors in order to boost the use of 9mm ... Let's do away with PF altogether, or so it seems to be. 

 

No, we should NOT be considering designing divisions around specific calibers.  The divisions should group similar types of firearms and/or sights for competitive equity only.  Let the chips fall where they may in terms of caliber.  If commonly available factory ammo can make major in a given caliber, let it be allowed for major.  (Open is a notable exception to this ... It's designed to allow for most anything.)  Allowing Major/minor in ALL divisions only makes sense to me.  Give the shooters a CHOICE and don’t pigeon-hole them into calibers or power factors just to drive sales of 9mm or any other caliber for that matter.

[RJH]

2 minutes ago, ltdmstr said:

 

No idea why this is a problem.  If it's not 2011s, it's gonna be something else.  And if people like to shoot 2011s, and they do, why would you want to discourage that?

 

 

You're right.  Forgot about that.

 

 

Well said.

 

 

I don't necessarily think that the 2011s are an issue. But the reason they could be is if  carry optics and limited optics are lumped together, guns like Glock and CZ, etc would probably end up going away overall. Those companies may be disinclined at that point to spend any money on sponsorship and such. So maybe it's better to have the divisions separate for money more than anything else. I don't think there is an actual discernible difference in match outcome however. 

 

Also, if you did allow Sao guns in CO as it is now many people would believe that you just made their guns obsolete. I don't agree that, but that would be the belief. So instead of stepping on the toes of the largest division there were a couple of solid reasons to make LO it's own thing

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

28 minutes ago, ltdmstr said:

 

 Just seems there are plenty of divisions to shoot minor pf already, 

 

So like Limited, L10 and Open are major

CO, LO and Pro are minor

SS both are a viable options

 

I'd say there are plenty of divisions for both. 

[RJH]

8 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

I WAS around at the time ... and slightly before.  When I started there were effectively 2 calibers ... .38 Super and .45 ACP.  Technically, when I started, there were no divisions.  .38 Super sometimes had a nasty habit of blowing up when you fired it, hence the term "super faced."  .40 S&W (a shortened and downloaded version of the 10 mm) was just getting started and a lot of it barely made major from the factory.  (Note: At that time major was 175.)  There were SERIOUS restrictions on using 9mm (to include 9x21 and 9x23) in Open to make major.  This is all history, folks.  Improvements in components followed and these rounds eventually became safer and more reliable.

 

The great race for more rounds in the mag was on.  Folks would sell their souls just to get 1 or 2 more rounds in the magazine.  Devil be damned with Power or Accuracy.  The race was on to see who could get 30+ rounds into a 170 mm magazine.  (Yes, the ORIGINAL mag limit was 170, NOT 171.25.)

 

The holy grail came to be getting through a CoF with no more than one reload ... NONE, if you could pull it off!  The art of reloading on the run began to die.  That, my friends, is the real reason we keep pushing for smaller calibers ... to get more rounds into the gun and have less need to reload.  A corollary to that is we keep pushing to dumb down power factors in order to boost the use of 9mm ... Let's do away with PF altogether, or so it seems to be. 

 

No, we should NOT be considering designing divisions around specific calibers.  The divisions should group similar types of firearms and/or sights for competitive equity only.  Let the chips fall where they may in terms of caliber.  If commonly available factory ammo can make major in a given caliber, let it be allowed for major.  (Open is a notable exception to this ... It's designed to allow for most anything.)  Allowing Major/minor in ALL divisions only makes sense to me.  Give the shooters a CHOICE and don’t pigeon-hole them into calibers or power factors just to drive sales of 9mm or any other caliber for that matter.

 

 

So, with all the new powders available 38 super face is not going to be an issue. And if we're going to let the chips fall where they may let's build this new division around any caliber that at least makes minor, but I doubt that's what you actually want. I get the feeling you want a division based around the 40 caliber like limited is now. Did you notice limited is dying now?

 

 

I mean if we're just going to go by power factor, I have a book load that I can shoot out of a 5 inch 9 mm that makes 162 power factor, and that's it standard length. Making 165 would be a non-issue.

 

So if it's about major minor, then let's allow any caliber that makes major in. If we don't allow any caliber that makes major in, it's really just about people crying because they can't use their limited gun in the new division without a capacity handicap. But they want to saddle the future with 40 or a power factor handicap

 

 

I'm fine however with doing what's best for the sport, and not necessarily for me right now

 

 

Also, USPSA is not driving sales of any caliber. It is actually dependent upon what's available. And building a brand new division that you want to be viable in the future around a caliber who's availability is diminishing doesn't make any sense

Edited January 31 by RJH

[ltdmstr]

1 minute ago, RJH said:

 

 

I don't necessarily think that the 2011s are an issue. But the reason they could be is if  carry optics and limited optics are lumped together, guns like Glock and CZ, etc would probably end up going away overall. Those companies may be disinclined at that point to spend any money on sponsorship and such. So maybe it's better to have the divisions separate for money more than anything else. I don't think there is an actual discernible difference in match outcome however. 

 

Also, if you did allow Sao guns in CO as it is now many people would believe that you just made their guns obsolete. I don't agree that, but that would be the belief. So instead of stepping on the toes of the largest division there were a couple of solid reasons to make LO it's own thing

 

 

 

Sorry, I just don't see either of those justifying an entire separate division, which is exactly the same as an existing division, except for a certain type of gun that offers no real competitive advantage.  Particularly when we have too many divisions and too many Nation championships already.  Personally, I think the best suggestion so far is still four division: Minor Irons, Minor Optics, Major Irons, Major Optics. 

 

[RJH]

Just now, ltdmstr said:

 

Sorry, I just don't see either of those justifying an entire separate division, which is exactly the same as an existing division, except for a certain type of gun that offers no real competitive advantage.  Particularly when we have too many divisions and too many Nation championships already.  Personally, I think the best suggestion so far is still four division: Minor Irons, Minor Optics, Major Irons, Major Optics. 

 

 

Chances are solid I agree with you almost 100%.

 

Well, other than the major minor stuff. I think you set a minor limit and call it good. Pscl I believe got the divisions right: open, limited optics, and limited. That may not be there exact names, but that's what they are in USPSA speak LOL. They're all scored minor  though. I do believe they got not having a base for minor wrong though. You can be sub 125 and be fine in that organization

[Racinready300ex]

Just now, RJH said:

 

Chances are solid I agree with you almost 100%.

 

Well, other than the major minor stuff. I think you set a minor limit and call it good. Pscl I believe got the divisions right: open, limited optics, and limited. That may not be there exact names, but that's what they are in USPSA speak LOL. They're all scored minor  though. I do believe they got not having a base for minor wrong though. You can be sub 125 and be fine in that organization

 

I think they're on the right track too, but agree that they should set a floor of 125 or so for PF. A local club did similar and I know guys are shooting 2011's at the lowest PF they can get them to run on a 7-8 lbs spring. 

 

Personally I think dropping below factory ammo specs is lame. I get needing to be a little under as not all factory ammo is created equal. But no bottom is weak. 

[barry]

No uspsa board of directors dictated .40 Dia and above as minimum for major. For safety reasons. And old ltd.rules were never production like, was no comp no optic every thing else up to you.

[Schutzenmeister]

4 minutes ago, barry said:

No uspsa board of directors dictated .40 Dia and above as minimum for major. For safety reasons. And old ltd.rules were never production like, was no comp no optic every thing else up to you.

I don't 100% remember on this issue, but as I recall the .40 floor for major (other than in Open) was set by IPSC a long time ago when the IPSC and USPSA rules were much more in sync.  The one exception, at the time, was revolver since revolver cylinders were all fully supported (unlike many auto loaders) and could withstand the pressures better.  (Also, it was easy to shoot a .357 Mag to major ... Well, easy to achieve major.  Handling a .357 in competition was another issue!)

[barry]

When i started,1990,you shot what you had. Only stipulation was min.9mm parabellum min cal because it was lowest cartridge considered usable for self defense. You shot either a 1911 45 or a browning hi-power in 9mm.

Someone decided the could make major w 38 super and have 3 extra rds.. lots of people were injured trying to do it,aka "super face". Passed rule had to have fully supported chamber to make major.

 Game changed when jerry Barnhart put a red dot on a 1911 and kicked ass. Para-ordinance hi cap frame hit about same time. Ltd as we know it was started at about same time. 40 cal was to stop people from trying to make major. 180 at time I belive.,with 9mm. See super face above

[Joe4d]

18 hours ago, Rich406 said:

American eagle 115 barely makes 125pf in a p320. Blazer brass 124gr isn’t much better, maybe 128pf.  125pf isn’t that far off from popular off the shelf  ammo from major manufacturers. 

and special USPSA match approved ammo used by special people sponsored by match sponsors dont even have to make 125..  So there's that

 

[Racinready300ex]

Personally I kind of like the way the scoring works with minor vs major. I think the higher accuracy requirement is a good thing, especially these days with shooters getting to be so fast and accurate at the same time. 

[RJH]

54 minutes ago, barry said:

No uspsa board of directors dictated .40 Dia and above as minimum for major. For safety reasons. And old ltd.rules were never production like, was no comp no optic every thing else up to you.

 

 

It's not hard to make major with 38 super or even nine now so that seems to be out of date, so we ought to allow those to make major if we're going to have major. 

 

Old limited rules were a little bit production like if you read what I said. You damn sure was supposed to have guns that there were at least 2,000 or something like that manufactured. I can't remember the exact number, they did away with that not too long after I started. Maybe in 03or something to that effect, but limited was originally not supposed to be a full custom one-off gun like it can be now. They were not production like in the aspect of have to be dasa or striker or something along those lines.

 

I'm also trying to remember now if there used to be a weight limit or at least a box they had to fit in. Seems like when I first started 6-in limited guns were not legal, but maybe just nobody ran them. It's been a while lol

[barry]

Don't belive ever had production numbers in ltd. That started with production. 

[RJH]

Just now, barry said:

Don't belive ever had production numbers in ltd. That started with production. 

 

I've been trying to do some checking, but I can't find an old rule book anywhere. It does appear there was never a box or weight limit though, I wasn't sure on that

 

 

I am about 99% sure on the production numbers for limited guns way on back.

 

I wish somebody had a rule book with the original limited division rules in it. I was googling and haven't found anything. Be nice to see it instead of just speculating on what I remember or maybe somebody else does LOL

[barry]

If I  remember correctly ltd was started in response to optics.   I also think the 170mm mag length was based on wilson 10 rd 45 mag everyone had bought in response to 38 supper holding 10 rds.

Edited January 31 by barry
46 instead of 45

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

 

 

It will matter it will matter in a few years when brass and s*** is really hard to find, just like it is for 38 super now. But, it will be even worse than 38 super because you won't be able to shoot nine major like they can in open to avoid the hassle of loading 38 super

 

 

mrs. moto has been shooting 38sc for a year. i don’t really see it as a significant hassle. if we were loading 9major we’d still have to be super picky about brass to make sure the gun runs reliably, and wed be more limited in powder choices, and the slide would eventually crack. we work a few majors every year which makes brass easy to come by, but the other local 38 shooters just pick up their brass and buy more when they need to. you can buy alot of brass for the cost of fitting a new slide, lolz.

 

personally, i would prefer LO to reward major, but its pretty obvious from surveys and discussions that most folks (including all gun mfrs) would prefer minor only, so thats pretty much the end of it

[ltdmstr]

There was a production requirement for Limited.  This is the 7th ed. 1995:

 

[RJH]

Just now, ltdmstr said:

There was a production requirement for Limited.  This is the 7th ed. 1995:

 

 

Thank you. I thought that was the way it was

[barry]

1 minute ago, ltdmstr said:

There was a production requirement for Limited.  This is the 7th ed. 1995:

 

I belive he mentioned number if factory made guns to be leagle

[RJH]

1 minute ago, barry said:

I belive he mentioned number if factory made guns to be leagle

 

Yes, and it says you had to have a thousand and be available for 12 months. I thought it might have been 2,000 but I was positive all that number. 

 

So one of custom guns were illegal

[barry]

Only read highlighted parts .I stand corrected. 

[BritinUSA]

53 minutes ago, ltdmstr said:

There was a production requirement for Limited.  This is the 7th ed. 1995:

 

Same rule was in IPSC if I recall which is why it was called Standard. When shooters started putting compensators on their guns it changed the sport. Standard/Limited was a reaction to the high customization that was happening.

 

Now its a custom division and Production and Single-Stack/Classic are the stock divisions.