The Future Of The Limited Optics Division in USPSA

[Schutzenmeister]

1 hour ago, barry said:

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.

Close ... The 170mm mags were originally based on the old .45 ACP Colt 11  round mags, which happened to be 170mm.  Additionally, the original intent was they were ONLY allowed for single stack (not necessarily 1911) firearms.

Edited January 31 by Schutzenmeister

[Racinready300ex]

It's pretty interesting that limited back then was really more restrictive the current production rules. Note it says no add on weights to reduce recoil. 

 

Back then would a lok brass light of been legal? Or Brass grips, brass magwells, tungsten batteries?

 

Guns were probably loaded to 180 FP and weighted under 43 oz. Look how far we've come. 

[RJH]

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

It's pretty interesting that limited back then was really more restrictive the current production rules. Note it says no add on weights to reduce recoil. 

 

Back then would a lok brass light of been legal? Or Brass grips, brass magwells, tungsten batteries?

 

Guns were probably loaded to 180 FP and weighted under 43 oz. Look how far we've come. 

 

Bolt on frame weights were only allowed a few years ago. Lights on limited guns are actually very recent. 

 

In fact, there was a big to do when Bob Vogel showed up with a light filled with lead on his limited gun. This was a few years back, but frame weights were legal but lights were not. The question became is it a light since it's filled with lead. The ruling was it was a frame weight, and not a light even though it was originally a light

 

 

 

I would also say by those rules and if they were interpreted anything like production rules used to be, brass grips and magwells would be illegal. But I seem to remember brass magwell's way back before frame weights were legal

 

When I started the standard limited gun was an STI edge with a plastic grip and a Dawson ice aluminum mag well. And yeah I think those weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 43 to 45 Oz. Most custom guns at that time were just fancier versions of the same thing

[Racinready300ex]

7 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

Bolt on frame weights were only allowed a few years ago. Lights on limited guns are actually very recent. 

 

In fact, there was a big to do when Bob Vogel showed up with a light filled with lead on his limited gun. This was a few years back, but frame weights were legal but lights were not. The question became is it a light since it's filled with lead. The ruling was it was a frame weight, and not a light even though it was originally a light

 

 

 

I would also say by those rules and if they were interpreted anything like production rules used to be, brass grips and magwells would be illegal. But I seem to remember brass magwell's way back before frame weights were legal

 

When I started the standard limited gun was an STI edge with a plastic grip and a Dawson ice aluminum mag well. And yeah I think those weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 43 to 45 Oz. Most custom guns at that time were just fancier versions of the same thing

 

I can remember the vogel frame weight thing. I even did that a couple times after that, only once did a RO check to see if the light worked. Pretty funny how things change.

 

Considering how far we've come and how much things have changed it's funny to be arguing over change. 

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I can remember the vogel frame weight thing. I even did that a couple times after that, only once did a RO check to see if the light worked. Pretty funny how things change.

 

Considering how far we've come and how much things have changed it's funny to be arguing over change. 

Agreed. Nothing stays the same, nor has it since the beginning of the sport.

 

I even seem to recall there being a stink over Island barrels being used in limited way back when the site trackers first came out, but who knows maybe I'm imagining it

[varminter22]

4 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

...

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. 

...

I agree.  It sure seems like no one wants to have to perform a reload anymore.  And that is a shame.  

[Eidoss]

Moving aside the major vs minor argument.

- Do SA guns have a significant advantage over DA guns in USPSA?
 

[RJH]

58 minutes ago, varminter22 said:

I agree.  It sure seems like no one wants to have to perform a reload anymore.  And that is a shame.  

 

 

I'll shoot some single stack with you if you ever get this direction. I shot it for years being the only guy that was using a single stack gun. I finally gave up and went limited, and now I'm in the LO

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, Eidoss said:

Moving aside the major vs minor argument.

- Do SA guns have a significant advantage over DA guns in USPSA?
 

 

No. In fact must da guns can be shot beginning in SA. 

And glocks and caniks have won limited nationals 

[Schutzenmeister]

9 minutes ago, Eidoss said:

Moving aside the major vs minor argument.

- Do SA guns have a significant advantage over DA guns in USPSA?
 

If you mean DA/SA guns I'd agree, not much.  But if refer to DAO guns I would say there is a significant difference. 

[Joe4d]

5 hours ago, RJH said:

 

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

unless you were special, and shot for Para or FN... then the rules for everyone else didnt apply.  

[Joe4d]

1 hour ago, Schutzenmeister said:

If you mean DA/SA guns I'd agree, not much.  But if refer to DAO guns I would say there is a significant difference. 

but if you mean Striker,,   USPSA says they are double actions, there is no significant difference.  

[Schutzenmeister]

31 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

but if you mean Striker,,   USPSA says they are double actions, there is no significant difference.  

Yeah ... I remember that argument.  Largely BS, IMHO.  I've never had a problem saying DA 1st shot OR striker fired.

[shred]

Geezer Story Time...

 

.40 was allowed for Major PF in Limited for the simple reason that factory loads from 3 major manufacturers made major PF, which at the time was 175 (lowering to 165 also fixed the 'super face' and made 9 major viable, separate story).  While you could handload .38 Super to major and even find a few loads in the load books that did, nobody commercially sold it as such so it was not legal for Limited which was trying to be a 'factory gun' thing.

 

The ".40 or better" restriction came about when the .356 TS&W gamer guns popped up in Team S&W's hands just before Limited Nationals-- S&W had made the guns and they'd talked 3 ammo makers into making major PF loads, so by the rules they were good to go.   Being a 9mm bullet in a 9mm-sized case, they held way more rounds than a .45 did.

 

Everybody else at the match (mostly shooting Para .45's and a few .40s with some single stacks and Glocks thrown in as STIs weren't yet legal for Limited because they hadn't made 2000 complete guns) pitched a fit and USPSA made a snap (likely illegal by the bylaws, nothing new under the sun folks!) decision that henceforward Major PF in Limited had to be .40 cal or larger. 

 

S&W took their marbles and went home for the next decade or two since in their eyes they'd been majorly screwed by USPSA.

 

Btw, 40 was not common or popular in those days.  People brass-chickened it up as much as .38 Super for the first few years

 

[Schutzenmeister]

Thank you @shred!

[motosapiens]

5 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

It's pretty interesting that limited back then was really more restrictive the current production rules. Note it says no add on weights to reduce recoil. 

 

Back then would a lok brass light of been legal? Or Brass grips, brass magwells, tungsten batteries?

 

Guns were probably loaded to 180 FP and weighted under 43 oz. Look how far we've come. 

poofs….

lol

[motosapiens]

3 hours ago, Eidoss said:

Moving aside the major vs minor argument.

- Do SA guns have a significant advantage over DA guns in USPSA?
 

in every division where sa guns are allowed, they totally dominate. the only people using anything else are sponsored pros and noobs who don’t yet know better.

[RJH]

1 hour ago, shred said:

Geezer Story Time...

 

.40 was allowed for Major PF in Limited for the simple reason that factory loads from 3 major manufacturers made major PF, which at the time was 175 (lowering to 165 also fixed the 'super face' and made 9 major viable, separate story).  While you could handload .38 Super to major and even find a few loads in the load books that did, nobody commercially sold it as such so it was not legal for Limited which was trying to be a 'factory gun' thing.

 

The ".40 or better" restriction came about when the .356 TS&W gamer guns popped up in Team S&W's hands just before Limited Nationals-- S&W had made the guns and they'd talked 3 ammo makers into making major PF loads, so by the rules they were good to go.   Being a 9mm bullet in a 9mm-sized case, they held way more rounds than a .45 did.

 

Everybody else at the match (mostly shooting Para .45's and a few .40s with some single stacks and Glocks thrown in as STIs weren't yet legal for Limited because they hadn't made 2000 complete guns) pitched a fit and USPSA made a snap (likely illegal by the bylaws, nothing new under the sun folks!) decision that henceforward Major PF in Limited had to be .40 cal or larger. 

 

S&W took their marbles and went home for the next decade or two since in their eyes they'd been majorly screwed by USPSA.

 

Btw, 40 was not common or popular in those days.  People brass-chickened it up as much as .38 Super for the first few years

 

 

Do you remember what year that might have been?

 

I just looked in 40 was adopted by the FBI in '97, and 10 mm was adopted in 89. 

 

Just wondering when that all came about as far as availability of brass and such.

 

 

On a side note, was at a match once and a guy who was shooting factory 40 cal did not make major out of his Glock 22. So 40 being major was not always a sure thing. And that was at 165 pf

 

Edited February 1 by RJH

[ranger]

4 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

Do you remember what year that might have been?

 

I just looked in 40 was adopted by the FBI in '97, and 10 mm was adopted in 89. 

 

Just wondering when that all came about as far as availability of brass and such.

 

 

On a side note, was at a match once and a guy who was shooting factory 40 cal did not make major out of his Glock 22. So 40 being major was not always a sure thing. And that was at 165 pf

 

Those early Glock 22s had chamber and feed ramp issues too leading to the infamous "Glocked" 40 brass. Everyone used to look for the rectangular firing pin imprint and separate that "Glocked" brass for trash or extra resizing. 

[shred]

I started around 1991 with a Glock 23 as it was the only centerfire pistol I owned at the time.  Until I started loading, I'd shoot Federal American Eagle factory 180gr which barely made 175 through it, even though the box had the velocity at 1000 fps.

 

You can go to the USPSA back-issues of Front Sight and find all the articles and discussion of what "Limited Class" should or should not be from back in those days.

 

[varminter22]

5 hours ago, RJH said:

 

 

I'll shoot some single stack with you if you ever get this direction. I shot it for years being the only guy that was using a single stack gun. I finally gave up and went limited, and now I'm in the LO

Well, actually there is a slight chance that could happen.  I have a brother about 4 hours southeast of you.  I haven't seen him in a long time.  

 

Got room for a travel trailer on (or near) the range?

[RJH]

7 hours ago, varminter22 said:

Well, actually there is a slight chance that could happen.  I have a brother about 4 hours southeast of you.  I haven't seen him in a long time.  

 

Got room for a travel trailer on (or near) the range?

 

Good range at Albany, it's a small town so if there's a travel trailer type place it couldn't be more than about 5 minutes from the range LOL

[varminter22]

On 2/1/2024 at 5:10 AM, RJH said:

 

Good range at Albany, it's a small town so if there's a travel trailer type place it couldn't be more than about 5 minutes from the range LOL

Thanks.  

Its a bit of a long shot, but if I can make the trip I look forward to shooting there.

[andy27al]

I do believe each division can stand alone. Despite the overlap and similarities, there are certainly enough shooters to fill the ranks of both. 

[MHicks]

2 hours ago, andy27al said:

I do believe each division can stand alone. Despite the overlap and similarities, there are certainly enough shooters to fill the ranks of both. 

 

Agree. No need to have one gigantic division. I think you'll have more unhappy shooters if you make CO 15 rounds or some other change just to differentiate the 2.