Steel Challenge- Limited Optics 2.0

[Hoops]

I decided to revive a previous discussion on this subject.

 

Background:

1. Limited Optics has been provisional in USPSA for approximately 18 months.  The BOD recently deferred making it permanent until January 2025.  

2. In a recent USPSA article by Jake Martens, he wrote that Limited Optics is rapidly becoming the most popular division behind Carry Optics…..and shooters are using 1911/2011 SAO guns.  
 

3. Limited Optics in SCSA was not approved by the SCSA Director per his statement in the previous topic.  Since then, myself and a local USPSA and SCSA GM and Match Director, have been lobbying to have Limited Optics approved provisionally in SCSA.

 

4.  It has been reported that the BOD’s, during the June 17th Meeting, approved to have a member survey released on or about July 1st to allow membership comments.

 

Discussion:

 

I have shot Open and Limited in competitions for several years.  I did not own a Carry Optic gun until a couple of weeks ago.  I purchased an Sig P320 Custom Works Max.  Nice gun.  A friend installed the Gray Gun competition trigger which has a very nice 2 lb pull.  I removed the small magwell that came with the gun.

 

I’ve shot several matches with it.  The straight holster took a bit getting used to compared to my Limited speed holster even after I installed a drop.  Two recoil springs came with the gun…12 and 14 lb.  I went with the 12 lb spring and it runs 100% with my Atlantic Arms 115 gr steel challenge load.

 

My personal assessment….and I’m a bit old and certainly not at the M or GM level…..is that as good as the Sig is, it doesn’t compare to my SAO STI Edge limited gun (both 9mm).  The bigger magwell, speed holster rig and the awesome SAO trigger is just a better set-up IMO.

 

So……I still believe that Limited Optics, SAO, should be allowed in SCSA.

 

Be on the lookout for the survey in July.

 

 

 

 

[blackss06]

Why exactly do you think your single action only gun with an optic, magwell, and race holster should not be shot in open? 
 

I personally think it’s crazy as hell to add yet another division where the peak times SHOULD be so close, if not identical to open that they’re basically the same division. 
 

Don’t really care what they decide to do. If they add it then when I switch back to my Sig I’ll just shoot it in LO with a magwell for no reason. 

[Hoops]

20 minutes ago, blackss06 said:

Why exactly do you think your single action only gun with an optic, magwell, and race holster should not be shot in open? 
 

I personally think it’s crazy as hell to add yet another division where the peak times SHOULD be so close, if not identical to open that they’re basically the same division. 
 

Don’t really care what they decide to do. If they add it then when I switch back to my Sig I’ll just shoot it in LO with a magwell for no reason. 

First, thanks for commenting.  I also have an STI Steelmaster, frame mounted red dot.  With my load for that gun, it is very flat and no reciprocating dot on a slide.  I shoot it in Open.  So for me, they are two different guns with the scoring edge to open.  Again…for me.

 

As to the 14th division.  I see it as evolution.  Before a Peak Time would be established for Limited Optics there should be beta testing as opposed to a random guess.

 

my attitude is to accept how the majority responds to the upcoming survey…..either way.  
 

thanks

 

 

 

 

[blackss06]

Gathering accurate data will also be a huge problem. Only 8 out of 828 people have shot >95% in open in 2024. Only 14/1693 in CO. So with a proposed new division being 90% of open and 10% of CO, where are representative peak times going to come from given that almost no one is shooting main match GM times in the first place?

 

Dot movement isn’t really relevant in SCSA and the scores reflect that. This year’s CO/OPN separation at WSSC was ~6 seconds. Last year was .01 and the top 10 combined between the 2 divisions there were 4 CO and 6 OPN. 
 

Adding another division will just dilute the competitor pool even more and accommodate platforms that already have a perfectly competitive division to shoot in.

[Hoops]

20 minutes ago, blackss06 said:

Gathering accurate data will also be a huge problem. Only 8 out of 828 people have shot >95% in open in 2024. Only 14/1693 in CO. So with a proposed new division being 90% of open and 10% of CO, where are representative peak times going to come from given that almost no one is shooting main match GM times in the first place?

 

Dot movement isn’t really relevant in SCSA and the scores reflect that. This year’s CO/OPN separation at WSSC was ~6 seconds. Last year was .01 and the top 10 combined between the 2 divisions there were 4 CO and 6 OPN. 
 

Adding another division will just dilute the competitor pool even more and accommodate platforms that already have a perfectly competitive division to shoot in.

Good points.  My first reaction was 6.00 seconds in steel challenge is huge.  That’s a full stage.  What’s more interesting is the small percentage shooting >95%.  

[blackss06]

25 minutes ago, Hoops said:

Good points.  My first reaction was 6.00 seconds in steel challenge is huge.  That’s a full stage.  What’s more interesting is the small percentage shooting >95%.  

That would be a huge gap except the peak times are 9 seconds apart. LO would have to be faster than CO and theoretically slower than OPN but there’s already not much, and sometimes there is no gap already. Hence my stance that it would only further dilute competition when any LO gun is perfectly competitive in OPN already in able hands. 

[Hoops]

I wonder how the CO to OPN spread is in the down classes of M to B?  Is that relevant or should all evaluations be based on the upper 1 to 2 percent of the shooters?

[VeilAndrew]

Should SCSA CO just allow SAO guns?

[Joe4d]

46 minutes ago, VeilAndrew said:

Should SCSA CO just allow SAO guns?

nah just put them in open... Oh wait, they already are. 
Honestly doesnt really matter to me, I see as take new shooters with 22 game...  I mean I dont think it took me 3 matches to be bored with the whole thing..
Like playboy for married guys.
Same centerfold every issue.

 

[Squirrel45]

There are already enough center fire divisions as Mike says. One more added to the pack would just be another division for people to shoot once to get their "14" pin. 

 

Respectfully 

 

[Hoops]

Not sure who a 1 gun 1 pin shooter is trying to impress.  
 

My prediction is optics will represent 90% or more shooters within the next few years.

 

True OPN and Limited have sharply declined already.  CO has overtaken Production. I rarely see revolvers anymore.  So the current “13” is shrinking fast.  
 

USPSA’s allowing Limited Optics has confused shooters…..even some USPSA Limited Optics shooters who want to shoot SCSA with it.  
 

will see how the survey shakes out.  but it’s probably time for BOD to either say yes or no.  
 

 

 

[Hoops]

13 hours ago, blackss06 said:

That would be a huge gap except the peak times are 9 seconds apart. LO would have to be faster than CO and theoretically slower than OPN but there’s already not much, and sometimes there is no gap already. Hence my stance that it would only further dilute competition when any LO gun is perfectly competitive in OPN already in able hands. 

I’ve been thinking about your comments regarding the gap between OPN and CO.  I will be poking around Steelrankings.com 2024 today to see if any measurable data emerges.  I will only look at shooters who have shot all 8 stages.  The question may be is how much time in the space will be needed to justify a LO division.  
 

 

[shred]

I think the differences may be more pronounced at the high-mid-pack level than the very top, since a lot of the Open advantages will be around makeup shots.

[zzt]

my thoughts.  I originally built a custom 1911 Open gun for SCSA.  I shot it with 150ish PF Open loads.  Fine.  I ran out before a match and decided to shoot my minor (non-Open) load.  Changed recoil springs.  Fun.  Shot a PB.  Continued to use that load.  Quiet, non-violent, soft.  My times are improving.

 

CO:  I'm a dedicated 1911/2011 snob.  I wouldn't shoot CO with any legal gun, even if you gave it to me for free.  I absolutely would shoot LO.

[GKB]

I really don't understand the concept of LO.

 

Steel Challenge is a series of divisions where a gun is defined and shot with and without an optic.  (Except Single Stack.  Yeah, it's grandfathered in but should be rolled into Production.)

 

Rimfire Pistol Irons and Rimfire Pistol Open:  Same gun without and with an optic.

Ironsight Revolver and Optics Revolver:  Same gun without and with an optic.

PCCI and PCCO.  Same gun without and with an optic.

. . .

Production and Carry Optics:  Same gun without and with an optic

Limited and Open:  Same gun without and with an optic

 

How is LO different than Open?

And if it is, should the answer be to align the divisions rather than create a new one?

[Joe4d]

On 6/20/2024 at 2:51 PM, zzt said:

my thoughts.  I originally built a custom 1911 Open gun for SCSA.  I shot it with 150ish PF Open loads.  Fine.  I ran out before a match and decided to shoot my minor (non-Open) load.  Changed recoil springs.  Fun.  Shot a PB.  Continued to use that load.  Quiet, non-violent, soft.  My times are improving.

 

CO:  I'm a dedicated 1911/2011 snob.  I wouldn't shoot CO with any legal gun, even if you gave it to me for free.  I absolutely would shoot LO.

think I have asked this before,, somewhere gathering dust there has got to be lots of SS 1911's drilled and tapped for various optics.  What were the big tube sights ? aimpoint ?

[Joe4d]

1 hour ago, GKB said:

I really don't understand the concept of LO.

 

Steel Challenge is a series of divisions where a gun is defined and shot with and without an optic.  (Except Single Stack.  Yeah, it's grandfathered in but should be rolled into Production.)

 

Rimfire Pistol Irons and Rimfire Pistol Open:  Same gun without and with an optic.

Ironsight Revolver and Optics Revolver:  Same gun without and with an optic.

PCCI and PCCO.  Same gun without and with an optic.

. . .

Production and Carry Optics:  Same gun without and with an optic

Limited and Open:  Same gun without and with an optic

 

How is LO different than Open?

And if it is, should the answer be to align the divisions rather than create a new one?

open rules in SC were probably set up to align with  USPSA open rules ,  I am guessing Open RImfire optic, and revolver optic which all use frame mounted optics,  and then limited existed long before slide ride optics came on the scene,,, So CO was added,, but the others wernt removed.

 

[shred]

1 hour ago, Joe4d said:

think I have asked this before,, somewhere gathering dust there has got to be lots of SS 1911's drilled and tapped for various optics.  What were the big tube sights ? aimpoint ?

I doubt there are many left if there ever were many.  There was not long when a singlestack with a dot was the hot setup.  Jerry won the 1990 Nats with a dotted single-stack and people thought he was nuts to try... but even then there were Springfield P9s and Paras creeping around.  Todd won in 1991 with a Para in .38 Super and that was the end of dotted single-stacks for anything but bowling pins or steel.  Caspian and STI came along shortly thereafter (1990 was also the last nats with a majority shooting .45 ACP)

 

Steel Challenge Open has been USPSA Open guns (plus the odd revo) from the start, although many were lightened and swiss-cheesed.    Although slide-dots and non-comped were possible, nobody saw any reason to do either.

 

[schmidtg]

On 6/19/2024 at 1:25 PM, blackss06 said:

Why exactly do you think your single action only gun with an optic, magwell, and race holster should not be shot in open? 
 

I personally think it’s crazy as hell to add yet another division where the peak times SHOULD be so close, if not identical to open that they’re basically the same division. 

 

You're implicitly stating that frame-mounted optics and compensators do not offer any advantage.

 

Compared with CO, current peak times for OPN don't support your conclusion.  The fact that OPN peak times are so much lower than CO is a statement by SCSA that compensators and frame mount optics matter - a lot.  So much so that my current times in OPN are good enough for GM in CO, but barely put me in M in OPN.

 

SCSA is contradicting itself by not introducing LO when it takes this stance about peak times.  Given the growth of the division in USPSA, and the growth of the 2011 market in the larger shooting community, SCSA is quite late in following this trend.  It doesn't make sense to diverge peak times for divisions by as much as OPN and CO have diverged and not fill the gap with a middle division in LO, especially considering how much the 2011 market has grown over the past few years.

 

The argument of "we don't need another division" is completely bogus to me.  The real issue is that there are some "legacy"  divisions with poor representation at Level 2 and 3 matches (SS, PROD, OSR, ISR) that SCSA doesn't know what to do with.  LO certainly wouldn't be one of those since it's the fastest-growing division in USPSA history.

 

By analogy, PROD -> CO

 

Then LTD -> LO

 

The fact that there is no optics equivalent for LTD is a glaring gap in divisions.

[GKB]

29 minutes ago, schmidtg said:

Then LTD -> LO

 

The fact that there is no optics equivalent for LTD is a glaring gap in divisions.

Then what is Open?

[blackss06]

1 hour ago, schmidtg said:

 

You're implicitly stating that frame-mounted optics and compensators do not offer any advantage.

 

Compared with CO, current peak times for OPN don't support your conclusion.  The fact that OPN peak times are so much lower than CO is a statement by SCSA that compensators and frame mount optics matter - a lot.  So much so that my current times in OPN are good enough for GM in CO, but barely put me in M in OPN.

 

SCSA is contradicting itself by not introducing LO when it takes this stance about peak times.  Given the growth of the division in USPSA, and the growth of the 2011 market in the larger shooting community, SCSA is quite late in following this trend.  It doesn't make sense to diverge peak times for divisions by as much as OPN and CO have diverged and not fill the gap with a middle division in LO, especially considering how much the 2011 market has grown over the past few years.

 

The argument of "we don't need another division" is completely bogus to me.  The real issue is that there are some "legacy"  divisions with poor representation at Level 2 and 3 matches (SS, PROD, OSR, ISR) that SCSA doesn't know what to do with.  LO certainly wouldn't be one of those since it's the fastest-growing division in USPSA history.

 

By analogy, PROD -> CO

 

Then LTD -> LO

 

The fact that there is no optics equivalent for LTD is a glaring gap in divisions.

Thats cool that you’d be a GM in CO. Really sucks you shoot an open gun then. I have a 90% in open with a revolver. Who cares. 
 

My points are 100% backed by the data. 

[Hoops]

1 hour ago, GKB said:

Then what is Open?

Modern day Open guns are usually 2011 SAO, comp barrel, frame mounted optics and lightening cut slides.   

[schmidtg]

1 hour ago, blackss06 said:

Thats cool that you’d be a GM in CO. Really sucks you shoot an open gun then. I have a 90% in open with a revolver. Who cares. 
 

My points are 100% backed by the data. 

 

Where did I say I shot an open gun?  Some people shoot CO guns in OPN just as you do with your OSR gun.  My point was that CO and LO are more similar than either one is to OPN (the only meaningful differentiating feature in LO compared to CO is single action) so it doesn't make sense to judge LO by OPN peak times.

 

Your logic behind "just shoot it in OPN or it dilutes the sport" was not the direction SCSA went in when it created CO and OSR, and it shouldn't be the direction the sport goes in now that slide-ride 2011s have a huge market share.

 

Almost everyone I've seen at the club level (based on the 3 clubs I shoot SCSA at) who shoots OPN uses a LO-style gun - it's the fastest-growing gun style in shooting sports.  There's zero reason not to add LO if you acknowledge ISR, OSR, PROD, and SS as legitimate divisions.  The idea that it somehow dilutes competition is just wrong when one recognizes that those 4 divisions have an abysmal participation rate and yet they still exist.  Even if OPN was cut in half by LO (which I doubt it will be because division participation is not mutually exclusive in this sport, since shooting multiple guns at a match is the norm), OPN would still trounce those divisions in participation.

[blackss06]

13 minutes ago, schmidtg said:

 

Where did I say I shot an open gun?  Some people shoot CO guns in OPN just as you do with your OSR gun.  My point was that CO and LO are more similar than either one is to OPN (the only meaningful differentiating feature in LO compared to CO is single action) so it doesn't make sense to judge LO by OPN peak times.

 

Your logic behind "just shoot it in OPN or it dilutes the sport" was not the direction SCSA went in when it created CO and OSR, and it shouldn't be the direction the sport goes in now that slide-ride 2011s have a huge market share.

 

Almost everyone I've seen at the club level (based on the 3 clubs I shoot SCSA at) who shoots OPN uses a LO-style gun - it's the fastest-growing gun style in shooting sports.  There's zero reason not to add LO if you acknowledge ISR, OSR, PROD, and SS as legitimate divisions.  The idea that it somehow dilutes competition is just wrong when one recognizes that those 4 divisions have an abysmal participation rate and yet they still exist.  Even if OPN was cut in half by LO (which I doubt it will be because division participation is not mutually exclusive in this sport, since shooting multiple guns at a match is the norm), OPN would still trounce those divisions in participation.

 CO and LO are absolutely not similar compared to LO and open. 
 

Single action only.

Magwell. (only dense mfs think this doesn’t make a difference in Steel Challenge, it 100% bolsters grip and allows for much quicker recovery on non ideal draws)

Race holster.

 

Those things alone can account for 90% of the difference in peak times. There is no power factor requirement for SCSA, comps are not needed. 
 

Slide ride dot means you’re much closer to the bore axis.

People just want hand outs for higher classifications instead of shooting better. Running a LO gun in open is maybe a 1-2% disadvantage against an actual purpose built steel gun.
 

Of course BJ lost the main match by .01 with a CO gun (a real one, not your OPEN gun) against an open gun so at the top end there’s literally a .01% difference. Maybe we should make the peak time for LO 83.51 to appease all the whiners. 
 

 

 

[schmidtg]

23 minutes ago, blackss06 said:

People just want hand outs for higher classifications instead of shooting better. Running a LO gun in open is maybe a 1-2% disadvantage against an actual purpose built steel gun.
 

Of course BJ lost the main match by .01 with a CO gun (a real one, not your OPEN gun) against an open gun so at the top end there’s literally a .01% difference. Maybe we should make the peak time for LO 83.51 to appease all the whiners. 

Although I don't quite agree with your distinctions between LO and OPN, I think you're getting at the real issue here which is the methodology SCSA uses for setting peak times.  SCSA doesn't tell us how peak times are set so we have a wildly inconsistent standard for GM between divisions.  I'd personally be okay with them making 100% peak as whatever the division winner at WSSC is, as long this is done consistently across divisions.  But that would be a radical overhaul of the peak times system which is still largely based on gun features impacting the performance of the bottom 99% of shooters, where comps and frame-mounted dots are a significant benefit, especially with factory ammo (not the 110 PF gamer loads used by top-level competitors which lessens the benefits of comp/frame-mounted dots).

Edited June 22 by schmidtg