Steel Challenge- Limited Optics 2.0

[shred]

38 minutes ago, TheOneTrueAndre said:

I don't think that's accurate, I think there are a-l-o-t of "good" pistols on the market that would fall into LO without much modification, especially as the 2011s get cheaper and more popular. The number of people that have LO guns that don't shoot them in SCSA because they are viewed as sub-optimal for Open and the scoring being discouraging is fairly high.

 

Hoops asked "For USPSA shooters…..Why is Limited Optics the fastest growing division by percentage and is now the 2nd most popular division behind CO in a short period of time?"

 

It's the fastest growing in USPSA because it's the new-shiny.  PCC and CO were like that too when they came out.  Even Single Stack to some extent.  People think "this might be the one" and try it out so the majority of the fast growth comes from shooters moving over.

 

Around here more Glock and M&P and SIG shooters show up to their first USPSA match than do people that randomly bought 2011s, and that flow is relatively constant so I doubt that's it.

 

I agree shooters that like LO may be actively avoiding SCSA because they don't want to be in Open.

[TheOneTrueAndre]

11 minutes ago, shred said:

I agree shooters that like LO may be actively avoiding SCSA because they don't want to be in Open.

my bad, same page then

[-JCN-]

My training partner shot her first SCSA match. 
 

Made A class in RFPO. 

 

But shooting Open with her LO gun, scores were B but would have been A in CO which is more consistent with her USPSA performances. 
 

I’m looking for USPSA classifiers to be a good representation of a shooter’s skill set. 
 

Right now, SCSA Open classification isn't a good representation of an LO shooter’s skill for the vast majority of the competitors. 

[warpspeed]

22 hours ago, shred said:

 

Hoops asked "For USPSA shooters…..Why is Limited Optics the fastest growing division by percentage and is now the 2nd most popular division behind CO in a short period of time?"

 

It's the fastest growing in USPSA because it's the new-shiny.  PCC and CO were like that too when they came out.  Even Single Stack to some extent.  People think "this might be the one" and try it out so the majority of the fast growth comes from shooters moving over.

 

Around here more Glock and M&P and SIG shooters show up to their first USPSA match than do people that randomly bought 2011s, and that flow is relatively constant so I doubt that's it.

 

I agree shooters that like LO may be actively avoiding SCSA because they don't want to be in Open.

 

Shred

 

Your are going to have to explain what a Single Stack is to these newbies -

[TheOneTrueAndre]

its one o' them fudd guns, isn't it? an 1811? am I getting that right? are those blackpowder? /s

[Hoops]

To reasonably analyze and present a baseline for centerfire handgun division’s that would be compared to Peak Times, what would you use for the calculation?  The current top 4% in each division ….6%…..10%?
 

 

[Hoops]

19 minutes ago, Hoops said:

To reasonably analyze and present a baseline for centerfire handgun division’s that would be compared to Peak Times, what would you use for the calculation?  The current top 4% in each division ….6%…..10%?
 

 

I should have added that would an average score from the top 4%, 6%, 10% from each division….or maybe 2%, compared to Peak Times be a reasonable metric just to see where a Limited Optics gun might fall?  

[Squirrel45]

How was it done when introduced in uspsa ? 

[Hoops]

3 minutes ago, Squirrel45 said:

How was it done when introduced in uspsa ? 

I don’t know.  
 

As an advocate of Limited Optics in SCSA, I’m wanting to address several questions/comments made regarding CO and OPN.  
 

I’m thinking that the comparisons within each division would start with the top 4%.  That is, the top 4% of shooters would be the basis by which the remaining 96% shoot against.  On the surface, the ratio of 96:4 seems reasonable.  I won’t know until I’m finished how it will compare to current Peak Times.  The question appears to be where would Limited Optics fit within the current centerfire divisions.

 

 

[shred]

There's always going to be outliers, timer-failures and shenanigans in the data, so you'd want to do some statistics versus the old eyeball-and-call-it-good that USPSA often does.  

[Hoops]

24 minutes ago, shred said:

There's always going to be outliers, timer-failures and shenanigans in the data, so you'd want to do some statistics versus the old eyeball-and-call-it-good that USPSA often does.  

My first thought was to eliminate any person who hasn’t shot all 8 stages.  Also to eliminate any legacy shooters who haven’t shot in while.   Using only the top 2-3% current scoring in each division after that would be a start.  

[shred]

Skip all that and take the %s from the last few major matches.  Those are the only ones with a hope of being consistent across the board. 

 

Dropping people that haven't shot all 8 means anyone at a club that doesn't have 35 yards is automatically eliminated no matter how good they are.  Taking the top-% still leaves you open to timers that didn't pick up all the shots, people scored in the wrong division by mistake or stages set up wrong, uncalled misses, or plain old cheating the scores.

 

Or just ask half a dozen very top shooters what they think.  They'd probably be very close.

 

[Hoops]

11 hours ago, shred said:

Skip all that and take the %s from the last few major matches.  Those are the only ones with a hope of being consistent across the board. 

 

Dropping people that haven't shot all 8 means anyone at a club that doesn't have 35 yards is automatically eliminated no matter how good they are.  Taking the top-% still leaves you open to timers that didn't pick up all the shots, people scored in the wrong division by mistake or stages set up wrong, uncalled misses, or plain old cheating the scores.

 

Or just ask half a dozen very top shooters what they think.  They'd probably be very close.

 

Shame folks cheat.  But not when our squad and RO’s run our matches.

[bigdawgbeav]

How about we just re-write the equipment rules for CO to allow single-action guns? Why LO over CO?

 

1 - thumb rest: There are plenty of CO guns out there now with thumb-rests because they are integrated into the gun somehow, so I'm sure that wouldn't be an issue since Nitro Fins exist.  

2 - race holsters: recently holster placement has been relaxed (not vertical), and I understand that a "race" holster is likely faster, but for the average shooter, is it really?  Not to mention there are a number of "CO" holsters that are damn near a race holster.

3 - magwell: not even an issue.  everyone knows the 2 worst words in SC are "nice reload".  While a magwell can add weight, there are other ways to do the same thing.

4 - safety: CO doesn't use an external safety, LO guns do.  Is it really any disadvantage one way or the other?  If you are using a SA-only chances are the safety is already off after you draw and pushing toward the target.

 

 

[shred]

18 minutes ago, bigdawgbeav said:

How about we just re-write the equipment rules for CO to allow single-action guns? Why LO over CO?

 

1 - thumb rest: There are plenty of CO guns out there now with thumb-rests because they are integrated into the gun somehow, so I'm sure that wouldn't be an issue since Nitro Fins exist.

2 - race holsters: recently holster placement has been relaxed (not vertical), and I understand that a "race" holster is likely faster, but for the average shooter, is it really?  Not to mention there are a number of "CO" holsters that are damn near a race holster.

3 - magwell: not even an issue.  everyone knows the 2 worst words in SC are "nice reload".  While a magwell can add weight, there are other ways to do the same thing.

4 - safety: CO doesn't use an external safety, LO guns do.  Is it really any disadvantage one way or the other?  If you are using a SA-only chances are the safety is already off after you draw and pushing toward the target.

 

 

1.  There are few options for left-handers, although I think thumb rests are largely useless for SC.

2.  Less chance of a blown draw, maybe, or that elusive .6 on Smoke and Hope.

3.  The SC advantage to having a magwell is in the grip surface, leverage and index point, not the reload.

4.  Safety isn't a thing, but the improved short-reset trigger on a SA gun is a significant difference, especially over a DA/SA pistol.

 

[Hoops]

16 minutes ago, bigdawgbeav said:

How about we just re-write the equipment rules for CO to allow single-action guns? Why LO over CO?

 

1 - thumb rest: There are plenty of CO guns out there now with thumb-rests because they are integrated into the gun somehow, so I'm sure that wouldn't be an issue since Nitro Fins exist.  

2 - race holsters: recently holster placement has been relaxed (not vertical), and I understand that a "race" holster is likely faster, but for the average shooter, is it really?  Not to mention there are a number of "CO" holsters that are damn near a race holster.

3 - magwell: not even an issue.  everyone knows the 2 worst words in SC are "nice reload".  While a magwell can add weight, there are other ways to do the same thing.

4 - safety: CO doesn't use an external safety, LO guns do.  Is it really any disadvantage one way or the other?  If you are using a SA-only chances are the safety is already off after you draw and pushing toward the target.

 

 

I’m working on comparison numbers by centerfire guns.  Shred gave me an idea this morning so I’m reconfiguring my timeframe and format.  Hopefully by the end of this week I’ll have some numbers to post.

[TheOneTrueAndre]

Looks like the survey email just got sent out, just got it, its been up on the USPSA site for a few days though.

[bigdawgbeav]

If it goes through then no big deal, I'll just compete with one of my Caniks... they meet the requirements and I have a race holster insert for it.  Nothing in the LO rules says it has to be single-action. 

 

But I feel that SC should be looking at other ways to improve the sport.  Is adding this division REALLY going to draw more folks in?  Is there REALLY that many people out there sitting on the fence about shooting SC and saying, "Oh man, if only I could shoot my Springfield Prodigy."?  If they REALLY wanted to complete in SC they would already be doing it and shooting in Open.  That's what's great about SC, chances are there is something in your safe that fits into one of the 13 divisions somewhere.

 

If you really want some good discussion I recommend going to the SCSA Facebook page and finding the post there.  115+ comments on it with Jeff Jones and Zack Jones actively participating in the discussion.

 

Edited July 8 by bigdawgbeav

[Darqusoull13]

On 7/4/2024 at 1:44 PM, shred said:

 

Hoops asked "For USPSA shooters…..Why is Limited Optics the fastest growing division by percentage and is now the 2nd most popular division behind CO in a short period of time?"

 

It's the fastest growing in USPSA because it's the new-shiny.  PCC and CO were like that too when they came out.  Even Single Stack to some extent.  People think "this might be the one" and try it out so the majority of the fast growth comes from shooters moving over.

 

Around here more Glock and M&P and SIG shooters show up to their first USPSA match than do people that randomly bought 2011s, and that flow is relatively constant so I doubt that's it.

 

I agree shooters that like LO may be actively avoiding SCSA because they don't want to be in Open.

LO is the 2nd fastest growing because it's predominantly made up of CO shooters slapping a magwell on their CO gun and shooting a new thing. That's 100% why LO was so popular at Irons Nat's, CO guys shooting another Nationals. 

LO in SCSA is Open-B. B because it's basically the same. CO is hardly different from Open if I'm being totally honest. Don't get me started on Limited / SS. 

I wish USPSA / SCSA would spend more time on useful endeavors but I doubt that trend changes anytime soon. 

[Hoops]

1 hour ago, Darqusoull13 said:

I wish USPSA / SCSA would spend more time on useful endeavors but I doubt that trend changes anytime soon. 

Good points.

 

To my knowledge, the only thing that the SCSA committee (separate of USPSA BOD) has looked at for SCSA members is Peak Times, Slots for WSSC and this membership survey for Limited Optics and input on recent rules.  I’m sure there is more behind the scenes.  
 

SCSA pretty much operates on its own with very little oversight from HQ.  Even though I am in favor of Limited Optics, I’ll support the outcome of the survey 100%.
 

I hope a lot of folks take the survey. 

[-JCN-]

Locally, LO has been popular with 3 gunners running their same optic wearing 2011s 

 

Rarely do we have any magwell using CO shooters. We do have some that shoot their CZs cocked and locked… but they never shoot it DASA. 

[GKB]

I still don't understand how there is room between CO and OPEN for a 3rd division.

 

Does this mean the iron sight pistols get another division, also?

[zzt]

There is definitely room between Open and Co for LO.  I have all three.  I'm definitely faster with the Open gun.  LO is faster than CO.  I'm a B class shooter.  I suspect there would only be small fractions of a second separating the three Divisions at the upper levels.

 

I'm deciding where I'm going in the future.  Part of me says just build yourself a killer 2011 LO gun and shoot factory for everything.  USPSA, SCSA, and Outlaw.  Sell the Open guns.  Tempting.  Certainly quieter than shooting Open.

[Hoops]

 

 

[Hoops]

8 minutes ago, zzt said:

There is definitely room between Open and Co for LO.  I have all three.  I'm definitely faster with the Open gun.  LO is faster than CO.  I'm a B class shooter.  I suspect there would only be small fractions of a second separating the three Divisions at the upper levels.

 

I'm deciding where I'm going in the future.  Part of me says just build yourself a killer 2011 LO gun and shoot factory for everything.  USPSA, SCSA, and Outlaw.  Sell the Open guns.  Tempting.  Certainly quieter than shooting Open.

Thanks for a definitive comment.

 

Your reference to “upper levels”…..would you define this as top 2,3 or 4%?