New 2011 red dot division

[Bergeron]

I think that CO dominates because it combines ease of entry with ease of performance. I don't shoot that division, and I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am curious.

I understand how a shooter with a dotted-nine would become interested in 2011 platforms. The 2011 potentially represents the easiest-shooting dotted and noncomped 9mm out there. If there's a "problem", I think it's from the shooters who started with more modern dotted 9mms, and who have now become 2011 enthusiasts. Their "old" gun was CO-competitive, but now they still want to compete, and with their new gun, that doesn't fit into any divisions, but appears closest to CO.

I like L10 and Open Minor.... so I'm already a weirdo, but I do think that there could be something like Production, Production Optics, Modified, and Open. Production and Production Optics could be pretty well what they sound like, with greater size and weight restrictions, 10 or 15 round capacity, no magwells, etc. Open being open, and a newly-reintroduced Modified could have some set of features like slide-ride optics, 140mm magazines, and a more generous size/weight budget than Production/Production-Optics. I'd even be interested in seeing what would happen if shooters could declare Major with .40/10mm.

[GJM]

. I don't think that decisions should be influenced by what industry wants to sell.

Where is the emoji for shocked face.

[bofe954]

I don't think that there are large numbers of dedicated 9 mm 2011 owners outside USPSA who are saying "if only USPSA allowed our guns, we would start participating". I actually don't think that there are large numbers of 9 mm 2011 owners in general. My impression is that there are about 7k active participants in the organization and this is largely a zero-sum market. That's one reason why I said upthread that I don't see how this could be done without impacting existing divisions. In theory it may impact the interests of other gun makers but the price difference will likely play a role here.

[FONT=Verdana]

Question is to what extent.

To the point of sponsors having a voice, I wonder what SIG and Glock will think of SAO guns being allowed in the same divisions with strikers.

All I know is that Springfield Armory and Staccato (STI), who have had long (maybe the longest?) relationships with USPSA are both making 9mm optic ready double stacks. Staccato makes nothing else, no .40 option, and Springfield's double stack is only available in 9mm. Wilson has a 9mm exclusive double stack (although not competition oriented, yet).

The zero sum game may be true, but if a bunch CO shooters switch to SA's and Staccato's then maybe that's worth sponsoring some matches and buying some Front Site ads so USPSA creates the division. Guys own more than one gun and shoot more than one division.

The tactical guys/training crowd seem like they are embracing the platform. I have been looking at buying another limited gun for awhile and have not been able to figure out why everyone is making 9mm optic ready guns, but they are. My guess is they are being made because they are selling.

[Clusterfrack]

...the rumors are that this is being pushed by lobbying from 2011 makers. I don't think that decisions should be influenced by what industry wants to sell.

Disagree. Sponsors subsidizing the sport should get a voice in the direction of the sport.

I'll be honest. I haven't seen any benefits of sponsors' "subsidy". USPSA Nationals has declined in quality over the last 10 years. 2021 Lowcap Nationals was a boring match, held at a facility that was inappropriate for the size of the event. A "banquet" with not enough food or seating was the cherry on top.

What do sponsors contribute to make USPSA better as a sport? I'm not seeing it.

[BWT]

As the person at the manufacture coordinating USPSA sponsorship, I disagree the manufacture should not have a voice in how the sport changes. We all have the opportunity to build guns for the divisions as they are. I personally think that if you add SA to CO you are going to take people from open and limited with little to no additional shooters to the sport. If you make it a new division you will take people from CO, Open and Limited watering down those. I think making large changes to the most popular division is a bad idea in general, it didnt work out well for production.

Suggestion is don’t add these 2011’s anywhere? It seems like the conclusion of adding them to CO damages other divisions. Creating a new division drains old divisions. Then that leaves no options? Or force them to go to Open and add comps and compete against frame mounted?

[JCN]

@BWT

You could make an argument that there is such a thing as CO getting too popular.

If CO becomes 80% of all matches then it’ll hit critical mass and the other divisions will also implode and wither.

It’s heading that way and will likely hit that within a couple years if no changes to divisions.

So there might be a real thing where instead of 70% CO and 30% split amongst different divisions, long term health might look like 40% CO, 40% Super CO and 20% the rest of stuff.

JMO.

[foxj66]

Suggestion is don’t add these 2011’s anywhere? It seems like the conclusion of adding them to CO damages other divisions. Creating a new division drains old divisions. Then that leaves no options? Or force them to go to Open and add comps and compete against frame mounted?

Yes they are currently legal for open or Limited with the optic removed. I dont see what adding them to their own division or changing CO adds to the sport, we dont need a division for every gun made and have too many divisions now. Also how many divisions do you need that you can use your 2011 in?

[foxj66]

I'll be honest. I haven't seen any benefits of sponsors' "subsidy". USPSA Nationals has declined in quality over the last 10 years. 2021 Lowcap Nationals was a boring match, held at a facility that was inappropriate for the size of the event. A "banquet" with not enough food or seating was the cherry on top.

What do sponsors contribute to make USPSA better as a sport? I'm not seeing it.

Deleted read your message wrong.

[BWT]

@BWT

You could make an argument that there is such a thing as CO getting too popular.

If CO becomes 80% of all matches then it’ll hit critical mass and the other divisions will also implode and wither.

It’s heading that way and will likely hit that within a couple years if no changes to divisions.

So there might be a real thing where instead of 70% CO and 30% split amongst different divisions, long term health might look like 40% CO, 40% Super CO and 20% the rest of stuff.

JMO.

Fair enough.

[JCS]

@BWT

You could make an argument that there is such a thing as CO getting too popular.

If CO becomes 80% of all matches then it’ll hit critical mass and the other divisions will also implode and wither.

It’s heading that way and will likely hit that within a couple years if no changes to divisions.

So there might be a real thing where instead of 70% CO and 30% split amongst different divisions, long term health might look like 40% CO, 40% Super CO and 20% the rest of stuff.

JMO.

One could argue that it’s already there. I think most people agree limited numbers are inflated by people shooting locals with their minor guns loaded to full capacity. If they made the new division and no one left open, limited, or production and CO split 50/50 it would still be more popular than open, PCC and production.