Short version: There have been times in the history of USPSA/IPSC when major technological developments or major rule changes made previously-competitive guns obsolete or non-competitive. That hasn't happened for a while. Any gun that was competitive 5 years ago is still competitive today. Nobody should steer clear of USPSA for fear that they will have to buy a new gun every season or two in order to stay competitive with other shooters of comparable skill.
Long version:
Before starting, please note that I am not a historian of the sport, nor was I around for a lot of what I describe below. It is entirely possible that I will have certain developments out of sequence; I welcome any particular corrections that those with superior knowledge would offer. That said, I'm pretty confident that the overall dynamics I describe are accurate.
I. Some history and the experimental roots of the sport
One of the original purposes of the "practical shooting" games that were developed in the 70's and 80's was to figure out what actually worked in terms of handguns in combative-ish situations. This included both technique and equipment. So USPSA has, from the start, been an "experimental" sport with regard to equipment.
As one might expect, early in the sport, there was a lot of rapid innovation. First, people figured out (or had confirmed in results) that magazine-fed guns are faster to reload than revolvers. This confirmed the beliefs of a lot of early competitors and founders, so this didn't create a huge uproar.
Next, people figured out that there were things that could be added to semi-automatic pistols that would make them easier to shoot fast and accurately. In particular, they found out that optical sights (initially in the form of bulky tube red-dots) and compensators helped a lot. They also discovered that modern powders made it possible to run 38 super fast enough to match the momentum of a .45 ACP round (less mass, but more velocity). These developments did begin to rankle some of the sport's founders, whose assumption that a custom-built iron-sighted 1911 in .45 ACP was the ultimate combat handgun (paging Col. Cooper...).
Walkalong, another THR member, recently posted this picture of one of these then-new-fangled guns:
Of course, development didn't stop there. The next big development was the double-stacked grip that would work with 1911 parts/components above the grip - this is often called the 2011, although I think that's a trade name for a particular maker's double-stack 1911-ish guns. When this happened, the .38 super single-stack race guns (like the one shown above) were instantly obsolete. If someone is shooting a 32-round field course, a 2011 only has to reload once... a 10-round single-stack gun will have to fit in at least 4 reloads. Since USPSA is a timed game, large differences in capacity can matter a lot.
Somewhere in here, the rule-making bodies realized that if they prohibited technical innovation, they'd be renouncing the experimental nature of the sport. The very spirit of figure-out-what-works-best that fundamentally separates USPSA/IPSC from, say, bullseye or olympic pistol*would be eliminated. At the same time, there were many who objected that the kinds of guns that were clearly best-suited to the competitions were not "practical," in the sense of being guns that could be carried by civilians for self defense, nor even well-suited to being carried as part of duty gear by cops or soldiers. There was tension between the experimental spirit of the game and a need to allow the kinds of guns to which some competitors were attached (for practical or emotional reasons) to remain a viable competitive choice. This tension was so strong that some of the early figures in the game walked away and started IDPA or did other things.
II. Divisions
The answer to this tension was to create equipment divisions. Much like the classes in auto-racing, or weight classes in martial arts/fighting sports, the equipment divisions go some distance in bifurcating skill from equipment.
Divisions have been added over time, but are rarely "killed" or eliminated.** First the compensated/optics guns were segregated from the iron-sight guns (open versus limited) and revolvers from semi-autos (revolver versus everything else). Then those who wanted to see traditional 1911's continue to have a place in the game got a division created for them (single stack). As the law enforcement community and most non-competitive shooters adopted DA/SA or striker-fired guns, a division was created that would encompass those and protect them from more purely sport/game guns (production). With the rise of 10-round magazine capacity limits in many places (and for 10 years at the national level), limited 10 (often called L10) was created to give those subject to these laws a way to shoot their iron-sighted race guns without having to obtain illegal or expensive grandfathered magazines. Most recently, divisions were added to allow people to use service-type guns with a slide-mounted optic (carry optics) and even to let people shoot pistol caliber carbines (PCC).
The key thing to understand is that, by rule, different divisions do not compete with one another. No matter how much better someone with a PCC did on the same stage as someone shooting a 1911 in single stack did, the PCC shooter did not "beat" the single stack shooter in any official sense, any more than someone driving a Prototype car "beats" someone driving a GT car on the same track and day. Now, people do look at overall results (no point denying that), but there is nothing official about that.
To give a personal example, I have shot mostly limited division in USPSA. I recently acquired an open-division gun. I cannot use my new gun (complete with optics and compensator) to "beat" my limited-division buddies who are still shooting limited guns... I now have to try to beat the other guys with open-division guns.
III. Stability of equipment
Once you understand the role and importance of the equipment division, the question is no longer whether some guns provide a competitive advantage over others... it's only whether some guns provide a competitive advantage within a particular division.
The answer, of course, is still "yes." But which guns or gun characteristics provide a material advantage tends to stay pretty stable these days. In divisions that allow major scoring, shooting a gun and ammo that allows you to get scored major (more points for hits outside the A-zone on cardboard targets) is generally going to be a big advantage. So 9mm guns in limited is a disadvantage. But that isn't new. It's stable. Once someone buys their 40-cal gun to shoot in limited, they're not going to have to buy a new one to keep up with some "arms race." Similarly, a Sig P220, while a fine gun, is not a good fit for any division. That isn't an "arms race," it's just a particular gun not being well-suited to the game and existing divisions.
Probably the last big event which did have the "arms race" effect of forcing people to buy new gear if they wanted to stay relevant in their division was the 2013 move to allow 8-shot revolvers. The difference between 6 and 8 shots between reloads is huge in a game where 8-shot arrays are common, and where the rules on how many shots can be required from a given location is 8. In retrospect, the evidence suggests that the revolver shooters were OK with shooting their 6-shooters against each other and not super bothered by having to do a lot more standing reloads than people in other divisions - because they weren't competing against them. When USPSA allowed 8-shot revolvers, the most committed revo' shooters went and bought one and put away the 6-shot 45ACP gun that had been the mainstay. The less committed shooters simply left the division rather than invest $1200 to get geared up to stay in the "arms race." Revolver has never recovered, and continues to slowly dwindle in participation.
It appears that a lesson was learned. Nothing has been done since in the rules to effectively obsolete, much less outlaw, stuff that is in common use. When slide-riding red-dots got popular with the broader shooting population, USPSA didn't revise the limited or production rules to allow them (which would have immediately obsoleted everyone's iron-sighted guns in those divisions until they could get a new sight installed); instead, they created a new division. Nobody was forced into an "arms race." The existing divisions stayed stable.
IV. Equipment preferences and trends
Despite the stability of rules and gear that is competitive, there are undeniably trends and turnover in equipment. A readily observable one has been plastic-vs-metal frames in production. At the outset, production was dominated at high levels by metal-framed DA/SA service guns. Fairly quickly, though, polymer-framed, striker-fired guns took over for a period of a few years. Then Ben Stoeger started winning national championships with metal-framed DA/SA guns (first Berettas then Tanfoglios), and suddenly those were back "in." But at any point in the last decade, a shooter of a given skill level could have performed to largely the same level with either. Neither approach is non-competitive today.
Instead, the two different kinds of production guns simply represent trade-offs that competitors can choose to make. Would they rather manage a long-and-heavy DA pull in exchange for a shorter SA pull on all subsequent shots, or would they rather split the difference and have a striker release that is consistent, but never quite as good as the SA? Do they want the infinitesimally-faster gun handling of the lighter polymer frame or the recoil- and wobble-damping weight of a steel frame? Open gun fads go back and forth in terms of whether popple holes or compensators are doing most of the work, and limited guys will argue for a long time about which recoil/hammer spring combo is best.
This kind of tradeoff is common in all sports equipment. Does a baseball batter want the power and reach of a longer bat, or the quickness and control of a shorter one? Does a golfer want (from the same manufacturer) the ball that spins the most around the greens or just a little less in order to get more distance or a lower flight with the other clubs? Does a runner want stability or reduced weight from their shoes?
These kind of tradeoffs have no right-or-wrong answer. People have preferences, and it's possible for a particular configuration to be much better for a particular shooter. It's even possible for a particular trade to be better for the majority of shooters. But none of these things are game-changers, and are mostly about the 1st-person-experience of the competitor (how various things feel and look) rather than objective performance differences.
The CW on this tradeoffs ebbs and flows, as does consensus on which particular gun models are "best" within a division. But here's the thing: With the exception of 6-shot revolvers, any gun that was competitive a decade ago is still competitive today. If you had a 1911 10 years ago that was reliable and accurate enough to be competitive, that gun is still competitive today (unless you wore it out). If you had a Glock that was competitive in production a decade ago, it's still competitive today. If you had a 2011 limited or open gun a decade ago, it's still competitive today.
If your gear works and was reasonably well suited to the division a few years ago, and you are not winning, it is not because of your gun. It is not because of someone else's gun. It's because someone or someones are better than you.*** That's not an arms race.
V. Why do some people say USPSA is an "arms race"?
If the equipment is actually pretty stable within divisions, why, then, do some people say that USPSA is an "arms race"? I think there are a few reasons some people (mistakenly, IMO) say that:
* Nobody thinks one-handed shooting works best... those sports just impose a form that is sub-optimal by rule because it's traditional and they don't want innovation in technique. Similarly, even though most of its founders thought the Weaver/Cooper technique of shooting was the best for practical shooting, when competitors began to demonstrate that some Iso-ish approach was more effective, USPSA/IPSC didn't try to forbid it. It's an experimental game - within certain parameters, competitors are encouraged to do what works best, even if it is new and different.
** This is becoming the source of another tension within the sport - the dilution of competition between a lot of different divisions versus the desire not to "take away" a division from anyone enjoying it. At present and for several years, the latter has outweighed the former. There is conjecture that the end may be near for L10, but, for now, it remains.
*** I would allow that some generally-competitive guns are a real mismatch for some shooters, and vice versa. A gun that is a bad individual fit is a bad individual fit, though... that's also very stable.
Long version:
Before starting, please note that I am not a historian of the sport, nor was I around for a lot of what I describe below. It is entirely possible that I will have certain developments out of sequence; I welcome any particular corrections that those with superior knowledge would offer. That said, I'm pretty confident that the overall dynamics I describe are accurate.
I. Some history and the experimental roots of the sport
One of the original purposes of the "practical shooting" games that were developed in the 70's and 80's was to figure out what actually worked in terms of handguns in combative-ish situations. This included both technique and equipment. So USPSA has, from the start, been an "experimental" sport with regard to equipment.
As one might expect, early in the sport, there was a lot of rapid innovation. First, people figured out (or had confirmed in results) that magazine-fed guns are faster to reload than revolvers. This confirmed the beliefs of a lot of early competitors and founders, so this didn't create a huge uproar.
Next, people figured out that there were things that could be added to semi-automatic pistols that would make them easier to shoot fast and accurately. In particular, they found out that optical sights (initially in the form of bulky tube red-dots) and compensators helped a lot. They also discovered that modern powders made it possible to run 38 super fast enough to match the momentum of a .45 ACP round (less mass, but more velocity). These developments did begin to rankle some of the sport's founders, whose assumption that a custom-built iron-sighted 1911 in .45 ACP was the ultimate combat handgun (paging Col. Cooper...).
Walkalong, another THR member, recently posted this picture of one of these then-new-fangled guns:
Of course, development didn't stop there. The next big development was the double-stacked grip that would work with 1911 parts/components above the grip - this is often called the 2011, although I think that's a trade name for a particular maker's double-stack 1911-ish guns. When this happened, the .38 super single-stack race guns (like the one shown above) were instantly obsolete. If someone is shooting a 32-round field course, a 2011 only has to reload once... a 10-round single-stack gun will have to fit in at least 4 reloads. Since USPSA is a timed game, large differences in capacity can matter a lot.
Somewhere in here, the rule-making bodies realized that if they prohibited technical innovation, they'd be renouncing the experimental nature of the sport. The very spirit of figure-out-what-works-best that fundamentally separates USPSA/IPSC from, say, bullseye or olympic pistol*would be eliminated. At the same time, there were many who objected that the kinds of guns that were clearly best-suited to the competitions were not "practical," in the sense of being guns that could be carried by civilians for self defense, nor even well-suited to being carried as part of duty gear by cops or soldiers. There was tension between the experimental spirit of the game and a need to allow the kinds of guns to which some competitors were attached (for practical or emotional reasons) to remain a viable competitive choice. This tension was so strong that some of the early figures in the game walked away and started IDPA or did other things.
II. Divisions
The answer to this tension was to create equipment divisions. Much like the classes in auto-racing, or weight classes in martial arts/fighting sports, the equipment divisions go some distance in bifurcating skill from equipment.
Divisions have been added over time, but are rarely "killed" or eliminated.** First the compensated/optics guns were segregated from the iron-sight guns (open versus limited) and revolvers from semi-autos (revolver versus everything else). Then those who wanted to see traditional 1911's continue to have a place in the game got a division created for them (single stack). As the law enforcement community and most non-competitive shooters adopted DA/SA or striker-fired guns, a division was created that would encompass those and protect them from more purely sport/game guns (production). With the rise of 10-round magazine capacity limits in many places (and for 10 years at the national level), limited 10 (often called L10) was created to give those subject to these laws a way to shoot their iron-sighted race guns without having to obtain illegal or expensive grandfathered magazines. Most recently, divisions were added to allow people to use service-type guns with a slide-mounted optic (carry optics) and even to let people shoot pistol caliber carbines (PCC).
The key thing to understand is that, by rule, different divisions do not compete with one another. No matter how much better someone with a PCC did on the same stage as someone shooting a 1911 in single stack did, the PCC shooter did not "beat" the single stack shooter in any official sense, any more than someone driving a Prototype car "beats" someone driving a GT car on the same track and day. Now, people do look at overall results (no point denying that), but there is nothing official about that.
To give a personal example, I have shot mostly limited division in USPSA. I recently acquired an open-division gun. I cannot use my new gun (complete with optics and compensator) to "beat" my limited-division buddies who are still shooting limited guns... I now have to try to beat the other guys with open-division guns.
III. Stability of equipment
Once you understand the role and importance of the equipment division, the question is no longer whether some guns provide a competitive advantage over others... it's only whether some guns provide a competitive advantage within a particular division.
The answer, of course, is still "yes." But which guns or gun characteristics provide a material advantage tends to stay pretty stable these days. In divisions that allow major scoring, shooting a gun and ammo that allows you to get scored major (more points for hits outside the A-zone on cardboard targets) is generally going to be a big advantage. So 9mm guns in limited is a disadvantage. But that isn't new. It's stable. Once someone buys their 40-cal gun to shoot in limited, they're not going to have to buy a new one to keep up with some "arms race." Similarly, a Sig P220, while a fine gun, is not a good fit for any division. That isn't an "arms race," it's just a particular gun not being well-suited to the game and existing divisions.
Probably the last big event which did have the "arms race" effect of forcing people to buy new gear if they wanted to stay relevant in their division was the 2013 move to allow 8-shot revolvers. The difference between 6 and 8 shots between reloads is huge in a game where 8-shot arrays are common, and where the rules on how many shots can be required from a given location is 8. In retrospect, the evidence suggests that the revolver shooters were OK with shooting their 6-shooters against each other and not super bothered by having to do a lot more standing reloads than people in other divisions - because they weren't competing against them. When USPSA allowed 8-shot revolvers, the most committed revo' shooters went and bought one and put away the 6-shot 45ACP gun that had been the mainstay. The less committed shooters simply left the division rather than invest $1200 to get geared up to stay in the "arms race." Revolver has never recovered, and continues to slowly dwindle in participation.
It appears that a lesson was learned. Nothing has been done since in the rules to effectively obsolete, much less outlaw, stuff that is in common use. When slide-riding red-dots got popular with the broader shooting population, USPSA didn't revise the limited or production rules to allow them (which would have immediately obsoleted everyone's iron-sighted guns in those divisions until they could get a new sight installed); instead, they created a new division. Nobody was forced into an "arms race." The existing divisions stayed stable.
IV. Equipment preferences and trends
Despite the stability of rules and gear that is competitive, there are undeniably trends and turnover in equipment. A readily observable one has been plastic-vs-metal frames in production. At the outset, production was dominated at high levels by metal-framed DA/SA service guns. Fairly quickly, though, polymer-framed, striker-fired guns took over for a period of a few years. Then Ben Stoeger started winning national championships with metal-framed DA/SA guns (first Berettas then Tanfoglios), and suddenly those were back "in." But at any point in the last decade, a shooter of a given skill level could have performed to largely the same level with either. Neither approach is non-competitive today.
Instead, the two different kinds of production guns simply represent trade-offs that competitors can choose to make. Would they rather manage a long-and-heavy DA pull in exchange for a shorter SA pull on all subsequent shots, or would they rather split the difference and have a striker release that is consistent, but never quite as good as the SA? Do they want the infinitesimally-faster gun handling of the lighter polymer frame or the recoil- and wobble-damping weight of a steel frame? Open gun fads go back and forth in terms of whether popple holes or compensators are doing most of the work, and limited guys will argue for a long time about which recoil/hammer spring combo is best.
This kind of tradeoff is common in all sports equipment. Does a baseball batter want the power and reach of a longer bat, or the quickness and control of a shorter one? Does a golfer want (from the same manufacturer) the ball that spins the most around the greens or just a little less in order to get more distance or a lower flight with the other clubs? Does a runner want stability or reduced weight from their shoes?
These kind of tradeoffs have no right-or-wrong answer. People have preferences, and it's possible for a particular configuration to be much better for a particular shooter. It's even possible for a particular trade to be better for the majority of shooters. But none of these things are game-changers, and are mostly about the 1st-person-experience of the competitor (how various things feel and look) rather than objective performance differences.
The CW on this tradeoffs ebbs and flows, as does consensus on which particular gun models are "best" within a division. But here's the thing: With the exception of 6-shot revolvers, any gun that was competitive a decade ago is still competitive today. If you had a 1911 10 years ago that was reliable and accurate enough to be competitive, that gun is still competitive today (unless you wore it out). If you had a Glock that was competitive in production a decade ago, it's still competitive today. If you had a 2011 limited or open gun a decade ago, it's still competitive today.
If your gear works and was reasonably well suited to the division a few years ago, and you are not winning, it is not because of your gun. It is not because of someone else's gun. It's because someone or someones are better than you.*** That's not an arms race.
V. Why do some people say USPSA is an "arms race"?
If the equipment is actually pretty stable within divisions, why, then, do some people say that USPSA is an "arms race"? I think there are a few reasons some people (mistakenly, IMO) say that:
- They are old and have long memories. There was a time early in the sport when technical (as well as shooter) innovation was coming so fast that all the non-game-optimized gear was getting obsoleted quickly as people figured out what worked and what didn't. Outside of new divisions, that really hasn't been the case in a long time.
- They are old and have fixed tastes. See the comments about those who departed from the sport when technical innovations meant that some categories of competitive guns were no longer realistic carry guns. When they say "arms race," they mean "people are using guns I wouldn't IWB carry," or "guns that wouldn't be part of a government contract."
- People are confused about what inter-division comparisons mean. It is true that an open shooter has a big advantage over a single stack guy. Dragsters with no engine size limit have a big advantage over dragster with a 5 liter displacement limit, too. That's why they don't actually compete head-to-head, even if they're using the same strip of asphalt... or the same course of fire.
- People over-interpret certain equipment trends. Shooters are generally people who like guns. Shooters like to try new stuff. Having a new gun is fun. Optimizing the gun for you is also nice. So, yeah, competitive shooters as a group change gear a lot. They're doing that because they want to, not because they're having to buy new stuff in order to stay competitive. Sometimes big trends come along and a bunch of people try something they've never tried before. Some of those people will decide they really like it (e.g., people who had only ever shot plastic guns enjoying the feel of shooting a metal gun). That can lead to big apparent trends, but that's not an "arms race."
- People are thinking of new divisions. Yes, when a new division gets created, you sort of go back to the primordial soup and lots of stuff is stirring around. So, yeah, gear is evolving fairly rapidly in PCC or CO... they're new, and so lots of experimentation is happening. One could call that a small-scale "arms race" that will probably last 3-5 years, and then things will settle down as everyone figures out what just doesn't work and what does work.
- People want everyone to shoot an inexpensive gun. There are viable low-cost options in most of the divisions, but some people are just bothered by the fact that people who invest as much time and effort and ammunition in competition tend to also invest some money in their gear. Well, sports do cost some money. Road running is cheaper. Car racing is a lot more expensive. Costs of this game are fairly comparable to golf, although they come in different forms. In golf, you can have a nice day on the course with a set of store-brand sticks... but few people who are serious about the game will choose that. Buying a better set of clubs isn't going to magically transform anyone into Tiger Woods, though, and Tiger could swap clubs with you and beat you very, very badly. Same with guns.
* Nobody thinks one-handed shooting works best... those sports just impose a form that is sub-optimal by rule because it's traditional and they don't want innovation in technique. Similarly, even though most of its founders thought the Weaver/Cooper technique of shooting was the best for practical shooting, when competitors began to demonstrate that some Iso-ish approach was more effective, USPSA/IPSC didn't try to forbid it. It's an experimental game - within certain parameters, competitors are encouraged to do what works best, even if it is new and different.
** This is becoming the source of another tension within the sport - the dilution of competition between a lot of different divisions versus the desire not to "take away" a division from anyone enjoying it. At present and for several years, the latter has outweighed the former. There is conjecture that the end may be near for L10, but, for now, it remains.
*** I would allow that some generally-competitive guns are a real mismatch for some shooters, and vice versa. A gun that is a bad individual fit is a bad individual fit, though... that's also very stable.
