
Let’s start by looking at the gun manufacturers and models most represented at the 2018 Nationals:
From this data, we see that SIG Sauer manufactured firearms make up a full 30% of all Carry Optics Firearms that were used at the 2018 USPSA Optics Nationals. Most of those (26%) were either a P320 of some variety or the competition specific P320 X Five. The SIG X-Five itself made up 16% of all Carry Optics firearms used at the 2018 USPSA Optics Nationals, making it the single most popular choice among Carry Optics shooters. For reference, there were a total of 415 competitors at the 2018 USPSA Optics Nationals.
As someone who shoots an X-Five in Carry Optics, I found this data to be interesting for several reasons. Firstly, I didn’t think the X-Five was quite this popular. Locally, I’ve only recall one other competitor in the last year using an X-Five. Secondly, if you would have asked me, I would have guessed that about any other gun out there would be more popular. I probably would have guessed the Walther Q5 Match, M&P CORE, or Glock MOS would have all been more popular.
Want an even bigger shock? Check out the same survey data collected just one year prior at the 2017 Optics Nationals :
In 2017, there were 338 competitors at the Carry Optics Nationals. Smith & Wesson manufactured firearms made up 27% of the division, with various flavors of the M&P making up 20%. Firearms manufactured by SIG, on the other hand, made up just 12% of manufacturers represented in the division, with the SIG P320 making up 17% of competitors guns.
That’s quite a seismic shift in represented manufactures between 2017 and 2018, in favor of SIG. CZ and Glock also had better showings year over year, with Walther holding steady at 10%. Springfield Armory also lost ground in 2018 (not surprising since they don’t make an optics ready model). But SIG Sauer made a huge increase from 2017 to 2018, seemingly at the expense of S&W. The question is, why?
One possible explanation might be the fact that Carry Optics is a fairly new division for USPSA, and only recently has transitioned from being “provisional” in status. The division has brought substantial growth to USPSA – fully 39% of Carry Optics shooters at the 2018 match indicated it was their first Nationals match in the survey. The X-Five is a relatively new model (new in 2017) so there may be some correlation there. Though why so many shooters (new and otherwise) gravitated toward the X-Five, and all but ignored other firearms that also comes from the factory ready for Carry Optics (like the Walter Q5 Match for example) is a bit of a mystery. Walther well marketed the Q5 Match (arguably better than SIG with the X-Five) -, particularly within the competitive shooting community. Even the overblown (IMHO) Drop Safe Debacle in the latter half of 2017 apparently didn’t deter competitive shooters from choosing the X-Five other other options.
SIG also did reasonably well in PCC representation at the 2018 USPSA PCC Nationals. JP Enterprises and the GMR-13/15 lead the way in both 2017 and 2018 among PCC shooters. But year over year, JP did slightly worse with 33% of the factory carbines in 2017, vs. 36% in 2018. SIG, on the other hand, gained ground year over year with 21% of the factory carbines in 2018, up from 16% in 2017. I also find this a bit surprising given the proliferation of PCC manufactures during 2017 and 2018, and the fact that as of this writing, SIG has only offered a competition dedicated PCC model for a couple of months (well after Nationals 2018).
One should be cautious about arriving at any specific conclusions from this survey data. The sample size is a very small relative to the overall USPSA population, and may not well represent the “average” USPSA shooter you meet at your local Level I club match. Still, the survey data is interesting – if for no other reason than it is difficult to fully explain the trends. As both a SIG X-Five and MPX shooter, the results certainly don’t hurt my feelings.
All images used in this article are the intellectual property of USPSA and republished under educational fair use.
0 Comments