Nemo Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Getting a bit ahead of the times here, but I had to ask... Should we expect major rule changes pertaining to magazine capacity in USPSA's production and L-10 divisions if the 1994 Crime Bill (a.k.a Assault Weapons Ban) would sunset coming September 2K4? I'll have a bunch of Glock 17 and 21 ten round mags for sale... (I said it first!) What do you guys & gals think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 The real problem is we won't get to argue about Open-10 anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdj Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 The real problem is we won't get to argue about Open-10 anymore I'm sure California will continue to help you out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerT Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Heck, the rest of us can sell all of our 10 round mags to the guys and gals in CA. I, however, am one of the crazy people who shoot a single stack in L-10, instead of using my Limited Para. Just like the feel of the gun better. I'm also still not convinced that the AWB will go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 The AWB may go away in most States...but not ALL the States. Talk to the people in Mass. Calif. N.Y. and N.J. about their State Laws that trump any Federal changes about the need for 10 round only divisions and I'd bet you'd encounter a little less "cooperation" in regards to rendering their equipment to the catagory of "capacity challenged". Besides, I wouldn't sell my 10 round only stuff just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Given the expressed desire of IPSC and USPSA to resolve as many discrepancies as possible between the two organizations' rule books, it seems to me a foregone conclusion that, soon after September 14, 2004, we'll see USPSA come into accordance with international rules vis-a-vis mag capacity in Production. L-10 will stay the same, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 We need to start a pool on this deal. I don't think anybody has a real vibe on what's going to happen. By the way, I just looked on www.awbansunset.com and the NRA has started their own anti-AWB website: http://www.clintongunban.com. [/End unauthorized political moment] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Olhasso Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Leave production and Limited-10 alone! Especially for production, if the capacity limit is changed to the IPSC model, MANY production guns suddenly become totally uncompetitive. Lets start with every 40sw that is being used in production. Then we can easily discount any mid-sized 9mm which includes Glock 23s, Sig 228, Sig 229, and a host of others. The bottom line would end up being: if your production gun holds anything less than 16, you are SOL. If you really want to be competitive, your 9mm really needs to hold a minimum of 17, preferrably 18, which limits the pool of valid production guns even further!! At least at this point, production won't be F'ed with for another 3 years. Hopefully at that point, the AWB ban will be history, and the BOD will still recognize the benefits of the 10-round divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Given the expressed desire of IPSC and USPSA to resolve as many discrepancies as possible between the two organizations' rule books... Duane, Could you expand on this "expressed desire"? Who is doing the expressing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 The AWB may go away in most States...but not ALL the States.Talk to the people in Mass. Calif. N.Y. and N.J. about their State Laws that trump any Federal changes about the need for 10 round only divisions and I'd bet you'd encounter a little less "cooperation" in regards to rendering their equipment to the catagory of "capacity challenged". Chuck is absolutely positively right. I will vote to remove L10 once the fed ban sunsents and CA, MA, NY, NJ HI and a spattering of local jurisdicions have rescinded their bans as well. I am also concerned about match attentance at outdoor ranges at that time, because competitors will have to deal with pig droppings from the sky (since pigs will fly before the CA/MA/NJ/HI/NY laws are repealed). Add to that the fact that CA requires that you must have personally posessed the pre-ban >10 round mag in CA prior to the ban. Sale, purchase or posession of "pre ban" mags which you did not personally own and posess in California prior to the ban is illegal and, based on CA's history of vigorous prosecution, will be prosecured if discovered by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Given the expressed desire of IPSC and USPSA to resolve as many discrepancies as possible between the two organizations' rule books, it seems to me a foregone conclusion that, soon after September 14, 2004, we'll see USPSA come into accordance with international rules vis-a-vis mag capacity in Production. L-10 will stay the same, I think. If there is any foregone conclusion regarding change of the mag capacity in production division nobody told this board member about it. I haven't felt so slighted since someone forgot to invite me to the meetings of the vast right wing conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoNsTeR Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Personally I'd prefer L10 and Production stay as they are, for the reasons Mr. Olhasso mentioned, and because I honestly think it's more fun that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 MANY production guns suddenly become totally uncompetitive. How? Most all of the smaller sized production guns accept the full sized version's mags. If you want to use a production gun that won't hold 16, play in L10. Let's be intellectually honest here, Glocks, Berretas, Sigs, HK, XD, are the mainstay of production class, if the AWP ban sunsets mags will be back to a decent price and so why would using SUB-STANDARD CAPCITY magazines make any sense on a national level? Sure local clubs in states where the laws are boneheaded should have some latitude to use SUB-STANDARD CAPCITY but to force that on a national level doesn't really make sense. You can always load 10 in a 15 round mag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerT Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Since we are all REALLY jumping the gun, one thing that could happen is that L-10 could become a single stack only division. That would solve that problem, but I have no idea what they would do about production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 It looks like a Kerry vs. Bush showdown in the fall with a race that is anything but a foregone conclusion. If the Republicans let the AWB expire, they will be handing Kerry an issue he can use to gain votes from the "middle ground" by chanting "it's for the children". I hope I am wrong, but fear that I am right about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 The appeal of production for me is the ten round limit, followed by the guns I can use to play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 QUOTE (Duane Thomas @ Feb 3 2004, 09:49 PM) Given the expressed desire of IPSC and USPSA to resolve as many discrepancies as possible between the two organizations' rule books... Duane, Could you expand on this "expressed desire"? Who is doing the expressing? Correct me if I'm wrong, my impression was that USPSA was actively working to heal any past breaches with the international organization, and that "one rule book" was kind of a Holy Grail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 If that is a goal of the (USPSA) leadership...I think it should be brought out into the light and stated openly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 "L10 could become a single stack only division". We've been down THIS road a mile or two...... No it can't ...and it has been decided over and over again that it SHOULDN'T. David Olhasso makes a GREAT point. All this is a moot subject until the ban sunsets which I can't see happening ESPECIALLY during an election year. Lets not upset the "apple cart" for 7 extra rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Flex, Michael Voigt has obviously been working for years to bring USPSA and IPSC closer together. He seems to have started in earnest early in his first term when IPSC's Nick Alexakos gave an ultimatum to USPSA to shape up or ship out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucky Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Flex, Michael Voigt has obviously been working for years to bring USPSA and IPSC closer together. He seems to have started in earnest early in his first term when IPSC's Nick Alexakos gave an ultimatum to USPSA to shape up or ship out. It was obvious that USPSA could not meet IPSC on the capacity issue, but what about some of the other things? There are several other differences between USPSA production and IPSC production. Most of them better, IMO (yes my Opinion). I commend him for allowing these differences. Dave O makes a good point. USPSA production allows for a LOT of different guns with the 10 round limit... which also allows for different calibers. We are seeing more and more .40s shooting, as well as a few .45s, like HKs and Glocks. To seriously compete in IPSC, you better have a 17+ round 9mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoser Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Hey Flex! It has never been a secret that Michael and the BOD were working with the goal of having one rule book for IPSC and USPSA. We came very close with this edition of the rules. Actually, there were no real deal breakers in the rules that were developed by the several rules committee, of which I was a part. However, from the start, both IPSC and USPSA realized that the divisions themselves would have to remain different and that was no problem. When the BOD reviewed the rules, some BOD members felt that some of the rules either were not clear and should be clarified or some rules would not work for them. There was spirited discussion on the proposed rules changes and the majority ruled. But, all in all, there are not many differences in the rules now, and that is a good thing. Arnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoNsTeR Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Most all of the smaller sized production guns accept the full sized version's mags. My understanding is that this is not allowed under the current rules, since for example, G17 mags aren't a "factory option" for the G19. Even if it were allowed, it would only partially mitigate the problem. The same mag capacity advantage that pushed .45 out of Limited, and that makes 9mm king of IPSC Production, would hurt the competitiveness of anything that couldn't match the G17/34's 17+1 capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 I don't think the bill will be allowed to sunset this year, look for some sort of Congressional extension until after the election. I had a lot of other things written until I realized it was a political rant and that is not what this forum is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 BTW, I'm with David O., Monster, and Bucky... Production and Limited 10 are much better as 10 round divisions. Imagine production-based auto or motorcycle endurance racing. All else being equal, whoever has the most fuel capacity wins, because they don't have to make as many pit stops to refuel. Same thing applies with us: whoever has the most ammo capacity wins, because they don't have to make as many reloads. Races should be won out on the track, not in the pits. A high-capacity Production division would turn into a Glock vs. CZ/TZ race. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now