Limited rules changes for 2013

[BlueOvalBruin]

I don’t have my issue of Front Sight with me and can’t login to get the BOD meeting minutes. Can anyone explain the changes that are happening in Limited besides getting rid of the 500 unit requirement? Will Ga$ Pedals and thumb rests be allowed?

Thanks.

[Skydiver]

From what I understood from Chucks' post about the BoD meeting, it's only the 500 unit restrictions that have been removed, but here's the text from the minutes of the the meeting:

Handgun Rule Updates

Motion: Approve changes to Limited Division as presented effective January 1, 2013

Moved: Pres Seconded A4 Passed

Motion: Approve changes to Limited 10 as presented effective January 1, 2013

Moved: A1 Seconded A2 Passed

There are two PDF's with entitled "December 2, 2011 Revised Limited Division" and "December 2, 2011 Revised Limited 10 Division" alongside the minutes of t he meeting. Presumably these are the documents that were approved "as presented". They have omitted items #21 and #22, and look like this:

I think you are right, gas pedals and thumb rests will be legal in 2013.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Skydiver

[Resjudicata]

From what I understood from Chucks' post about the BoD meeting, it's only the 500 unit restrictions that have been removed, but here's the text from the minutes of the the meeting:

Handgun Rule Updates

Motion: Approve changes to Limited Division as presented effective January 1, 2013

Moved: Pres Seconded A4 Passed

Motion: Approve changes to Limited 10 as presented effective January 1, 2013

Moved: A1 Seconded A2 Passed

There are two PDF's with entitled "December 2, 2011 Revised Limited Division" and "December 2, 2011 Revised Limited 10 Division" alongside the minutes of t he meeting. Presumably these are the documents that were approved "as presented". They have omitted items #21 and #22, and look like this:

I think you are right, gas pedals and thumb rests will be legal in 2013.

Yep, I think so too. We are discussing it in the 1911 equipment forum. Everyone is daydreaming about what wonderful freedom we may soon have.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=142484

Chris

[BlueOvalBruin]

Thanks guys. That definitely answers my questions. I was thinking about putting a gogun Ga$ pedal on my open gun but was concerned about having 2 different grips for my open and limited guns. If it works out with open maybe I'll have to put one on my limited gun too once it's legal.

[pivoproseem]

I don't understand why Limited rules need to be changed, unless it is to make it more in line with IPSC rules. Creating another class of super expensive guns is not really a way to grow the sport.

[Chuck Anderson]

I don't understand why Limited rules need to be changed, unless it is to make it more in line with IPSC rules. Creating another class of super expensive guns is not really a way to grow the sport.

The guns in Limited are already, "super expensive". Except when Vogel or Sevigny come in and beat everyone with a $500.00 gun. The problem I had with the Limited rules prior (And I was the one who asked for this rule change at the previous BOD meeting) is that the 500 unit rule was impossible to police and had seemingly broken down in it's application. It was originally intended to keep a manufacturer from making a gun on a limited level for it's Corporate USPSA/IPSC team. But also refusing to sell that fancy technology to the general shooting public, therefore giving that team an unfair advantage. Frankly there aren't any manufacturers dumb enough to invest that much money into tech, then not sell it to anyone. What we ended up with are rulings which allowed manufacturers/competitors to put 6" slides on guns that had never been made with them. Heck in calibers the company never even made the gun in. (Para, Springfield). But where you could only use certain calibers/lengths of barrels in other applications. (SightTracker). It got to the point where it was very difficult to figure out what was legal and what wasn't. There is no database, like the Production list, where shooters can go and see if their gun is legal. I know of at least a couple people who built 6" SightTrackers only to find out they weren't legal after the fact. Some major compononents, barrels, were subject to a requirement that 500 complete guns be made with them, while smaller parts were okay with just 500, or none of them made. I couldn't keep track of the rule and to expect any shooter to understand it was a bit much.

Open and Limited have been the race Divisions of USPSA for many years. This will allow some innovation in Limited. Right now the investment for a company to bring a new product to market is significant. Take the cheapest 2011 factory gun at $1600.00. Make 500 of those assuming your product isn't that expensive to begin with. You're at $800,000.00. Before the product was even legal for anyone to use.

As far as bringing this closer to IPSC, I'm not sure what you mean by that. IPSC allows most of the guns USPSA does, as long as they fit in a box. I doubt most of the "new" guns people will start making will fit into that box. I'm not sure if you mean you think USPSA should bring their rules more in line with IPSC, or if you inaccurately think this rule will.

[Resjudicata]

I don't understand why Limited rules need to be changed, unless it is to make it more in line with IPSC rules. Creating another class of super expensive guns is not really a way to grow the sport.

I'm not sure what you mean either. Limited is the iron sight race division. It has been since I started in '06. The rule change simply got rid of a ridiculous provision. The way the 500 rule has been handled is that if you never ask about it or if you are a big gun maker then what you do is okay. However, if you are an individual and want to do something it was not okay. The rule was useless, poorly applied and stifled innovation. I'm glad it's gone and anyone who wants a restricted division to shoot in can always shoot production. It's getting even more restricted to keep all the pro-restriction people happy.

Chris

[pivoproseem]

I'm thinking mainly of fitting in the IPSC box and the use of a "*thumb rest [generic]*". The only thing I have to change on my Tanfo are mag basepads to shoot IPSC. If it simplifies things I guess that is a good thing. Current rules prevent the use of a 6in barrel .40 Tanfo "Hunter" because it was only offered in 10mm and .45. This will give us non-2011 shooters a longer barreled option, at least.

I don't understand why Limited rules need to be changed, unless it is to make it more in line with IPSC rules. Creating another class of super expensive guns is not really a way to grow the sport.

The guns in Limited are already, "super expensive". Except when Vogel or Sevigny come in and beat everyone with a $500.00 gun. The problem I had with the Limited rules prior (And I was the one who asked for this rule change at the previous BOD meeting) is that the 500 unit rule was impossible to police and had seemingly broken down in it's application. It was originally intended to keep a manufacturer from making a gun on a limited level for it's Corporate USPSA/IPSC team. But also refusing to sell that fancy technology to the general shooting public, therefore giving that team an unfair advantage. Frankly there aren't any manufacturers dumb enough to invest that much money into tech, then not sell it to anyone. What we ended up with are rulings which allowed manufacturers/competitors to put 6" slides on guns that had never been made with them. Heck in calibers the company never even made the gun in. (Para, Springfield). But where you could only use certain calibers/lengths of barrels in other applications. (SightTracker). It got to the point where it was very difficult to figure out what was legal and what wasn't. There is no database, like the Production list, where shooters can go and see if their gun is legal. I know of at least a couple people who built 6" SightTrackers only to find out they weren't legal after the fact. Some major compononents, barrels, were subject to a requirement that 500 complete guns be made with them, while smaller parts were okay with just 500, or none of them made. I couldn't keep track of the rule and to expect any shooter to understand it was a bit much.

Open and Limited have been the race Divisions of USPSA for many years. This will allow some innovation in Limited. Right now the investment for a company to bring a new product to market is significant. Take the cheapest 2011 factory gun at $1600.00. Make 500 of those assuming your product isn't that expensive to begin with. You're at $800,000.00. Before the product was even legal for anyone to use.

As far as bringing this closer to IPSC, I'm not sure what you mean by that. IPSC allows most of the guns USPSA does, as long as they fit in a box. I doubt most of the "new" guns people will start making will fit into that box. I'm not sure if you mean you think USPSA should bring their rules more in line with IPSC, or if you inaccurately think this rule will.

[ChuckS]

... Except when Vogel or Sevigny come in and beat everyone with a $500.00 gun. ...

Perhaps we need to add a Limited rule that states the trigger pull must be less than 3 pounds to help control this issue.

Happy New Year,

Chuck

[Graham Smith]

The direction things are heading would seem to be that that limited will be the same as open except no optics or comps and a shorter mag length. Not sure if this is better or worse than what we have now, but it might simplify a lot of things.

[Chuck Anderson]

The direction things are heading would seem to be that that limited will be the same as open except no optics or comps and a shorter mag length. Not sure if this is better or worse than what we have now, but it might simplify a lot of things.

The caliber would be the other difference. Primarily .40, although you can shoot whatever you want. Just might not be Major.

[Chuck Anderson]

I'm thinking mainly of fitting in the IPSC box and the use of a "*thumb rest [generic]*". The only thing I have to change on my Tanfo are mag basepads to shoot IPSC. If it simplifies things I guess that is a good thing. Current rules prevent the use of a 6in barrel .40 Tanfo "Hunter" because it was only offered in 10mm and .45. This will give us non-2011 shooters a longer barreled option, at least.

Thumb rest yes, box no. I don't see ever using a box for Limited. Waaaaaay too many guns out there that won't fit and nowhere for them to go if we added that provision. To be honest I seriously doubt there will be a ton of "new" guns on the market. Might be a few more SightTrackers. I really doubt you'll see a move to 6.5 or 7" guns. Just too much slide. But who knows. You'll still be able to use any current gun you want. It just opened it up for folks who want to screw around with new stuff.

[Graham Smith]

The caliber would be the other difference. Primarily .40, although you can shoot whatever you want. Just might not be Major.

With other restrictions going away, would there really be any need to continue the restriction on .40 for Major? That's also something of a legacy restriction that, with the reduction in PF for Major, may no longer be necessary or even desirable.

[Chuck Anderson]

The caliber would be the other difference. Primarily .40, although you can shoot whatever you want. Just might not be Major.

With other restrictions going away, would there really be any need to continue the restriction on .40 for Major? That's also something of a legacy restriction that, with the reduction in PF for Major, may no longer be necessary or even desirable.

My way of thinking, absolutely. Yes you can make Major with a smaller diameter bullet. But making that change would result in everyone elses limited guns being at a capacity disadvantage. Given a choice between a .40 with x number of rounds and a major 9 with x+3 number, that's a sizable difference. And one that is not easy to change the gun over from. Adding a thumbrest is one thing. Making 5000 competitors sell their .40's(or at least the uppers) in order to buy the new caliber, doesn't sound like a good idea to me. As long as we use length restrictions on the magazines to limit capacity, going to a smaller bullet will cause some ugly changes.

[Chuck Anderson]

With other restrictions going away, would there really be any need to continue the restriction on .40 for Major? That's also something of a legacy restriction that, with the reduction in PF for Major, may no longer be necessary or even desirable.

The only other guy I've talked to that wanted that restriction to go away was a gun smith. When I mentioned the argument about everyone wanting to build new guns with the new caliber he said that was what he was hoping for. At least he was straight forward about it.

[tavman]

Thumb rest yes, box no. I don't see ever using a box for Limited. Waaaaaay too many guns out there that won't fit and nowhere for them to go if we added that provision. To be honest I seriously doubt there will be a ton of "new" guns on the market. Might be a few more SightTrackers. I really doubt you'll see a move to 6.5 or 7" guns. Just too much slide. But who knows. You'll still be able to use any current gun you want. It just opened it up for folks who want to screw around with new stuff.

Chuck,

There are way to many guns out there that don't meet the new trigger pull limit in production but that didn't seem to stop the BoD's decision. I'm not confident we won't see something like this in the future.

Edited January 2, 2012 by tavman

[Graham Smith]

But making that change would result in everyone elses limited guns being at a capacity disadvantage.

Which brings us back to the discussion (argument) about changing the capacity restriction from mag length to a fixed number (e.g. 20 rounds). And we all know where that'll end up.

And that's the whole thing about restrictions - they exist to try and level the playing field. In part, that's to keep the cost of competition to a "reasonable level". Limited was intended (I thought) to allow for limited modifications to stock guns. If that's going to be replaced with a kind of "anything goes short of a full open race gun", then watch out because the avalanche has already started - it's too late for the pebbles to vote.

[Skydiver]

But making that change would result in everyone elses limited guns being at a capacity disadvantage.

Which brings us back to the discussion (argument) about changing the capacity restriction from mag length to a fixed number (e.g. 20 rounds). And we all know where that'll end up.

And that's the whole thing about restrictions - they exist to try and level the playing field. In part, that's to keep the cost of competition to a "reasonable level". Limited was intended (I thought) to allow for limited modifications to stock guns. If that's going to be replaced with a kind of "anything goes short of a full open race gun", then watch out because the avalanche has already started - it's too late for the pebbles to vote.

If 9mm Major is allowed in Limited and the 140mm mag limit is kept, then .40 will fall to the wayside. Is the response then "They are dying race. We should let them pass"?

[Resjudicata]

I'm kinda amazed that people can take a good thing (the currently changed rules in Limited giving much needed and wanted freedom) and try to turn it into a bad thing. Even going so far as to make up "possible" new changes that aren't even being considered just to make something into a bad thing.

Many of us who actually shoot Limited Division have been complaining about the "500" rule and how it is enforced for quite some time. The BOD listened and fixed the problem. We should all be happy rather than trying to find a way to complain.

Chris

[want2race]

I'm happy.

[38SuperDub]

So I'm still lost - are gas peddles a YAY or NAY? (in 2013 of course)

[Skydiver]

Yea in 2013!

In 2013, the restriction again barrel weights should go away as well. What will be interesting to see is if a barrel weight will be classified as a compensator instead:

Compensator . . . . . . . . . . .A device fitted to the muzzle end of a barrel to counter muzzle rise (usually by externally diverting escaping gasses).

So if I have weight attached to the end of the barrel to counter muzzle rise, but it does not divert any of the escaping gasses, it seems like it still counts as a compensator.

[Resjudicata]

Yea in 2013!

In 2013, the restriction again barrel weights should go away as well. What will be interesting to see is if a barrel weight will be classified as a compensator instead:

Compensator . . . . . . . . . . .A device fitted to the muzzle end of a barrel to counter muzzle rise (usually by externally diverting escaping gasses).

So if I have weight attached to the end of the barrel to counter muzzle rise, but it does not divert any of the escaping gasses, it seems like it still counts as a compensator.

That's an interesting question. I don't see how they can claim that a weight fitted anywhere whether the barrel or the frame is a "compesator." But, we'll see. I think one of the first things we'll see are 6" sight trackers and individually made versions similar to trusights.

BTW, is your quote from the rule book? I can't find that definition.

Chris

ETA-After further review I don't see how an attachment at the end of a barrel but without ports could be considered a compensator after the Trusight had been allowed in any configuration under the current rules. The current rules also dis-allow compensators in Limited so if it wasn't ruled a compensator before then it wouldn't be under the 2013 rules since that part of the rules will not have changed. It was a good question but I think it's been ruled upon.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Resjudicata

[ima45dv8]

BTW, is your quote from the rule book? I can't find that definition.

Chris

It's in the glossary, page 56.

[Resjudicata]

BTW, is your quote from the rule book? I can't find that definition.

Chris

It's in the glossary, page 56.

Cool, thanks.

Chris