v1911 Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Agreed. I think the BOD concern about allowing it would provide a gateway for more slide work that would push the direction of what would appear to be a USPSA limited pistol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 Ssp legal no. ESP. Absolutely in my opinion. How would that be any different than some of the cocking serrations on some of the 1911s floating around IDPA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dskinsler83 Posted December 4, 2013 Author Share Posted December 4, 2013 Well I'm sorry but "slide lightening" in my opinion does nothing to give anyone an advantage. You can spring a gun to run pretty close to a lightened slide anyway. I agree with Corey there isn't much difference in this than snake belly cuts on a 1911 or M&P in my opinion. Anyways I'm waiting to hear from HQ which is why I started the thread to see whom I needed to contact. IDPA deff doesn't answer questions as fast as asking J. Amindon a question in regards to USPSA equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v1911 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Ssp legal no. ESP. Absolutely in my opinion. How would that be any different than some of the cocking serrations on some of the 1911s floating around IDPA? You don't see cocking serrations on 1911's wrapping around the slide. Well I'm sorry but "slide lightening" in my opinion does nothing to give anyone an advantage. You can spring a gun to run pretty close to a lightened slide anyway. I agree with Corey there isn't much difference in this than snake belly cuts on a 1911 or M&P in my opinion. Anyways I'm waiting to hear from HQ which is why I started the thread to see whom I needed to contact. IDPA deff doesn't answer questions as fast as asking J. Amindon a question in regards to USPSA equipment. I've never shot or handled a limited gun, so I couldn't begin to go over the pros and cons of slide lightening. But I'd imagine in the hands of a skilled shooter, a lightened slide could give them a competitive advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thermobollocks Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Ssp legal no. ESP. Absolutely in my opinion. How would that be any different than some of the cocking serrations on some of the 1911s floating around IDPA? You don't see cocking serrations on 1911's wrapping around the slide. Cocking, no, but there's a number of different ways of engraving the top of the slide to provide less glare. If we really want to see what's IDPA legal we can check Wilson's website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 (edited) You don't see cocking serrations on 1911's wrapping around the slide "Browning HIGHPOWER" cuts wrap all the way around a slide. Plus I've seen plenty more "decorative" cuts on 1911s that are worse than that in IDPA. Edited December 6, 2013 by steel1212 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 I think this should answer your question about the glock slide. Rule 8.2.3.3.2. Removal of material from the exterior of the slide other than front cocking serrations, tri-top, engraving, carry melts, and high power cuts. This was posted in the quarterly updates. You may have already received the email. Ok so had to go back and read the clarrifications. SO on a custom 1911 they can't have rear cocking serrations, Sights? I mean if I buy a bald slide I can't remove material from it right? Yes I understand that obviously sights are ok but if your going to have a list then damn well list them all. Its pretty bad when their clarifications need clarifying!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v1911 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Clearly I don't make the rules. When you go and customize your factory gun, I'm pretty sure you already have sights cut and rear cocking serrations. Most of us aren't having custom built 1911/2011 done. So those of us with factory 1911's may opt to have some slide work done. The rules state popular modifications that most may want to have done. That's just how I see it. FYI, high power cuts don't wrap around the slide. They go up the flats. http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=132387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 How many "factory" 1911s do you see with high power cuts? Not many. It's also one of the easiest ways to remove weight in IDPA. Just like tri topping. Both of which will remove more weight than the glock in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dskinsler83 Posted December 28, 2013 Author Share Posted December 28, 2013 (edited) this is from IDPA glossary "Slide, lightening: Removal of portions of the slide to gain a competitive advantage." none of that is what this pattern is in the slide i wanna have done. Also from IDPA ESP inclusive permissible modifications "16. Customization of the slide by adding front cocking serrations, engraving, tri-top, carry melts and high power cuts." stated slide is engraved, snake bellied, tri-topped, serrated Edited December 28, 2013 by dskinsler83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RePete Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Well it could be an engraving lol and all the other listed combined crap would remove as much as this It wouldn't be engraving because it's too deep. Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dskinsler83 Posted December 28, 2013 Author Share Posted December 28, 2013 I'm just saying its purely decorative there is no advantage lol. Either way it' is what it is. They are shallow ball mill cuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 There is no longer an IDPA glossary and there is no specific prohibition against slide lightening. I would defend internal lightening recesses a la 1957 Gold Cup as 8.2.2.2.6 Reliability Work, especially on a 1911ish ESP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dskinsler83 Posted December 28, 2013 Author Share Posted December 28, 2013 There is no longer an IDPA glossary and there is no specific prohibition against slide lightening. I would defend internal lightening recesses a la 1957 Gold Cup as 8.2.2.2.6 Reliability Work, especially on a 1911ish ESP. See you figure the latest rules would be at IDPA HQ online and would takeout a glossary if no longer using it. Are you saying try to use that ruling above to say it should be legal or not Jim? Personally I don't know why it wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Like I said, I would defend internal weight reduction as "reliability work" but I don't know if that would be accepted by the typical MD. But then would he notice it or even know what it was? I have not heard of anybody doing real tech inspections. If it weighs less than the maximum, it has passed everywhere I have shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dskinsler83 Posted December 28, 2013 Author Share Posted December 28, 2013 I have seen a video from the person of the shooters mindset. His GLOCK had extensive slide work and seems to use it in IDPA ESP. Snake belly cuts on top and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 There is no longer an IDPA glossary and there is no specific prohibition against slide lightening. I would defend internal lightening recesses a la 1957 Gold Cup as 8.2.2.2.6 Reliability Work, especially on a 1911ish ESP. 8.2.2.3.2 (quoted previously) seems to be a specific prohibition against externally visible slide lightening. Interesting that they use the word exterior in the rule, maybe to keep them out of the 'dissassemble and prove it' game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dskinsler83 Posted December 28, 2013 Author Share Posted December 28, 2013 IT IS NOT LIGHTENING FOR PETE SAKES LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 IT IS NOT LIGHTENING FOR PETE SAKES LOL I don't have a dog in the fight and would like to see the rule just go away. That said, seems like if you start out with x ounces of metal then grind a bit and end up with less than x ounces of metal most folks would think that less than x ounces was lighter than x ounces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 I agree with the gassy fellow above. However there is no rhyme or reason to what is what. In ssp I would so no cuts period. In ESP I would say no holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dskinsler83 Posted December 28, 2013 Author Share Posted December 28, 2013 Getting front serrations, Tri-topped, hi power cuts or whatever will lighted the slide. This to me is a combination of a style of snake belly cuts and serrations in front and rear w/ Tri topping 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