mike4045 Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I thought the Lim 10 div was supposed to fix the problem. One of the nearby clubs has a single stack match once a year and it has over 70 shooters. Why not just use limited 10 for SS only. The possibility of another division doesn't seem really necessary. Why not start a prod div for all "safe action" design pistols. That way there won't be any issues if they are true double actions or not. Just don't see the problem that this is supposed to fix. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted May 3, 2005 Author Share Posted May 3, 2005 Gee give a guy a little break will ya? The day after I got the approval to announce this venture, I put it up on this forum to start the informtion process. That USPSA has not personally notified you or your club is unerstandable since there is a small time frame for an organization to gather all the pertinent data and get it in some format to distribute. In addition, they are dealing with getting slots out for the National Championships which are right around the corner. Anyone that wants a copy of the rules can contact me direct at the already posted e-mail address and I will send them out to you, now that I have my DSL back in operation. I think several can attest that I have already sent them copies for their information. You can start talking to your club management right now about the concept, at least. You can fill in the gaps in a short time. To answer another question, yes if you are factoring minor you can have up to 10+1 rounds in the gun. Major however is limited to 8+1. A tungsten guide rod can easily be replaced for a match, and then put back in if you wish. If this is your only problem, you are in pretty good shape. I'll check out the posted rules and see if they are real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I think several can attest that I have already sent them copies for their information. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can attest They're pretty much what you'd expect, based on the SSC rules, guys. Nothing too far away from that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted May 3, 2005 Author Share Posted May 3, 2005 I can confirm that the rules posted on the above link are the correct rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 A tungsten guide rod can easily be replaced for a match, and then put back in if you wish. If this is your only problem, you are in pretty good shape. Yes...I realize that in my case...its a simple guidrod swap.....the purpose of my post was to point out to Schutzenmeister that it wasn't simply SS 1911 Limited based on what I had seen as the proposed rules. I know it doesn't matter...but I plan on sticking with L10 and shooting my single stack in that because afterall...its where a majority of single stacks already compete. My only question at this point is....will L10 be sticking with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Good job Gary and thank you! I know you put a lot of work into this (and took a lot of grief over it). Now I have to figure out if my .45 with 8+1 or that new singlestack .38 I have not purchased yet is the most fun....Don't you just hate it when you have to purchase a new gun in the interest of science??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted May 3, 2005 Author Share Posted May 3, 2005 You have found me out. That is exactly what this venture is all about, giving me a reason to buy a new gun, but don't tell anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Good job Gary and thank you! I know you put a lot of work into this (and took a lot of grief over it). Now I have to figure out if my .45 with 8+1 or that new singlestack .38 I have not purchased yet is the most fun....Don't you just hate it when you have to purchase a new gun in the interest of science??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> With a two round capacity difference, it would be silly not to shoot minor. If I can find some reliable ten round 9mm mags, I may just dust off my Springfield Armory 9mm 1911 next year........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted May 3, 2005 Author Share Posted May 3, 2005 It does make for some interesting choices now doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 It was my understanding that one of the impediments to the IDPA guys coming over was our Limited-10 "Raceguns" I agree that the divison if it is to acheive its goal must be single stack, I don't think it has to be .45 or only 1911, I am not even sure it has to be SA. Why couldn't I shoot a Single Stack DA 9mm? Do we care about round count? should we simply say mags must fit flush withthe grip? Or should we limit the division to 10 rounds, but allow long (170mm) mags? Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 The idea with the rules that Gary stated originally was to stick as closely as possible to the SSC format as they could - the only difference that I've spotted (and I haven't looked close) is that in SSC, the pistol must fit the box w/o a mag, and USPSA must fit in the box w/ a mag installed. The whole idea was to give SS .45s and carry leather a place to play - and the rules match that. But, I don't see why SS non-1911 pistols couldn't be allowed, though it might make the rules a little longer. If round count were expanded to 10 across the board, there's not as much of a differentiation from L-10 (just leather being used, it's positioning, and it *must* be a SS pistol). It kind of loses that "carry" aspect, at that point, too (though tall people could get away w/ 10 round mags as spares, maybe ) At least, that's my take on why things were done like they were. I think Gary (and the BOD) are hoping for some R&D - get clubs to shoot it on a trial basis, and see what kind of feedback comes back from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Geek Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I can confirm that the rules posted on the above link are the correct rules. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gary: I was surprised to see this line in the rules: "Pistols produced with attachment points for external lights or optics are not permitted." This seems to refer to the production models with weaver rails on the dust cover. What's the reasoning behind this? IDPA allows them, but they're not something one would typically carry. I'd think USPSA, not being concerned with concealibility, would have no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted May 3, 2005 Author Share Posted May 3, 2005 Jim with all due respect, the reason we don't do all the things you and others suggest is because this was my project and I crafted it to achieve specific goals. I have been very open about my reasons goals and objectives. They are even in print. What it is, it is. It is not mandatory and those who do not wish to participate can stand on the sidelines and watch. In three years we will be able to evaluate if it was a successful venture or not. Since I have been the one who has carried the water on this, if it fails, all those who see the glass as half empty can say "I told you so". If it succedes then USPSA might just be the better for it. Time will tell. I still feel we need to try different things if we are not going to stagnate and eventually die. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. To answer the light rail question. Many of us discussed this to great length. I originally wanted to include the light rails, which have become so popular. I wanted the Sig pistol to be able to compete, as I wanted the Sig company to also contribute. Eventually I came down on the side of trying to keep this venture as "pure" as possible. If you allow the light rails, the next thing you will have is a full heavy dust cover gun with a few cuts in it, such as the one Springfield armory sells, and that would just fly in the face of what I was trying to achieve. After the three year evaluation period, this project might be modified, if it is accepted, based on the feedback of the membership. I thought it was better to try to craft something that was manageable at this point, and not have it turn into another IPSC/USPSA race gun division that we all love so much. That would have been counter prouctive I believed then and still do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I think the biggest hurdle SSD will face will be the number of rounds in the mag issue (particularily for those shooting major....8 rounds in the mag). I've shot SSD before in L10 division as preparation for matches shot under 1911Society rules (Western States Single Stack Championship) and when faced with 8 round arrays...having only 8 rounds in the magazine becomes a real reloading burden. The difference between 8 and 10 rounds when faced with todays course design is significant. Course design will not change to accomodate SSD (and it shouldn't) ... those shooting major will probably find this to be the greatest obstacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Sheesh, I've been boggling my mind w/ 10 round strategy (having been previously used to 23+ w/ a race gun )... 8rd would be similar, but, as you say, more reloads - perhaps as many as 4 per course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 USPSA rule stipulate 9 round arrays (max), not 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 USPSA rule stipulate 9 round arrays (max), not 8. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah I know....I was just pointing out what when the arrays were 8 rounds...it was bad...if the arrays are 9 it gets really bad...and when its greater yet (because club matches aren't strictly held to US 1.1.5.1) ....well it becomes really frustrating!!! Most of our local clubs try and stick to 8 round arrays or less.....but not always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Damn ... Without a "light rail" mount, where the heck am I going to put my BAYONET? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkelly Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Thank you Mr. Stevens! Respectfully, jkelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Jim with all due respect, the reason we don't do all the things you and others suggest is because this was my project and I crafted it to achieve specific goals. ... What it is, it is. Um, what was the point of soliciting comments beforehand then? I still think it's funny that the highly-touted ultimate-pistol 1911 needs to have protected places to compete carved out for it in IDPA and IPSC. I'm against fragmentation of competition, but I'll see how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Thanks for the information. I am sure this will start another 10 page pro's and con's discussion though.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 70+ and counting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted May 4, 2005 Author Share Posted May 4, 2005 You correctly stated that I asked for comments "before" the proposal became a reality which I note is somewhat unusual for the membership to be asked anything. The problem is I am still getting the why not this, why not that. Those issues are not on the table at this time, maybe in the future, but not now. The only issue now is are you as an individual going to participate, is your club going to participate, and are state/sectional matches going to participate. There is concern about course design, and that is valid. I believe though, that those clubs and matches that "voluntarily choose" to participate in this venture will not make 9 round positions the norm. If they do, they are undermining what they are voluntarily choosing to do. I would suggest you go to the posted rules, which have a mission statement so to speak. "Protecting" the 1911 has nothing to do with it, as is clearly spelled out. With over a dozen gun companies making some form of 1911, USPSA has an opportunity, if managed correctly, to benefit from that manufacturing base. In addition the members have an opportunity through sponsorship and/or prize table merchanise to benefit. To not try, in my opinion, would be an abandonment of my duties to USPSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 "Frames shall be of steel or other metallic alloy, plastic frames are not allowed." So I can't use my STI 2011 and put a SS grip on it ? Damn!!! I'm going to have to buy another gun then. Thanks a lot Gary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted May 4, 2005 Author Share Posted May 4, 2005 Glad to help Now you twist my arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titandriver Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Gary --- you stated that in three years an evaluation of this proposed division will take place, by the BOD I assume. Could you please tell me what criteria will be used by your evaluation team to determine success or failure? Thank you, Rich Redovian FY10937 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts