Carry optics rules

[vluc]

I asked similar questions of Troy and came away thinking that any of these are lightening the slide, you don't need a hole to do that.  It is material that is being removed after all.

 

As for iron sights on the gun, well, it is an Optics division and if the dot goes away, I'd guess having irons on the gun would be a competitive advantage, but hey, what do I know.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by vluc

[Joe4d]

IMO the only way to be fair to everyone is to follow the rule book for everyone

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Joe4d

[motosapiens]

Lots of crying in this thread all of the sudden. Seems to me the rules are clear. No holes, but other stuff is fine. I'm cool with that. Pretty much the same thing in singlestack and no one cries about that. Maybe the people shooting CO are more fragile....

[IHAVEGAS]

30 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

Lots of crying in this thread all of the sudden.

 

Crying I can deal with, disagreement sometimes learn from, but slander stinks. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JAFO]

2 hours ago, motosapiens said:

Seems to me the rules are clear. No holes, but other stuff is fine. I'm cool with that. Pretty much the same thing in singlestack and no one cries about that. Maybe the people shooting CO are more fragile....

 

I don't see it as all that clear. 

 

D7, 21.2b states:

A slide may be modified specifically for the purpose of installing optical sights or cocking serrations. Textured finishes, grip tape, milling or stippling on the slide to provide texture is also allowed. Cuts that are designed to specifically or significantly lighten the slide, such as holes, are ruled as competitive advantage and prohibited.

 

Saying "Cuts that are designed...,such as holes,..." isn't the same as saying "Holes that are designed...".  The rule gives holes as an example of a cut that can lighten the slide, not the ONLY cut that is prohibited.

 

The Single Stack rule more clearly allows minor cuts that could be deemed decorative (such as those being pondered by the OP).  But it still lists holes and slots as examples of slide lightening:

Milling of the slide to insert sights, add or remove serrations, such as cocking or flat topping, tri-topping the slide, lowering ejection ports, cuts that are minor and cosmetic in nature are permitted. Duplicating features that are on a factory, mass produced slide available to the general public is permitted. Cuts that are designed to specifically or significantly lighten the slide, such as holes, or slots, are ruled as competitive advantage and prohibited.

 

As CO is provisional, I hope that if they are going to rule this way on slide cuts, that they would eventually modify 21.2b to specifically prohibit holes through the slide as the only prohibited slide mod.  But I'm guessing there's a significant weight difference between one of those Combat Master slides and a stock G34 slide.

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Crying I can deal with, disagreement sometimes learn from, but slander stinks. 

 

I'm with you there.  Personally, I have observed Troy making a rules mistake, but the situation fortunately got straightened out before arbitration. In general, I believe he is doing a good job and trying to be consistent and reasonable and not a dick. I think USPSA is headed in the right direction, and the current leadership has my support.

[motosapiens]

2 minutes ago, JAFO said:

 

I don't see it as all that clear. 

 

 

that's cool, and I believe you are still a good person. To me, those rules say the same thing. I personally don't GAF, as long as the enforcement is consistent. I think rules against slide lightening are stupid anyway, since I know some genuine GM's who prefer a normal slide. Let people play with their guns.... and then laugh when their guns break or don't run. Making rules against customizing stuff (and interpreting those rules over-strictly) is lame. Just sayin'.

Edited November 16, 2017 by motosapiens

[JAFO]

CO was originally supposed to be more like a "Production Optics" Division.  Now it's more like "Limited Optics", and as you said, that's fine as long as interpretation and enforcement is consistent.  I read it one way and would enforce it by my interpretation, but I'm seeing that's not what NROI intended.  I don't have a problem changing how I interpret it, I'd just prefer that they mod the rule to be more clear on what they actually intend.

 

Honestly, what bothers me more is that the slack in observing the CO rules as written seems to be leaking over into slack in observing Production rules as well.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JAFO

[Sarge]

And just to add, a slide can be lightened considerably by milling without making holes.

[Patrick Scott]

1 hour ago, JAFO said:

CO was originally supposed to be more like a "Production Optics" Division.  Now it's more like "Limited Optics", and as you said, that's fine as long as interpretation and enforcement is consistent.  I read it one way and would enforce it by my interpretation, but I'm seeing that's not what NROI intended.  I don't have a problem changing how I interpret it, I'd just prefer that they mod the rule to be more clear on what they actually intend.

 

Honestly, what bothers me more is that the slack in observing the CO rules as written seems to be leaking over into slack in observing Production rules as well.

I have no dog in this CO fight other than I am a paying USPSA member and would like to think my $$ in some part goes to rules consistency. That said, I think CO should move away from the PRD Optics idea a bit more. I think keep it Minor and move it a bit more to a LTD Optics division.  Give em magwells, let em cut the guns up. Thats seems all the rage in the magazines and online for slide mounted optic guns.  

[BritinUSA]

It’s moving more toward the Modified division that IPSC used to have. I suspect the mag-wells and triggers will be coming soon.

[Chrishoward1364]

Wow.

 

This became far more

divisive than I intended.

[Sarge]

1 minute ago, Chrishoward1364 said:

Wow.

 

This became far more

divisive than I intended.

They generally do. 

[vluc]

14 hours ago, JAFO said:

CO was originally supposed to be more like a "Production Optics" Division.  Now it's more like "Limited Optics", and as you said, that's fine as long as interpretation and enforcement is consistent.  I read it one way and would enforce it by my interpretation, but I'm seeing that's not what NROI intended.  I don't have a problem changing how I interpret it, I'd just prefer that they mod the rule to be more clear on what they actually intend.

 

Honestly, what bothers me more is that the slack in observing the CO rules as written seems to be leaking over into slack in observing Production rules as well.

 

Seeing holsters and mag carriers creeping more and more forward in production and CO, guess the competitors had hip bone surgery to move them into a more advantageous position.  RO's or people who are RO'ing don't seem to be paying any attention to it at the local level or they just don't care to get into a discussion about equipment placement - or they just don't know since they don't shoot it.  While my eyes have forced me into the CO arena, my head is still production after so many years of shooting it and it is some of the first things I see when I get to a match.

 

Like you, I have no problem adjusting to a rules change, but it does not appear to be consistent or communicated to the rank and file in a consistent manner that is relatively free of interpretation.  Like Sarge said, lightening does not require holes.

[IHAVEGAS]

57 minutes ago, vluc said:

Seeing holsters and mag carriers creeping more and more forward in production and CO,

 

Seems like if you ask a couple match directors to mention things like that at the shooters meetings, the problem gets fixed. I think part of the fix is putting the shooters on guard but maybe the bigger part of the fix is letting all of the r.o.'s know they should be looking for it and they are not being "that r.o." when they address it.

 

Match behavior issues crept up locally this year, after a couple public announcements of what was expected and what would get a quick dq the problem has not resurfaced. As an r.o. , once I know all are instructed to give a quick boot if there is any b.s. I am going to be more confident making that call. I think it would be the same if a different issue was pointed out.