Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Single Stack and custom slide milling Q


matteekay
 Share

Recommended Posts

I feel like I'm constantly confused  about how much slide milling is allowed for Single Stack in USPSA. 

 

I have a partially-railed 1911, which means I'm always trying to cut some weight to make it under the 43 oz cap. I won't even point out how ridiculous this is in light of the new heavyweight Production rule changes...

 

Anyhow, D5.21 states:

• 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.

 

The second bullet seems to be in conflict with itself. Say I got a slide machined to match a S&W Performance Center 1911, Kimber Rapide, or Nighthawk President - all have ports that are clearly designed to reduce the weight of the slide, but they're also all "factory, mass-produced slides". Does this mean I can have a slide milled to reduce weight as long as it matches a slide that's on the market? How would you even go about proving that at a big match? And what about companies who make milled slides but not full guns, like Heavy Armor Division? Can they mill my slide to match their offerings since it's "mass produced"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding you can do anything you want as long as the cut doesn't form a hole.

It's probably just easiest to use a GI guide rod and some lighter grips. I've stippled a pair of Magpul grips for the 1911. They're about the lightest thing out there, and after stippling I'm very happy with the grip.

--
Pat Jones
Firestone CO
USPSA #A79592

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured I hadn't harassed NROI in a bit so I sent them an email including some pictures of factory-ported slides. Troy's response is basically what you said:

 

"as long as the milling doesn’t make a hole or slot through the slide it’s permitted. None of the examples you provided would be legal if the cuts go all the way through, and the slides can’t be swapped."

 

Thankfully, I didn't drop $1500 on a Kimber Rapide that can't be shot in Single Stack...

 

The gun already has a GI guide rod and is still about half an ounce overweight. I'll swap the G10 grips for those Magpul ones and see how close it gets. Next step would be slide milling, or maybe I can get it reclassified as a Production gun and free up another pound...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, matteekay said:

Thankfully, I didn't drop $1500 on a Kimber Rapide that can't be shot in Single Stack...


This was your first opportunity to learn a lifelong lesson: All chances to purchase a Kimber should be bypassed.

 

There are many gents for whom a Kimber is their beginning gun in Singlestack. They showed up with it.

 

However, I have never ever seen someone’s second or third purchase for SingleStack feature the word Kimber on the side.

 

There’s a lesson to be learned here from your experienced peers. 😁

 

Edited by MemphisMechanic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:


This was your first opportunity to learn a lifelong lesson: All chances to purchase a Kimber should be bypassed.

 

I had no intention of buying one - it was just a good example of a factory ported slide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aluminum mainspring housing is a good way to knock a bit of weight off.  Grips can be a lot.  Opening up the frame window is another option.

Also choice of magazines and basepads matters some too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, triumphrider said:

Aluminum grip safety? 

I assume your running a magwell..

Which 1?  Dawson "ice" well is very light....

 

1 hour ago, shred said:

Aluminum mainspring housing is a good way to knock a bit of weight off.  Grips can be a lot.  Opening up the frame window is another option.

Also choice of magazines and basepads matters some too.

 

Yup, Dawson ICE with an aluminum housing.  The grip safety is a good idea; I bet swapping the stainless steel one for an aluminum one would get me most of the way there. I'm a little nervous about using an aluminum one, though; I thought most manufacturers discontinued them because the trigger "tab" was prone to bending.

 

I'll throw it all on a scale and start swapping parts around. If I really need to shave weight, I'll probably look at frame windows or tri-topping (since it also looks badass). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't want to tri top I would do a "bulls eye" cut in the slide...

It's a deep grove cut on bottom of slide in ejector tunnel that cannot be seen until slide is turned over and inspected...

Honestly most people wouldn't even notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2020 at 3:06 AM, matteekay said:

I feel like I'm constantly confused  about how much slide milling is allowed for Single Stack in USPSA. 

 

I have a partially-railed 1911, which means I'm always trying to cut some weight to make it under the 43 oz cap. I won't even point out how ridiculous this is in light of the new heavyweight Production rule changes...

 

Anyhow, D5.21 states:

• 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.

 

The second bullet seems to be in conflict with itself. Say I got a slide machined to match a S&W Performance Center 1911, Kimber Rapide, or Nighthawk President - all have ports that are clearly designed to reduce the weight of the slide, but they're also all "factory, mass-produced slides". Does this mean I can have a slide milled to reduce weight as long as it matches a slide that's on the market? How would you even go about proving that at a big match? And what about companies who make milled slides but not full guns, like Heavy Armor Division? Can they mill my slide to match their offerings since it's "mass produced"?

There was a reason the 43 ounce weight was implemented. It's been stated here over and over by the person who wrote the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a reason the 43 ounce weight was implemented. It's been stated here over and over by the person who wrote the rule.
That's fine, and I intend to play within the rules. It's just a little annoying that Production (largely plastic guns) has an extra pound over guns that are mandated to be metal-framed.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly referencing the joke I made to NROI about Production loaning SS some ounces.

From a gaming/rules standpoint, it's a little hard to rationalize the weight limit in Production being so much higher when SS is required to have metal frames.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

There was a reason the 43 ounce weight was implemented. It's been stated here over and over by the person who wrote the rule.

 

Gary, I just read everything you ever posted with the word  'ounce' in it (because "43" is too short to search) and although you've posted many times why there's a weight limit and that it's 43 ounces, I couldn't find a solid answer of why the number "43" was chosen except maybe one IDPA division and maybe the 1911 Society uses that.

 

Given there are now regular non-railed factory 9mm 1911s that a new shooter can buy and take to a match and fail weight. what are your thoughts on changing that number to say 43.5oz-- 1% is not enough for people to go modding everything, but maybe enough that people don't have to search out lightweight parts just to make factory stock pistols legal to shoot.

 

Personally I'm in favor of a weight limit and one that's fairly close to where it is now, but it's a PITA trying to make some guns fit within it that have absolutely no competitive difference over one that does.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, shred said:

 

Gary, I just read everything you ever posted with the word  'ounce' in it (because "43" is too short to search) and although you've posted many times why there's a weight limit and that it's 43 ounces, I couldn't find a solid answer of why the number "43" was chosen except maybe one IDPA division and maybe the 1911 Society uses that.

 

Given there are now regular non-railed factory 9mm 1911s that a new shooter can buy and take to a match and fail weight. what are your thoughts on changing that number to say 43.5oz-- 1% is not enough for people to go modding everything, but maybe enough that people don't have to search out lightweight parts just to make factory stock pistols legal to shoot.

 

Personally I'm in favor of a weight limit and one that's fairly close to where it is now, but it's a PITA trying to make some guns fit within it that have absolutely no competitive difference over one that does.

 

 

 

Well you are actually a pretty good detective😎

 

I was crafting rules for a proposed new Division. One of my goals was to provide a seamless crossover from IDPA to USPSA. I wanted to show that you didn't need a mega bucks gun to participate. IDPA used 43 ounces and that worked out well in addition to a slightly bigger box. Our Production rules, at that time, were very similar to IDPA and this would provide crossover for two Divisions.

 

I also took selected rules from the Single Stack Society and blended all three sports together.

 

I tried to allow for individual cosmetic work that didn't give the perception that you needed a full house race gun to compete. Perception can often become reality. Also I was attempting to maintain a reasonable loyality to the original 1911 concept without being so strict as to stifle progress.

 

i didn't think that creating a division that was Limited 8 or Limited 10 minor Single Stack would accomplish anything.

 

Now to get to the bottom line, I wanted more participation from the 1911 gun companies. At that time there were around 17 or 18 making 1911's. I wanted to see more advertising in Front Sight.

 

I wanted to see sponsored teams such as Team Springfield, Team Taurus, Team Smith and Wesson etc. This would hopefully put more 1911 prizes on the table. Perhaps a contingency program for winning with a particular gun.

 

Unfortunately this didn't happen because, IMO, the leadership at that time didn't care and didn't reach out to try to make it happen.

 

You are probably sorry you asked by now, but that pretty well sums it up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

I was crafting rules for a proposed new Division. One of my goals was to provide a seamless crossover from IDPA to USPSA. I wanted to show that you didn't need a mega bucks gun to participate. IDPA used 43 ounces and that worked out well in addition to a slightly bigger box. Our Production rules, at that time, were very similar to IDPA and this would provide crossover for two Divisions.

 

I also took selected rules from the Single Stack Society and blended all three sports together.

 

You are probably sorry you asked by now, but that pretty well sums it up.

 

Thanks. 👍 That is about what I suspected.  Given the current state of the 1911 market maybe it makes sense to "make the box a bit bigger" and raise the weight a tad (which will cause much internet sound and fury while signifying nothing....), although "just leave it alone" works for many curmudgeons that inhabit Single Stack ;)

 

Btw, I shot IPSC's "Classic" where there's no weight limit at Worlds and Pan Am and am not a fan of that either, although the gun shoots really soft half a pound heavier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you. Trying to keep your rule set in tune with manufacturers is not really possible though. 

 

Someone will I'll always be making a better mousetrap and people will buy it. Then the harping will begin to change the rules so their gun can be legal.

 

I guess one possible solution is to basically give up and make the rules so expansive that hard decisions don't have to be made. Now where have I seen that in practice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

I guess one possible solution is to basically give up and make the rules so expansive that hard decisions don't have to be made. Now where have I seen that in practice?

 

OOO OOO OOO! I know that one!

 

...it's ICORE, isn't it?

 

Right? 

 

...guys...?

 

;)

 

The big problem with weight is the manufacturers very rarely list accurate numbers. You'll typically see the same weight for a .45 and 9mm, and sometimes even railed or not. That being said, if we WERE taking a vote, I'd just request 1-2 more ounces (so 44 or 45) as I feel that would cover railed single stacks without getting ridiculous. As it sits, I'm just going to get this gun under weight and call it good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have to run a GI guide rod to make weight because you have a light rail, I don't have a problem with that. But what we have now is a system where some people need to have weight milled off their frame or slide because they're shooting a 9mm.

I shoot a non-railed 45 and I still carry a GI guide rod in my bag in case the scale at chrono is not the same as my postal scale at home. I'd love G10 grips, but that takes me closer to the weight limit than I care to be. A couple extra oz on the weight limit would be useful, I don't shoot IDPA.

--
Pat Jones
Firestone CO
USPSA #A79592

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I am an expert on anything, but...

It is my experience that a large number of the Single Stack shooters have no clue how heavy their gun is. Ask them if they weighed it and you get a deer in the headlights look. ;)

My two primary 45 SS guns are both Colts and neither breaks 39 Ounces with a mag inserted.

For a number of years it was the guys shooting 9MM guns who got into trouble since they forgot there is a bit more weight in a 9MM barrel than a 40 or 45 barrel.

Now add those tungsten guide rods and....

My Loaded 9MM from Springfield was a bit heavy due to my love of full length guide rods and S&A Magwells, but I had that taken care of, so it is fine now.

 

I think the heaviest gun we saw at Chrono was 50+. That of course does not cover the bull barrels and Para LDA's that showed up occasionally.

 

Jay

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bill H said:

Just change the weight to "without " a magazine. There. Solved the worlds problems. 

 

But what if a guy has brass basepads on his mags???

 

it really doesn’t matter, cause weight limits are pretty dumb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Bill H said:

Just change the weight to "without " a magazine. There. Solved the worlds problems. 

 

I wouldn't be opposed to this, actually.

 

 

14 hours ago, HCH said:

 

But what if a guy has brass basepads on his mags???

 

it really doesn’t matter, cause weight limits are pretty dumb. 

 

Yep. If you want to weight the point furthest from the muzzle, please feel free, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...