Thoughts on the new compensator rule

[RJH]

One of the clarifications in the USPSA stuff that just came out had to do with compensators built into the slide. Apparently it was directly related to sig sauers "new" technology in their x comp or something like that. So there are a few of things that I realized that make this pretty interesting:

 

First is that the definition originally stated that  compensators are attached to the muzzle end of barrels

 

Second, is of course sig has the gun with the "new" idea of building the compensator into the slide. Turns out it's not really a new idea, just a revamp of an old idea

 

Third is the fact that there have been bushing replacement compensators for years for 1911s, where the compensator was in fact hooked to the slide and not attached to the barrel. Doing the same thing that the "new" sig technology does

 

It is interesting to me that this rule was based around the sig gun and that no one has exploited this with bushing barrel 1911s in the past. If you look at the glossary definition of compensator currently in the rule book, you could use one of the bushing style comps in limited today. Obviously they're going to be changing that pretty soon 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CClassForLife]

Eventually, the market will create extended dust covers that protrude beyond the length of the barrel to act as surface area for the expanding gas to push against. This would not redirect gases but still provide a "compensation effect." I reckon the rules would be adjusted to read that the muzzle must be flush or extend beyond the slide and dustcover. This will prompt the market to invent flashlights with compensator ledges which would make USPSA define a non-obstruction zone surrounding the muzzle end of the barrel.

 

I'm half serious, half kidding.

 

[Robertwil18]

Nothing has been finalized, correct?  Aside from a long standing and well respected person now working for the gun industry I haven't seen any real correspondence from USPSA on any change to the definition of a compensator.  Has that changed in the last few days?  

[Johnny_Chimpo]

5 hours ago, Robertwil18 said:

 Aside from a long standing and well respected person now working for the gun industry I haven't seen any real correspondence from USPSA on any change to the definition of a compensator.  Has that changed in the last few days?  

 

The change to the compensator definition was amongst the rule change proposals up for member comment. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Johnny_Chimpo

[mreed911]

This would allow the old "C" models of Glock to be used, too.

[Racinready300ex]

If I were to guess, Ted noticed this. He's pretty slick on the rules and what people will do to get around them. I think he was the only AD against the flashlights because he said people will just start making brass flashlights. And here we are. So do we want compensators in every division? I think right now the answer is no, so the change seems reasonable to me. 

 

I've never seen a bushing comp that looked like it would do anything.

 

I have this weird feeling, that before the ink is dry on LO we'll start see more talk about ports and comps. With guns like these sigs, and all over social media I see people sending off they're guns to get ported. Lots of staccatos with v8 style ports. Or carry size comps on basically everything. After every rule change it happens, a new thing pops up that needs to be changed. Maybe this is the next thing to argue about. 

 

 

[waktasz]

3 hours ago, mreed911 said:

This would allow the old "C" models of Glock to be used, too.

 

Those have ported barrels which are not legal

[mreed911]

22 minutes ago, waktasz said:

 

Those have ported barrels which are not legal

I haven't read the exact wording so I'll take your word for it.

[driver8M3]

26 minutes ago, mreed911 said:

I haven't read the exact wording so I'll take your word for it.

 

The Glock C models were prohibited based on the Division appendices, not the definition of compensator.

[Johnny_Chimpo]

5 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

If I were to guess, Ted noticed this. He's pretty slick on the rules and what people will do to get around them. I think he was the only AD against the flashlights because he said people will just start making brass flashlights. And here we are. So do we want compensators in every division? I think right now the answer is no, so the change seems reasonable to me. 

 

I've never seen a bushing comp that looked like it would do anything.

 

I have this weird feeling, that before the ink is dry on LO we'll start see more talk about ports and comps. With guns like these sigs, and all over social media I see people sending off they're guns to get ported. Lots of staccatos with v8 style ports. Or carry size comps on basically everything. After every rule change it happens, a new thing pops up that needs to be changed. Maybe this is the next thing to argue about. 

 

 

 

I'm glad the rule got changed to prohibit SIG's invention.  I don't want compensators in every division.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Johnny_Chimpo

[shred]

On 1/5/2023 at 10:38 PM, CClassForLife said:

Eventually, the market will create extended dust covers that protrude beyond the length of the barrel to act as surface area for the expanding gas to push against. This would not redirect gases but still provide a "compensation effect." I reckon the rules would be adjusted to read that the muzzle must be flush or extend beyond the slide and dustcover. This will prompt the market to invent flashlights with compensator ledges which would make USPSA define a non-obstruction zone surrounding the muzzle end of the barrel.

 

I'm half serious, half kidding.

 

IME, AK-style lower-lip "compensators" don't work very well on pistols, although someone will re-invent it and claim it's the best thing ever someday.  I'd also say they redirect muzzle gases too.

 

(Nor does boring out an inch or so of bull barrel and silver soldering a washer over the end of your newly-created expansion chamber.  Gamers been gaming a _long_ time. )

 

[EricJ]

On 1/5/2023 at 11:38 PM, CClassForLife said:

Eventually, the market will create extended dust covers that protrude beyond the length of the barrel to act as surface area for the expanding gas to push against. This would not redirect gases but still provide a "compensation effect." I reckon the rules would be adjusted to read that the muzzle must be flush or extend beyond the slide and dustcover. This will prompt the market to invent flashlights with compensator ledges which would make USPSA define a non-obstruction zone surrounding the muzzle end of the barrel.

 

I'm half serious, half kidding.

 

I died laughing but you're not wrong...

[2011BLDR]

I don't see the point id disallowing this in Limited.. In my experience the Back Bored Sight Block ( ie comp that vents forward vs up) that is allowed in Limited is as effective as the large chambers with minimal blast baffles that Sig is doing in the slide.. yet again we (USPSA) are no longer a lead in firearms development technology, we just want to ban whatever the industry develops, it makes us seam Fuddish.. My opinion based on 30 years in this sport having used every Limited and Open configuration + having 8 different " Carry Comp"  pistols in the last 36 years....

[ProStage]

IMHO Isn't the idea to make each division separate and gradually increasing in gun tech? I mean look at all the open gun tech now on factory pistols.  We expect highest tech in Open and the lowest most basic tech in standard. Even if you don't agree with that, Limited optics is really Carry Optics but using  (primarily) ds1911/2011 or SA CZ's and a magwell. IMHO allowing Limited optics to have factory ported barrels or factory slide comps but nothing added on separates it from CO and also Open. Its the highest FACTORY tech but not yet an Open gun and using minor ammo.  An add on comp to the end of the barrel or slide is still a no go. It also allows manufacturers like SIg and Smith PC to have their new guns in more divisions. Like M&P9 ported and the new Sig "expansion" slides. Isn't getting more shooters in the league with guns they have or can afford good for everyone? Just my opinion.

[Stmark73]

On 4/6/2023 at 7:32 AM, ProStage said:

IMHO Isn't the idea to make each division separate and gradually increasing in gun tech? I mean look at all the open gun tech now on factory pistols.  We expect highest tech in Open and the lowest most basic tech in standard. Even if you don't agree with that, Limited optics is really Carry Optics but using  (primarily) ds1911/2011 or SA CZ's and a magwell. IMHO allowing Limited optics to have factory ported barrels or factory slide comps but nothing added on separates it from CO and also Open. Its the highest FACTORY tech but not yet an Open gun and using minor ammo.  An add on comp to the end of the barrel or slide is still a no go. It also allows manufacturers like SIg and Smith PC to have their new guns in more divisions. Like M&P9 ported and the new Sig "expansion" slides. Isn't getting more shooters in the league with guns they have or can afford good for everyone? Just my opinion.

There is an IDPA Division for that, CARRY OPTICS

[mreed911]

8 hours ago, Stmark73 said:

There is an IDPA Division for that, CARRY OPTICS

 

Which matters to USPSA shooters how?

[Stmark73]

1 hour ago, mreed911 said:

 

Which matters to USPSA shooters how?

Slide ride optic + compensator + minor pf + magwell = IDPA CO.

 

If the shooter does not want to shoot IDPA, shoot Open minor.

No need for Open lite.

[Joe4d]

Just call CO and limited optic  what it is... OPEN MINOR,,,  Mandate 140 mags and slide mounted optics and be done with it.  All these divisions and bs rules amount to 2 things on the score board... One of them is JACK.
Comps at minor, mag funnels, trigger design... 2 things.

 
 

[mreed911]

5 hours ago, Stmark73 said:

Slide ride optic + compensator + minor pf + magwell = IDPA CO.

 

If the shooter does not want to shoot IDPA, shoot Open minor.

 

You do realize they're two completely different sports with completely different approaches, right?

[Stmark73]

50 minutes ago, mreed911 said:

 

You do realize they're two completely different sports with completely different approaches, right?

Yes I do. 
 

[Bakerjd]

None of this really matters. The top shooters who put in the extreme ammount of effort needed to be at the very top winning multiple national titles will still be the same. Let's just get rid of all division rules and you can shoot what you think you can win with. 

[Joe4d]

2 hours ago, Bakerjd said:

None of this really matters. The top shooters who put in the extreme ammount of effort needed to be at the very top winning multiple national titles will still be the same. Let's just get rid of all division rules and you can shoot what you think you can win with. 

Yeh I concur,, or at least only separate by things that actually matter. Optic,, compensator at major, Capacity.
For even more crazy look at steel challenge divisions.