Tengu Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Reading through the rules for the new Provisional Single Stack Division I have come across a stipulation that seems sure to cause a lot of confusion and hard feelings in the coming season. It is the limitation that "Pistols with attachment points for external lights or optics are not permitted". As I read this, it would specifically disallow pistols with integral rails in the frame for the mounting of lights or lasers such as the Springfield Armory Operator and similar models. This has become an increasingly popular and practical option for many 1911 owners, and one which has absolutely no bearing on how the psitol performs in competition. As the preamble to the USPSA rules states, the 1911 has gone through a process of evolution over the years and "Those improvements will be recognized, as long as they do not detract from the basic premise of the pistol." Many prospective shooters will only own one 1911 single stack, and when I'm ROing a shooter at the line I do not look forward to teling them that the couple of little grooves they may have on their frame prohibit them from competing in the new division. Just in my home club this will affect several dedicated shooters, and across the country it is sure to create, at the minimum, a lot of unnecessary confusion. I hope that this rule can be changed or clarified to permit the use of pistols with accessory rails as the season progresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeMartens Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 This has been discussed (somewhat heatedly) as to the reasons why this is not allowed. While I do not think it was the best idea, I do understand the rational behind it Just do a search on this and you will find the threads with regards to this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Changing rules 30 days into the Provisional Single Stack Division is not wise. Part of the process was to see what was good or bad, what worked and what did not, and to be able to make informed decisions. I would not be surprised to see some tweeking of the provisional rules at the end of 2006 in our effort to provide the best product to our members and get ready for the 2007 season. After all that is why the rules are provisional Gary Edited January 30, 2006 by Gary Stevens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJONES5 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Changing rules 30 days into the Provisional Single Stack Division is not wise. Part of the process was to see what was good or bad, what worked and what did not, and to be able to make informed decisions.I would not be surprised to see some tweeking of the provisional rules at the end of 2006 in our effort to provide the best product to our members and get ready for the 2007 season. After all that is why the rules are provisional Gary +1 pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Reading through the rules for the new Provisional Single Stack Division I have come across a stipulation that seems sure to cause a lot of confusion and hard feelings in the coming season. It is the limitation that "Pistols with attachment points for external lights or optics are not permitted". As I read this, it would specifically disallow pistols with integral rails in the frame for the mounting of lights or lasers such as the Springfield Armory Operator and similar models. This has become an increasingly popular and practical option for many 1911 owners, and one which has absolutely no bearing on how the psitol performs in competition. I believe the issue has always been, first with the 1911 Society and the Single Stack Classic match and later with CDP in IDPA, that in order to have those little rails to mount a light on, you have to first increase the width of the frame forward of the trigger guard. This, just like a full length dust cover, increases the weight and balance of the pistol. That has always been a no-no and should remain so. If you allow more mass forward of the trigger guard in a light rail system, why not allow a full length dust cover? And thus the equipment race that the 1911 Society, and IMHO the new SS Divison, sought to reverse begins anew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tengu Posted January 30, 2006 Author Share Posted January 30, 2006 It is definitely a valid point that it would be problematic to change the rules part-way into the season- I guess I'm looking ahead more to 2007 As to the slight widening of the frame affecting the weight and balance of pistols used in competition, I think it would be pretty easy to define the mounting rails in such a way that no "equipment race" such as we've seen in other divisions became an issue. And as far as a few extra grams of steel near the balance point of the gun affecting a shooter's performance, that is a pretty darn hard argument to make against allowing these sorts of 1911s- something as simple as changing bullet weight from 230 to 200 or 185 grains is going to have a more significant effect on the weight and balance of the pistol. If anyone could show measurable differences in split or transition times between otherwise identical 1911s, one with accessory rails and one without, I'd be very interested to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Just for sake of discussion, if light rail guns were allowed how would you control it so that long heavy dust cover guns don't pop up? It should be noted that IDPA does allow the light rail guns and while we are not IDPA, one of the goals was to draw cross over shooters. It is unquestioned that light rail guns are popular today and many shooters have one. I doubt that many do not have a more traditional 1911 also, but I am sure some fall into that category. One of the ways I thought you could control it would be to get a measurement of every light rail gun produced in the US that any average Joe Blow can buy straight across the counter. Measure the rail from the center of the slide stop pin hole to the front of the rail. Once you find the longest one, add .125 for measurement slop and say you can have a light rail gun as long as the rail is no longer than X + .125. One other way is to declare a top empty weight of the gun. I note that IDPA CDP allows 41 ounces and ESP allows 43 ounces. Since the Single Stack Division incorporates 9mm and 38 Super type guns (ESP) perhaps the upper weight would have to be 43 ounces. What ever way is chosen, it needs to be simple and easily enforced coast to coast. And yes before someone points it out, the easiest way to enforce it is not allow the light rail guns in. I just am not sure that is the right thing to do if it can be kept under control and not start getting crazy which is something I am dead set against. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Just for sake of discussion, if light rail guns were allowed how would you control it so that long heavy dust cover guns don't pop up? It should be noted that IDPA does allow the light rail guns and while we are not IDPA, one of the goals was to draw cross over shooters.It is unquestioned that light rail guns are popular today and many shooters have one. I doubt that many do not have a more traditional 1911 also, but I am sure some fall into that category. One of the ways I thought you could control it would be to get a measurement of every light rail gun produced in the US that any average Joe Blow can buy straight across the counter. Measure the rail from the center of the slide stop pin hole to the front of the rail. Once you find the longest one, add .125 for measurement slop and say you can have a light rail gun as long as the rail is no longer than X + .125. One other way is to declare a top empty weight of the gun. I note that IDPA CDP allows 41 ounces and ESP allows 43 ounces. Since the Single Stack Division incorporates 9mm and 38 Super type guns (ESP) perhaps the upper weight would have to be 43 ounces. What ever way is chosen, it needs to be simple and easily enforced coast to coast. And yes before someone points it out, the easiest way to enforce it is not allow the light rail guns in. I just am not sure that is the right thing to do if it can be kept under control and not start getting crazy which is something I am dead set against. Gary I think your best bet is to go with the weight limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeMartens Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) I know I posted this in one of the other threads about this samething, but it would be easy IMO to say it this way NO bull barrels No full length dust cover or attachment rail that extends the full length No gun weighing over 43 ozs with unloaded mag inserted Edited January 31, 2006 by fortyfiveshooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 And if I cut the dustcover back 1/4 of an inch so that it is not "full length"??? Seriously, I appreciate your thoughts. I prefer clear language, but I also know how the creative minds work to find ways around clear language. Heck I even get wrongly accused of being one of those Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeMartens Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Sure as long as it wieghed no more than 43 oz with unloaded mag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 If you think that a full dust cover is somehow "better" or "faster" then use a weight limit. Me, I've shot my friend's TRP Operator and I think it is a nice accurate well fitted pig of a gun. I think that a full dust cover is one of those things that allows the gun to balance better for some shooters and worse for others, far from an absolute advantage. After all lots of limited guns do not have them and people win pleanty without them. You can argue that optical sights bring an advantage to all shooter to use them but I think the general experience with dust covers is that some people prefer them and some people dont. I think that if you really think that weight makes a critical difference (and I really don't, noting that the last L10 national champion used a plastic gun) then introduce a weight limit. And I dont even own a railed 1911. I really hope that we see a revision of the rules, I think as they stand they are a real problem. BTW, at our last match we had 19 L10 shooters (mostly 1911's) and 1 SS shooter, and he was shooting SS because he was playing with his commander sized gun in carry gear in preparation for a pocket gun match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 First the obligatory - Bless your soul, I know you mean well. From this thread and all the others on the same subject saying the same tedious things.... Divide everyone into three groups. Group # 1 - I'm for it. Group # 2 - I don't care/It's OK. Group # 3 - I'm against it. There will always be a group # 3. When someone comes up with an idea - works long and hard to bring it to fruition...Count on the reward being. I don't like it. WHY THIS (fill in to suit). WHY NOT THIS (fill in to suit). As my ole Pappy used to say, "Quit ya Bitchin." Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tengu Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 I think establishing a weight limit is probably the way to go for next year- this is a cool new division, and that would be a (relatively) simple way to allow shooters to participate without a lot of head scratching over rules definitions or attempts to "game" gun design too much And I don't think weight has that big an absolute impact either- each shooter is different, and as has already been pointed out, the 2005 men's and lady's L10 national champs both used plastic framed guns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I guess I'll have to add a postal scale to my range bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENE S Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I've got this old scale from when I was in collage ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) I've got this old scale from when I was in collage ??? Edited January 31, 2006 by Merlin Orr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I think the scale will be the responsibility of the match director, but feel free to include one in your bag if you wish. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCK Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) If you make it a weight limit with a rail, then whats to say people would not stretch the rules and build custom guns that redistibute the weight on the gun to gain advantage, like adding a tungeston rail on an alloy frame? (someone will find a way) I say leave it alone, if you want to shoot a rail gun, shoot L-10. Edited January 31, 2006 by TCK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) Well .. you can do that now. There is no rule against it as long the frame is a metal alloy. I'm not really sure why you have something against changing the balance anyway, if John Brownings balance was perfect people wouldn't want to change it and it isnt perfect then why so pationate about setting it in stone? Gary, I really believe that you meant well, but I really hope these rules get a MASSIVE re-write after a year or so. So far, around my neck of the woods, everyone thinks the rules overly restrictive and don't add anything. Everyone that sees them says "If only they got it right, I would shoot it". Of course they all disagree on what right is, and you can never please everyone, but so far I don't know anyone who came out and said "Great! I'm going to be shooting SS now!" and we get around 70 shooters to outdoor matches in January. Edited January 31, 2006 by Vlad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I really believe that mean well, but I really hope these rules get a MASSIVE re-write after a year or so. So far, around my neck of the woods, everyone thinks the rules overly restrictive and don't add anything. IMHO. The rules for the 1911 Division need to be restrictive. Production rules are restictive. Are they not? The powers that be wholesale copied from the 1911 Society Single Stack Classic rules and from IDPA's CDP rules for good reason. They are nearly perfect as they stand. The last, very last thing we need to do, IMHO, is to open up the 1911 Division to a bunch of pistol modifications beyond what the above mentioned rules already allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I can only assume that the rules are supposed to define what the "real" or "perfect" 1911 is supposed to be. Given the INSANE variety of 1911 options on the market I argue that there no perfect design. I have a whole rant in my head about how the world and the 1911 have changed. But I think that before I get my blood pressure up I'll step back and let the market decide. So far around here the market shruged and couldnt care less, but it has only been 1 month, so we'll see what happens. I'll only note that comparing the rules of the 1911 Division to those of production is like comparing apples to transitor radios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tengu Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 I guess the only way to keep everybody's equipment even in this division would be to allow only pistols built to the old mil-spec standards- no checkering on the frame, no beavertails, no adjustable sights, no aftermarket grips, no external extractors. But then where is the "practical" element that our sport is suposed to include? This division gives people who love the original single stack configuration a chance to compete against other shooters with similar gear, but (almost) everybody is going to add their own little personal touches. Someone who owns a Springfield Operator or a Sig GSR with a rail has a very "practical" pistol with no competitive advantage that right now is disallowed under the rules. It really shouldn't be too hard to define rail configuarations and pistol weights to allow these sorts of pistols into competition in the single stack division, which is a far more appropriate place for them than L10. There will probably always be people who try to bend the rules to their advantage or find loopholes, but in this case I think the rules could be made pretty watertight and straightforward. And as far as gun weight and balance are concerned, as they stand the rules have no weight limit and state only that pistols used in single stack must have "metallic" frames. How long until someone comes out with a tungsten frame, which would be completely legal and probably kick pistol weight up into the 50+ ounce range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I can only assume that the rules are supposed to define what the "real" or "perfect" 1911 is supposed to be. Given the INSANE variety of 1911 options on the market I argue that there no perfect design. I have a whole rant in my head about how the world and the 1911 have changed. But I think that before I get my blood pressure up I'll step back and let the market decide. So far around here the market shruged and couldnt care less, but it has only been 1 month, so we'll see what happens. I'll only note that comparing the rules of the 1911 Division to those of production is like comparing apples to transitor radios. I wouldn't want to raise anyone's BP let alone my own. I simply agree with the preamble to the rules for the 1911 Division. I guess the only way to keep everybody's equipment even in this division would be to allow only pistols built to the old mil-spec standards- no checkering on the frame, no beavertails, no adjustable sights, no aftermarket grips, no external extractors. And I certainly don't think they need to be more restrictive, but there are people out there who would still argue that a 1911 slide atop a 2011 STI/SVI frame is still a 1911, just modernized or evolved. I think they couldn't be more wrong. I know we're not among them. We agree more than we disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lppd4 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I am on the fence. I have a beautiful rail gun I would love to shoot in the SS division, but I also have a beautiful pistol or 3 (doesn't evryone own at least 2 1911's if not they should) without rail I will enjoy shooiting in the SS division. Do I think rail guns will offer a compettitive advantage? I don't think they will, talent and skill will rise to the top. I wonder if Rob Leatham could beat me if he was running a pistol without a rail? Yea. Could he beat me with a rail? Yea. could he beat me with a stock reliable Springfield Mil-spec? Yea. As could many other shooters. I believe to many people try to rely on equipment to enhance performance, and I am guilty of the same but equipment does not win the matches, skill does. 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