zhunter Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Ok, Jay! With all this love I can't possibly suggest we ban you...Let's ban Wesselman instead... after all he's the gamer shooting a 40 skinny gun! LMAO OK, no .40's in Skinny, or else they are under suspicion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Yeah! Don't make us go DOH on your a$$! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ysued Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Great green gobs of granulated gopher guts.... I vote we all just get over all of this anal nitpicking BS, say single stack division and get on with our lives.... HMMM!! That was very Eloquent!! Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Nemo, Thank you for your kind words. I note you are aginst the box. Let me explain why the box is a good thing. By using the box we can list those items or features we do not want. Then anything that lies between the broad guidelines would be OK. Let me put it another way. I field a bunch of quesitons about "Can I do this or that to my SS gun?" By using the box I can answer it this way, " If it is not prohibited, and when completed your gun fits in the box and is not over 43 ounces it is OK". It makes the process much simpler. One other thing, I totally agree we should not import rules from one division into another for no reason. Just because is not a reason that should be used very often. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Gary Many of us are really appreciative of your time and efforts you have put into this. One of the great things is that you have been here to answer questions and give explanations, which is NORMALLY not the case. So thanks a lot!! Jay T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) Consider it my good deed for the day Gary Edited February 12, 2007 by Gary Stevens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Nemo,Thank you for your kind words. I note you are aginst the box. Let me explain why the box is a good thing. By using the box we can list those items or features we do not want. Then anything that lies between the broad guidelines would be OK. Let me put it another way. I field a bunch of quesitons about "Can I do this or that to my SS gun?" By using the box I can answer it this way, " If it is not prohibited, and when completed your gun fits in the box and is not over 43 ounces it is OK". It makes the process much simpler. One other thing, I totally agree we should not import rules from one division into another for no reason. Just because is not a reason that should be used very often. Gary You are welcome, Mr. Stevens. But please let me clarify that I'm not against the box rule either for production or SSD. I believe it would make things a lot easier for everybody. What I'm really against is using the IDPA box. We, the USPSA (whether I like it or not) are the body of IPSC in the US. The International organization already has a box rule that has been in place for the longest time and that we have used here when in need to check our pistols for IPSC compliance. Although rudimentary (not too smart, you know?), I did my math on both boxes and the only dimension in which the IPSC box was less forgiving than the IDPA box, the pistol height, it was smaller by only 0.09 inch. Thus, we already have a box, lets use it. Adopting the IDPA box sounds, IMO, like another one of those efforts from us (the USPSA) to accomodate the other games, while NOT enjoying reciprocity. Even if you campaign to keep the IDPA box won't make you lose my vote. There ya' go, I said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 You are absolutely correct that we are part of IPSC. However, this set of rules is for the USPSA rule book, that will be a stand alone document. I tried the IPSC box the first year of the experiment. I found that it was short in the vertical measurement, just like you did. What this caused was a very common base pad on the Wilson magazine (the .625 pad) and maybe others, to have to be trimmed to fit the box. I thought this was not the direction we wanted to go with this. All of the filing and belt sanding was a little too much for me. I wanted a seamless cross over division for the previously stated reasons. So I opted for the next largest box, the IDPA box, that would accomodate the common Wilson basepad without modification. This is still not foolproof as it also depends on the height of the rear sight, but it solved a significant problem. Also IDPA will sell the box for 15 bucks, and that seemed to me to be a reasonable price if someone or a club wanted to buy one. Thanks again, Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Bell Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 By using the box we can list those items or features we do not want. Then anything that lies between the broad guidelines would be OK. I'm neither for or against the box, but I am a bit concerned about it. I fail to understand the point of having to worry about how thick a magazine pad is or how high notch and post sights are. Are these really things we need to carefully regulate? Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Lee, short answer is no. Read post 29 where I tried to explain the usefulness of the box. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) Let's ban Wesselman instead... after all he's the gamer shooting a 40 skinny gun! Oh please oh please do!! Anything has to be better than reading thread after thread on "How that extra 0.025" closer to the perf is gonna get me that G-Card yet!" Them bumpy things on top of the slide are there fer a reason kids. Edited February 13, 2007 by EricW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Meek Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Let's ban Wesselman instead... after all he's the gamer shooting a 40 skinny gun! Them bumpy things on top of the slide are there fer a reason kids. I have only found them bumpy tihngs on the slide useful for removing pieces of flesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Bell Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Ok, Jay! With all this love I can't possibly suggest we ban you... Let's ban Wesselman instead... after all he's the gamer shooting a 40 skinny gun! LMAO OK, no .40's in Skinny, or else they are under suspicion. Hey, no picking on .40 skinny guns. I almost have my new one running and you already want to ban it. Darn. Let's ban Wesselman instead... after all he's the gamer shooting a 40 skinny gun! Them bumpy things on top of the slide are there fer a reason kids. I have only found them bumpy tihngs on the slide useful for removing pieces of flesh You have to admit, though, they're very good at doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 Remember: tongue in cheek Given that the name "Single Stack" apparently means "1911 Single Stack" I propose the following provisional division. Mono Stack Division 1 Minimum power factor for Major 165, real men/women use 180+ 2 Minimum power factor for Minor 125 but were likely to make fun of you for shooting minor. 3 Minimum bullet weight Yes >0gr 4 Minimum bullet caliber / cartridge case length 9mm (0.354”) / 19mm (0.748”) 5 Minimum bullet caliber for Major 10mm (0.40”), but if your a real man you will use .454 diameter bullets 6 Minimum trigger pull (see Appendix F2) No, it's your DQ if you want it 7 Maximum handgun size No, but if it's to small we will taunt you mercilessly, at least until you beat us with that small gun. 8 Maximum magazine length No but it must be a mono stack magazine, and if its longer than your forearm its going to look silly. 9 Maximum ammunition capacity No, load'em up and shoot'em 10 Max. distance of handgun and mags/speed loaders from torso, arms reach, further than that become useless. 11 Rule 5.2.3.1 applies Yes 12 Restriction on position of holster and other equipment No, see 10 13 Optical/electronic sights permitted No, go shoot open 14 Compensators permitted No, again, go shoot open 15 Ports permitted Yes, if the factory put them there. 16 Maximum Weight No, if you lift it you can shoot it Special conditions: 17. 1911/2011 handguns, explicitly prohibited in this division 19 Competition holsters of the race gun type specifically allowed. DOH holster are worth brownie points. 20. External modifications such as weights, or devices to control or reduce recoil are allowed, such as but not limited to, thumb rest, extended slide stops, etc. Remember if it looks silly we're going to make fun of you especially if it don't make you shoot better. 19. Internal modifications to improve accuracy, reliability and function are allowed. E.g. spherical bushings, Acc-U-Rails, replacement barrels. Its your gun you can muck up the inside all you want. Dremels are especially good for that. Yeah I'm going to burn for this mcb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardschennberg Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 The concept of the 1911 Society was very simple. The model was the International Race of Champions, where every race team gets the same production automobile and is NOT allowed to make ANY modifications (except a couple required SAFETY enhancements). The Single Stack Classic was supposed to be the one national practical shooting competition where every shooter used just about the same gun, as well as similar holsters and mag pouches. Gary's drafting of the PSSD accomplishes this purpose and allows the Single Stack Classic and similar 1911 single-stack competitions to be part of USPSA. Please understand the concept before trying to reinvent the wheel. PSSD is supposed to be the one Division where every shooter shoots basically the same gun. Single-stack 1911s are the obvious choice because it is very popular and mass produced by most major gun manufacturers including our best match sponsors. I do understand where the club-level matches would be better served by allowing other single-stack models, or even allowing fat guns to download to 8 rounds major or 10 rounds minor. Even if USPSA ends up going that route, we need to have a sub-Division or Category that has restrictions like the PSSD so that the Single Stack Classic and similar matches can continue as part of USPSA. IMO we have to think about growth and sponsorship as we finalize the 2008 rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 The concept of the 1911 Society was very simple. The model was the International Race of Champions, where every race team gets the same production automobile and is NOT allowed to make ANY modifications (except a couple required SAFETY enhancements). The Single Stack Classic was supposed to be the one national practical shooting competition where every shooter used just about the same gun, as well as similar holsters and mag pouches.Gary's drafting of the PSSD accomplishes this purpose and allows the Single Stack Classic and similar 1911 single-stack competitions to be part of USPSA. Please understand the concept before trying to reinvent the wheel. PSSD is supposed to be the one Division where every shooter shoots basically the same gun. Single-stack 1911s are the obvious choice because it is very popular and mass produced by most major gun manufacturers including our best match sponsors. I do understand where the club-level matches would be better served by allowing other single-stack models, or even allowing fat guns to download to 8 rounds major or 10 rounds minor. Even if USPSA ends up going that route, we need to have a sub-Division or Category that has restrictions like the PSSD so that the Single Stack Classic and similar matches can continue as part of USPSA. IMO we have to think about growth and sponsorship as we finalize the 2008 rule book. GREAT POST!!! Kind of like an IROC race!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricBudd Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 While some harp about the relationship between the SSC and USPSA in this division it is beneficial to both of us. The SSC is again hosting the USPSA Single Stack Nationals. They have enlarged the match, and have once again filled up quickly. Each of these shooters have to be members of USPSA. Last year we gained about 40 new members because of this single fact. In addition the match must pay activity fees to USPSA at 5 dollars a shooter. USPSA gets good press out of the match. The match cost USPSA no money, and they use our rules. It is a win-win situation for USPSA.To open the division up to all guns would kill that relationship. So I am back to the original question. Do we gain more than we lose? Gary So 40 new members and a few grand in activity fees is all it takes to get a new division created? If that is the case, may I humbly submit Open Revolver for consideration by the BoD. There have to be more than 40 ICORE shooters who would join USPSA if they could play with their fancy round guns and not be at a disadvantage. Maybe just go with Open 10 instead to accomidate open revolvers and to facilitate growth of the Open division is capacity limited states. I just don't see the reason of a whole new division to accomidate a single match and a sigle pistol design - especially since those guns were perfectly competitive in L10. I know some will argue about tradition is the roots of the sport..... but times change. Maybe we should have a Weave-Stance only division or a dead animal holster division? Just my .02. I'm tired of the organization tring to cater to a few special interests while at the same time wanting to eliminate a popular divison (whihc they don't shoot) on the arguement that we have too many divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glefos Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 Would it be wrong to have two Production divisions? Production - double action (current Prod div) Production - single action (similar to current SS) Seems like this would be good for the sport. Make for easy entry to the sport no matter what large auto someone has collecting dust in the nightstand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 The original mission statement for PSSD is still posted on the USPSA webpage. I don't remember writing anything about catering to anyone. Just to make it clear, I have not tried to eliminate any division. I have fought hard to keep what we have. And yes I do shoot L-10. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Bell Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 So 40 new members and a few grand in activity fees is all it takes to get a new division created? If that is the case, may I humbly submit Open Revolver for consideration by the BoD. There have to be more than 40 ICORE shooters who would join USPSA if they could play with their fancy round guns and not be at a disadvantage. Neither did we, but us single stack shooters opened it to the new fangled, high capacity, double action/single action guns anyway and look where it got us. If there are enough revolver shooters to make up decent matches, why not. Neither more shooters, nor more divisions, are a significant burden on anyone. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo radley Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 If there are enough revolver shooters to make up decent matches, why not. Neither more shooters, nor more divisions, are a significant burden on anyone.Lee IMO, I gently disagree. Create a niche, and you'll grow lichens - tough, and stubborn, but not necessarily the healthy crop you're looking for (to finish the bad analogy). Simple is good and simple is streamlined; not 11 different Divisions, with 1.8 shooters in each, with a myriad of equipment rules. As an example, I remember a local match last month that attracts a lot of military shooters (R14), many of whom are new to the sport. At the briefing, the MD started getting into the "if you have ABC you need to shoot in XYZ", and it would have confused the hell out of me, had I just started: granted two especially murky areas being Limited minor issues, and Single Stack and the provisional status as it relates to Classifiers.... Wth SS now, I wish they'd just go ahead and remove the "provisional" designation -- if it dies after another two years, it would piss off a very vocal minority, and why bother? But it's not too late *not* to create any new Divisions, unless there truly is a significant number of potential new members that would find a home with a brand-new Division. Otherwise, you eat your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sestock Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I am sitting at my computer compiling final mission count for the WPA section to assign nationals slots. In WPA PSSD beat revolver 109 to 99(up 12 from 2005) for 2006. Our overall mission count grew by almost 600 for 2006. So as a Section Coordinator I think that the PSSD is good for bringing new shooters into the sport and should be granted full division status ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Here is the mission count (participation) for the Ohio Section: 2,469.75 - (~1 of every 3 shooters) Production 1,881.50 - (~1 of every 4 shooters) Limited 1,411.75 - (~1 of every 5 shooters) Limited-10 _959.00 - (~1 of every 8 shooters) Open _340.00 - (~1 of every 21 shooters) Revolver _291.50 - (~1 of every 25 shooters) pSingle Stack Of the (P)SS shooters in Ohio, one club had 70% of them. (That is 30% for the rest of the clubs...combined.) So, for the Ohio Section, SS is popular at one club...and relatively dead at the others. The numbers also show that Limited-10 is very popular here in Ohio. And, with Production leading all the divisions...by far...that sends up a huge "Please don't dick around with it much" flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 ...that sends up a huge "Please don't dick around with it much" flag. That's my vote. I'm still looking for that selection on the polls at USPSA.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb Posted March 2, 2007 Author Share Posted March 2, 2007 (edited) Here is the mission count (participation) for the Ohio Section:2,469.75 - (~1 of every 3 shooters) Production 1,881.50 - (~1 of every 4 shooters) Limited 1,411.75 - (~1 of every 5 shooters) Limited-10 _959.00 - (~1 of every 8 shooters) Open _340.00 - (~1 of every 21 shooters) Revolver _291.50 - (~1 of every 25 shooters) pSingle Stack Of the (P)SS shooters in Ohio, one club had 70% of them. (That is 30% for the rest of the clubs...combined.) So, for the Ohio Section, SS is popular at one club...and relatively dead at the others. The numbers also show that Limited-10 is very popular here in Ohio. And, with Production leading all the divisions...by far...that sends up a huge "Please don't dick around with it much" flag. That club wouldn't be Crooked Creek would it Flexmoney? mcb Edited March 2, 2007 by mcb 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