Single Stack Division Legal?

[ima45dv8]

For the moderators, I have no antagonism in my comments.

Clearly.

[SA Friday]

I'm saying there is interpetation in all rules. There is interpetation in modifications and innovation. Viewing the differences as this is a modification and that is an innovation is just a different can of worms and won't answer the questions any better.

Taking a common sense approach on what is allowed when it comes to slide modifications to stay within the spirit of the rules is the answer.

[kgunz11]

Common sense didn't work in Production Division, so it had to be spelled out. I think it is better because of that. Maybe SS Division will also grow positively from this.

[G-ManBart]

I'm starting to think that the definition of slide lightening is going to wind up much like the definition of pornography. The famous Supreme Court Justice Stewart quote: "I can't define pornography, but when I see it I can recognize it."

[ima45dv8]

I'm starting to think that the definition of slide lightening is going to wind up much like the definition of pornography. The famous Supreme Court Justice Stewart quote: "I can't define pornography, but when I see it I can recognize it."

And that's precisely why I made my generous offer to act as arbitrator for these instances.

It's a living Hell not to be appreciated for trying to better a bad situation.

[Merlin Orr]

Since we are reviewing rules even as we speak, for those of you who want to refer to the can of worms, perhaps you could proffer a rule that doesn't include worms. Remember it has to be clear, clean, and leave no ambiguity for those of us who find shades of gray in everything they look at. Additionally it has to be easy to administer, from the club level to the nationals. and does no harm to the original intent of the division.

I eagerly await your submissions.

Mr. Stevens..Your above statement can and should preface every rule discussion (about anything) that is ever posted from this day forward....

For Single Stack - Same as we have now will work for me. To borrow Flex's verbiage "retro/traditional/nostalgic (1911) division".

Want to "clear up" the slide thing....? What kguns11 said above will also work for me.

[G-ManBart]

There is another idea...well, sorta. If you think your gun may be, might be, could be borderline, send some pics and get an opinion. Print out the reply and stash it in your bag in case a MD questions it. It may not force them to change their mind if they decide it's not within the rules, but I think you could probably prevent that decision just by showing them the note. R,

[bofe954]

I think the production rules go a little too far. I have a little grip tape in front of my slide stop, it helps me keep my thumb off the slide. Without it sometimes I slow my slide down and induce malfs.

In production that would put me in open.

I am not sure I understand the traditionalist aspect of SS, or maybe I am just not sure what tradition is embraced.

Isn't practical shooting what changed single stacks from GI guns to what they are now? I don't recall seeing bomars, fiber optics, beavertails, ambi safeties, high cut trigger guards, magwells, skeletonized triggers, hammers or 8 round mags with base pads on any GI guns. Not to mention 2 lb triggers and all of the internal work.

If I had to propose a rule I'd say no holes in the slide, that's it.

Because:

1. I don't think we are going to take guns apart and weigh slides at chrono.

2. If a tri top slide with the slide serrations milled flat is legal, how much lighter can you really get without cutting a hole? I am sure there is weight to be lost but I don't believe it would be enough to alter the outcome of a match.

3. Somebody is going to hollowing out slides internally and we'll be competing against him anyway.

4. I don't like rules about intent, no one should be able to look at something and judge whether it was done for appearance or function (lightening). If we do that you might as well just give the person a FTDR The hole is argument proof, it's there or it isn't.

That's my opinion....

[Gary Stevens]

Just to demonstrate how hard this actually is, the suggestion of no holes in the slide is a really good one. I thought of it, discussed it and quickly discovered that a talented person with a mill can cut the living heck out of a slide and never produce a hole. Reference the famous picture number 1 Bobby produced for us earlier.

So when someone shows up with a slide that is full of holes, except they have the smallest amount of metal still in the bottom of the hole that prevents it from going all the way through, is that OK?

[bbbean]

Just to demonstrate how hard this actually is, the suggestion of no holes in the slide is a really good one. I thought of it, discussed it and quickly discovered that a talented person with a mill can cut the living heck out of a slide and never produce a hole. Reference the famous picture number 1 Bobby produced for us earlier.

So when someone shows up with a slide that is full of holes, except they have the smallest amount of metal still in the bottom of the hole that prevents it from going all the way through, is that OK?

Thin metal isn't a hole. If the rule is no holes, then "almost a hole" is legal because "almost" does not equal "is".

It seems to me that since we've allowed trigger work, FO and adjustable sights, various materials for frames, slides, and grips, calibers other than .45, etc., that the heart of SS is 1911 pattern gun, 8/10 round single stack mag, and carry type holsters and mag carriers. As long as we adhere to these principles, I don't see the problem if someone decides to get creative with cocking serrations and coincidentally removes a few grams of slide.

Out of curiosity, would a full profile slide made out of a lighter metal or alloy raise objections?

[bofe954]

I think the question we need to ask is this-

1. Do we want to stop people from making slides light because we think it is a competitive advantage?

or

2. Do we want pistols to adhere to some appearance standard (out of some sense of tradition, or to make it appear that were not shooting "race guns" to beginners)?

Or both

If #1 is the answer you have to weigh slides, period. A creative person will find a way to make the slide weigh what they want and conform to any appearance rule.

If #2 is the answer, to me the no holes works. Yeah, some people will have guns that are pretty radical. So what. Almost all of us have guns that are pretty radical vs. a GI gun and the slide is really a small part of it. If I page through the SS pic threads, most of them are purpose built race guns (IMO).

[kgunz11]

Can we not call Single Stack guns "race guns". IMO, it's a derogatory term when used to describe the Single Stack. When I think "race gun", I think high capacity compensated gun with optics. I like the thought of referring to them as "competition ready purpose built guns".

[Gary Stevens]

My purpose of the "almost a hole" thread was to show how a rule can be bent yet not broken. The "almost a hole" serves the same purpose as the complete hole (to remove metal), but because a sliver of metal is left at the bottom it becomes "technically legal". If your desire is to have no holes or slots, the desire is defeated, for all intent, by the ingenuity of the mill operator.

I don't view race gun as a bad thing. Heck, I love them. However, that was not the vision I had of the division, and for at least the next two years, I will defend that vision.

[bbbean]

My purpose of the "almost a hole" thread was to show how a rule can be bent yet not broken. The "almost a hole" serves the same purpose as the complete hole (to remove metal), but because a sliver of metal is left at the bottom it becomes "technically legal". If your desire is to have no holes or slots, the desire is defeated, for all intent, by the ingenuity of the mill operator.

I don't view race gun as a bad thing. Heck, I love them. However, that was not the vision I had of the division, and for at least the next two years, I will defend that vision.

If the intent is to have a particular profile, then I think you're better off to specify a particular profile than to try to exclude things that might not fit. I'm not sure where engraving a deep logo ends and milling a hole begins.

[rvb]

what about effectively setting a minimum width of the slide at any given point? perhaps even from the center line so people can't get away w/ un-symetrical cuts?

If you make that limit 1/16" (example) per side narrower than GI, then it really limits how much material can be taken off but still allows for serrations, logos, hi-power cuts, etc...

edit: basically allow any cuts up to a certain depth.

then also allow flat-top and tri-top not deeper than 0.xx"

just a thought....

-rvb

Edited November 11, 2009 by rvb

[kgunz11]

You guys are way over complicating this. No holes = no holes. Engraving and a hole are totally different. Match officials cannot measure the engraving on every SS gun, would take too much time, nor could they measure the width and height of them either.

Specifically Allowed Modifications

- Machining is allowed in the slide for:

1. Installation of iron sights front and rear.

2. Cocking serrations only in the traditional areas front and rear of the slide.

3. Stippling or texturing on the trigger guard, front strap, and back strap.

4. Top of the slide to tri-top or flat top. This is not an area for any fancy milling or machining.

NOT Allowed Modifications Include:

- Lightening of the slide to include holes or slots or any removal of material except in those area designated as traditional cocking serrations. (see diagram)

- Thumb rests and the other typical blah blah blah

The diagram should have an illustration of a 1911 that shows a measurement on how far forward and rearward cocking serrations can be milled.

[bofe954]

The above would seem pretty reasonable to me. My only question would be-

Can I tri top and have some kind of serration on the top (like a lot of the canyon creek stuff)?

You'd also have to live with super deep cuts in the desigated serration areas, or you'd have to define what a serration is.

[kgunz11]

Who cares if they put a super deep cut in the serration area? As long as it does not go through the slide it should be fine. There's only so much you can cut out of there anyway.

4. Top of the slide to tri-top or flat top. This is not an area for any fancy milling or machining.

[North]

Who cares if they put a super deep cut in the serration area? As long as it does not go through the slide it should be fine. There's only so much you can cut out of there anyway.

4. Top of the slide to tri-top or flat top. This is not an area for any fancy milling or machining.

So would the "fancy milling or machining" from rule 4 eliminate the guns you posted in your first two post of this thread?

[kgunz11]

Hmmm... I think what Rich has done in the first 2 photos (I think he calls it "snake belly") is equivalent to flat topping, but it would prove to be quite difficult to draw a line in the sand. I'm just trying to help offer some ideas that might could be used in the future to delineate what might be approved and what might not be so kosher. Either way I'd like to comply with Division rules, and that was the purpose behind starting this thread.

[mpolans]

How about this. Assume a complete unmodified Colt Officers Model topend (slide with internal parts, barrel, guide rod, spring, bushing, etc) weighs X ounces.

The rule could read: No firearm used in single stack shall have a top end consisting of slide and internal parts, guide rod, etc, etc... weighing less than X ounces. Furthermore, other than to fit sights, no firearm used may have any surface of a slide milled to a depth greater than 0.100 (maybe 0.150?) inches from it's original dimension or in such a manner that a hole is made completely through a surface of the slide; however, the top rounded profile of the slide may be altered by milling up to three flats along the length of the slide to a depth not to exceed 0.XXX inches from the original dimension.

Someone point out if I'm wrong, but I think this would remove the subjectivity, mostly preserve the external appearance of the slide, and allow for some personalization. The only people who would be severely limited in "personalizing" their slides would be those using Officer-length, and to a lesser extent, Commander-lenth, slides.

Edited November 12, 2009 by mpolans

[bofe954]

I think what Rich has done in the first 2 photos (I think he calls it "snake belly") is equivalent to flat topping, but it would prove to be quite difficult to draw a line in the sand.

That's not the same answer you gave me a few posts up.

Maybe "no holes" and limiting the serration area is about all you can do without making someone have to make a judgement, weigh something, or break out a caliper, which isn't going to happen.

[boz1911]

I just gotta wonder how often has all this come up at a match? I understand the need for some clarity in the rule book even though I'm good with "spirit". If I see someone at a match with a hacked up SS it won't change the way I shoot, nor will I worry about the competitive advantage they have. Besides no one is ever gonna win the SS Nationals as long as TGO is still living.

[Flexmoney]

If I see someone at a match with a hacked up SS it won't change the way I shoot, nor will I worry about the competitive advantage they have.

So, you'd be OK with "anything that fits in the box"?

Which is a departure, I believe(?), from the original "intent". ?

[TISCHLJ]

The guns depicted look good to me. . .

I like to have freedom to work within the rules to customize a gun that feels like I want it to and be a personalized gun at the same time.

If either of the guns were shooting against mine, I wouldn't complain of an unfair advantage. . . .

The SS rules seem pretty well crafted at this time, and allow for the venerable 1911 to be "customized" - just like a 1911 should be

Anyway, I like to see what imagination does with a working 1911, and I'd hate to see the SS rules get botched up with a bunch of additional restrictions.

Imagination and customization ideas are part of what makes this so fun.