Single-Stack STI Trojan 6.0
I seem to have become enamored of photos lately. Well, perhaps that's not such a bad thing.
Today, on the Unofficial IPSC List (See below) "Sam" suggested that the Limited 10 division might be replaced by the Single-Stack Division:
................I would still like to see L-10 abolished as a separate division!!I don't know what "SSC" is, but I presume it has to do with "Single Stack Competition".
It should be replaced with a Single Stack division (with the rules for the
SSC adopted as is).
By shooting with standard capacity magazines we demonstrate the fallacy of
the gun banners ideas.
I'm pretty sure it isn't the "Singapore Sports Web", so I assume it has to do with this.
As much as I do admire the Single Stack Society, I'm not convinced that their restrictions on equipment fit with the USPSA's more 'inclusive' definitions of Divisons. (I'm feeling very uncomfortable right now ... this is "diversity" and Liberal ACLU-type definitions, and I don't know whether a I'm Left or Right-wing nut in this regard!)
First, they only allow the 5" model of pistol. So much for this beautiful long-slide pistol!
Second, the magazine capacity is dependent on the caliber (cartridge diameter):
|* Maximum magazine capacity allowed:|
|8 Rounds - 45ACP, 40 S&W, 10mm (Major Scoring)|
|9 Rounds - 40 S&W, 10mm (Minor Scoring)|
|10 Rounds - 38 Super, 9mm, 9X23 (Minor Scoring Only)|
|* Standard Factory Length Magazines Only. No Extended Magazines Allowed. Magazine Base Pads may be fitted to Standard Length Magazines.|
... so if you load 9 rounds of .40/10mm, you are scored Minor? Oh wait ... it doesn't matter how many rounds you actually load in the magazine, the only criteria is how many rounds you CAN load in one or more magazines.
... and "Standard Factory Length Magazines" isn't defined. Let me see now; Chip McCormick makes 10-round magazines for the .45acp, and I presume he has a "factory". So if you use a Chip McCormick 10-round magazine, and only load 8 rounds in your .45acp, what are you?
Okay, I'm being a Dork here. My point is that if you take a quasi-legal position, you end up looking like a barracks-room lawyer and you're into USPSA interpretations as quickly as you can say "John's your uncle."
So let's leave the "Single Stack division (with the rules for the SSC adopted as is)" part alone for the moment, because it's almost impossible to reconcile if you assume an aggressive interpretation of the cited rules.
My point is that I'm not entirely adverse to the idea that Limited 10 might evolve into a "Single-Stack- only" division. There is a down-side to this, and it's mainly that there's not a nickle's worth of difference between single-stack and double-stack, except for the possibility that it's faster to reload a double-stack magazine (jnot an incosiderable factor in a competitive situation!) It's just that there's no acknowledged "problem" with the USPSA Limited 10 Division which can be "fixed" by making it single-stack only.
Give me a reason why we should change the L-10 division definition, and I'll be all over it like stink on feces. Until that point ... no. I don't see it.
And don't rely on the tired argument:
"By shooting with standard capacity magazines we demonstrate the fallacy of the gun banners ideas."
I don't accept that this is a significant issue, because until we see someone attack our sport with this tired bromide, it ain't a happening thing. At this point, it's just an argument looking for an issue.