IPSC: STI TruSight accepted in USPSA Limited Division

Dave Skinner, President and CEO of STI, Inc. (Georgetown, Texas) announced yesterday that the STI TriSight has completed a production run of 500 guns and, upon application, has been accepted by the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) as legal for competition within the United States in Limited Division.

The pistol ( MSRP $1,984.40) is available in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP calibers.

The salient feature of this new model varient of the venerable STI EDGE is that the front sight is mounted on the barrel, not on the slide, providing (according to STI) a faster slide cycling time with its lighter 4-1/2" slide and a faster sight-pickup.

The pistol weighs in at 36.1 ounces, which makes it lighter, STI claims, than " pistols comparable to it in its class."

The STI Edge, which is another (and older design) full-dust-cover pistol, weighs 39.0 ounces and is available (MSRP $1,874.00) in not only the same 9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP calibers but also in .38 super. It was also available in 10mm, because I bought the first 10mm STI Edge in 2000, when it was similarly declared "IPSC Legal" by USPSA. I suspect that the greater weight is provided by the longer dust-cover on the Edge, assuming the overall barrel length (including "Expansion Chamber", on the TruSight) is the same.


The TruSight is controversial in USPSA circles (especially the "Unofficial IPSC List") because the addition to the muzzle is actually an 'expansion chamber', 0.100" larger than the bore. Whether this provides any actual competitive advantage is yet to be seen, because field tests are not yet available.

The controversy is provided free-of-charge by the "expansion chamber", which is the large extrusion on the muzzle-end of the barrel (shown above). Because it is bored out slightly larger than the barrel diameter (and the diameter of the exit port, which is supposedly the same or nearly the same diameter as the barrel), some critics have suggested that it is a "compensator", allowing expansion of exhaust gasses and therefore softening the recoil. The argument is that the "expansion chamber", they claim, provides a distinct and signifigant advantage in that it uses the exhaust gasses to either lessen the perceived recoil, or muzzle-flip; which, or what, is not clear.

Since this is an entirely new innovation, and none of the critics have had the opportunity to actually fire the TruSight, all of the commentary so far available has been limited to supposition and expostulation ... not empirical measurement.

Had either the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) or USPSA bothered to define a 'compensator', there might be some grounds for objection to this design in Limited Class ... which specifically outlaws 'compensators'. Unfortunately for the detractors, the term can only be defined in 'traditional' terms which include the presence of an 'exhaust port'; clearly absent in the current design.

Because the 'expansion chamber' has removed metal from the front of the pistol, the exclusion based upon "added weight" is obviated.

And while the current USPSA rule book forbids "modifications" to the pistol, for various reasons, this is a feature of a production gun (500 guns having been manufactured, and so certified by the manufacturer). This is clearly not a 'modification' but a salient feature of a production gun.

Finally, USPSA has officially approved it, which renders all objections moot.

We don't know whether it SHOULD have been approved (although our evaluation, based purely on the specifications and the published rule book do not contradict the decision of the USPA Board of Directors), and we certainly have not the means or opportunity to objectively determine whether it provides a competitive advantage in Limited Division by virtue of reduced recoil or muzzle-flip. But one thing is clear:

The STI TruSight IS USPSA Legal in Limited Division.

It's a done deal.

If you think you can profit competitively by buying and using an STI TruSight, the door is wide open.

Go for it.

UPDATE: April 20, 2006
Check the comments for extended discussion on the subject of "Competitive Advantage" vs legality of 'the device' in a Limited Division pistol.