Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Carry Optics - 10 round limit abolished from 2/1/17


BritinUSA

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

23 minutes ago, peterthefish said:

 


Not actually a rule.

 

 

six-gun shooter didn't say it was a rule.  It might as well be one, though. Appendix 7, rule 19 (Handgun specific approval for Division) refers to the "Special Conditions" note at the end of the appendix, which says the guns have to be on the Production approval list.  And - lo and behold - there are no single-action-only guns on that list.  Therefore, SAO (incl 1911/2011) is "not legal". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, teros135 said:

 

six-gun shooter didn't say it was a rule.  It might as well be one, though. Appendix 7, rule 19 (Handgun specific approval for Division) refers to the "Special Conditions" note at the end of the appendix, which says the guns have to be on the Production approval list.  And - lo and behold - there are no single-action-only guns on that list.  Therefore, SAO (incl 1911/2011) is "not legal". 

 

It actually says that AND this:

 

Quote

Any pistol that is not on the approved Production list, but meets Carry Optics criteria must submit a Manufacturers Declaration Form to DNROI stating that a minimum of 500 complete handguns have been manufactured and are available to the general public

 

Nothing to prevent DNROI from approving a pistol not on the Production list and the Carry Optics criteria don't say it has to be on the Production list, just that it has to meet the Special Conditions, which include DNROI approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

six-gun shooter didn't say it was a rule.  It might as well be one, though. Appendix 7, rule 19 (Handgun specific approval for Division) refers to the "Special Conditions" note at the end of the appendix, which says the guns have to be on the Production approval list.  And - lo and behold - there are no single-action-only guns on that list.  Therefore, SAO (incl 1911/2011) is "not legal". 

 

 

He said SAO guns are not legal. That means that there is a rule prohibiting SAO guns from production. That is not accurate.

 

As for your second contention: there are in fact SAO guns on the production list. The reason you will not see STIs listed is because the rules require hammer fired guns in production to start with the hammer down. Ain't nobody want to mess with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mreed911 said:

 

It actually says that AND this:

 

 

Nothing to prevent DNROI from approving a pistol not on the Production list and the Carry Optics criteria don't say it has to be on the Production list, just that it has to meet the Special Conditions, which include DNROI approval.

 

Anything is, technically, "possible", but how likely is it?  Right now we have rules on the book, and we can live with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, peterthefish said:

 


He said SAO guns are not legal. That means that there is a rule prohibiting SAO guns from production. That is not accurate.

As for your second contention: there are in fact SAO guns on the production list. The reason you will not see STIs listed is because the rules require hammer fired guns in production to start with the hammer down. Ain't nobody want to mess with that.

 

 

Interesting.  Which SAO guns are on the list?  Are they actually standard, hammer-fired SAO guns?  If so, why isn't STI/1911/2011 on the list? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Anything is, technically, "possible", but how likely is it?  Right now we have rules on the book, and we can live with them. 



The rules on the book allow SAO guns but give hammer fired SAO guns a competitive disadvantage. Not talking about rule changes - this is within the framework of the current rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, peterthefish said:


He said SAO guns are not legal. That means that there is a rule prohibiting SAO guns from production. That is not accurate.
 

 

 

I don't see any STI 1911/2011 guns on the Production list.  Therefore, aren't they "not legal". 

 

Whatever words you use, or however one tries to twist the language into being what they want it to be, you can't shoot a 1911 in Production.  It's not legal (or legitimate, or allowed - whatever words float your boat) to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting.  Which SAO guns are on the list?  Are they actually standard, hammer-fired SAO guns?  If so, why isn't STI/1911/2011 on the list? 



1) Walther PPQ

2) what is a "standard, hammer-fired SAO gun"?

3) because production rules place hammer fired SAO guns at a competitive disadvantage.

 
I don't see any STI 1911/2011 guns on the Production list.  Therefore, aren't they "not legal". 

Whatever words you use, or however one tries to twist the language into being what they want it to be, you can't shoot a 1911 in Production.  It's not legal (or legitimate, or allowed - whatever words float your boat) to do so. 



No one is twisting language here - I'm not sure you actually read the comments that lead to my post. A poster wanted to know if STI could apply to have the HOST approved for production. Six gun shooter said that the HOST could not be legal under production rules because it is single action.

That is what lead to my post - there is no rule prohibiting SAO guns from approval for production.

The question was not "are any STI guns / 1911s / whatever you have in mind production legal today".

Any 1911 manufacturer meeting the volume requirements could request their gun be approved. There is no reason that approval shouldn't be given if it were applied for, and if a 1911 were approved for production, there's no reason shooting one wouldn't be legitimate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, peterthefish said:

 


1) Walther PPQ

 

The PPQ is a striker-fired gun, like Glock & M&P.  I believe that comes under the heading of "double action", according to USPSA.

2) what is a "standard, hammer-fired SAO gun"?

 

Perhaps I should have said "traditional hammer-fired single action only gun, with a traditional hammer-sear firing setup, that is fired only from the hammer-cocked position and can't be fired from the hammer-down position, as exemplified by the 1911 design, and other similar designs", but maybe "traditional SAO" would cover that. 

3) because production rules place hammer fired SAO guns at a competitive disadvantage.

 

I don't understand what that means.  I can't see which rule places "hammer fired SAO guns at a competitive disadvantage".  Do you mean because they would have to be hand-cocked (or the slide cycled) at the start signal.  I don't think that's relevant, because there aren't any SAO guns in Prod, that I can see. 


No one is twisting language here - I'm not sure you actually read the comments that lead to my post. A poster wanted to know if STI could apply to have the HOST approved for production. Six gun shooter said that the HOST could not be legal under production rules because it is single action.

 

Yes, I've been reading this whole thread. 

That is what lead to my post - there is no rule prohibiting SAO guns from approval for production.

The question was not "are any STI guns / 1911s / whatever you have in mind production legal today".

Any 1911 manufacturer meeting the volume requirements could request their gun be approved. There is no reason that approval shouldn't be given if it were applied for, and if a 1911 were approved for production, there's no reason shooting one wouldn't be legitimate.

 

Considering that we have a whole division just for 1911s, I don't think it's likely that 1911s will be approved for Production.  But what the hey, one can dream. 

 

 

Responses above, in bold.  Done, going to work now, to earn money for loading components and additional necessary toys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Responses above, in bold.  Done, going to work now, to earn money for loading components and additional necessary toys. 

 

 

The PPQ being striker fired doesn't make it a double action gun any more than being black makes it a Glock. If USPSA has a rule / ruling somewhere that all striker fired guns are DA, that's news to me.

 

You see, a Walther P99 is a DA/SA gun. And a PPQ is just a P99 with some updated design and the DA parts removed. If was DA/SA and you take away the DA, it's now a SA gun.

 

As for your "traditional hammer-fired single action only gun..." you could just say hammer fired SAO.

 

And if you replace 'hammer' with 'striker' and 'hammer down' with 'striker forward' you've just described a PPQ's action, but not a Glock's.

 

Finally, as I pointed out, there are in fact SA guns on the production approved list.

 

If you don't understand why a firm might not bother to get a 1911 on the list (when no one would bother shooting one due to the hammer down start requirement placing them at a competitive disadvantage) then I can't help you.

 

The problem is some folks seem to assume all striker fired guns work like Glocks. They don't. The PPQ system essentially merges the hammer and firing pin (into a striker) but otherwise functionally behaves like a 1911, not a Glock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the XD is also actually an SAO, following this:

     8.1.5.1  "Single Action" means activation of the trigger causes a single action to occur (i.e. the hammer or striker falls).

 

However, in some cases, SAO is specifically not approved, and therefore not allowed, as in this statement at the end of the Sig Production list:

     No SAO (Single action only) versions are approved.

 

Are there any hammer-fired SAO's that can have the safety applied with the hammer down?  If not, they won't ever be able to survive a DQ per 10.5.11.1:

     10.5.11.1   A single action self-loading pistol with the safety not applied.

 

And even if there are, how do you reconcile the ready condition for single-action:

       8.1.2.1  "Single action" – chamber loaded, hammer cocked, and the safety engaged.

 with the CO Division Special Requirement for start condition?

     - Handguns with external hammers must be fully decocked at the start signal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JAFO said:

Are there any hammer-fired SAO's that can have the safety applied with the hammer down?  If not, they won't ever be able to survive a DQ per 10.5.11.1:

     10.5.11.1   A single action self-loading pistol with the safety not applied.

 

Covered here: https://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-NROI-ruling-details.php?indx=79

Edited by mreed911
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the XD is also actually an SAO, following this:

     8.1.5.1  "Single Action" means activation of the trigger causes a single action to occur (i.e. the hammer or striker falls).

 


Wait, so you mean USPSA doesn't define all striker guns as D/A?



However, in some cases, SAO is specifically not approved, and therefore not allowed, as in this statement at the end of the Sig Production list:

     No SAO (Single action only) versions are approved.



I'm guessing that's because SIG makes both SAO and normal DA/SA versions of the same gun (I.e. p226) so administratively makes it easier.

I'm not saying a hammer fired SAO gun makes sense in production. I'm just waiting for STI to make a striker fired 2011 and own yet another division of USPSA. Looks like Hudson might beat them to the punch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Thursday, February 09, 2017 at 10:22 AM, teros135 said:

 

Responses above, in bold.  Done, going to work now, to earn money for loading components and additional necessary toys. 

Wow,  i assumed you must be retired based on all the time you put into posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2017 at 10:21 AM, OPENB said:

I thought there was a time limit on changing rules, so we don't make gear obsolete so quickly? And, this will kill any other caliber in the division 'cause capacity. 9mm only!

 

This is new rule really puts a limit on what will be competitive. I was all set to have my Glock 35 slide sent to be setup for an optic. This would have been obsolete before I had a chance to use it. 

 

On 1/31/2017 at 5:39 PM, d_striker said:

 

Using that rationale, why not just have Open division and that's it?

 

That's how it was when I started. Not that I want to see it that way again. 

 

I'm disappointed in the rule change. It looks like banned states are left with L10, Prod, and SS for auto divisions. And yet, many want to see L10 done away with. Sure, I know we have the state rule now, but if someone wants to go to a match outside their state (like their section or area match), they'll still want divisions where their legally owned equipment is competitive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bucky said:

 

This is new rule really puts a limit on what will be competitive. I was all set to have my Glock 35 slide sent to be setup for an optic. This would have been obsolete before I had a chance to use it. 

 

 

That's how it was when I started. Not that I want to see it that way again. 

 

I'm disappointed in the rule change. It looks like banned states are left with L10, Prod, and SS for auto divisions. And yet, many want to see L10 done away with. Sure, I know we have the state rule now, but if someone wants to go to a match outside their state (like their section or area match), they'll still want divisions where their legally owned equipment is competitive. 

 

A. There's nothing to prevent retarded-capacity states from shooting CO.  They just have to use retarded-capacity mags.

 

B. Sounds like those folks need to change the vote or move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A. There's nothing to prevent retarded-capacity states from shooting CO.  They just have to use retarded-capacity mags.

 

B. Sounds like those folks need to change the vote or move.


The Californians are moving to your state too. It happened to us here in Colorado, it can happen to you too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2017 at 1:48 PM, mreed911 said:

 

A. There's nothing to prevent retarded-capacity states from shooting CO.  They just have to use retarded-capacity mags.

 

B. Sounds like those folks need to change the vote or move.

 

Having escaped from NJ myself, I understand the move part. Unfortunately, too many are unable. 

 

But if we're so against mag restrictions, why have any? Let people round their 33 rd Magazines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bucky said:

 

Having escaped from NJ myself, I understand the move part. Unfortunately, too many are unable. 

 

But if we're so against mag restrictions, why have any? Let people round their 33 rd Magazines. 

 

1) Nobody is truly unable.  Just different levels of unwilling.

 

2) I think we're arguing the same point.  No restriction means no restriction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...