Chuck Anderson

That would be a great idea except the BOD can't decide what the intent should be. And NROI, and John Amidon had nothing to do with creating Production so why would they be the keeper of the secret special knowledge that the BOD doesn't know? Production never started with an "intent". That is why things are goofy now and no one can decide how to fix them. As far as the rules suggested, I'll pass on them. The any caliber that makes PF just doesn't do it for me. I'll stick with the 9mm minimum. Also, what would be the 5" bbl gun for ammo testing. Does the match have to keep that five inch bbl gun on hand? what if the shooter wants to shoot a .32 H&R Mag revolver with a 6" bbl? Will that make PF? I think minor changes should be allowed. Allowing sight changes, guide rods, grip tape and some trigger work takes that cheaper, more accessible gun and puts it on a competetive level with those $1600.00 super Sigs and any other fancy gun that wants to compete.

Olhasso moved away from the Beretta this year and was shooting a 5" XD .40.

If S&W wanted to offer it as a replacement I'm sure it would be allowed, just like the Sig custom shop grips. I would also imagine that another company, like APS could purchase some inserts and make "aftermarket grips" They would be the same external dimensions. They would probably even pass muster in IPSC.

I thought they were doing the West Coast Dual Championship there that weekend. Did they combine them?

You might want to consider how much money IPSC actually gets from USPSA. It ain't much and they could easily survive without the pittance they get from us. If I'm wrong, a strong possibility, someone please correct it. But I believe that the regions pay based on the number of members they have. But it's capped at something like 2K members. We're only paying on that number, so actually per capita we pay the least of any region.

As of last week I heard that the specific splits hadn't been decided, i.e., Lim/Prod/Rev or Open/L-10 or what combination. I'm hoping that USSA gets a pistol nats as well as the Multi-Gun.

Edited because Bruce beat me to it. Any idea if the reduction of matches held under IPSC rules (waiver or not) will have an effect on the number of slots the US receives for the World Shoot?

With all respect to Vince, I don't think the deal was for us to hold Area and Sectional matches. My understanding was that USPSA would hold a few IPSC matches. For 2007 I'm guessing those with be the World Shoot Team Qualifier matches. They're voting on it this weekend, but my money is on at least one being held following one of the National matches. Similar stages, similar RO's.

The Blackhawk CQC and Serpa holsters for the G21 fit. They're even listed for the M&P in the new catalog.

I believe that Missoula, MT was putting in a bid for the other Nationals. They hosted the 2005 Area 1 Championship. Probably the prettiest range I've ever been to. It's a little harder to get to than, well everywhere, but it is a great range and they did a great job with the Area 1. Should be a good match if they get it. I'll definitely be going to Tulsa for the others though.

Real men don't prance... Okay, how bout the dudes with the really skimpy shorts? Oh wait, Paul was there

Smith has a picture of the new M&P9 Compact in the latest issue of American Rifleman. Looks like another winner for a carry gun. It's even got a little rail on the front for lights.

I'll be going to Bali. I've never been to that part of the world and I would like to. As far as them holding the match somewhere else. I don't think anyone else submitted a bid at the WS in Ecuador. I don't see IPSC changing their decision on the match location. It would be especially hard on the local folks who've probably already started making plans etc. for the match. My guess is it will be in 18-21 months. I'm not even sure if that's enough time to move the match. I think we're just gonna have to live (hopefully) with it.

Don't worry grandpa Dave, we still like you! LOL, your too funny Cam! Wish you would have been there to shoot with us. I was referring to the guy that came in 1st in the class I shot in. The guy is shooting 73% in Limited and almost 75% in Limited-10 but yet shoots "C" in Open, and you can see by his classifiers he messed up his Open classifiers on purpose, what a joke! How unfair to the shooters who worked their a##es off to be at Nationals I wouldn't guarantee that. I do fairly well in Production and Limited but absolutely suck with an Open gun. I think it might be a little premature to label a guy a sandbagger because he won his class at Nationals.

Just because you live in the Serial Killer Capital of the USA? Odd you should mention that. I'm not remotely joking when I say that I regularly drive past property with "Trespassers Will Be Shot" signs. And no shit, they mean it. Some goofy ass local shot a pilot just for landing his plane at a perfectly legitimate airfield. And got let go scot free! I won't even go into the sh*t that I've seen and experienced first hand. Arabs with bombs...hell that's kid stuff compared to a normal day here in Deliveranceville. Umm...dude, move. C'mon down to Oregon. We don't have any crime.

Requirement or not, I would imagine that the RD's of IPSC would like to see what the range could do with an IPSC match or a larger regional or National match. I'm looking forward to seeing what's gonna happen next year at USSA. I'm sure they'll be able to fulfill any requirements that IPSC would have to hold a World Shoot there.

From the range plan the 300 yd rifle range will go in behind the big bays(10-20) running the length of them. Not sure where the 600 will be. There's going to be a couple of 100 yd ranges and then the area where they were building while we were there. I'm sure that any match that USSA puts on will be top notch and extremely well run. I'll be there for sure next year and probably at least a couple times. Tom and crew put on a truly world class match. Of course with any match there are always some minor issues. The steel and some of the officiating that was related to the steel were the big ones that I noticed. I have absolutely no doubt that this will not be an issue for next year. When I talked to Tom about it he got this evil little glint in his eye. I'm willing to bet that the extremely minor bugs are worked out and we'll see the best Nationals yet next year.

That's some neat info but doesn't resemble what Rob is using at this match at all. I've been with him the whole match and it's a 9mm 5" XD with fixed sights (look like Dawson) I'm betting it's probably a light trigger but I didn't fondle it at all. From the outside it looked pretty much stock.

Got the response from Vince. In a nutshell, they do want manufacturers to make better guns, but not competition oriented better guns. Per Vince it seems they're looking for practical usable (for other than competition) and not wanting to have one gun that "THE" gun for the sport. Not sure I agree but that's what he said.

Went through this at the Oregon Single Stack this year. If you can see it you can shoot it, unless it's a level one match. Level one they "can" specify although they're really not supposed to.

I think everyone's okay on 14. 16 is the ugly one 40 ish yd poppers backed by no shoots.

I just read the other side of the story, or at least some of it on the Global Village (Sorry Jim). Still left a lot of issues left open. There definitely seem to be some missing emails, or at least one. But it still doesn't explain the lengthy time frame that the decision took. The thread is closed over there. It got very heated, slanderous and was very unproductive. IPSC seems to be using the "built for Production" criteria as the main reason for disallowing the TSC. I'm waiting on an answer from Vince regarding this issue ( I only PM'd him two minutes ago, I haven't been waiting 7 months). I think it might be wise to use this thread to try and come up with some useful ideas about how to work with IPSC/USPSA and manufacturers rather than deciding just how thick of a spit we need to roast Vince over the fire.

The trap of rules that really don't make any sense. I was listening to a shooter the other day tell me about his plan for really high cap XD mags. OEM Springfield tube, Mec Gar guts and a special follower. Said he could cram a bunch in. I brought up that with IPSC you have to use OEM parts in a OEM mags but aftermarket you can do what you want (within limits) His solution was to mark the whole mag as an aftermarket item. Have it invoiced by a company as an aftermarket tube with aftermarket parts and well, that's what it is. Going further, IPSC has no idea what the heck they're doing with Production. Ask Vince how often he's had to say No in the last 5 years. The rules lack clarity and the ones they do have don't make a lot of sense in some regards. (Not that we are perfect in the US and we've certainly had a lot of the same issues but I don't think tossing out our goofy set of rules and switching to their goofy set of rules makes a lot of sense.) The Tanfoglio situation is a prime example. Sponsor or not, they make a lot of guns of use to us in this sport. They asked repeatedly for clarification of certain questions. Questions that were specifically worded. Not, "What can we do to be legal" But, "Will we be legal if we do X" Instead of receiving an answer in a timely fashion they got the run around. I understand that the Production Committee is volunteer, but come on, we live in the digital age. How long does it take to email back and forth and answer these poor folks. Another thing. Isn't IPSC doing a lot to avoid an appearance of Military or LE? No heads, no realistic scenarios, no camo. Not that this is a bad thing but why have a requirement for a Division be that the gun is good for this stuff. That doesn't make sense. What's even dumber is saying that the Tanfoglio can't play but allowing the Sphinx, which has been there for years. (Please don't get rid of the Sphinx) The Sphinx for those who aren't familiar is a little bit more expensive than the Tanfoglio, say 2-3K in the US compared to 6-800 for the Tanfoglio. And another thing, how about the Sig X-5. Roger Sherman is apparently shooting one here at Nats. How is that not purpose built for competition? My bottom line. There is nothing about Tanfoglio's Custom Stock II, Stock II or whatever the heck they want to call the model without the magwell that goes against any kind of "Principle" or whatever IPSC wants to call it. There's no reason the thing shouldn't be allowed.

Daniel, just because they didn't listen to you, doesn't mean they weren't listening to the shooters. There were many shooters that wanted the one year rule to remain in effect. Including several on this forum. The idea is to prohibit sponsored shooters from using the fancy guns the factory shooters have access to but no one else does, i.e. the CZ85 Combat II at the last World Shoot, or some other one off guns that only certain people can get. I think the BOD looked at the M&P and, to a lesser extent, the XD 45 and realized that there were probably 10K plus on the market in the first six months and that they were cheap, and available and met everyone's criteria for being a great production gun. (Okay, some people still think both of them are single action but lets avoid that little argument for now) I still think there should be a time delay from the manufacturer putting it on the market till it is legal. That would probably have avoided some of the arguments with the Tanfoglio Custom Stock. But maybe a sliding scale could be used, something like 1 yr and 500 units, 6 months and 2000 units and 3 months and 5000 units.

It was a 20 round stage with an empty gun start. If you push it, you can save a load and shoot 8 rds paper and 2 rds steel from each side. It was a pretty even split on our squad, some guys tried, a couple connected, and some just threw in the extra load. But like was said earlier, pretty easy to tell when some one throws a miss on a 20 rd stage and still only does one reload??? Darrion's cool about it though. He's making full use of those high cap SP-01 mags.