ciscoip

Another good one might be a comparison test of various concealable handguns used by different military and federal agencies including the Sig 228/229, Glock 19, Glock 26, Beretta 92, etc.

How about something on good pistol and rifle caliber compact machineguns (MP5s, HK416s, etc.) that can be concealed in an import SUV or compact car? In addition, how about an article on different techniques to concealing such weapons (preferably cheaply and with little/no modification to the vehicle) and how to deploy them rapidly when needed?

Of course, don't forget that Cali requires those shipping to a FFL in Cali to register with the CA DOJ.

Interesting to see the difference in comments on a more USPSA-oriented board here at benos.com versus the more IDPA-oriented board at glocktalk.com .

I describe it as an obstacle course with targets in it, where the competitors shoot as fast and as accurately as possible. Points divided by time gives you your score, which is compared to all other competitors.

try searching for MandP .

Assuming you have enough of them, why not just shoot what you practice with?

Your STI Trojan does not have a ramped/fully supported barrel. Your limited gun does...the ramp is a part of the barrel as opposed to part of the frame. Frankly, in a low pressure cartridge like .45acp, I don't think having a non-ramped barrel is a big deal.

In the U.S., I think Open is probably at the end of the line, as far as innovation goes, and the STI with a C-More, 4-5 chamber comp, big stick, in 9x19 major is pretty much it. Yeah, a couple people might shoot Caspians, but I expect they'll eventually go the way of the Para Ordnance pretty soon . . . especially if we have another AWB and they don't have any mags or even replacement components for sale. Para Ordnances tend to be too fragile around the dust cover, don't have the tolerances that the S_Is do, and IIRC, aren't available as frame kits anymore. Tanfoglios might be players in the rest of the world, but as long as we're stuck with EAA as the exclusive importer, they're never going to amount to much here.

Alan, the language you propose sounds good, but I have my doubts about it solving the liability issue unless the same language is added to every division. Instead, I think the language that would solve the issue is to remove any specific mention of a type of safety, whether it is a magazine disconnect or a firing pin block and instead say something like, "Due to the wide variations in types of firearms, in all divisions, competitors are solely responsible for ensuring their firearms are safe to use in competition. USPSA encourages competitors to consult an experienced gunsmith if a competitor has any doubt as to the safe working order of their firearm."

I disagree . . . that's only part of what the dust up is about. Part of it is also about USPSA, rather than remaining silent on the issue, expressly stating a requirement of all safeties working in one division and its failure to do so in other divisions, possibly opening USPSA up to a claim of gross negligence if someone shooting in a division other than Production with a disabled safety injures himself or others. For the board members on here, when USPSA consulted lawyers regarding this issue, what did they have to say? Or is USPSA choosing not to consult a lawyer and instead waiting until a lawsuit happens?

Since the issue of USPSA's possible liability in a civil suit has been raised, I think it's probably less relevant what USPSA/NROI think is a safety, and more relevant what a jury of laypersons listening to hired expert witnesses might believe is a safety.

Nothing in the rules currently allows for the disabling of safeties in any division..... Actually, the proposed Production Rules do allow for the disabling of a magazine disconnect safety...and yes, I called it safety. How many firearms manuals and sales brochures describe it as a safety feature? How hard would it be for a plaintiff's attorney to find an expert witness (maybe even from a manufacturer like S&W) who would call it a safety? I'm afraid a plaintiff's attorney might have a field day pointing out that, by explicitly specifying in their Production Rules that all safeties must work, USPSA recognized the danger in allowing competitors to compete with firearms with non-functioning safeties. By not including the same language in their rules for Open/Limited/L10/Singlestack, USPSA either knew or should have known of the danger, but allowed competitors to continue competing with non-functioning safeties in divisions other than Production. Heck, this might even constitute "gross negligence" (as opposed to "ordinary negligence"), which will often trump liability waivers and releases commonly signed by competitors at a sporting event. If this is about potential liability for USPSA, I really think any language relating to specifically either requiring a safety or allowing the removal/disabling of a safety should be removed. IF USPSA insists on including language specifying that all safeties remain functional in the Production Rules, it should add that same language to the rules of every Division. At this point, we're not talking about "fairness to competitors," or "who's going to win a protest at a match over 5.1.6," we're talking about USPSA's exposure to a lawsuit by the family/next of kin of a competitor/bystander who is harmed/killed by a competitor shooting in Open/Limited/L10/Singlestack with a disabled firing pin safety, grip safety, magazine disconnect safety, or any other safety. At this point, I think USPSA really ought to have a lawyer look at this. Surely there are plenty on this board. It would be interesting to hear their thoughts.

Gary, you're looking at this the wrong way. USPSA shouldn't say, "go ahead and remove the FPB" nor should it say, "remove the FPB, but only in Production Division." Rather, USPSA should remain silent on specifics and only say, "competitors are responsible for ensuring their firearms are safe for competition." If you make a more definite statement, then USPSA is, in effect, stating that it is the arbiter of what is and isn't safe and therefore, should be held liable for errors in such decisions . . . and I *guarantee* you it's not going to look good for USPSA to be picking and choosing which safeties can be disabled and which divisions you can disable safeties in. This whole idea of prohibiting the disabling of safeties, but only in Production Division, does not reduce USPSA's exposure to potential liability, it kicks the door wide open!

How is this possible when Tom says, "Ray Chapman "Nostalgia" Match This Match will be fired before the NRA Bianchi Cup, 18 May 2009 using Production Firearms only..." and Production rules prohibit Single Action Only firearms?