ciscoip
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by ciscoip
-
-
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 .
-
Got a question. Might should go in Reloading though. I've been practicing with 155gr lead bullets. With fixed sights that's the load that I could get to shoot point of aim(128pf) at 20yds. I'm planning to switch to Jacketed bullets for the match, but the only bullets I have in .40 are 165 JHP. I can order heavier(180), or lighter(155) if I need to. If I load the 165's to the same speed(not pf) shouldn't they shoot to the same height? Slower loads shoot higher, faster loads shoot lower, in general, I think that's right. I'm away from home until 6 days before we leave for Columbia, and I'm tied up 2 of those days, so I'm armchair preparing, lol.
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."
-
Alan you make very good points. We did not want to trash the investment a member had made in his gun, and I think we did a fair job of protecting the members investment.
It seems that the entire dust up is about a firing pin block. The process would be that if your gun was produced with a FPB, and you have removed it, you need to put it back in. This does not incurr a major expense and keeps the gun in good standing. If you have a gun that was not produced with a FPB then you need to do nothing.
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?
-
Well with all the discussion of safeties I thought it would be interesting to see what NROI/USPSA used as a definition for determining what is a "safety". I have heard many arguments that a mag safety isn't a "real" safety. It would seem this definition is different from how some manufacturer's define a safety even. So instead of me trying to say that this is a safety or that isn't, can the NROI/BOG come up with a definition of what a safety is and then we just apply that safety definition to anything on the gun and then use that to determine what is and isn't a safety?
How 'bout it. Can you come up with a safety definition that covers all the safeties you want to keep and doesn't eliminate the ones you say we can get rid of?
The most basic safety definition I can come up with is that when engaged, it keeps a loaded gun from going bang when you pull the trigger (active) or drop the gun (passive). Am I missing anything?
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.
-
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!
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.
-
Hey Dave, maybe I am just public educated, but I don't feel "got".
My point is if gun company XYZ makes two basically identical guns, one with and one without some form of safety, they "they" get to explain why they did so.
If USPSA says "Sure go ahead and remove that FPB, it is fine with us, then Joe Threetoes shoots himself, his lawyer points the cannon at USPSA and says "They" said it was OK and now look at poor old Threetoes.
As to the incorporation issue, I don't want to take the chance. Because I am an officer and actually voted on the rules, I and others make very good targets, and I'm not speaking of No Shoots either.
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!
-
The Nostalgia match is different. I would say that it is for Metallic guns only because you can use a single action 45. You cannot, however, shoot a single action 38 Super. The gun has to pass all safety checks, ie 2 pound trigger and operational grip safety.
I am waiting on word that the single action can be eliminated on a revolver. A ruling has to be made by the head referee.
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?
-
This question, at least, JA has (unofficially) addressed
Keep in mind that any "unofficial" JA judgements by email or phone call are rendered null and void by this rule update, if its approved, so...
Now, in the case where there are no distinguishing marks/differences between the parts being exchanged, there's no way of telling short of a comprehensive s/n reference list or a shot of sodium amytal...Is there a distinguishing mark on the frame on an SP-01 or Shadow that designate them as normal or Shadow? I believe its only marked on the slide? So... good luck proving which one it was originally...
No, no, no, you're looking at it the wrong way! It's not an SP-01 with a replacement Shadow slide (illegal), but rather, a Shadow with a replacement SP-01 frame (legal)!
-
Probably because I can't find anybody who would be named in the lawsuit that is willing to put up everything they have or everything they ever will have so that someone can have a half pound better trigger pull.
If I recall correctly, USPSA is incorporated, so while USPSA might have liability, the individual board members wouldn't. Even then, I doubt it would even be an issue unless USPSA is assuming the risk of creating rules to regulate safe gun design and function, instead of leaving that responsibility up to the competitor. It looks like USPSA is doing this now, by putting specific conditions on what safeties need to work and don't need to work in Production Division.
Now if you're going to do that in Production Division, but not have the same requirement in any of the other divisions, it would seem USPSA would just be BEGGING for a lawsuit if someone in Open/Limited/L-10/Single Stack with a disabled firing pin block safety or grip safety drops a gun or has an AD and someone is injured. After all, USPSA would be admitting it recognized the danger by instituting the rule in Production Division, but negligent by not instituting the same rule in its other Divisions.
Seems to me, the best way for USPSA to avoid a potential lawsuit is to:
A. Insert the language requiring all factory safeties to work in the rules for every division (which will piss a lot of people off); or
B. Remove the language in the Production Division rules requiring all safeties to be functional and just say something to the effect of, "each competitor is responsible for ensuring their firearm is safe to shoot in USPSA competitions." This places the onus on the competitor, instead of having USPSA appear to assume responsibility for ensuring a competitor's gun is safe.
-
If the Nostalgia match is "Production Firearms only," and the Production rules exclude all "single action only firearms," I'm guessing there will be no 1911s at the Nostalgia match.
-
Guns produced without the FPB, don't need them. Guns produced with them do need them.
This actually falls into two different areas. First of all information was provided that if parts get worn, or are improperly fit at the beginning, the firing pin can possibly impact the primer without the FPB. Second this puts USPSA in a difficult position to allow a part to be removed that's single purpose is to prevent the firing pin from impacting the primer.
Now one could ask why does CZ produce guns with them and without them, or why does Smith and Wesson produce guns with magazine disconnects and without them, those are questions the manufacturers will have to answer if needed.
This seems like a pretty weak argument in light of all the 1911-design based guns in Open, Limited, L-10, and Single Stack without firing pin block safeties and pinned beavertail grip safeties.
Most folks competing with 1911 based guns that came with the firing pin block safeties probably throw those parts in the trash the first time they take the gun apart.
-
Our numbers are up this year --- I'm not seeing the gloom and doom you're predicting. And I'm pretty sure that with one or two exceptions, no one has a huge reservoir of components sitting around....
Nik,
I hope you're right and that this current shortage resolves itself; just hope it happens before we begin to lose too many shooters. As I noted earlier, my main concern is that the USPSA leadership not wait until things are REALLY bad before they address this problem - better to be proactive rather than reactive.
Cheers,
Doug
There are much better ways for USPSA to assist in this issue than a provisional .22 division. Bulk buys by the organisation of primers direct from the manufacturers comes to mind. These could then be sold to members through a contract with one or more of the retailers already setup to ship hazardous materials.
An easier and better way to solve the issue might be better course design. Instead of designing courses filled with enough targets to force open shooters with big sticks to do a reload, have creative courses with lower round counts.
-
Of course, most USPSA members' production guns might not be legal according to the NRA Action Pistol's Production Division, so read the rule book carefully!
-
If you reload, why would you bother getting a new gun instead of just loading minor loads?
-
For that kind of money, I'd go for a full custom gun...why pay that much for off-the-rack?
-
Thanks for the info, guys!
But what are FFLs charging for transfer fees in case someone wanted to have a used gun shipped to Oahu?
What's the cost like for reloading supplies? Are we talking $50 for a pound of Bullseye? $300 for a thousand primers?
-
I was wondering if anyone had info on the availability of stuff in Oahu, Hawaii.
What are FFLs charging for transfer fees?
What's the cost and availability like for reloading supplies?
I know about the 10-round rule, but I heard a rumor that it also applies to AR-15 mags...is this true?
Any Articles You'd Like to See in Tactical Guns & Gear?
in Miscellaneous Topics That Do Not Fit in Any Other Forum
Posted
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.