diehli

http://www.uspsa.org/forms/Production_Gun_Approval_Form.pdf

I am lost on this one. http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=168894&hl=

What's required are four things, 2 of which are objective criteria, 1 of which is a statement that those objective criteria have been met, and the last some undefined compliance inspection: -Manufacturer's declaration that -2000 have been manufactured and -made available to the general public -NROI inspection for compliance Unfortunately, the declaration alone is being taken as the be-all-end-all with no oversight as to whether the two objective criteria are met. I can understand taking the manufacturer's word on whether 2000 have been produced (although I would like to see some suggestions for how/whether to audit that), but not on availability to the general public. "General public" is a relatively easy term to find a definition for (as mentioned in the other thread): http://www.macmillan...-general-public http://dictionary.ca...-general-public Those (reasonable) definitions exclude LEO/Mil as a "particular group". Thus, availability to the general public excludes availability solely to military or police organizations. As an aside, if there are truly concerns about someone from those groups not being able to shoot his or her duty weapon, address that separately, don't undermine the meaning and intent of the base rule. (One way to address it is to make an allowance for military weapons that have civilian analogs that have met the criteria and legitimately been added to the List. Another would be to allow duty firearms to be shot in Production irrespective of whether something similar is available. The requirements for allowing an otherwise unapproved firearm to be shot could be the same for allowing duty gear to be used that otherwise doesn't meet the Division requirements.) As far as foreign competitors using firearms that are IPSC Production-legal but not on the USPSA Production Gun List, I'd say let foreign USPSA members shoot IPSC-approved firearms, but still ensure that the requirements for a firearm to be included on the USPSA Production Gun List are met using the U.S. market. Judging whether something is available to the general public can be a relatively easy task in some instances (such as that which is the impetus for this thread), but can be harder in others. Take Kel-Tec's KSG as an example. Although the availability is limited, someone that's willing to pay the steep prices being asked on GunBroker can obtain one. I'd say it's available to the general public, even though I can't go to my LGS and grab one off the wall. So, what constitutes "availability"? In this day and age, it seems the Internet would be a good resource to help determine that. Checking some of the larger U.S. distributors and/or GunBroker for the model in question would be a good start. It seems there should be some way to distinguish between unavailability due to high demand (which shouldn't be penalized with exclusion from the list) and unavailability due to the manufacturer not making the firearm available to the public. But as others have pointed out, this is all moot if there will be no consequences for flaunting the Division's requirements.

5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.7.4, & 5.7.6.

Sounds like a real piece of work. I'll happily repeat ULASC until I'm actually shown clear.

The Division equipment requirements are listed in App. D, so it most assuredly is applicable, but there is no restriction in Item 12 for revolvers in either Production (at least for speedloaders and moonclips) or Revolver Divisions.

How 'bout a scale, a tape measure, and a BMI calculator at chrono? "A BMI of ≥ 35 and experiencing obesity- related health conditions or ≥40 is morbid obesity"

Wow.

Right. That takes off $75-150 of the labor a GS would have to do. Here's a price list and some build lists of one gunsmith: http://www.gansguns.com/PriceList.html http://www.gansguns.com/tobuild.html http://www.gansguns.com/tobuildlimited.html

So you have a slide-to-frame kit? http://www.stiguns.com/slide-to-frame-kits/ I'd say $1500-2000 depending on how much machine work you have done on the slide.

Don't worry, guys, if weights on the FNS-9 and FNS-40 4" models are accurate, then it's unlikely that the FNS-9 Competition weighs 2.2-4.5 ounces less. If it doesn't weigh less, it weighs more. If it weighs more than 2 ounces more, then under App. D4, Item 18, it would be overweight and, thus, per 6.2.5.1, the shooter would be moved to Open Division, if available. Open Division, where prototypes belong. http://www.fnhusa.co...ases/pr-120607/ Of course, FNH could always get in touch with USPSA to correct the weight. But if they're doing that they might as well correct the... miscommunication... about whether 2000 units are available to the general public.

Further, morbid obesity is considered a protected disability: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/morbid-obesity-as-a-covered-disability-u-55856/

Ben's useful?

http://bit.ly/Zy6vcl

Ostensibly, he wasn't asking about Glock pads: these work great with the dawson magwell... theres almost 1" gap between the base pad and the magwell... Im using TTI's competition follower and 11coil combo. I get 21rds not reloadable and 20rds reloadable with this combo. legal for IPSC box? Judging by all the other Standard Division basepads on the market, they'd need to be angled more at the front to use with 126mm tubes and be box-legal.

Things have blown up on Facebook. A response from FNH via Dave seems warranted.

No, they aren't.

This. If you're accurate with the gun tilted and it tracks well, why care that it's tilted?

Which is precisely what I did after I googled "ipsc rule book"(actually, I cmd-F'd in Safari on my MacBook [while sitting on the toilet]), searching for "failure" to see what the definition of "Range Equipment Failure" is in IPSC. Even with a paper copy, you could go to the index and search for "Range Equipment Failure", which would direct you to 4.6.

4.6.1 should get you started.

This should probably be in the Firearms Law / Announcements forum along with a link to an article or two, such as: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/reid-cuts-assault-weapons-ban-from-senate-gun-control-bill-amid-waning-support/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/19/reid-shoots-down-feinstein-gun-ban-bill/ In other, worse news, CO hasn't emerged unscathed: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/colorado-governor-to-sign-gun-controls-into-law/

It's the first. See App. E2, p. 86.