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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About random_guy7531

  • Rank
    Looks for Match

Profile Information

  • Real Name
    Stanley Lewis

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. While this may be true, 8.1.7 is in references to modifications only ("The following modification rules apply to firearms in all divisions."). The mag release on the Shadow 2 is as-delivered/stock/factory - so 8.1.7D shouldn't apply here at least per my reading. edit: and in either case it looks like he took off the factory release anyways - so there's that
  2. I will admit - I have never heard of these, so you have me there. For what it's worth though, neither of these show up on Canik's website. Based on the website, the only products an otherwise uninformed consumer would assume Canik sells are the TP9 series guns. Additionally, I don't necessarily foresee that Canik would make their own frames - most of their designs are quite derivative (the TP9 series is effectively a Walther, the S/P-120's are effectively CZ's). Is it possible that Canik will use whatever license deal they have with Walther to make a steel frame version of the SFX? Perhaps. However (and I would almost be excited to be proven wrong on this) there is a rough order of magnitude of difference in terms of production cost between a polymer and steel frame - if not on initial capital expenditures, then for sure on the marginal unit basis. I suspect that Canik would not be able to make the business case to manufacture their own Q5SF competitor.
  3. Sig already made a metal frame for their tomb of the unknown pistols - id bet they can bring that to market quickly if the q5sf does well. Id also not be surprised if cz make a steel frame of their p10 to sell alongside the shadow 2. As for the other major manufacturers? I dont think so. Itll be a cold day in hell before glock makes a steel framed pistol, and s&w doesnt even have a 2.0 version of their pro 5" model yet. Canik doesnt really operate at the price point of steel frame guns, and beretta hasnt really shown interest in the competiton market before.
  4. FWIW, the 500 example bit has been in effect for CO for a while - that was the avenue you could use to make a gun CO legal that otherwise wasn't on the production list. I'm more likely inclined to say that the current 500 example threshold is due to that legacy - not any particular shenanigans on Walther's part. To be honest, I'd have more predicted a lower volume/higher price manufacturer a la CZ or EAA/Tanfo would have been behind the 500 unit limit that Walther. As for IPSC, well, I'd be more inclined to say that Walther was behind the first-pull trigger weight change than anything else. The light vs. heavy distinction probably came just as much from other polymer pistol makers who might be upset their offerings aren't necessarily 'meta' anymore (e.g. Glock/S&W)
  5. I wish I had seen this yesterday! While googling around for the milt sparks that @coordinator mentioned, I found a place called 'front line holsters' that seemed to make pretty much what I wanted (basic kydex open top paddle/belt holster). I've put in an order for one and its on its way. If for some reason that doesn't work out though, Ill make sure to let you know - that Bladetech is also pretty much exactly what I was looking for.
  6. Yeah, I was worried if the shutdown would impact things. I was hoping there may have been some automated system I could submit the application to and get a response from (or that ATF was still open and processing). I've sent my forms in, and if they don't get back in time then Ill just take my normal rifle, NBD.
  7. Hey all, I'm looking at perhaps trying to run my HK P7M8 for some local IDPA matches, but I need to find a holster for it. I'm looking for something along the lines of a basic Bladetech or Comp-tac kydex competition paddle (e.g. not a IWB or CC holster). I've seen some left handed holsters in the style I want on places like hkparts.net, but nothing else. Does anyone here know any companies which sell P7M8 holsters? Or even any companies which would make a custom shell in the style I'm looking for? Thanks in advance!
  8. So I'm attending a competition in Utah in February, and I have been strongly considering taking my SIG 553R, which is currently registered as an SBR. I have, however, never had to transport an NFA item across state lines so I'm unfamiliar with the process. I know that I need to fill out a form 5320.20, but I don't know how long it typically takes the ATF to process those. Has anyone here ever gone through this process before? Anyone willing to share how long it took to get approved? If it will take too long, its NBD on my end, Ill just take something else to the competition.
  9. On the idpa side it'll probably see plenty of use in both esp and ssp (assuming it makes weight with the magwell installed, which i would be surprised if it doesn't). What would be interesting is if a 4" version comes out that could be used in ccp. To be honest a steel frame version of the q4 tac would be neat just in general (although not super useful for competition).
  10. I suspect that 'reliability' really means 'consistency' (none of this 5+ pound first shot nonesense).
  11. Its not legal at this exact moment, but only because they haven't been added to the list. Otherwise though, there's no reason i see it wouldn't be production legal. Just give it 3 - 6 months until dnroi gets to review.
  12. Im super jazzed and super annoyed about this announcement. This is pretty much 100% what ive been wanting and i would be first in line to buy one - except i just got my shadow 2 for carry optics in from czc - so im out too much $$$ to yolo purchase one of these. Tbh, im surprised that these kind of guns arent more prevalent. Id have thought that 5" steel frame striker guns could have been a consistent (although perhaps low volume) seller for the major players in the competition circles. Look at how many shadow 2s get sold for example.
  13. So I went back and re-read. For the sections I was looking at, SAO is (by strict reading of eligible equipment rules) allowed under that rather narrow 500 example method (note that the manufacturer does not have to submit any samples - merely a letter of declaration). However, SAO / 2011's are still disallowed in CO due to the combination of some other rules/issues. 1) The CO Appendix states: "Handguns with external hammers must be fully decocked at the start signal." (appendix D7, special condition #2) 2) Every 2011 I know of cannot apply it's safety with the hammer down. 3) Holstering a loaded SAO firearm without the safety on is a DQ. Even if you had an SAO firearm that allowed the safety to be engaged with the hammer fully down, you'd still have to manually cock the firearm during every stage start (which is obviously a no-go from a competition aspect). Conceivably, if a shrouded hammer 2011/SAO firearm was made in sufficient quantities, and the manufacturer sent a letter to the DNROI stating the models compliance, then it would still be allowed and the shooter would not be DQ'ed out of the gate. Unless someone is out there churning out competition built Colt 1903's though (which is an idea that *might* be on the correct side of stupid for people to get behind), I doubt we'd ever see such a scenario play out.
  14. We have a local shooter who uses a HiPower for some of the IDPA and outlaw matches in the area. For hammer down, he's able to reach his middle finger up the mag well to activate the disconnect manually (so no empty magazine required) - you might test and see if you are able to accomplish the same.
  15. The addenda to appendix D4 #19 specifically only allows "Double Action, Double Action/Single Action, and Safe Action guns" in production. Note that 'safe action' is not a defined term anywhere within the current rule book, so what all constitutes such a firearm is open to interpretation. It's possible that the manufacturer intends to claim the alien is a 'safe action' gun given the trigger safety. Further mechanical elements such as a firing pin block might also be present that would make that argument easier, but I can neither prove nor falsify that claim. I'd like to point out this isn't strictly true. CO guns actually don't exclusively have to come off the production list - that's just what pretty much everyone says and claims. The CO rules also permit a manufacturer to submit a letter stating that 500 examples have been made available for sale to the general public and that their gun meets the *carry optics* rules requirements (note - it does not have to meet the *production* rules for this route to be effective). This is important because the addenda I mentioned previously that bans SAO firearms in production is *only* applicable to production - CO has no explicit ban on SA firearms in it other than the fact that (as far as I am aware), absolutely nobody goes the manufacturer-letter route. Conceivably, this means that something like an STI Edge (or other 2011 with sufficient production numbers) could be milled to accept a dot assuming it made weight/size/etc. and the manufacturer would be willing to send a letter to the DNROI. Regardless of all that, from what I can see, the Alien looks like it's dot is mounted to the bridge sights and not the slide. Such a setup would make it illegal for carry optics (or at least it would per my interpretation of D7-13).
  • Create New...