6 Inch sight trackers, are they legal?

[mpolans]

I have a hard time saying there should be no limits at all, other than no optic or comp.

IPSC uses the Box, an option no longer available to us.

You've been around longer than most of us --- why do you have a hard time saying limits other than no optics, comps, ports, devices strictly to control recoil, or mags over 141.25 (DS) or 171.25 (SS)?

What does 500 manufactured get us? What prototypes do you envision that might be game changers?

I have no desire to make equipment obsolete.....

Well, it's a bit like saying we should unscrew the pregnant lady, but I think the sighttrackers and trusight should never have been approved for Limited in the first place. We have some sloppily written rules and some questionable interpretations that have lead to some of the questions being posed in this thread.

Here is a another fun one: When is something considered an "External modifications or features such as weights or devices to control or reduce recoil" (illegal) vs. a metal mag funnel, a metal modular grip frame, and/or a set of metal grips? (legal?)

[Nik Habicht]

Here is a another fun one: When is something considered an "External modifications or features such as weights or devices to control or reduce recoil" (illegal) vs. a metal mag funnel, a metal modular grip frame, and/or a set of metal grips? (legal?)

Those all serve a function other than controlling recoil, as opposed to an 8 ounce hunk of brass attached to the dustcover....

[MoNsTeR]

I can't. There's no meaningful difference between a 5" and a 6" anything on the 1911/2011. Nor any difference between fitting barrel X to frame Y vs. frame Z. It's a modular platform, and the rules completely fail to take that into account. The current interpretations are unjustifiably silly and need to be drastically revised.

You can't take things in a vacuum or it loses context. When the divisions were created, 6" guns had been around for years, so it was beyond obvious that 500 of them had been manufactured. Barrels with ribs that protrude through the slide are a different matter entirely.

When 5" sight trackers were first approved they would have had to go through the process of submitting proof that 500 of the guns, or barrels had been manufactured. So, all that needs to happen, is have proof submitted that 500 of the 6" sight tracker style barrels have been made, but it takes someone who can propose rule changes to get it before the Board.

That doesn't really address my point though does it? The rule says "components" but doesn't go into a very precise definition of what differentiates an approved component from an unapproved variation on that component. My contention is that if the rib is what makes the barrel different, then the rib is what makes the barrel different, not the length. Now that 6" components are just produced on CNC mills rather than being welded together, it doesn't make any sense to differentiate between lengths when it comes to component approval. An interpretation (not a rule change) could be issued that was more in line with that current market reality.

The other issue is that the ribbed barrel is technically approved only on SV frames (or was when the issue last came up). Frankly I don't see any support in the rules for that no matter what your interpretation.

[G-ManBart]

That doesn't really address my point though does it? The rule says "components" but doesn't go into a very precise definition of what differentiates an approved component from an unapproved variation on that component. My contention is that if the rib is what makes the barrel different, then the rib is what makes the barrel different, not the length. Now that 6" components are just produced on CNC mills rather than being welded together, it doesn't make any sense to differentiate between lengths when it comes to component approval. An interpretation (not a rule change) could be issued that was more in line with that current market reality.

The other issue is that the ribbed barrel is technically approved only on SV frames (or was when the issue last came up). Frankly I don't see any support in the rules for that no matter what your interpretation.

I think you're just simplifying it too much....remember, rules aren't supposed to be simple (spoken like a government employee right?)

We've had 5" and 6" guns from day one, but to take your position, it would seem that you would have to assume that they are considered the same from a rules perspective. It would appear from the ruling/stance on 6" barrels with ribs, that they don't consider a 5" and 6" barrel the same...hence the need for having both 5" and 6" barrels with ribs approved individually.

Personally, I don't see how anybody could put a 5" barrel and a 6" barrel in their hand and suggest that they're the same....they're not. Sure, the only difference is the length, but it's still a difference. Further supporting that it's different is that it forces the use of other components that are different, such as a completely different slide. When you add that up, two of the three major components of the gun have changed from the "standard" configuration.

You're right that they haven't provided much detail on the definition of "component", and that could be easily clarified. I tend to think of components as big parts, not thumb safeties or sights, or mag releases... but frames, barrels, and slides....that's just me.

Regardless, 500 is a pretty low standard, that has already been met, so now it just needs to go before the Board with supporting documentation.

I agree that limiting approval of 5" ribbed barrels to SV frames would be a bit of a stretch. R,

[Joe4d]

I agree that limiting approval of 5" ribbed barrels to SV frames would be a bit of a stretch. R,

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt that exactly what happened ? Also in 40 caliber only?

With the justification that's the only manufacturer that made complete guns like that. Then turn around and like I pointed out in my original post allow 6" para's.

[MoNsTeR]

Personally, I don't see how anybody could put a 5" barrel and a 6" barrel in their hand and suggest that they're the same....they're not. Sure, the only difference is the length, but it's still a difference.

Sure they are. They're both 1911 barrels. One just happens to be 1" longer, and maybe cost $50 more. They can be fitted to all the same frames, and all the same slides (excepting a 5" barrel in a 6" slide obviously). In fact you could construct a gun that accepted both a 5" and a 6" barrel. That's what a modular platform is. The way the rules are interpreted now, each novel combination of these modular components is treated as if it were freshly smelted from unobtainium, in need of certification that it's not some kind of NASA prototype. It's just nonsense. The very first 6" ribbed barrel that came out of Wil's shop could be fitted to half a dozen makes of slides and over a dozen makes of frames by gunsmithing tools and techniques that already existed. It was in no meaningful way different from the 5" versions that preceded it.

The reason that ribbed barrels were only approved in .40, on SV frames, is that that was the certified configuration. What I'm saying is that the very concept of certified configurations is completely unjustifiable in a world of modular platforms. It's intuitively obvious to most of us that this decision was ludicrous. What I'm trying to illustrate is that if you disagree with that, you must, by extension, disagree with a much longer list of inane rulings in this area.

I'm sure we'll just have to agree to disagree in the end, and that's fine. But this is so blindingly obvious to me that I feel the need to state it clearly and publicly and repeatedly.

[G-ManBart]

Personally, I don't see how anybody could put a 5" barrel and a 6" barrel in their hand and suggest that they're the same....they're not. Sure, the only difference is the length, but it's still a difference.

Sure they are. They're both 1911 barrels. If you want to get picky, the gun JMB designed had a 5" barrel only...everything else is a modification, hence different One just happens to be 1" longer, and maybe cost $50 more. They can be fitted to all the same frames, and all the same slides (excepting a 5" barrel in a 6" slide obviously). In fact you could construct a gun that accepted both a 5" and a 6" barrel. That's what a modular platform is. The way the rules are interpreted now, each novel combination of these modular components is treated as if it were freshly smelted from unobtainium, in need of certification that it's not some kind of NASA prototype. It's just nonsense. The very first 6" ribbed barrel that came out of Wil's shop could be fitted to half a dozen makes of slides and over a dozen makes of frames by gunsmithing tools and techniques that already existed. It was in no meaningful way different from the 5" versions that preceded it.

The reason that ribbed barrels were only approved in .40, on SV frames, is that that was the certified configuration. What I'm saying is that the very concept of certified configurations is completely unjustifiable in a world of modular platforms. It's intuitively obvious to most of us that this decision was ludicrous. What I'm trying to illustrate is that if you disagree with that, you must, by extension, disagree with a much longer list of inane rulings in this area.

I'm sure we'll just have to agree to disagree in the end, and that's fine. But this is so blindingly obvious to me that I feel the need to state it clearly and publicly and repeatedly.

You already stated why they're not the same...and you even used "obviously". It's impossible to say 5" and 6" barrels are the same, and any attempt to do so only makes you look like you're trying to force a round peg into a square hole. 6" isn't 5"....math isn't an opinion.

The other thing is that it's not a modular platform (and there's really more than one platform involved, because the rule applies to 1911s, 2011s, Paras and Caspians)...the only thing "modular" on a 2011 is the grip, and even those sometimes require fitting. I can't take the slide off my Limited gun, and put it on my SS gun, even though they're both STI frames, and neither one was custom built (Edge and Trojan)...if they were a modular platform, that wouldn't be the case. In the same light, any 1911 or 2011 barrel requires fitting to the slide and/or frame....and if it doesn't, it's total luck, not by design...which means it's not "modular"....or plug and play.

You can think it's obvious, and state it all you want, but the precedent has been set, after whatever reasonable amount of discussion they felt was necessary. I find it hard to imagine they'd suddenly decide to change from that now.

Personally, I don't care one bit whether they allow 6" sight trackers or not

Edited December 15, 2010 by G-ManBart

[Flexmoney]

I agree that limiting approval of 5" ribbed barrels to SV frames would be a bit of a stretch. R,

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt that exactly what happened ? Also in 40 caliber only?

With the justification that's the only manufacturer that made complete guns like that. ...

That is how I remember it too. (is that ruling still up on the USPSA website?)

[staudacher]

SV has provided confirmation that the "Sight Tracker" has met the requirements of 500 produced and a year of production in .40S&W with a 5" barrel. Calibers in other than .40S&W are not allowed and raised rib barrels other than 5" are not allowed. This configuration will only be allowed on wide body guns, as this is how SV produced it.

looks like it can be a non SV gun but it has to be a widebody configuration.

[Joe4d]

SV has provided confirmation that the "Sight Tracker" has met the requirements of 500 produced and a year of production in .40S&W with a 5" barrel. Calibers in other than .40S&W are not allowed and raised rib barrels other than 5" are not allowed. This configuration will only be allowed on wide body guns, as this is how SV produced it.

looks like it can be a non SV gun but it has to be a widebody configuration.

that is just crazy, If 500 complete guns have been produced with a 5 inch sighttracker top end then 500 components have been produced. What possible justification can prohibit putting that top end on any dang frame I want ?

[Wakal]

Does NROI have a posted list of "approved" handguns? More specifically, I would very much like to see the written approval for the various 6" Para .40's used by sponsored shooters. No? Amazing.

"One rule for thee, and another for me" is the rule of NROI

Much like the World Shoot "CZ 85 II" that Adam admitted (in an interview after the match) was a illegal gun, yet the rules lapdogs rolled over on, the elephant in the room of this discussion is that there are guns in the hands of various high-profile shooters that are not now, nor were they ever, "500 produced" factory guns that "John Q Public" could buy. I can be proved wrong...all NROI has to do is post the paperwork that by their own rules they must have...somewhere...

Not that I particularly care from a shooting standpoint, since those same shooters can whup pretty much all of us like rented mules with a HiPoint, BUT if we are going to HAVE rules then we should do more than PRETEND to follow them. Which is, of course, the situation that we have now.

Rules that not everyone follows are no rules at all.

Alex

Edited December 17, 2010 by Wakal

[CHA-LEE]

Ever since Production Division was adopted, which has rules to keep the cost of the pistols down, it does not make sense to have a “500 Rule” in the Limited division. All this rule does is limit and alienate the technology advancement of the guns shot in this division. If a manufacture wants to go out on a limb and create an off the wall design that may or may not be an improvement over what is currently out there, the “500 Rule” really squashes the viability of such a project due to the excessive cost of needing to produce 500 guns or components.

If we took the 500 Rule away from Limited and it allowed manufactures the ability to create something better for competition use how is that not a Win for all of us? Even if it made older gun technologies obsolete it would still be a win for our sport in the long run. This sport is about racing, we just so happen to be racing with guns. Racing costs money and racing also drives people to continually find the next advantage or edge in order to make them go faster. Why would we want to artificially limit this in a division that is pretty much no holds barred anyway? If shooters don’t want to play the Limited equipment race game then they can shoot in Production division.

If we step back and really think about this, shouldn’t Limited Division be called something else that is more appropriate? Such as Iron Sight Open, or something like that?

[wide45]

The long view is not relevant.

Competition is about being the best today.

The intent of the rule is to prevent one competitor, or group of competitors from having an advantage that nobody else can buy. It is not perfect, but I can't see the good of completely throwing it away.

[CHA-LEE]

Wide45> That is a strange stance on the subject. We all know its the Indian that wins the matches, not the Arrow. If you give any of the top flight GM's ANY competition tuned pistol they are still going to be able to beat the stuffing out of everyone just as they already do with their "Normal" gear.

In a game where the average dedicated competitor spends at least $5,000 on ammo alone each season the cost of whatever prototype parts, guns, or gear is chump change. If we put the costs and practicality of the required skills needed to win into perspective the costs of whatever new gun or widget are a drop in the bucket.

The top GM's in the world are shooting over 100,000 rounds a year. With that amount of trigger time it really doesn’t matter what kind of blaster they have in their hands. If someone can afford to send 100,000 rounds down range each year a 5K+ pistol is chump change and they probably have a fleet of them. Even if you gave their "Super Uber Prototype Blaster" to an average shooter I highly doubt that it would make much if any difference in their overall performance at matches. As I said at the beginning, its the Indian, not the Arrow that wins the match.

If we drop the archaic 500 Rule in the Limited Division we might actually have a chance of shooting something that isn't based on a pistol that was designed in 1911. I know that the 1911 lovers are going to hate this, but there is always a better way to skin a cat. There will be something better and more superior made to replace what we currently have. All we have to do is provide an environment which promotes the progression of technology.

Keeping a 500 Rule only further alienates our sport from the main stream firearm manufactures. Competition shooting is a small boat in a very huge ocean of the firearms industry. If we want the major players in the firearms industry to invest in new and innovative designs for competition shooting then we need to allow them the flexibility and opportunity to do just that. If I was a major firearms manufacture and wanted to invest some money into R&D for the next level of competition pistol but then was told that I needed to produce and sell 500 of them before it could be used in competition its a pretty easy decision to take the easy way out and refurbish what is currently being sold and market it as something new.

[wide45]

I believe you have that backwards. The rule supports the mainstream manufacturers.

It is not a valid argument anyway. Craig got the caspian widebody to be limited legal by claiming the numbers. Build a better mousetrap, and they will sell.

[Wakal]

The rules support the mainstream manufacturers in that all they have to is CLAIM that they made 500, 50 million, or whatever of a particular model.

My point is that the rules are not enforced, and a rule that is not enforced should not be on the books. The secondary point is...what is the point of this rule? Since the big manufacturers can and are saying whatever it takes to avoid enforcement of the concept of "everyone using guns anyone can get" in favor of "say what you like, shoot what you like if you are connected correctly" then the rule is blocking progress by the smaller manufacturers who will not lie about their production numbers (if there are any such, of course).

Since it seems agreed that it is the Indigenous American and not the crafted wooden projectile, then perhaps this rule should be relegated to the dustbin of history (along with other silly rules like 10 round limits in OPEN shotguns) and Limited should be what it actually is...a non-ported short-magazine Open gun with iron sights

Alex

Edited December 18, 2010 by Wakal

[wide45]

...Limited should be what it actually is...a non-ported short-magazine Open gun with iron sights

Limited never has been that, why should it change now?

I agree the the rules have been inconsistently enforced. I'd prefer to fix that issue, because it affects the integrity of the whole org.

[Wakal]

...Limited should be what it actually is...a non-ported short-magazine Open gun with iron sights

Limited never has been that, why should it change now?

That is exactly what Limited is

Using the STI platform as an example...same frame, same slide, same lockwork. One has iron sights and no comp (or a "no holes" integral comp) and the other has a dot and a comp... Other guns, same thing. Limited Glock...non ported, iron sights; Open Glock with dot and ported barrel. Everything else is just fancy work

Back on topic...the rules are not evenly enforced, and there does not seem to be an articulated reason for those rules that can be honestly and accurately backed up here in the real world. NROI has done a lackluster job of enforcing a poorly written yet well-intended rule that (I believe) has long outlived what little (if any) utility it had. When the big sponsored shooters from Para and CZ can ignore the rules (with the backing of the factory that is paying their bills and the rules committees that are licking those sponsor's boots), yet John Q. Public gets "sent to Open" for having a 6" vice 5" 'Sight Tracker' clone...enough is enough. Let the rule go, and lets see what sort of striker-fired 1911 widebodies come out of the woodwork, along with "sight rail" 6" guns and something perhaps more innovative than "forgetting" to cut the slots in a compensator

Alex

[RIIID]

Yep, just erase the rule and let everything go. When a truly advantageous gun does comes along and the maker only lets their people to use it to collect HOA's and first in class trinkets for a few years or worse makes a shooter pay out the nose to have one. The roar for quantity limits be brought back will be louder than a 9x25 in full auto.

The 500 rule has a purpose and has had questionable application, don't get ride of it, get it applied correctly. Get the BOD to look into it or better yet get your favored manufacture to build 500 of everything and anything.

Rich

[Wakal]

When a truly advantageous gun does comes along and the maker only lets their people to use it to collect HOA's and first in class trinkets for a few years or worse makes a shooter pay out the nose to have one

I don't know for "truly advantageous" but try to buy a Springfield widebody 6" .40 RIGHT NOW...oh, gotta be a sponsored shooter for one of those. Must be another 497 of them in the back of the warehouse but not for John Q Public Still waiting for NROI brains to chime in an explain where those have ever been available to the general public in 500 or more units...

Let the market decide what is best in life and how much things cost. Personally, I wouldn't shoot a EAA if you gave me one but it seems that the "world's best" runs one, same for Springfield's no matter who pimps their wares

Alex

"What does John Galt shoot?"

[lcs]

Yep, just erase the rule and let everything go. When a truly advantageous gun does comes along and the maker only lets their people to use it to collect HOA's and first in class trinkets for a few years or worse makes a shooter pay out the nose to have one. The roar for quantity limits be brought back will be louder than a 9x25 in full auto.

The 500 rule has a purpose and has had questionable application, don't get ride of it, get it applied correctly. Get the BOD to look into it or better yet get your favored manufacture to build 500 of everything and anything.

Rich

Do you really believe there can be such a magic 40 caliber handun that is going to make a competitor a "Super Competitor" that nobody can beat.

We are only talking about 6 inch gun that is constructed the same as a 5" inch approved Sight Tracker. It just does not make sense not to allow it! The general intent of the 500 Rule is good, but to apply the rule to a 6" Sight Tracker fails the common sense test. Just my opinion which does not mean squat.

BTW--Don't think bringing this issue up to the BOD will get you anywhere. Been there, done that.

[Joe4d]

The biggest problem with the 500 rule is the "complete gun or component part" In one instance it has to be a complete gun (SVI sight tracker) in the next 500 components are ok, (6" para) pick one or the other.

[Wakal]

If memory from multiple "inside" sources was correct, the 5" sight tracker was "legal" because Wil said he made 500 unported hybrid barrels. Of course he did, and then milled slots in 'em as part of the manufacturing process

I was told directly by very senior staff at a major gun company that they would tell NROI "...anything they wanted to hear" in order to have a new Limited design be "legal."

On a unrelated but similar theme, I know a owner of a small firearms manufacturing company who has told match directors that all of their custom one-offs (no matter how wild and wacky) are indeed "factory" guns since they are a "factory" and thus the rules prohibiting "non-factory" configurations do not apply

Alex

[Flexmoney]

The biggest problem with the 500 rule is the "complete gun or component part" In one instance it has to be a complete gun (SVI sight tracker) in the next 500 components are ok, (6" para) pick one or the other.

That is correct, in my opinion.

The rule has been applied differently. A 5 inch raised rib barrel is a 5 inch raised rib barrel. That is the component. It shouldn't matter if I put it on a double wide SV or on a single-stack L-10 gun.

I'd like to see this one cleaned up and applied consistently.

[Chuck Anderson]

BTW--Don't think bringing this issue up to the BOD will get you anywhere. Been there, done that.

That's a bit cynical. The last I heard from John at the November BOD meeting was he was still waiting for the paperwork from STI. It's not a BOD decision whether to allow a gun/part or not.

That said I already hit up the BOD this morning to review the rule and see what can be done...before I read your post.

I'm not sold on dumping the 500 unit rule in Limited/L-10. There is a place for prototype designs, Open. I do think the rule isn't evenly applied and I don't get why the 6" Sighttracker hasn't been legal since it was made. But again, not my call.

If someone has a rule suggestion that will allow manufacturers to be innovative in Limited, while not restricting their products to the point where only a couple top shooters can access them, let me know. Personally I'm not terribly worried about this one. I'm guessing if Springfield came out with the uber-Limited gun that was so superior to everything else on the market and people really wanted them, they would sell them. That's what they do is sell stuff.