SteveZ Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I've never really given much thought to this until the latest Front Sight came out. Someone wrote in to John Amidon and said that he's thinking of putting his front sight on the barrel of his auto loader. Amidon's response was that doing so would make the gun a "prototype" and not allowed until 500 have been produced and they've been around for a year (also mentioned that SV was doing something similar). So what constitutes a "prototype"? I've seen guys in Limited/L10 class running guns that clearly aren't mass produced with slide/frame lightening cuts and made from components (Caspian or a mix of parts from different sources). To be honest, I thought Amidon's interpretation in this case (front sight on the barrel) was pushing it a bit (sounds like more of a modification than the creation of a prototype). Seems like Prototype and Race Holster have become the latest objects in the "what IS the definition of" dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 It's one of those things "I know it when I see it" IMHO, prototype is changing the function from something that is otherwise legal. So, front-sight on barrel is not a cosmetic change, it is a change in how the pistol works. Same goes if you figured out how to make a stationary-barrel or gas-operated 1911. Even if it looks the same, if it works differently, it's a prototype. Build something from parts so it works like factory= not prototype. Build something from parts that doesn't work like factory = prototype. Build 500 of 'em and sell 'em for a year = not prototype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDean Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Being one of those with a lightened slide, this is my take on it. The rules for Limited/Lim-10 state that the "components" that a gun is made from must be factory produced in quantities of 500 or more. Nothing in the rules prohibit any person(s) to assemble those parts, or to modify those parts. As long as there aren't "external modifications such as weights or devices to control or reduce recoil". Installing a front sight (which is factory produced in the quantities of 500) into the barrel (which is factory produced in the quantities of 500) of a gun that has been assembled from parts that are factory produced in the quantities of at least 500 is legal the way I interpret the rules. The original parts are legal. Nothing prohibits us from modifying those parts. right? So if I take the soldering iron to my grips I've now produced a prototype gun? I don't think so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Seems like Prototype and Race Holster have become the latest objects in the "what IS the definition of" dictionary. <groan> And then some. I just finished drafting definitions for "berm", "compensator", "handling (ammo)", "handling (a firearm)" and "compensator", and I now I really need some industrial strength Tylenol Anyway, we touched upon the definition of "prototype" in the Revolver Standard Division thread, and the definition currently being considered by the IPSC Rules Committee (of which John Amidon continues to be a member) is: (Draft IPSC definition) Prototype - A handgun which is not in mass production and/or not available to the general public. -:however Webster's defines prototype in general, non-gun-specific terms as "An original or model after which anything is copied; the pattern of anything to be engraved, or otherwise copied, cast, or the like; a primary form; exemplar; archetype." and another dictionary says "An original type, form, or instance serving as a basis or standard for later stages; An original, full-scale, and usually working model of a new product or new version of an existing product, An early, typical example". Actually I'm interested in what John has to say about the draft IPSC definition, because he'll obviously have some input from a USPSA perspective, and I suspect we'll both be needing Tylenol and a week on Maui before we're done. Surf's up? Who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 The original parts are legal. Nothing prohibits us from modifying those parts.right? I think of it this way: In the US, AR fire-control parts are legal. Modifying them to improve (lighten) trigger function is legal. Modifying them to give your AR full-auto capability is not legal. You've changed the what-it-does. Stippling the grip is both explicitly permitted and not changing the function of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDean Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 "..Stippling the grip is both explicitly permitted and not changing the function of anything.." Shred'ster, Where is it explicitly written that I'm allowed to stipple my grip? Production div. explicitly prohibits external mods, but Limited doesn't. Since Limited rules don't prohibit external mods I interpret that as allowing me to stipple my grips. Also, "function" isn't in there either. But just for fun, my guns all function the same whether the slide is chromed or blued, the loads are minor or major, the recoil spring is 22# or 12# or if the slide weighs 28 or 25oz. It still functions like JMB designed it. Just a little faster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted March 19, 2004 Author Share Posted March 19, 2004 putting a front sight on the barrel changes neither the function of the sight (its still a sight and functions as such) nor the barrel (its still a barrel...bullets come out and aren't affected by the sight that's now on it)....yet doing so according to Amidon makes it a prototype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 If I put a Krebs style thumb guard on my Limited gun is it now a "prototype"? Krebs Thumb Shield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDean Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 Is it the "added weight" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 Is it the "added weight" ? I dunno.... I never thought about it until EricW brought it up in another thread. Now I am curious. When the Swensons on my Limited gun break I would like to replace them with Ed Browns and a Krebs Shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus It just seemed appropriate again..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 putting a front sight on the barrel changes neither the function of the sight (its still a sight and functions as such) nor the barrel (its still a barrel...bullets come out and aren't affected by the sight that's now on it)....yet doing so according to Amidon makes it a prototype. Well, instead of going up-and-down, front-and-back, it now only goes up-and-down. To me that's a functional change. TDean: Right. The IPSC rules call checkering and grip mods out, but the USPSA ones don't (except for what you can't do in Production) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 Well I happen to own one of those barrels; it is a Schueman barrel that is manufactured with a raised rib as is used on SV open guns only there are NO ports in the barrel. It is exaclty the same as Schueman's .40 barrels used to build IPSC Modified division guns and it is even inscribed: "DANGER EXHAUST PORTS READ MANUAL" The model is GH40CNM1. It is banned by USPSA for use in Limited division; you can confirm this by calling SV since they build guns using this barrel. Can you build a gun that does the same thing that IS legal in Limited? Sure. The barrel I have lets you run a very light slide with a rather heavy barrel. You could simply use a tungsten sleeved .40 barrel. Then to lighten the slide you could make use of the popular lightening techniques like holes, flat topping, etc. to achieve a similar effect. Thus, you must ask: would the use of my barrel "allow you to do something that "could not otherwise be accomplished under the rules"? No. Has SV produced 500 of these? Probably. So why is it still banned? As it is, my barrel sits in the parts drawer unused. Instead, I shoot a regular .40 STI Edge Model. Only on my "STI Edge" the lower is an SV shortened to open gun length. The barrel is KKM. The slide is a black parked modified STI with an old millet sight and slide cuts to match. The trigger is TriGlide. The grip is not recognizable having been modified extensively. The magwell is off an old airsoft SV as is the front sight. I run a modified Swenson thumb shield safety and an SV grip safety. Like I said, its an STI Edge & perfeclty legal. I anyone needs my Schuemann barrel . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted March 20, 2004 Author Share Posted March 20, 2004 Well, instead of going up-and-down, front-and-back, it now only goes up-and-down. To me that's a functional change. and cutting lightening holes/slots in a slide lets it "function" faster.... so therefore that would be a function change also. Right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 These "what about" questions are exactly why I want to kill off the word "prototype", at least in the IPSC rulebook (it only appears once in Revolver Standard Division). When it comes to modifications, parts, components and accessories, I think it's far better to operate on a "if not specifically permitted, it's prohibited" basis or the opposite" if not specifically prohibited, it's permitted", and the latter is probably the lesser of two evils. This is exactly what IPSC did with Standard and Modified Divisions. We used to have a whole bunch of "this, yes", "that, no" language, but now it couldn't be simpler, to wit: Standard: Fit the box, no ports, comps or optics, but everything else goes. Modified: Fit the box, anything goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 The way I read Amidon's reply (and the replies I got in this thread I started) seem to me to indicate that if Schuemann got a letter in to Sedro saying that 500 barrels (with or without holes, with or without threading for a comp, etc.) had been produced, then there'd be no problem. As TDean pointed out, putting a front sight that's had 500+ produced onto a barrel that's had 500+ produced shouldn't be an issue, unless someone is looking to re-write rules without submitting it to the membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I read the reply the same as 300# did. It seems that USPSA is simply trying to make sure that anything that one person might want, such as a fiber optic front sight, would be available to all that wanted to use it and not just a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 Well, instead of going up-and-down, front-and-back, it now only goes up-and-down. To me that's a functional change. and cutting lightening holes/slots in a slide lets it "function" faster.... so therefore that would be a function change also. Right! Yeah, but it still goes back-and-forth. Same action. Not a prototype. Make a little bridge on the slide for the sight so it stays on the slide and installing the no-ports hybrid is fine by me (and maybe Amidon for all I know). But... now nobody wants to do it. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 Schuemann does not make guns. His numbers are meaningless. SV has to send the letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I think I stated this here before...but, maybe it was just my back-and-forth with my area Director and Amidon... I had the actuall gun that SV is using in those ads show up at a local match the other day. Anyway...the word I got back from the head office is that for, Limited and Limited 10, those gun will be legal as soon as SV informs USPSA that 500 have been produced. And, that is the written rule, and has been. It might be important to note that the rule says 500 guns or components. I think we are looking at two things here. First, is the barrel weighted with the (external) rib. Second is the sight that is mounted on the barrel and that does NOT reciprocate with the slide. If Schuemann has produced 500 of those non-ported barrels (and somebody that has an interest should ask him), then it would be great for him to let USPSA know. And the sight, I don't think SV is the only manufacturer doing that? (Ok...I was thinking that Pistol Dynamics was doing the same sight system, but I was mistaken. http://www.pistoldynamics.com/InterSight.html ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Is that 500 count just a local/regional thing? Maybe the couple (actually more than several since I found out modified shooters prefer to port their own barrels of this type) I've seen back here used in IPSC will count... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 McOliver, The "500 produced" thing only affects USPSA Limited/L10 Divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Vince, I think he is asking if the world-wide productin counts toward the 500 (for USPSA). I have no idea, but I would think so (and I would make that arguement when presenting my case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Yeah, Flex got it. My fingers and toes will not be enough to count the guns I've seen sporting the unported (and used to be unported) schuemann barrel. And that's not even considering the other areas where I haven't shot yet and I haven't been around much. What I find amazing is that even with the $500+ price tag people still buy it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now