reneet Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 This is currently legal in .40 caliber ONLY per response I got from John Amidon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Hey I didn't look too closely at Taran's gun but it didn't look like he used one at the nats. Did anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 BTW, the new rulebook says nothing about changing caliber from the factory original. I gotta get that email together and sent to the BOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 If it's legal in L10 caliber wouldn't matter it's legal. The USPSA Limited Division rules (present and future) say that 500 complete guns have to be produced and made available to the general public. SV has produced 500 complete guns in .40 caliber. So, my understanding is taht until and unless someone produces 500 complete guns in .45 caliber, changing caliber to .45 (or 10mm, or whatever) would not result in a legal Limited gun. ObNote: this is my understanding. The *official* word comes from NROI, through John Amidon, as noted above. bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 If it's legal in L10 caliber wouldn't matter it's legal. The USPSA Limited Division rules (present and future) say that 500 complete guns have to be produced and made available to the general public. SV has produced 500 complete guns in .40 caliber. So, my understanding is taht until and unless someone produces 500 complete guns in .45 caliber, changing caliber to .45 (or 10mm, or whatever) would not result in a legal Limited gun. ObNote: this is my understanding. The *official* word comes from NROI, through John Amidon, as noted above. bruce Uh, Bruce, the rule book (both present and future) says "any complete handgun or components produced by a factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced" (emphasis added). If y'all want to disregard that little piece of information that is italicized and bolded above, remove it from the rule book. A precedent has been set by allowing Rob Leatham to shoot a gun that is not available to the general public and of which 500 have not been produced (a 6-inch .40 on a Springfield frame). If the rule is interpreted (as it seems to have been) to be that any manufacturer could have produced the components, you need to stick with that interpretation regardless of the manufacturer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 "any complete handgun or components produced by a factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced" (emphasis added). If y'all want to disregard that little piece of information that is italicized and bolded above, remove it from the rule book Yup. And therein lies a fairly big issue. For those who are considering the unported hybrid-type barrel, I would counsel you to contact your Area director and/or NROI and the USPSA president before plunking down any money. Because there are a number of different opinions about just what those emphasized words mean, and the Board has not yet reached agreement on an interpretation. Some argue that "once the non-ported hybrid is in, it is in for any gun, in any caliber and frame length that is currently legal in Limited, and I should be able to slap one on my Para or single-stack or whatever". In other words, it is no different than any other "replacement" slide or "replacement" barrel. Others argue that "the non-ported barrel in .40 on a wide-body plastic frame is in, but only in that that configuration - i.e., in that caliber and slide length and on that frame." So, a shooter could put those components on an STI or SPS or TRI frame, resulting in a gun that is essentially identical to the SV, but you could *not* do it on a different frame (i.e., a metal wide-body, or a single-stack). And others argue that the SV gun is a complete gun in a configuration unlike any other gun, and as such it is the only gun allowed to be used in this configuration until other manufacturers certify that they have produced it in sufficient quantity to make it legal. And all of that is *separate* from the question of whether a 5" configuration being legal means that a 6" configuration is legal, too. So... I'm not trying to be disingenuous. I'm trying to advocate caution, and exercise full disclosure, in discussing the new configuration, because to be perfectly honest none of us yet knows what the actual NROI ruling is going to say, and so [at this instant] assuming that USPSA will adopt a more lenient position could result in people buying or building a gun that is ultimately not legal to use in Limited. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Awesome, Bruce! Thanks for the reply. I'll address those points. I just wish every AD provided the feedback that you, Arnie, and Rob do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hostetter Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Over the years I have played with having the sight mounted on the slide, the barrel, and the comp. I even had a modular gun at one time with the comp mounted to the frame and the front sight on the comp where it did not move at all during cycling. I found that with the modular gun with the sight effectively mounted to the frame, tracking the front sight seemed a little easier, there was little if any advantage mounting the sight to the barrel or the slide. In both cases the sight moved during recoil causing me to lose a clear picture of it. It seemed then, and now, more important that the sight returned to the same place after each shot allowing me to quickly reverify my sight picture relative to the target before breaking the next shot. I rarely try to track the front sight during recoil. I perfer to maintain my line of vision where I want the next shot to hit and then wait for the sight to re-enter that line of vision, quickly verify it is where I need it, and then break the shot. I realize that this is not the current fad or using the front sight but it works for me. It is certainly faster for me, and the accuracy potential is also good. However, as in a lot of things, if mounting the front sight to the barrel gives you more confidence in your shooting ability then you should probably do it. Trusting and believing in yourself is more important then any gadget you can add to your gun............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tri Burst Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 "And others argue that the SV gun is a complete gun in a configuration unlike any other gun, and as such it is the only gun allowed to be used in this configuration until other manufacturers certify that they have produced it in sufficient quantity to make it legal.And all of that is *separate* from the question of whether a 5" configuration being legal means that a 6" configuration is legal, too. Bruce I hope it is legal in a STI frame and slide because STI is replacing my Lexor slide that cracked and I just ordered a no hole hybrid barrel from Shooters Connection. In any event I will be shooting this gun at all my local matches and the nationals next year. Let the powers that be figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reneet Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Just heard official word from John Amidon. LEGAL on STI / SV type frames. John says that the board will be discussing legality in single stacks & Caspian Wide Body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I don't see where there is much to discuss. "...or components" seems crystal clear to me. And, I don't have any problem with Robbie's gun either...a hogged out 6in. STI slide over top a Springfield frame. Nobody is gaining an advantage from this equipment...they are just exercising personal choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reneet Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I don't see where there is much to discuss. "...or components" seems crystal clear to me. And, I don't have any problem with Robbie's gun either...a hogged out 6in. STI slide over top a Springfield frame. Nobody is gaining an advantage from this equipment...they are just exercising personal choice. Ditto that but that's the response I got to my query. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Flex, I don't have a problem with understanding the language or with Robbie's gun, either. What I DO have a problem with is rules being applied differently... that was my only point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 What I DO have a problem with is rules being applied differently... that was my only point. Me too. There is a subset of the Board that believes that, if SVI is the only company that has made a gun in this configuration, then only SVI (or STI or TRI or other basically identical polymer-frame wide-bodies) can use it. I believe that we should take the same approach as was taken for 6" guns. Once a manufacturer made the requisite number, then anyone (any manufacturer, any 'smith) can make a 6" gun in that configuration. That is the precedent that allows Robbie to compete with a Springfield 6" gun, even though Springfield has never offered 500 complete guns in that configuration to the public. Since "somebody" did, they all can. I think that's what we should do with the non-ported hybrid, too. But... be aware, please that it has not yet been resolved by the board, so... any money spent on a non-STI/SV platform should be considered "at risk" until we reach a resolution. Bruce (it's lonely out here on the edge...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmon Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Not to dispute Bob, but there is more than a net gain of zero If there is more than a net gain of zero(or nearly zero), i want you, to explain to me in very simple words where it comes from. you remove the material from the slide, you replace it with the Same amount of material with the new barrel. there are only a couple of areas that would cause a change in mass: 1. the barrel and the slide are made of two different metals with different densitys.(ie. aluminum and tungsten) 2. your replacing a bushing barrel with a sight tracker barrel. the only other place your going to gain any weight at all is the metal( almost negligible ) gained due to the lack of tolerance between the slide and top of the barrel. while there is more than a net gain of zero, YOU OR ANYONE ELSE CANT FEEL IT. bob was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Harmon, the difference lies in the fact that you're replacing moving metal from the slide, with almost steady metal on the barrel. This is the same that is being done on the foo-foo guns with lightened slides. I can understand that this might make a bit of difference for someone, but as I reported in my previous post, I noticed zip difference with my "standard" SVI long dustcover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogmaDog Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 How about the possibility of mounting a long barrel 6" on a regular length slide, with the sight tracker configuration (or a 5" barrel on a commander slide, or whatever)? You'd reduce weight, and achieve something like the shorty open guns are after, wouldn't you? It would look pretty weird, but I wonder how it would work. DD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tri Burst Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 How about the possibility of mounting a long barrel 6" on a regular length slide, with the sight tracker configuration (or a 5" barrel on a commander slide, or whatever)? You'd reduce weight, and achieve something like the shorty open guns are after, wouldn't you? It would look pretty weird, but I wonder how it would work. DD I don't think you can do that in limited. If NO manufacture has made 500 guns with a 6" barrel and a 5" slide it wouldn't be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 DogmaDog, I know that Amidon's opinion of that (6in barrel in a 5in gun) is that it is an "external mod/weight that reduces recoil" (or words to that effect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshua Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 I guess limited is not so limited after all. The 500 quantity production should just apply to production class. Limited class should just have a ruling that says no optics, barrel ports and compensators. That should solve all this crazy stuff. josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 josh, that sounds more like IPSC rules (but less the box rule). If ever you USPSA guys will come out with that kind ruling for Limited, I'm pretty excited to see what sort of limited guns your smiths will turn out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 I'd be very much in favor of using the box for limited, but too many whiners have 6" guns to fuss over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 I'd be very much in favor of using the box for limited, but too many whiners have 6" guns to fuss over. What the f@#$ does having a 6-inch gun have to do with being a whiner? Here's a big KMA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Let's get back on topic. 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