500 produced???

[BigDave]

300# - no worries

[Chuck D]

and when you do...they tell you to contact John Amidon for his "ruling".

The BOD may hear arguments BUT Mr. Amidon makes the final call. Believe it or not 300lbGorilla...that's the way it is.

[diehli]

From Bruce Gary:

"The Board also has an opportunity to review "interpretations" before they go out, and has the authority to over-ride them if necessary. Because of the review process, "rulings" can be considered to have Board approval by the time they are published in Front Sight."

[Chuck D]

and how many "opportunities" to over-ride those rulings actually result in an factual change in John Amidon's ruling(s)?

If this doesn't make the case for me that decisions such as the unported barrel issue are a "one man band" then nothing will. What we have here is, o.k. John...make the call and we'll get involved if we need/have to.

Regardless of the explaination(s) coming second hand from USPSA...the original question STILL hasn't been answered by John Amidon OR any member of the USPSA BOD. And yes, I have asked several times via e-mail and written letter.

What I've asked before and what I'm asking NOW is the same question....

"How can the Springfield Hi-Cap pistol in 40 caliber ...manufactured ONLY by the Springfield Custom Shop...not offered in ANY Springfield Armory product catalog distributed to the general public be deemed legal in USPSA competition in both Limited and Limited 10 division?"

Now...if we as an organization are willing to look the other way on this issue...why can't we as an organization look the other way if I decide to install a non-ported hybrid style barrel in 45 acp in my new SV Limited/L10 blaster?

[Flexmoney]

THAT IS NOT HOW THE RULE BOOK IS BEING INTERPRETED!!!

Folks...the current rule book (red, 14th edition) isn't being ruled on by anybody outside of the actual match you are attending.

With the current book...all you get from Amidon is an opinion...basically...how he would make the call if he were working a match.

Other than that...we use the system that is in the rule book...

Go to a match. Shoot. If an RO (or 3rd party arb) questions your equipment...follow the chain of command at the match (RO > CRO > RM > Arbitration)

In the new and upcoming rule book...only the opinions posted on the USPSA forum become law.

So far...there are only 5 such "rulings". Do any of the issues mentioned here appear? If not, then we are back to the rule book chain of command (up to arbitration).

I don't disagree with the direction of the posts here, but I do disagree with some of the examples... (maybe I am too easy on the equipment calls)

- Springfiled's double-wide 40 frame is the same as Para's, right? That meets the 500 components produced clause in my view.

- The non-port hybrid barrel...nobody came forward with proof that there were 500 produced (well, eventually SV did).

- same barrel, but in 45...there hasn't been a ruling posted..only an opinion.

I like some of the energy on this topic...I wish you would direct it toward the thread I started on the USPSA Forum...where those that can/might do something about it are bound to read it:

http://www.uspsa.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=130

[Chuck D]

1. The Para frame is similar but not exactly like the Springfield. Close enough doesn't count.

2. The SV non-ported barrel answer I got certainly isn't OPINION on my part or on the part of the answer I got from USPSA...The answer was NO. I'd call that a fact.

3. I have (and I'm sure others have as well) asked USPSA "DIRECTLY" as to the legalities of said questions...It's the ANSWER we're still waiting for and I'm not about top spend 4 figures of hard earned U.S. currency only to "run it up the damn flagpole" solely to get a ruling I should be able to receive from a letter or e-mail. Been there...done that before. Ever heard of a S&W .356 Limited Division pistol before? I can tell you from first hand experience that it was a $2200.00 experiment that went sour after one of Mr. Amidon's "rulings" were changed.

The original question STILL remains.......

[Rob Boudrie]

Ever heard of a S&W .356 Limited Division pistol before?  I can tell you from first hand experience that it was a $2200.00 experiment that went sour after one of Mr. Amidon's "rulings" were changed.

Actually, the .356TSW was not the result of "Changing an Amidon ruling", but about a field ruling by a USPSA official being overruled. Then president Andy Hollar stated the .356TSW was Limited Legal at a match and it was subsequently ruled (By Amidon or the board, not sure who) not to be the case. This is one of the reasons why we now have a "formal ruling process". An opinion expressed by the USPSA president, NROI instructor, etc. at a match is not a "precedent setting ruling", and all USPSA officers and directors understand this.

I have developed an on-line ruling system which I expect to release concurrent with the distribution of the new rulebook. I'm currently working with the rest of the members of the board on the process isssues before releasing it - For example, we will probably have NROI rulings displayed to board for a few days before publicaiton to give time to file objections, and will also release them early in the week so that new rulings do not come out in the middle of a match.

[MoNsTeR]

Even if the component language were applied, what defines a component? I mean, the only difference between a Hybrid barrel and an unported Hybrid barrel is that one of them has holes drilled into it! Yes, yes, the ported Hybrid goes in Open so it's not subject to the 500 rule, but there's all sorts of these issues. Would the unported Hybrid still be legal if I ordered it with no front sight cut and had my smith do the cut further to the rear? Is the 6" version legal? Is a Swenson safety legal if I drill holes in it? Does anyone honestly believe that a barrel in .38S is a different "component" than one in .40S&W?

Also, count me in on the idea that giving official interpretation of equipment rules to one guy is a bad plan. In some of Amidon's replies published in Front Sight, he has clearly completely misunderstood the question and as a result failed to answer it. I think Linus' Law really applies here: we need more eyeballs looking at these questions, given how important the answers can be.

[reneet]

Upon asking if I could put the non-ported hybrid barrel in my 6" long slide. The response John gave was 5" 40 cal only. Now I want to know if it's legal on any frame (wide body/single stack) ... Para, Caspian, STI, BUL, Colt, etc.

[Chuck D]

Rob...It most certainly WAS an Amidon ruling. USPSA gave the 356TSW its blessing only to be overruled by Amidon. Ask Team Smith and Wesson (the ones whom attended the A7 Championships at Geneva Practical Shooters in the early 90's) about the HEATED discussion over whether the Team would shoot major or minor at the event. I distinctly remember Paul Liebenberg's comments to me about my being "screwed over" after spending the long dollar on gear that S&W was assured would be considered legal. I also remember USPSA sanction being "pulled" or "dropped" from the event to smooth over S&W whom donated generously to the events prize table.

After being "screwed over " once before to the tune of over 2 grand...forgive my reluctance to trust the system again.

Now...how about exersizing that "formal ruling process" and explain how the Springfield hi-cap in 40 caliber is deemed "legal" in USPSA Limited/L10 division?

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob...It most certainly WAS an Amidon ruling. USPSA gave the 356TSW its blessing only to be overruled by Amidon. Ask Team Smith and Wesson (the ones whom attended the A7 Championships at Geneva Practical Shooters in the early 90's) about the HEATED discussion over whether the Team would shoot major or minor at the event. I distinctly remember Paul Liebenberg's comments to me about my being "screwed over" after spending the long dollar on gear that S&W  was assured would be considered legal. I also remember USPSA sanction being "pulled" or "dropped" from the event to smooth over S&W whom donated generously to the events prize table.

After being "screwed over " once before to the tune of over 2 grand...forgive my reluctance to trust the system again. 

Now...how about exersizing that "formal ruling process" and explain how the Springfield hi-cap in 40 caliber is deemed "legal" in USPSA Limited/L10 division? 

Chuck - Your original post stated "after one of Mr. Amidon's "rulings" were changed."

It was not one of Mr. Amidon's rulings which was changed, but a ruling by him which reversed a ruling by someone else. Your second post accurately states this.

The historical distinction between the two is not all that important, since a USPSA ruling was made and then reversed. I'm just clarifying the details of what happened, not trying to undermine the valid nature of your point.

I will look into the Springfield 40 issue. Since we do not have the "on-line ruling" process in place yet, I am not able to simply "look at the rulings". I am both hoiping and expecting that is going to change in the not too distant future.

[IPSCDRL]

Rob, we REALLY need to get going on that Institute for Range Law idea.