cz75ipsc Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Here goes. I hate the fact that the non-cycling front sight became IPSC Standard legal. I've never shot (or even seen) a gun with a non-cycling FS, but if Brian Enos is right, this setup is about a lightyear ahead of a normal FS. And Brian is usually right. I'm guessing this means that in a few years you won't be able to be competetive with a conventional FS. Having to buy a new gun for this reason alone SUCKS. I feel better already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Yup, I have to agree. I shot a hybrid Para .45 before I ever got into IPSC and even at that level (probably LOOOOWWW "C") I was amazed at how I could track the site through the entire range of motion, it did not seem to move. When, rather than IF it catches on EVERYONE will have to rebarrel guns at the least to stay competitive. I just had two conventional guns built and I am pissed. This is what happenes when they make decisions without thinking of stability and broad competition. It is going to get so only ONE platform is competitive, and I don't like that. Well, Schuemann has been trying to convince everyone he made the only barrels in the world worth having.......I guess now he's right. Bonehead move USPSA. Have enough sense to repeal it before it gets out of control. Either that or make 9mm major Limited legal and completely mothball all our current guns. Different rant, but when the ban sets, have enough sense to invite Kimber, Colt and Springfield back into USPSA with a classic or single stack division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossil Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Another perfect example of what happens when the inmates are in control at the asylum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnshapiro Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 What are these and what do they look like? Joel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dunlop Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 I wouldn't get too excited, there were plenty who said the same about the high cap frame, yet still the greats would beat most if not all of us with a singlestack! Whether it is even an advantage is a matter of opinion, check out this thread http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14648 It might just add to the performance of some and flatter others, but I doubt that it would be the real real reason for being beaten. P.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Bonehead move USPSA. Perhaps. We've been talking about this a lot. On the one hand, the SV gun with the non-cycling front-sight meets all the requirements for Limited: -- they produced more than 500 in a year -- it doesn't add devices that reduce recoil -- it doesn't have optics or comps. There aren't a lot of other requirements that really restrict what can be done in Limited - Limited (and by extension Limited-10) have basically become "open without optics and comps" in terms of the degree of customization on the guns. So, the dilemma in front of the Board is: -- allow the gun to be legal, since it complies with the rules, knowing that it represents the next phase in the evolution of equipment which has always been part of our sport or -- change the rules, which is guaranteed to (A) upset the people who own these guns ( upset the manufacturers, and © create another iteration of the most frequent feedback we get, which is "why can't you guys just leave the rules alone for a while?!?!?" I'm [personally] not sure what the right answer is ("right" for me means best for USPSA members as a group, over the long run). Best thing I can suggest is, if you have strong feelings about it one way or the other, make sure your Area Director hears it so we can discuss it intelligently. bruce (USPSA Area-1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 cz75ipsc can hate this all he wants. This is the Hate Forum where debating is forbidden. -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 I shot one at the Buckeye Blast while running the chrono...and I shot a lot of other stuff... I wouldn't even put them in the same ballpark as a red-dot optic or a comp. (I think I will clsoe this before it becomes a debate, however. Hate away.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Nope I am not saying it should be illegal as a comp. I am saying I have shot them and it is a significant advantage over a reciprocating front site. That being said, so long as it meets the no comp rule, how 'bout I open this can o worms; Take my limited gun, Bull barrel S_I and dovetail front to back (ala Liebenberug) a tall front site into the barrel itself then make a little relief cut in the slide so nothing touches it. I have not added weight, and I found a way for somone other than SV and Schuemann to get the same effect. No if I get beat, I won't claim it is the gun, I know better than that. I guess my biggest gripe is granting a monopoly to this idea where we were only a really small cartel before. I hope USPSA doesn't make everyone prove 500 units with different front sites before competitors are allowed to jump in. I mean come on, you're trying to tell me there are already over 500 of these things out there? RRRrrrriiiight. And what would be the problem with my front site idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I don't see the problem with it, its being allowed in Limited, not production. Limited is not a class for those who want to save money, in fact, I'd say its a class for people with more money. Open guns have not changed radically since '93 (SVI/STI/McCormicks, Para, Caspian all availible then as were C-Mores and Hybrid barrels) But ever since the introduction of Limited/Standard, the big money has been in those guns. Only Para frames were once allowed since they were the only ones to make a full gun, but as the others came on board, shooters rushed to buy them. Trick heavy guide rods, Fiber front sights, long frames, long slides, .40, bull barrels and now fixed front sights (I knew this was coming for a long time, anyone who ever shot the old Iron sight supers...before there was an Open class...knows how nicely the fixed front sight, on the comp, tracked. It was only a matter of time before this was tried in Limited. Limited and Open are really the same creature, its like Indy car and CART. There are full race, innovation loaded cometition pieces, just designed to different specs. I think now that we have production as a inexpensive entry to the sport, Limited should either be allowed to do whatever they wish, except comp and optics, or eliminated as a division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoNsTeR Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I hate not knowing whether I'd be better with it! And since I already chromed my gun, it'd cost me a bunch to have it refinished after doing the hybrid cut. Aaaaaaannnnnd, they're being jerks about approving it on 6" guns anway! LAME. I don't think it'll totally upset the equipment race though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnshapiro Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Well, I haven't bought a Limited gun yet So much to think about! And so much to pay for Joel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carter Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 A few years ago as an experiment I dovetailed a front sight onto a barrel just to see if it would be and advantage. It didn't make any difference for me. Maybe I didn't shoot it enough but I know that you can mount a sight on your existing barrel if you want to. Whether it will be legal or not is another question, didn't Chuck of Shooters Connection try to get this legalized already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I hate that this type of barrel costs close to $500 (equiv.) back here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h4444 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 ,,,,,Sight is still going to lift......still gotta call the shots. I hate all the hype surrounding some stuff that guys waste a lot of money on. I've been there, done that, and wasted a ton of money that I didn't have to waste. When the big dogs go for it en masse,,,,,then I'll start thinking about it. H4444 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mats40 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 yes i would agree as well. SV makes a gun with that FS on it. yeah when i heard that i wasn't too happy either. however i would like too shoot one to see what they are like. happy trails mats 40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reneet Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Got to shoot Taran B Sighttracker @ TX Limited Sunday and like it enough to order a barrel that I'll have installed on my 5" EDGE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 NEW QUESTION: Will this also be legal in IPSC STANDARD??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Buff Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I see NO reason why not..The rule say no comps, optics and fit the box. Even "*thumb rest [generic]*" is legal... Sorry for the hate drift.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 What I hate even more is when you do inquire about the legality of the non-ported hybrid barrel being installed in a frame/slide combo other than SVI or better yet in another CALIBER (45 acp for example)....you NEVER get a straight answer. Is it 500 guns or 500 components or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 So is everyone's interpretation of "Limited" division to mean "No Innovation" division? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckbradley Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 (edited) We now build a limited gun with this barrel as well. We call it the lightning. But we are not convinced the configuration is better than the Spitfire. The Spitfire lightens the slide the as much or more so the only benefit is the front sight. We found the front sight on the Spitfire moves so fast it was hard to tell any difference. WE had people shoot the Spitfire and the Lightning side by side at the nationals and the feedback was inconclusive. One theory I am tending to agree with was that the extra weight on the non ported barrel actually slows the unlocking of the barrel down thus transfering more energy in the way of flip. So bottom line is I dont think its going to be the advantage some are leading it on to be. I am going to try to build one in a little different configuration that may be the real trick. We will see. Chuck I started with a history of the barrel and my involvement with it becoming legal but it was edited out, sorry! Edited January 7, 2005 by chuckbradley 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