38SuperDub Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=331822068 http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=332708024 BTW - here is a better picture of the "commercial M9" - if it wasn't for the box saying M9 Commercial - it says "M9" on the gun - therefore it is an M9 and falls under the M9 approval http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=332160643 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 ...in a quantity over 2K and be generally available. ... Why would we have those particular specifications? What purpose do they serve? (and, actually, it says the general public...fwiw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38SuperDub Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Just for fun I googled "general public" and look what I found http://dictionary.ca...-general-public the general public Definition ordinary people, especially all the people who are not members of a particular organization or who do not have any special type of knowledge or another - http://www.macmillan...-general-public ordinary people in society, rather than people who are considered to be important or who belong to a particular group: can be followed by a singular or plural verb So by the definition - if FN made 2,000 and shipped them to some foreign military unit (because that's the first place we are going to ship the NEW Competition gun) by DEFINITION that does not define general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 http://www.gunbroker...?Item=331822068 http://www.gunbroker...?Item=332708024 BTW - here is a better picture of the "commercial M9" - if it wasn't for the box saying M9 Commercial - it says "M9" on the gun - therefore it is an M9 and falls under the M9 approval http://www.gunbroker...?Item=332160643 So, help me out here. Obviously the gun is legal now. Are you saying it's only legal because Beretta released an M9 Commercial model a few years ago? So for the 20+ years it was only available to the military it shouldn't have been legal? Because the Military is a particular group? Are you saying that for the years between 1985 and I'm trying to remember but 2008-2010ish when that M9 came out to the public it was not OK? Even though the 92F and then 92FS was very similar in manufacture? Surely you aren't saying that just because Beretta made an M9 Commercial and just named it the same as the military model that both are OK, even though they are slightly different? Would it be OK if FN just took the Competition off the FNS and left it with the same model name even though it has a longer barrel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 ...in a quantity over 2K and be generally available. ... Why would we have those particular specifications? What purpose do they serve? (and, actually, it says the general public...fwiw) Isn't one of the reasons so that a custom shop can't make a one-off gun with special features and claim it is a "production" gun since it came from the manufacturer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeMartens Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) Wonder how much of this is about the gun, or about the guy shooting it. Edited March 16, 2013 by JakeMartens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Wonder how much of this is about the gun, or about the guy shooting it. Zero about the guy, IMO. I don't see too many posts about the guy. (I really believe that Dave "made" Production division legit. I would have stayed in Limited if he had moved out of Production early on.) You do bring up an interesting point though...you said, "the guy" shooting it. Rather singular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Chuck - we appreciate you taking up for the BOD - but just admit the mistake and move on. Troy already said... Chuck and Troy (and I) are not posting here as any official voice of the BOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeMartens Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Wonder how much of this is about the gun, or about the guy shooting it. Zero about the guy, IMO. I don't see too many posts about the guy. (I really believe that Dave "made" Production division legit. I would have stayed in Limited if he had moved out of Production early on.) You do bring up an interesting point though...you said, "the guy" shooting it. Rather singular. Glad you noticed because there are several of the fn guys shooting it and some of them shoot uspsa matches as well as 3gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Yep, available to anyone on team FNH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38SuperDub Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I understand that Flex - although I would imagine Chuck's stance and Troy's are THEIR stances (as well as yours) official or not its how they feel and when the BOD meets really all that matters is how they feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I don't trust in your imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 16, 2013 Author Share Posted March 16, 2013 Wonder how much of this is about the gun, or about the guy shooting it. Go back and read this from the beginning. It has absolutely nothing to do with Dave. If Ben had a new Beretta that was on the list and no one could get I'd be questioning how it happened too. ( Hi Ben ) It all started with a FB post by Dave. I follow Dave on FB because I like and respect him as a shooter. I am not in the camp that thinks he would beat us all with a Hi-Point. He has been beaten in the past by guys shooting other guns so I do not believe him to be a god or anything like it but I figure if he is shooting something and doing well it must be a quality product. When I could not find it I came to the benosverse to find out what it was I was missing. Turns out I wan't missing a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 16, 2013 Author Share Posted March 16, 2013 Wonder how much of this is about the gun, or about the guy shooting it. Zero about the guy, IMO. I don't see too many posts about the guy. (I really believe that Dave "made" Production division legit. I would have stayed in Limited if he had moved out of Production early on.) You do bring up an interesting point though...you said, "the guy" shooting it. Rather singular. Glad you noticed because there are several of the fn guys shooting it and some of them shoot uspsa matches as well as 3gun I wonder if any of them are aware of the concern that the gun they are using has gotten on the list under questionable circumstances ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Cmon - there are more important things that USPSA has to worry about than the rules and verifying applications for the approved production list. The office staff doesn't have anything to do with writing rules or adding guns to the approved production list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I don't understand how this is even a debate. It seems this simple: There is no rule that says that once on the list, a gun can't come off. I certainly don't expect USPSA to audit the number of guns "available to the general public." However, if someone else decides to audit the number, why on earth can't USPSA simply take the gun off the list? Just take it off. I mean, if some manufacturer showed a gun to Amidon and he approved it, but then when it came to market it was only available with a magwell and a SA trigger, wouldn't they take it off the list? How is this any different? The gun *is not* available. It can't be any more simple than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38SuperDub Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 That would make too much sense Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Nik, let me ask you a question. Should a US Army soldier be able to show up at a match with an M9, even though Beretta has never offered that specific model (yeah I know exact same gun, different model name) to the public, but only the government? Nope -- I wouldn't want to stop that soldier from competing with his service weapon, or keep a competitor from Canada from shooting a match in Michigan with the FEG Clone of a CZ he always competes with at home..... While I'd like to see a requirement that the guns (or their essential counterpart) be widely available to US competitors, I suspect that appropriate definition of the requirements will be challenging..... There's nothing to stop the board from inserting language to the effect that "fundamental clones" of legal civilian market guns be deemed their equivalent, i.e the Beretta 92 and Sig 228 are on the list, so the M9 and M11 are also approved as they are fundamentally the same gun..... Now if the military contracts for a new gun, that isn't available on the civilian market -- or at least doesn't have a civilian counterpart -- then perhaps that gun doesn't belong on the production list..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Why do we have a list? What is it's purpose? That's a good question.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 16, 2013 Author Share Posted March 16, 2013 I don't understand how this is even a debate. It seems this simple: There is no rule that says that once on the list, a gun can't come off. I certainly don't expect USPSA to audit the number of guns "available to the general public." However, if someone else decides to audit the number, why on earth can't USPSA simply take the gun off the list? Just take it off. I mean, if some manufacturer showed a gun to Amidon and he approved it, but then when it came to market it was only available with a magwell and a SA trigger, wouldn't they take it off the list? How is this any different? The gun *is not* available. It can't be any more simple than that. Send that exact question to the USPSA President and/or your AD. Let us know what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38SuperDub Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Well we all know what the AD will say. He already came on here and said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) There isn't any historical significance that I am aware of. When Production started, we merely copied the IPSC list. If we update the wording, wouldn't it make sense that the availability to the general public...of USPSA...ought to be the regular US citizens? Yes. It is after all (U.S.)PSA. It's funny, but there was a quirky parallel in the AMA Superbike racing series back in the 90's. Harley wanted to race in Superbike class which is based on production street bikes. Obviously, Harley didn't have anything even close to a crotch rocket, so they developed the VR1000. AMA rules specified that 50 bikes had to be produced for homologation and the bikes had to be street-legal...but they didn't specify *where* they had to be street-legal. The stiff emissions regulations made it too expensive to be made street-legal in the U.S., so Harley got their 50 VR1000's to be certified to be street-legal and sold...in Poland. Edited March 17, 2013 by mpolans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 Well it looks like this is going to die. Quiet a sad commentary. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv Z Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=604923586203324 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 19, 2013 Author Share Posted March 19, 2013 I guess if they keep saying it out loud enough times they think it will be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts