Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

FNS-9 Competition & "The List"


warpspeed

Recommended Posts

So why only in the US?

I would say it is based on the US part of USPSA. :devil:

I don't think it matters in this case. I can't find infomation on this gun being available anywhere, except for the prototypes here in the US.

....FNH said they made 2k. .....

So what about the "available to the general public" part of the rule? Does that not matter?

No one is questioning Dave's skills and wether he would have won with a Hi-point or FNS9 comp. They're questioning the availability of the gun, and how it fit the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So why only in the US? I made this argument recently. We open our sport to competitors from outside the US as well. What happens to the competitor that has a gun regionally available in their country and that is the only type of gun they can get. (I'm thinking about Russia whih has some pretty specific regs).

That is a valid point. I'll have to think on this (or somebody here will know right off and tell me :) ) I wonder...

Competitors outside the US would almost always be members of IPSC. How would it work if we gave IPSC members an allowance to use guns on the IPSC list? While all of our (USPSA) guns aren't going to be on the IPSC list, would there be IPSC list Production guns that wouldn't be very USPSA "Production"?

(just throwing that against the wall to see what sticks)

When US competitors compete in IPSC sanctioned matches like the World Shoot, their guns have to comply with IPSC rules...they can't shoot their 6" USPSA Limited guns in IPSC Standard, nor can they use their USPSA Production Glocks with 2lb triggers and milled in Bomars in IPSC Production.

Similarly, foreign competitors competing in USPSA matches should have to follow USPSA rules.

Edited by mpolans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All USPSA members are, by default, IPSC members. Not sure I'd want to try policing where different members lived,

What measure should the BOD use to determine whether a gun is generally available to the public? This question has come up recently. Not wanting to mention the gun control debate but it's related here. Some jurisdictions will likely make certain Production compliant guns accessible to only LE/Military customers. Should those groups be considered the public for purposes of this? I'm thinking in the hypothetical here. Say Glock decides to sell only to LE/Mil customers in CA, NY, and say CO. Are those guns no longer generally available there? Should the Production list vary by state? I don't want to dumb down the divisions to meet the criteria of a few states. I don't think it's healthy for the sport. What does the Enosverse have to say about how we can deal with it. Sorry if this is a bit of thread drift on this.

LE/Mil only doesn't equal generally available to the public. However, I'd think you can differentiate by looking at whether the manufacturer chooses not to sell a particular model on a national-level vs a state/locality prohibiting a sale by law. One is is a manufacturer's choice, one is a restriction that is out of their hands.

I think you can look to the purpose of the minimum number, to insure a manufacturer doesn't make a limited number of super tricked out competition specific guns.

Edited by mpolans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit that I also was a bit confused when I saw that Dave had competed in Production division with the gun and went and checked the list just to be sure (like the others, I'm not faulting him on it as it was legal per the rules). I have had a particular interest in this gun for quite a while and everything I'd seen for more than a year kept saying that they were "coming soon". At this year's SHOT show they were displaying them again and they were supposed to be out in a few months.

Personally, I know that Dave would do great with anything, and I fully expect that the FNS 5" Competition model will end up on the Production list eventually, but it does seem a little premature for it to be there right now. Until its available for sale to the public where do we have our baseline to draw from? What constitutes too significant of a deviation from the stock config if there is not an actual stock config off the shelf to compare to? (I know that for example, the model Dave had in the videos from the range at SHOT Show had no thumb safety, but the models the execs were showing on the floor did) Seems like with things like that and the fact that they're still not actually available for sale, they're still working out the details on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I want one, and can't get one, from any dealer in the country, it's not generally available.

Conversely, I can't shoot my CZ Shadow Custom Target in IPSC Production, despite the fact that anybody with around $1200 can get one should they so desire.

Yeah, that makes total sense......not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So at this point, at least 2 board members and DNROI is aware that this gun may not meet the requirements to be on the production list. I wonder if anyone is going to contact FN and ask them to confirm the 2000 units available to the general public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shot Show article in the current issue of Front Sight has a quote from an FN Rep:

behind a major agency order, but once that's filled we expect to start shipping mid-year

That sounds like they are several months off from meeting the requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shot Show article in the current issue of Front Sight has a quote from an FN Rep:

behind a major agency order, but once that's filled we expect to start shipping mid-year

That sounds like they are several months off from meeting the requirements.

I saw that and thought of this thread instantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we, as members of USPSA, are owed an explanation by both FN & NROI as to how this happened and what the NROI is going to do going forward.

Cmon - there are more important things that USPSA has to worry about than the rules and verifying applications for the approved production list. Like close USPSA HQ to go to the gun range for "long-overdue staff training."

Edited by bsdubois00
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like close USPSA HQ to go to the gun range for "long-overdue staff training."

i didn't see go to the range in that paragraph

The staff took the RO class. Part of that is a range session. Kim thought it would help them to know something about our side of the sport when they are working in the office. I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about my bickering.

Chuck I'll drop this. Thank you for actually taking the time to come on here and give the other side of things.

Here is my BIGGEST issue - we live and breathe by the RULES. I understand that USPSA is a business (whoever doesn't think it is is wrong) but the 100% top priority needs to be the rules. If MLB decided to make aluminum bats legal and printed it in a magazine that only half of the teams get - would that be fair? Or if NASCAR allowed this new special super duper duper super duper engine because the manufacture told them "oh yea its the same and we met all the requirements you told us we had to" and did zero investigating on their own and only 1 race car could have that engine - would that be fair?

My biggest point is - finding a way to keep the rules current - in a medium that everyone can easily access - and not have to go searching through 2 year old BOD minutes to find mention of the change - SHOULD be a top priority for USPSA HQ, USPSA BOD, NROI, and anyone else that really cares about the forward progress of our sport.

Once everyone starts getting lax (or more lax) on the rules - things will start to fall apart. No USPSA will never go away - but look what 3GN did coming in and taking over 3-gun. Why? The USPSA RULES for MG.

Chuck - thanks for your work - don't think I'm taking anything out on you - you just so happen to be the only member of the above mentioned group that actually participates on here.

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I answered the "current rules" concern on another thread. It's important to note that everybody working on these things has a life and other things to do in addition to their NROI/BOD VOLUNTEER jobs.

As for training the staff, it was a necessary and good thing, in my opinion, to bring them up to speed on just what USPSA is all about. They are excellent office workers, and all of them have a good work ethic. The one thing they are not is competitive shooters, or even gun owners. The training taught them some valuable things about 1) What a USPSA match/Club/Section, etc. is all about, 2) What it's like to shoot a handgun in competition, 3) what NROI does, and 4) that guns, no matter what they look like, are not bad things.

I did the training. It was very much appreciated and as I said, necessary. This was something the former ED never would consider, yet it was badly needed. That's not a good thing, IMO.

As a board member and an instructor, I applaud the current ED's efforts to improve the knowledge and abilities of the staff. And, she is working hard to modernize our web page and bring USPSA into the current digital age. However, that won't happen overnight. Constructive suggestions are welcomed, though, so contact her with anything you think will help, or better yet, provide the solution yourself. Improving things within the organization is a two-way street.

As for the FN thing, FN complied with our current requirements to add a gun to a division. Like somebody mentioned earlier, we have to comply with IPSC regs to shoot there, which means some of our guns may not be available outside the US, but are still legal. The opposite applies as well. I don't know where the guns are available, but we have a signed statement verifying that the requisite number were produced and were available to the general public somewhere. Per our rules for Production Division, this is all that is required. The DNROI received the forms and reviewed the gun at SHOT, satisfying the requirements. If FN was delayed in production due to the current run on guns and all things related, that is understandable. We, USPSA, are bound by our rules and our agreement to accept the statement from the manufacturer. So, this gun is a done deal, and y'all might as well quit hollering about it. Nothing is going to change.

As for other guns taking longer, many times that's a function of the manufacturer not providing the required information, for whatever reason. We are not in the business of hounding gun companies to provide new guns. The process for acceptance into a certain division is manufacturer driven.

Troy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...