waktasz Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I asked on the FB post where I could get one. I don't think anyone answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv Z Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I guess if they keep saying it out loud enough times they think it will be true. Kinda neat how that works. That's the problem with the world these days, nobody cares about what's right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I just emailed my area director. We'll see what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 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 This is a case where an alpha-mike was called a double. The RM made his call, a squad member taped the target, and we're moving on. It doesn't matter if the shooter knows he pulled the shot wide, he's taking the benefit of a bad call, regardless of whether it's fair for everyone else. (In case you can't tell, in this case the "shooter" is a major sponsor who is receiving a benefit regardless of whether it's fair for its competitors). It also doesn't matter if the squadmates, the onlookers, and even the Shooting USA cameras saw the round hit the dirt berm a few feet from the target. Because rules are rules, except that the people in charge get to pick and choose which ones to follow. Nope - the RM has made the call and he's already left the bay. It's over - but everyone knows what really happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Thinking about it from a different angle, how many guns on the list would definitely not pass the 2000 gun test, at least for the US market? There is no way Tanfoglio (for example), has made 2000 Stock 3s (or probably even Stock 2s) available to the general public, yet those guns are on the list as well. I'm sure if we went gun by gun, we would find other examples... Do we really want to open this can of worms? Maybe that's why no one at USPSA wants to address this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maksim Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 2000 stock 3s or sphinx guns. Lol. Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I get the concern about apparently shady evasion of the rules, but since everyone who uses these guns is at a disadvantage to everyone who shoots a cz shadow, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it as long as the gun actually shows up in shops sometime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maksim Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Lol. So true Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 I get the concern about apparently shady evasion of the rules, but since everyone who uses these guns is at a disadvantage to everyone who shoots a cz shadow, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it as long as the gun actually shows up in shops sometime soon. You make an excellent point sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnote Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 What happens next time? The precedent has been set that there are no provisions in place to require the manufacture to prove their claim. So I look to see more custom race guns being introduced into production. Some may never see the 2k mark achieved. Thinking about it from a different angle, how many guns on the list would definitely not pass the 2000 gun test, at least for the US market? There is no way Tanfoglio (for example), has made 2000 Stock 3s (or probably even Stock 2s) available to the general public, yet those guns are on the list as well. I'm sure if we went gun by gun, we would find other examples... Do we really want to open this can of worms? Maybe that's why no one at USPSA wants to address this... Valid point, not the first one questionable, and it wont be the last..... I do not think that the FN is a custom race gun any more than a G34, I believe, with all the modifications we allow today, a glock is a glock is a glock (FN,XD,etc) instead of 17/19/34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Thinking about it from a different angle, how many guns on the list would definitely not pass the 2000 gun test, at least for the US market? There is no way Tanfoglio (for example), has made 2000 Stock 3s (or probably even Stock 2s) available to the general public, yet those guns are on the list as well. I'm sure if we went gun by gun, we would find other examples... Do we really want to open this can of worms? Maybe that's why no one at USPSA wants to address this... If that's the case, they should be pulled from the Production List too. Production was supposed to be the cheap, gateway division into the USPSA shooting world. It shouldn't be the place for guns with lots of expensive modifications, or special limited edition custom shop guns, or limited distribution prototype/pre-production guns. Has anyone else contacted or heard back from the Area 8 Director on this? He didn't respond to my email. Anyone heard from our new President on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 Thinking about it from a different angle, how many guns on the list would definitely not pass the 2000 gun test, at least for the US market? There is no way Tanfoglio (for example), has made 2000 Stock 3s (or probably even Stock 2s) available to the general public, yet those guns are on the list as well. I'm sure if we went gun by gun, we would find other examples... Do we really want to open this can of worms? Maybe that's why no one at USPSA wants to address this... If that's the case, they should be pulled from the Production List too. Production was supposed to be the cheap, gateway division into the USPSA shooting world. It shouldn't be the place for guns with lots of expensive modifications, or special limited edition custom shop guns, or limited distribution prototype/pre-production guns. Has anyone else contacted or heard back from the Area 8 Director on this? He didn't respond to my email. Anyone heard from our new President on this? 2 things 1) Production is viewed as the way to draw the manufactures into our sport as both sponsors and as innovators. Like Ford, GM & Dodge are to NASCAR. We help them sell their product by givivng them a venue for it to be showcased in all its glory. 2) I have heard from the USPSA President. You won't like his response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konkapot Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I emailed A6 director about 4 days ago; no response either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Things have blown up on Facebook. A response from FNH via Dave seems warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Don't worry, guys, if weights on the FNS-9 and FNS-40 4" models are accurate, then it's unlikely that the FNS-9 Competition weighs 2.2-4.5 ounces less. If it doesn't weigh less, it weighs more. If it weighs more than 2 ounces more, then under App. D4, Item 18, it would be overweight and, thus, per 6.2.5.1, the shooter would be moved to Open Division, if available. Open Division, where prototypes belong. http://www.fnhusa.co...ases/pr-120607/ Of course, FNH could always get in touch with USPSA to correct the weight. But if they're doing that they might as well correct the... miscommunication... about whether 2000 units are available to the general public. Edited March 21, 2013 by diehli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I just checked the form FNH filled out for the FNS 5" 9mm Competition. It lists 1.7 pounds which, by my math, is 27.2 pounds. I emailed John already to let him know about the discrepancy. Thank you for pointing that out so we can correct it before the next match. I got burned on that at one of the Tulsa Nationals when my CZ, with nothing extra, came in over the posted weight. It's not fun. Made CZ report an actual weight quick though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I just checked the form FNH filled out for the FNS 5" 9mm Competition. It lists 1.7 pounds which, by my math, is 27.2 pounds. I emailed John already to let him know about the discrepancy. Thank you for pointing that out so we can correct it before the next match. I got burned on that at one of the Tulsa Nationals when my CZ, with nothing extra, came in over the posted weight. It's not fun. Made CZ report an actual weight quick though. Thanks for taking action on this one particular aspect of this gun's legality. I'm sure the other glaring issues will work themselves out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shokr21 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Amazing that the intricacies such as weight are garnering attention, but something so simple as 2000 units available to the public seem to be difficult to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 I just checked the form FNH filled out for the FNS 5" 9mm Competition. It lists 1.7 pounds which, by my math, is 27.2 pounds. I emailed John already to let him know about the discrepancy. Thank you for pointing that out so we can correct it before the next match. I got burned on that at one of the Tulsa Nationals when my CZ, with nothing extra, came in over the posted weight. It's not fun. Made CZ report an actual weight quick though. Chuck, Since you have the form that FNH submitted who signed it ? I'd like to ask them where I can get one of the guns they certified were available to the general public ? Seriously, I do. Ward Lance L2711 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer377 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Maybe overly cynical of me, but it looks like HQ is trying to stall just a few more weeks until FN can start shipping (press releases had Jan-Apr 2013) and the whole thing becomes moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ac4wordplay Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Wow! Just... wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 Maybe overly cynical of me, but it looks like HQ is trying to stall just a few more weeks until FN can start shipping (press releases had Jan-Apr 2013) and the whole thing becomes moot. I agree. The worst part is when it come time for elections, no one will remember this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer377 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I'm having a hard time getting all that worked up about it either. It's not like the gun is some one-off super gun that gives Dave any unfair competitive advantage. Just another plastic striker fired thing. Malum prohibitum vis-s-vis malum in se. Sure, it probably shouldn't have been listed in the first place. But that ship has sailed. Sure, HQ could de-list it for the next month or so until they show up on shelves as a little dog n' pony show. But it'd be a largely empty gesture to de-list a gun for a few weeks, and somewhat silly to effectively say "shooting an FNS 5" is unfair this week, but won't be next week" The legal term of art that comes to mind is "harmless error" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 yeah it's really no big deal... it's just the rules that we go by... who cares if they don't have to follow them... why even have rules? lets just make it a stock division and allo any manufactured gun aside from a 1911 style gun play.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts