mikey357 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) Hmmm, an unnanounced equipment test, and if your gun fails, you're DQ'd? That's not designed to encourage participation. Oh, and if you 're going to do a mechanical test on my firearm, and you break something, you're going to pay to fix it. If that means the match can't find someone to conduct the test, that's fine with me. Ham-handed "testing" is on par with dropping. You had to handle my firearm, and dropped it onto concrete, and now it doesn't work? You'd better hope there's someone over in the S&W plant who can fix it real quick. If the "Tester" broke MY Revolver, he would need some HELP getting a Size 10 1/2 EEE New Balance REMOVED from where the Sun don't shine! IDIOT... ....mikey357 Edited March 30, 2013 by mikey357 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom E Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 This is nuts. Same odd mentality in play as deeming the IL to be a "safety". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBorland Posted March 31, 2013 Author Share Posted March 31, 2013 Same odd mentality in play as deeming the IL to be a "safety". And they haven't: It's been deemed a "storage" device, and may be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Same odd mentality in play as deeming the IL to be a "safety". And they haven't: It's been deemed a "storage" device, and may be removed. That must be new. It wasn't all that long ago that IDPA declared the IL to be a safety device that had to be retained and functional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom E Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Same odd mentality in play as deeming the IL to be a "safety". And they haven't: It's been deemed a "storage" device, and may be removed. IL on S&W revolvers. This goes back to Feb 2010: "After perusing the Smith & Wesson website, I find that the lock literature is under the Safety subheading. After Talking with XX, I still feel that the integral lock is still considered a Safety Device. As such, the lock can not be disabled. Thank you, Robert Ray International Defensive Pistol Association" You are aware of a more recent ruling? Edited March 31, 2013 by Tom E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Nesbitt Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 http://idpaforum.yuku.com/topic/8655/Locks-Disconnectors-Safeties It is now a storage lock. I think there is something else posted somewhere too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind bat Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Did the five guys still shooting revolvers in IDPA piss someone off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Nesbitt Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Did the five guys still shooting revolvers in IDPA piss someone off? http://www.matchreg.com/sw/02-21-13misc.htm According to the results of the recent IDPA Indoor Nationals, there were 48 revolver shooters in the 2 divisions. 30 in SSR and 18 in ESR. There were only 46 CDP shooters. Revolver is alive and well in IDPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 http://idpaforum.yuk...ectors-Safeties It is now a storage lock. I think there is something else posted somewhere too. Bill, I went to that link and it appeared to be a post by somebody named Bubba on one of the IDPA forums. I'm unclear on whether that clarification is a request for a rule change, a decision by the "Tiger Team" that is not actually in the official rules yet, or what. The rulebook posted on the IDPA website is still the 2005 version. It's all pretty confusing, frankly. Can you clarify where a person could find a comprehensive set of the current official IDPA rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Nesbitt Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Bill, I went to that link and it appeared to be a post by somebody named Bubba on one of the IDPA forums. I'm unclear on whether that clarification is a request for a rule change, a decision by the "Tiger Team" that is not actually in the official rules yet, or what. The rulebook posted on the IDPA website is still the 2005 version. It's all pretty confusing, frankly. Can you clarify where a person could find a comprehensive set of the current official IDPA rules? These are official decisions from HQ. Bubba is one of the spokespersons. Right now, we have these rulings from the forum, the 2005 rule book and the addendum. Right, pretty confusing right now. I guess the Tiger Team has been working on the new rule book and it's supposed to be released to the membership soon to look over. Then the membership will give feedback before the new rule book goes into effect. Edited March 31, 2013 by Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmauk Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 I just cut my hammer down got it even with the side plates but would have done more but I want to keep the locking device working. But on that note I think a revolver does have a safety its not like you flip a button down when you shoot it.I think its a storage lock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmauk Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Sorry guys doesn't have a safety better proofread before I hit button Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRodriguez Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 so does this mean that the integral lock must be on when the buzzer goes off? your gonna have to draw, insert the lock tool and disengage the lock? I love my old gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom E Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 These are official decisions from HQ. Bubba is one of the spokespersons. Ok, but in that same post: "the rules committee is making an effort to define a few parts which are NOT a safety as a temporary ruling pending the final definition of the Equipment Team" ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cd662 Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) I think that translates to "We are going to try to make a temporary ruling on a few gun specific things". I'm still going to proceed as planned until there is a specific ruling. This thread was not about disabling the internal lock, my 66 did not have an ILS installed. It was about part of the hammer. I think the real question, in a world where logic is king would be: How many revolvers with the rear "tang" of the hammer removed have spontaneously combusted and caused black holes or spawned dark matter in all the years of it being done in USPSA and ICORE? I am not going to comment about the rulebook or this year's "new" IDPA since that's for another thread. But to reiterate my past statement, until otherwise clarified, I personally don't see any rules violation for removing the rear "tang" of a hammer in a revolver. I don't care what they rule for striker fired pistols, 1911s, .25 pocket automatics, or HALO plasma rifles. However, to keep things positive, I'd encourage anyone else who gets challenged on this to report about it. Edited April 1, 2013 by Cd662 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I think the real question, in a world where logic is king, would be: How many revolvers with the rear "tang" of the hammer removed have spontaneously combusted and caused black holes or spawned dark matter in all the years of it being done in USPSA and ICORE? Good point. I put it in a ruling request on the IDPA forums about this issue and hadn't thought about how many -virtually all- USPSA revolvers run this way with ZERO safety issues for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racinready300ex Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 This is from the new rule book, I think "hammer blocking safeties" would mean this is no longer legal. And with big butt's now illegal I have a bit of money to spend before I can shoot sanctioned match after these go into effect - Disconnection or disabling of any safety device including (but not limited to): manual safeties, grip safeties, firing pin, striker, and hammer blocking safeties, 1911 series 80 firing pin safeties, 1911 Swartz safeties. 1911 series 80 frames may be used with series 70 slides or vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcman Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 This is from the new rule book, I think "hammer blocking safeties" would mean this is no longer legal. And with big butt's now illegal I have a bit of money to spend before I can shoot sanctioned match after these go into effect - Disconnection or disabling of any safety device including (but not limited to): manual safeties, grip safeties, firing pin, striker, and hammer blocking safeties, 1911 series 80 firing pin safeties, 1911 Swartz safeties. 1911 series 80 frames may be used with series 70 slides or vice versa. I can think of no one who would interpret that phrase to mean anything other than the actual hammer block safety being taken out of the gun. If your interpretation is the case, they REALLY need to redo that phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racinready300ex Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 That's just something I was looking for in the book and that is what I thought of when I read that part. I hope that I'm wront don't really feel like messing with my gun any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom E Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) This is from the new rule book, I think "hammer blocking safeties" would mean this is no longer legal. And with big butt's now illegal I have a bit of money to spend before I can shoot sanctioned match after these go into effect - Disconnection or disabling of any safety device including (but not limited to): manual safeties, grip safeties, firing pin, striker, and hammer blocking safeties, 1911 series 80 firing pin safeties, 1911 Swartz safeties. 1911 series 80 frames may be used with series 70 slides or vice versa. I can think of no one who would interpret that phrase to mean anything other than the actual hammer block safety being taken out of the gun. If your interpretation is the case, they REALLY need to redo that phrase. "I can think of no one who would interpret that phrase to mean anything other than the actual hammer block safety..." I think you're being pretty charitable. I would have said the same about the S&W IL being a "safety" but the IDPA higher ups, against all logic, originally deemed it a "safety". The bolt, in conjuction with the hammer surface commonly removed during "carmonizing", does "block" the hammer from moving rearward preventing the gun from possibly being fired. The IDPA rules makers track record doesn't leave me with much confidence in how this will be decided. Edited May 8, 2013 by Tom E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcman Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 This is from the new rule book, I think "hammer blocking safeties" would mean this is no longer legal. And with big butt's now illegal I have a bit of money to spend before I can shoot sanctioned match after these go into effect - Disconnection or disabling of any safety device including (but not limited to): manual safeties, grip safeties, firing pin, striker, and hammer blocking safeties, 1911 series 80 firing pin safeties, 1911 Swartz safeties. 1911 series 80 frames may be used with series 70 slides or vice versa. I can think of no one who would interpret that phrase to mean anything other than the actual hammer block safety being taken out of the gun. If your interpretation is the case, they REALLY need to redo that phrase. "I can think of no one who would interpret that phrase to mean anything other than the actual hammer block safety..." I think you're being pretty charitable. I would have said the same about the S&W IL being a "safety" but the IDPA higher ups, against all logic, originally deemed it a "safety". The bolt in conjuction with the hammer surface commonly removed during "carmonizing" does "block" the hammer from moving reward, preventing the gun from possibly being fired. The IDPA rules makers track record doesn't leave me with much confidence in how this will be decided. Unfortunately, quite true. Thankfully though, anytime I've went through safety checks at a major, they look down to see the "hammer block", so at least a few of them know what's up- LOL! I hope it stays as it is. With 300x, I don't want to mess with my guns anymore. I like them as is- carmonized and all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBorland Posted May 8, 2013 Author Share Posted May 8, 2013 The bolt, in conjuction with the hammer surface commonly removed during "carmonizing", does "block" the hammer from moving rearward preventing the gun from possibly being fired. And how's the gun gonna fire if the action cycles with the cylinder open? This gets close to the heart of the issue: How's it a safety issue when the gun isn't even capable of firing? The silence in response to the ruling request suggests it's not clear cut, and/or HQ is choosing to defer altogether. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom E Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 The bolt, in conjuction with the hammer surface commonly removed during "carmonizing", does "block" the hammer from moving rearward preventing the gun from possibly being fired. And how's the gun gonna fire if the action cycles with the cylinder open? This gets close to the heart of the issue: How's it a safety issue when the gun isn't even capable of firing? The silence in response to the ruling request suggests it's not clear cut, and/or HQ is choosing to defer altogether. Tom My point was simply that per IDPA's wording, the hammer surface removed by "carmonizing", in conjunction with the bolt, BLOCKS the hammer. How will the wording be applied? Or will it be deemed to apply? I guess we'll wait and see. Just remember this comes to you from the folks who labeled (until recently) the IL a "safety". My personal opinion is that a "carmonized" hammer probably doesn't sit well with IDPA's "real world" mind set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cd662 Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I just shot the "Think of the Children" Sanctioned Match in Lewistown PA and the New York State IDPA Championship with this evil, modified hammer gun without any issue. I think that as long as the hammer block safety flag is still in place, the gun is OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcman Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 The bolt, in conjuction with the hammer surface commonly removed during "carmonizing", does "block" the hammer from moving rearward preventing the gun from possibly being fired. And how's the gun gonna fire if the action cycles with the cylinder open? This gets close to the heart of the issue: How's it a safety issue when the gun isn't even capable of firing? The silence in response to the ruling request suggests it's not clear cut, and/or HQ is choosing to defer altogether. Tom I noticed on the IDPA webpage that someone had commented on this issue in view of the new rulebook. Maybe we'll get a response on it soon. 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