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

Using a weaponlight as a frame weight for limited


Givo08

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This maybe off to a tangent, but if somebody figures out how to make a red dot sight using only mirrors and fiber optics (i.e. no lenses or electronics), it seems like it would also be perfectly legal for Limited and L10. Position the mirrors so that center of gravity of gun helps counter act recoil but still makes it easy to point the gun and you'll be golden.

Back on topic, I wonder how heavy, low, and forward the tube of the former flashlight needs to be setup so that it significantly affects the center of gravity of the gun so that it helps with the recoil?

I also wonder if the tube can extend forward past the dust cover and be shaped somewhat like a spoon on scallop so that some of the gas expelled out the front of the gun can hit the scallop and help keep the muzzle down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder if the tube can extend forward past the dust cover and be shaped somewhat like a spoon on scallop so that some of the gas expelled out the front of the gun can hit the scallop and help keep the muzzle down.

That would be a compensator, and a terrible one at that. Trust me, I'm an expert on shitty compensators :)

If you want to shoot with a dot and a comp so bad, why not shoot an Open gun???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Where did you get the gif? Awesome. If y'all want to put an empty light on your guns, go for it. I like my awesome Glock just the way it is.

Just right click on it and save to your docs or pics and attach it the same as any pic...I'm eating the popcorn on this thread because I'm still trying to fiqure out why someone other then a beginner would want a heavy muzzle all that does is slow me down harder to start transition and harder to stop. I just dont get it, but of course if I had a financial interest in this type of thing my view would be much different.. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think functionality should play a part. The rules say "flashlight". Not working flashlight or functional flashlight.

Yep. Plain meaning rules.

I agree with Sarge. It's still a flashlight whether it works or if its been disabled.

It'll be like walking into a public school with an unloaded gun... "It's not a gun. It's a paperweight." you tell arresting officer.

Plain meaning trumps all in the law unless it leads to absurd results. The same rule should apply to our rules unless there's a sound basis for deviating.

If you look at my old post on this forum, I have been saying to ignore "intent" for years. The rules don't have intent. They have a meaning that we ought to apply.

I will say it again. Unbelievable

Nah, it's not unbelievable. It's a byproduct of giving Amidon so much power. We'd be better off with arb committees or requiring the board itself to sign off on an opinion than giving a single person the power to make the rules through decisionmaking.

Perhaps all of the RMIs should have a vote.

Amidon isn't a tyrant by any means, but the fact that he doesn't have to justify his rulings to anyone--and that they are as good as if the rule was part of the rule book itself once published--has long been a problem that we have the capability to solve.

No one person should have the power to make our rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, DNROI does not "make" the rules, he provides interpretations when requested. There are some interpretations that have been made null and void when the Board made a rule change as well.

I know the rulebook pretty well, and going through course approvals with RMIs, I have had to make a change, but I have also convinced the RMI I was correct. Even so, stuff happens. I have been working matches when an oddity occurred...I have contacted RMIs from the range and once it had to go to DNROI. That interaction is beneficial for the rules committee, DNROI and ROs working matches...so long as people follow the rules and ROs enforce them.

I highly doubt that DNROI does not have to defend his interpretations, in fact I know of at least one occurrence where other RMIs provided input before he provided and interpretation.

However, I work often in the legal system, and a "gun" with or without a firing pin and bullets, gets the same charge if you threaten someone with it, because it IS a gun. A light, devoid of batteries and the lightbulb, would, in a legal setting, still be a light. You show it to anyone, and they call it a light and that is how I saw this original question. Maybe this will be reversed, maybe not. But at least I am now aware of a current interpretation and will officiate accordingly. I might even shoot my night match gun in Limited without the light bulb just for fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say it again. Unbelievable

Nah, it's not unbelievable. It's a byproduct of giving Amidon so much power. We'd be better off with arb committees or requiring the board itself to sign off on an opinion than giving a single person the power to make the rules through decisionmaking.

Perhaps all of the RMIs should have a vote.

Amidon isn't a tyrant by any means, but the fact that he doesn't have to justify his rulings to anyone--and that they are as good as if the rule was part of the rule book itself once published--has long been a problem that we have the capability to solve.

No one person should have the power to make our rules.

Tim,

actually Amidon doesn't have sole power -- he is governed by BOD oversight per the rulebook.....

  1. 11.8.3 All official USPSA interpretations of the rulebook published on the USPSA website (www.uspsa.org) will be deemed to be precedents and will be applied to all USPSA matches commencing on or after 7 days from the date of publication. All such interpretations are subject to ratification or modification at a regular or special meeting of the USPSA Board of Directors.

So, to sum it up, unless the interpretation is published it's essentially equivalent to an interpretation by any other RMI, and even if published, it could be revised or overturned by the BOD.....

Lot of fuss about nothing.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A gun with no bullets used in a crime is still chargeable because the victim cannot tell it from a loaded gun and therefore it's use presents the same threat as a loaded gun and consequently the same risk of escalation and injury due to LE response, bystander intervention or victim resistance. A former light with no ability to emit light does not present the same risk of being used as a light during a stage run as does a light that can emit light. Apple's/oranges comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off lawboy, you're inferring the intent of the rule where none is stated: the rule doesn't say anything about why lights are prohibited, just that they are prohibited. Secondly the gun analogy is an apt one for the reason you described: there is no way for a bystander to know the light emitting capability of a light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has the letter from Amidon (and pinto for ipsc)

Had to have troy review it and look over it yesterday and was ruled a weight

You guys can continue to give your "opinions" but those that actually matter in this case already have.

Pretty sure is Bob hung Christmas ornaments and tinsle off his gun he would still do pretty good, besides it has been ruled before that he is not human just a shooting game machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kneelingatlas, I am inferring the intent as you say. But as has been stated, nroi agrees with me. Also, in uspsa, equipment can be inspected at any time by officials so they can know whether the device is a light or not when ever they like. A robbery victim cannot inspect the perpetrator's gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does blow my mind that all of the Production legal Glock race triggers have visibly modified the engagement of the trigger safety at the back of the trigger. I guess since everyone is doing it DNROI looks the other way? He never responded to my email asking for clarification.

How that could ever not be considered an external modification is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, DNROI does not "make" the rules, he provides interpretations when requested.

It is utterly disingenuous to say that the process of interpreting the rules, when it leads to an opinion that is binding on everyone once published, is not "making" the rules.

Both have the same level of authority--they bind everyone who must follow the rules.

The BOD doesn't have the time to overrule every erroneous decision that Amidon makes. That's another reason why I don't think he should have the power to issue a binding ruling. There should be a board of some kind--preferably of RMIs--who have to approve any interpretation before it is published. Such a board wouldn't necessarily have to have every RMI's approval, but could still require more than one.

If Amidon was sending letters to a single person with an interpretation that had no binding effect on anyone (and thus arb boards could still overturn it for a single match), it'd be a different story. But Amidon's opinions are not advisory. They are as good as the rules themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the thing anyone think that this is going to help him win... Anymore that he does?

And now that he has came up with this and had it given a ruling, now you can go and do it too

There is nothing in the rules, anywhere, that allows us to excuse a violation of the rules because there is no competitive advantage, just like there is nothing in the rules that allows us to overlook a 180 violation if nobody is put in danger.

As soon as you allow reading into the rules rather than applying the plain meaning, you're creating a world with standards, not rules. Fair competition requires rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one who has OFTEN critisized the way Amidon rules on things, I also see the point of the position in general. Without it you have two choices, either you get a new rule every year clarifing something or other, or you end up with local interpretations of rules.

I do see the point of official clarifications by the rules guru, I'm just not sure we have the right guru anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...