sp-01 shadow target idpa legal?

[johes]

Delete please.

Edited September 18, 2014 by johes

[IDescribe]

here is there product, touted as being idpa ssp legal. LINK HERE

That link took me to an empty thread at Calguns started by JJDurso, who I believe is KneelingAtlas here at Benos.

I have watched the video at WilsonCombat that touts their SSP legal 92, and the rear sight is Wilson Combat, but the slide has not been milled out to take aftermarket front sights. It's the stock front sight.

Edited September 18, 2014 by IDescribe

[matt7184]

here is the product, touted as being idpa ssp legal. LINK HERE

some of the reasons that wilson gets brought up is a lot of us feel they are doing the same thing as czc and getting away with it, but they aren't in any official beretta stuff whereas the czc stuff is in the cz usa brochure and website.

also, that front sight dovetail is milled in by wilson, which using their own logic should make it illegal for ssp. but finally, using idpa's own rules again you have to make 2k a year of the gun. i spoke personally with a wilson combat rep and he told me the only make 300 guns a month. thats 3,600 a year. it's pretty incredulous to think that 2/3 of their total production is that beretta.

but as i've said before, it really isnt about the gun. it's about how the decision was made, the lack of transparency, how the information was disseminated and especially its timing. and it bring backs into conversation a lot of people's unhappiness with the rulebook, its wording, the rules themselves and so on.

i really need to just shut up about it and do my own thing.

They aren't milling dovetails in the SSP IDPA Legal M9A1s...these are just M9A1s and Wilson installs Beretta parts in for you and drills the front sight for a FO Tube (like how ToolTech also drills the fronts for night sights). If you are actually going to try to make any argument about Wilson, perhaps you should be familiar with which model they are saying is IDPA SSP legal.

[kfd147]

I do agree the the wording in the rulebook needs to be changed and some things need to be redefined better. But, a lot of people just don't read the rules like they should and repeat something that they heard or read thinking it is in the rules. It makes me shake my head in disbelief a lot.

[rowdyb]

sorry for the bad link. doing too many things at once on the internet.

[kfd147]

Procedural!!!!!!!

[zhunter]

Procedural!!!!!!!

I would say typical in IDPA, but I won't as it would be inappropriate

[GForceLizard]

Is the mag release button on the Wilson Beretta IDPA legal? It looks like they went from a round post to an oversized button.

[matt7184]

I am assuming you are talking about the Langdon video. Yes, it's a factory Beretta part.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/982953/beretta-magazine-release-oversized-92-96-series-black

You need to be careful when saying Wilson Beretta. They have many options and packages and some will take certain guns out of SSP. Some of the "Wilson Beretta" pictures floating around are 92A1s with quite a bit of work. I think people not understanding what Wilson is offering is adding to the confusion and anger towards them.

[tbarker13]

I just wish IDPA would officially address this issue.

Seems like the Shadow Target could be ruled illegal for essentially the same reason the Accu-Shadow was. They could decide the slide cut on the Target is illegal because it's put on there by the CZ Custom Shop. Or, they could decide it is legal, because the model is sold through CZ USA.

It would be ridiculously sloppy for them to come back now and say, "Oh yeah, the Shadow Target is also illegal."

They should have addressed them both at the same time.

[elguapo]

It would be ridiculously sloppy for them to come back now and say, "Oh yeah, the Shadow Target is also illegal."

But not surprising at all