Clarification on CZ Shadow Target legality?

[BillR1]

Here's a good explanation...

"To understand why the Accu-Shadow is illegal for SSP, you have to understand what the Accu-Shadow is. It is a custom variant of the CZ75 Shadow, which has an external barrel bushing fitting to it in order to improve accuracy. Barrel bushings are on the list of prohibited modifications in SSP.The Accu-Shadow is made by CZ Custom. CZ Custom is not a division of CZ-USA, but is in fact an independent company. CZ-USA may list the Accu-Shadow on their website, but because the bushing is not an OEM part made by CZ and fitted by CZ, the modifications to the Accu-Shadow make it illegal for SSP, and by default then illegal for IDPA. It’s the difference between a Roush Mustang, which is modified by a third party, and a Mopar Challenger. Dodge owns Mopar, Ford doesn’t own Roush."

From http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/09/10/more-on-the-idpa-ban-of-the-cz-accu-shadow/

[tbarker13]

Barrel bushings and external modifications (slide milling) have always been illegal for SSP, correct? Does the Wilson/Beretta have these features? I'm asking because I don't know the answer...

I don't believe that is entirely true. As has been discussed earlier, the old SSP rules allowed the changing of sights. There was no stated restriction against milling a slide to accept a new sight. That may be what IDPA always wanted. But it was not actually against the rules until the new rule book came out.

[v1911]

I don't foresee the wilson Berreta overtaking the SSP world. They'll be rarer than hens teeth. Most will probably be placed in a safe and never see the light of day again.

[ctay]

Here's a good explanation...

"To understand why the Accu-Shadow is illegal for SSP, you have to understand what the Accu-Shadow is. It is a custom variant of the CZ75 Shadow, which has an external barrel bushing fitting to it in order to improve accuracy. Barrel bushings are on the list of prohibited modifications in SSP.The Accu-Shadow is made by CZ Custom. CZ Custom is not a division of CZ-USA, but is in fact an independent company. CZ-USA may list the Accu-Shadow on their website, but because the bushing is not an OEM part made by CZ and fitted by CZ, the modifications to the Accu-Shadow make it illegal for SSP, and by default then illegal for IDPA. It’s the difference between a Roush Mustang, which is modified by a third party, and a Mopar Challenger. Dodge owns Mopar, Ford doesn’t own Roush."

From http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/09/10/more-on-the-idpa-ban-of-the-cz-accu-shadow/

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you arguing that Wilson is owned by Beretta? If not then this is completely unrelated isn't it?

[MikeRush]

Here's a good explanation...

"To understand why the Accu-Shadow is illegal for SSP, you have to understand what the Accu-Shadow is. It is a custom variant of the CZ75 Shadow, which has an external barrel bushing fitting to it in order to improve accuracy. Barrel bushings are on the list of prohibited modifications in SSP.The Accu-Shadow is made by CZ Custom. CZ Custom is not a division of CZ-USA, but is in fact an independent company. CZ-USA may list the Accu-Shadow on their website, but because the bushing is not an OEM part made by CZ and fitted by CZ, the modifications to the Accu-Shadow make it illegal for SSP, and by default then illegal for IDPA. Its the difference between a Roush Mustang, which is modified by a third party, and a Mopar Challenger. Dodge owns Mopar, Ford doesnt own Roush."

From http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/09/10/more-on-the-idpa-ban-of-the-cz-accu-shadow/

Yes, I am sure Ford owns the means of production for all of the parts they utilize. The Tremec transmission, the blower on the Shelby... all in house. If it wasn't so and Ford sold it, it wouldn't be a Ford, right?

Indulging in the moment here, assuming that the S&W performance center is Mopar in the analogy, let's say Roush puts on a race for stock cars. No external modifications, except full SRT trim with all the Mopar goodies is good to go, and Roush can do whatever they want to their cars, cams, porting heads, etc because they make the rules. Then, the day before the race, the guy with the Camaro gets told to leave his SS at home because his SS comes from the dealer with Brembo brakes and Chevy isn't Brembo.

Edited November 19, 2014 by MikeRush

[GOF]

+1. Good analogy!

[motosapiens]

Here's a good explanation...

"To understand why the Accu-Shadow is illegal for SSP, you have to understand what the Accu-Shadow is. It is a custom variant of the CZ75 Shadow, which has an external barrel bushing fitting to it in order to improve accuracy. Barrel bushings are on the list of prohibited modifications in SSP.The Accu-Shadow is made by CZ Custom. CZ Custom is not a division of CZ-USA, but is in fact an independent company. CZ-USA may list the Accu-Shadow on their website, but because the bushing is not an OEM part made by CZ and fitted by CZ, the modifications to the Accu-Shadow make it illegal for SSP, and by default then illegal for IDPA. It’s the difference between a Roush Mustang, which is modified by a third party, and a Mopar Challenger. Dodge owns Mopar, Ford doesn’t own Roush."

From http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/09/10/more-on-the-idpa-ban-of-the-cz-accu-shadow/

So any SSP guns that contain any subcontracted parts should be illegal? That makes hella sense.

I wish IDPA hq would just admit that their main focus is obstructing any attempts to improve performance or speed, whether through equipment or stage planning or shooting technique. Just give up the whole pretend-competition thing. Make it a judged event, where 3 SO's of at least marksman skill level observe the stage, and then judge each competitor based on tactics, costume, required elements and artistic expression. We could call it Defensive Figure Shooting.

[GOF]

LOL!!! +1.... that doesn't seem to be too far off from what IDPA rules seem to indicate they want.

But. you missed one point. It won't be 3 MM SOs... It will be 2 MMs and a Novice (I actually saw a Novice Class SO running a squad at a sanctioned match).

Maybe that's because IDPA seems to have run off a lot of their more experienced SOs.

[M1911]

I wish IDPA hq would just admit that their main focus is obstructing any attempts to improve performance or speed, whether through equipment or stage planning or shooting technique. Just give up the whole pretend-competition thing. Make it a judged event, where 3 SO's of at least marksman skill level observe the stage, and then judge each competitor based on tactics, costume, required elements and artistic expression. We could call it Defensive Figure Shooting.

[rowdyb]

I'm going to offend a lot of people here and some of them my friends, so hopefully you can forgive me.

I would like to never never ever again see a SO at a sanctioned event with a badge that says Marksman.

Will that happen, nope. Normally they, MM's, are the one with the enthusiasm to volunteer which is awesome. Think about this though, when is the last time you saw a SO outside of nationals that had Master on their name tag? Or even Expert? Maybe 1 or 2 at most in a match that will have up to 20 SO's and assistant SO's..... Why do you think this is??

Am I a SO? Nope. Am I handed the timer at matches? Yep. Did I take the preliminary computer test and pass it? Yep. Do I carry the rule book in my range back with clarifications printed out as well? Purely for self defense.

Sorry for the threadjack in a thread I've probably already said too much.

[GOF]

I don't think you said too much, although it may have been slightly (but only 'slightly') extreme. I do know a few (very few) MM class SOs that I would think are capable of handing a sanctioned match squad. But, they're just mediocre shooters who have been in the game for years, and realize it. They are still capable SOs.

The problem is with the SOs who have not been in the game for very long. I had a conversation with one AC who ran SO classes where he told me that he had students show up with a receipt that showed they joined IDPA, but their membership card had not yet come through. How could they possibly understand IDPA? I once saw a Novice class shooter (I know he was a Novice because he won High Novice SSP at the award ceremony) running a stage at a sanctioned match. When I saw him accept the High Novice award it explained, to me, how he ran the squad -- which wasn't well. He thought his 'Red Hat' made him a god, and he left a number of experienced shooters just shaking their heads over his handling of the squad.

There were suggestions made, by Tiger Team members, that SOs should be required to have a certain amount of time in the sport, and achieve a certain level of competency (Classification) before being allowed to become a SO. This was rejected, I think by HQ.

Inexperienced SOs making extremely subjective calls has been the bane of IDPA for years. It's one reason why some top shooters won't shoot a major IDPA match unless their sponsors insist that they be there. Rob Leatham left IDPA for that very reason - inexperienced SOs making very subjective calls.

The problem has only grown larger since a number of experienced SOs did not, or could not due to computer issues, go through Berryville's re-certification process. Some (this one included) just said "The heck with it".

Then, Berryville chopped the number of SOIs drastically. I know two very good ones in NE FL that were told their services were no longer needed. The remaining SOI in FL is a good one, but how much can one person do?

So... yeah... you make a good point Rowdy. And, it isn't going to bode well for IDPA in the future. One can easily spend over $1,000 to attend a major sanctioned match, just to win a $10 wood trophy -- and to have then their score trashed by an incompetent rookie SO? Not me.

[BillR1]

I don't think you said too much, although it may have been slightly (but only 'slightly') extreme. I do know a few (very few) MM class SOs that I would think are capable of handing a sanctioned match squad. But, they're just mediocre shooters who have been in the game for years, and realize it. They are still capable SOs.

The problem is with the SOs who have not been in the game for very long. I had a conversation with one AC who ran SO classes where he told me that he had students show up with a receipt that showed they joined IDPA, but their membership card had not yet come through. How could they possibly understand IDPA?

The answer is...they can't!

Qualifications to take the SO class...from the rulebook:

2.2.2.2. Be a current IDPA member in good standing for at least six months, and never have had their membership revoked.

2.2.2.3. Have shot at least six IDPA matches, at the club or sanctioned level.

If the AC you're speaking of lets brand new members in his SO classes, he needs to lose his job. That's clearly not the way it was designed to work. This is just another example of people ignoring the rulebook, and then blaming IDPA when it don't work well. Unreal!

Edited November 23, 2014 by BillR1

[BillR1]

2.2.3. It is recommended that SOs designated as CSOs in Tier 1 and Tier 2 sanctioned match CoFs (as defined in match administration) meet the following additional qualifications:

2.2.3.1. Have been certified as an IDPA SO for a minimum of one year.

2.2.3.2. Previously served as a SO in at least two sanctioned IDPA matches.

Seems so simple...I don't see anything unclear about this one either.

[elguapo]

Who cares about SO qualifications?

This is a thread to lay bare IDPA's hypocrisy in equipment rule making. We were doing pretty good on that score. Let's keep going.

[elguapo]

I don't agree with milling the slide for SSP, but I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed for ESP.

Because no one ever had their carry gun milled for Novaks or something like that......that's crazy talk

its called STOCK Service Pistol. If you want to go modify your gun go play in ESP

So why the f*#k are there ANY allowable modifications in the SSP rules?

Edited November 23, 2014 by elguapo

[elguapo]

Here's a good explanation...

"To understand why the Accu-Shadow is illegal for SSP, you have to understand what the Accu-Shadow is. It is a custom variant of the CZ75 Shadow, which has an external barrel bushing fitting to it in order to improve accuracy. Barrel bushings are on the list of prohibited modifications in SSP.The Accu-Shadow is made by CZ Custom. CZ Custom is not a division of CZ-USA, but is in fact an independent company. CZ-USA may list the Accu-Shadow on their website, but because the bushing is not an OEM part made by CZ and fitted by CZ, the modifications to the Accu-Shadow make it illegal for SSP, and by default then illegal for IDPA. It’s the difference between a Roush Mustang, which is modified by a third party, and a Mopar Challenger. Dodge owns Mopar, Ford doesn’t own Roush."

From http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/09/10/more-on-the-idpa-ban-of-the-cz-accu-shadow/

So IDPA is now a judge of what is or is not an allowable corporate organization?

[ADulay]

So why the f*#k are there ANY allowable modifications in the SSP rules?

I've often wondered that myself.

AD

Sent from the Glock Range Bag iPad using Tapatalk and a screwdriver

[M1911]

Will that happen, nope. Normally they, MM's, are the one with the enthusiasm to volunteer which is awesome. Think about this though, when is the last time you saw a SO outside of nationals that had Master on their name tag? Or even Expert? Maybe 1 or 2 at most in a match that will have up to 20 SO's and assistant SO's..... Why do you think this is??

I see them at every IDPA match in my area. I'm an SO and classified expert in three divisions. Of the group of SOs at my club, I'd guess that 75% are expert or master.

[M1911]

So why the f*#k are there ANY allowable modifications in the SSP rules?

You really want to shoot a Glock with the crappy stock sights? I can tell you that with my 50+ year-old-eyes, the stock Glock sights are just about unusable.

[IceDevil]

Here's a good explanation...

"To understand why the Accu-Shadow is illegal for SSP, you have to understand what the Accu-Shadow is. It is a custom variant of the CZ75 Shadow, which has an external barrel bushing fitting to it in order to improve accuracy. Barrel bushings are on the list of prohibited modifications in SSP.The Accu-Shadow is made by CZ Custom. CZ Custom is not a division of CZ-USA, but is in fact an independent company. CZ-USA may list the Accu-Shadow on their website, but because the bushing is not an OEM part made by CZ and fitted by CZ, the modifications to the Accu-Shadow make it illegal for SSP, and by default then illegal for IDPA. It’s the difference between a Roush Mustang, which is modified by a third party, and a Mopar Challenger. Dodge owns Mopar, Ford doesn’t own Roush."

From http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/09/10/more-on-the-idpa-ban-of-the-cz-accu-shadow/

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you arguing that Wilson is owned by Beretta? If not then this is completely unrelated isn't it?

What seems to be missing from the beretta/wilson piece of this discussion is that everything I have read says that Wilson doesn't do any work on the Berettas bearing their name. They created the specs and beretta builds it that way using some of Wilson's parts. This is not analogous to CZ Custom taking a base gun and doing further work on it.

[mikeinctown]

IceDevil, it really doesn't matter who does the work. What really matters is who manufactures the gun (ATF has that info) who sells the gun, who markets the gun, and who provides the warrantee for the gun.

CZ makes the gun, has it in their catalog, sells through their vendors, and as far as I can tell, you would contact CZ with any factory issues you may have. CZ USA is indeed the manufacturer of the pistol according to the US government.

I think the black cloud here is that you can order the accu shadow through CZ Custom direct rather than having to order it through CZ USA only. What is lost on the rule makers though is that CZ USA only has the CZ Custom version in their catalog, not a version made by Cajun or Accurate.

[tbarker13]

I have some clarification on this.

My AD asked Robert Ray for clarification.

Ray says they meant to say "SP01 Shadow Target" rather than Accu Target during that last clarification.

So, yes, the Shadow Target is not allowed in IDPA.

[johes]

True, I had emailed Robert earlier for a clarification and received my reply today. It's due to the milling for the sight and he affirmed that it's illegal for ESP because of the full length dust cover.

[Jim Watson]

Now that there is a CZ75 Shadow, you don't have to play silly dust cover games.

[RexKramer]

True, I had emailed Robert earlier for a clarification and received my reply today. It's due to the milling for the sight and he affirmed that it's illegal for ESP because of the full length dust cover.

And the CZ 75 Shadow Target (that's the same as the SP-01 but based off a non-dust cover CZ75 frame)?