Clarification on CZ Shadow Target legality?

[GOF]

BillR1, the moving line covers a lot of things. Yes, the outlawing of 5 inch 625s and requiring 4 inch is one. So is the CZ issue. So is completely eliminating a gun 'line' (removing ESR). The bottom line is that shooters spent money on equipment to allow them to compete to the best of their ability under the rules (doesn't that define the term "competitor"?)and then, for reasons that logic may not support, the money they spent is now no longer allowed -- via a stroke of the pen.

I can see why the anger from the members is there. I can't understand why IDPA created that anger.

[elguapo]

I completely understand your point. It's frustrating when the line is constantly "clarified" (changed?), at least partly because people like to get right up to the edge. I guess I look at it like driving down a 2-lane road. It's safer if you stay as far from the center line as possible. Less exciting is good sometimes.

No, you don't get it. And neither does IDPA.

The line is the line. You are inside of it or you are not. If someone is so close to the line that you can't tell whether he is in or out, you don't just call him out arbitrarily or move the line so that he is clearly out. You make the line clearer and leave it where it was.

USPSA Production approval list: clear line

IDPA SSP rules: BS hazy line that gets move around to catch "gamers" out.

[BillR1]

I guess I'd just rather stay away from walking such a fine line with regards to equipment. If that makes me less than competitive in my class, so be it.

I think perhaps some people are making the argument that the line shouldn't be so fine, and also shouldn't be so squiggly, curving around so as to leave some things on one side of it, and other seemingly similar things on the other side of it. It might also be nice is the line was just in one place and stayed there, rather than moving at the whim of corporate.

I completely understand your point. It's frustrating when the line is constantly "clarified" (changed?), at least partly because people like to get right up to the edge. I guess I look at it like driving down a 2-lane road. It's safer if you stay as far from the center line as possible. Less exciting is good sometimes.

Why should it be a problem to get right up to the edge of the line? After all, that is exactly as legal as if you are completely far from the edge of the line.

IF that line was crystal clear and non-changing, I'd agree with you. This is one area where the "other game" has it right. The gun is either on the allowed list, or it's not. Seems so simple...

Trying to legislate gun characteristics rather than guns themselves is alot tougher and leaves too much room for interpretation and "skirting the lines".

I figure if I stay away from the edge of the cliff, I'm less likely to slip and fall. The view may not be as good, but it's safer. Yeah, I'm just boring that way!

[BillR1]

I completely understand your point. It's frustrating when the line is constantly "clarified" (changed?), at least partly because people like to get right up to the edge. I guess I look at it like driving down a 2-lane road. It's safer if you stay as far from the center line as possible. Less exciting is good sometimes.

The line is the line. You are inside of it or you are not. If someone is so close to the line that you can't tell whether he is in or out, you don't just call him out arbitrarily or move the line so that he is clearly out. You make the line clearer and leave it where it was.

USPSA Production approval list: clear line

IDPA SSP rules: BS hazy line that gets move around to catch "gamers" out.

I completely agree! The rules clarifications are an attempt at making the line clearer, but more than a few people don't like what side they happened to be on when it was clarified.

[2MoreChains]

This whole thing could be resolved if they reverted back to the 2005 rule and allowed changing of sights as long as they are notch and post and delete the part about not allowing milling of the slide.

8.2.1.3.1. Sights may be changed to another notch and post type but slides may not be machined to

accept different style sights in SSP.

[elguapo]

This whole thing could be resolved if they reverted back to the 2005 rule and allowed changing of sights as long as they are notch and post and delete the part about not allowing milling of the slide.

8.2.1.3.1. Sights may be changed to another notch and post type but slides may not be machined to

accept different style sights in SSP.

I have to wonder what drove that change..........

[BillR1]

This whole thing could be resolved if they reverted back to the 2005 rule and allowed changing of sights as long as they are notch and post and delete the part about not allowing milling of the slide.

8.2.1.3.1. Sights may be changed to another notch and post type but slides may not be machined to

accept different style sights in SSP.

I have to wonder what drove that change..........

My guess is they wanted to clarify that slide milling/modification was not allowed in SSP. Even though "external modifications" have always been illegal in SSP, IDPA wanted to be sure there was no question that this rule included also milling the slide for sights. Again, that's just a guess...

[M1911]

My guess is they wanted to clarify that slide milling/modification was not allowed in SSP. Even though "external modifications" have always been illegal in SSP, IDPA wanted to be sure there was no question that this rule included also milling the slide for sights. Again, that's just a guess...

Whatever it was, it is fricking ridiculous. You should be able to put whatever post and notch sites you want on your SSP gun, even if that requires milling the slide to do so.

[Fordfan485]

My guess is they wanted to clarify that slide milling/modification was not allowed in SSP. Even though "external modifications" have always been illegal in SSP, IDPA wanted to be sure there was no question that this rule included also milling the slide for sights. Again, that's just a guess...

Whatever it was, it is fricking ridiculous. You should be able to put whatever post and notch sites you want on your SSP gun, even if that requires milling the slide to do so.

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

[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

Edited November 18, 2014 by elguapo

[Fordfan485]

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

[mikeinctown]

I know this was from the first page, but it still does not make any sense at all. What should matter is that CZ made the gun. CZ is selling the gun. CZ has the item listed in the catalog along with a part number. CZ sells the pistol through their distribtors. The fact that they are partnered with a shop that does work for them should mean nothing.

What you are trying to say is that no company should be able to farm out parts of their operation due to another company having expertise in the fittment and installation of the components you wish to have on your product. ie, I build a gun but have the shop down the street do all sight work on my model A because they do better work than I can do in house. Under your assumptions, I really didn't make the gun. Likewise, under these assumptions, Apple doesn't make an iPhone.

Now this would be different for example if Cajun Gun Works was selling their version of a Shadow with a bushing. In that case, there is no CZ part number, it isn't in the catalog, no CZ warranty, and the product is not for sale through CZ or it's line of distributors.

Wow, you got all that from my statement? Fascinating...

I don't see that I made a claim or judgement as to whether or not companies were correct in farming out different work. I simply stated the fact that CZ Customs and CZ-USA are different companies. The Performance Center is NOT a different company than S&W. That's it! I'm not sure why you read more into it than that.

I must have more into what you were saying then, because you made the reference more than a few times that one company was owned by and one was not, so that was the justification for the distinction between legality and not. I was trying to clarify the position that a contract between two companies is an affiliation that can mean the same thing legally, especially when those products are all part of your catalog and dealership network.

[johes]

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

I didn't modify it. It is exactly as it came out of the box as purchased from a CZUSA dealer. The modification was farmed out by CZUSA and is only sold by CZUSA. It is STOCK.

[Fordfan485]

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

I didn't modify it. It is exactly as it came out of the box as purchased from a CZUSA dealer. The modification was farmed out by CZUSA and is only sold by CZUSA. It is STOCK.

OK ill give it to you there if the factory is doing it then I consider it kosher, but is it rule 8.2.1.1.1 compliant? (e.g. 2000 produced per year). I would be very suprised if it was. They should just delete rule 8.2.2.3.1 that way the accu shadow/target could be ESP legal.

[bikerburgess]

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

I didn't modify it. It is exactly as it came out of the box as purchased from a CZUSA dealer. The modification was farmed out by CZUSA and is only sold by CZUSA. It is STOCK.

OK ill give it to you there if the factory is doing it then I consider it kosher, but is it rule 8.2.1.1.1 compliant? (e.g. 2000 produced per year). I would be very suprised if it was. They should just delete rule 8.2.2.3.1 that way the accu shadow/target could be ESP legal.

So for production minimums who is responsible for proving the production numbers are sufficient? And how is that done?

[bikerburgess]

Also if a pistol meets the production minimum one year but not the next it will go from being legal to illegal depending on the volume each year.

[bikerburgess]

And just for fun if they make 3000 a year for 5 years then discontinue it, it would be legal for 5 years then illegal because there wouldn't be 20,000

[GOF]

If Wilson Combat makes it, or if a sponsor company makes it, it will be legal forever. Other companies?... not so much. One must remember that IDPA is a "for profit" business.

Follow the money.

[tbarker13]

Just to be clear, IDPA has not rejected the Accu-Shadow or the Accu-Target (whatever that is) because of production numbers.

Just a guess here, but maybe they look at the base model of each gun (in this case, the SP01 Shadow) to see if that meets the production numbers. I doubt IDPA attempts to verify there are 2,000 sales of each configuration produced by any company. That would also explain why the Wilson Combat Beretta wouldn't be rejected because of low production. Even though Wilson doesn't churn out 2,000 of its Beretta models each year, there are more than enough Beretta 92s made to meet the 2,000 requirement.

[GOF]

Yes. But those Beretta M92s are stock pistols. As is the SP101. The factor, IMHO, to consider is what factory mods are made to either, and what the production figures on those factory mods are. Both guns are base models with some refinements. One is allowed and one isn't. But, both guns share the same basic characteristics of being factory offerings with refinements. One is legal SSP and one isn't. Guess which one isn't.

Follow the money.

[tbarker13]

Yes. But those Beretta M92s are stock pistols. As is the SP101. The factor, IMHO, to consider is what factory mods are made to either, and what the production figures on those factory mods are. Both guns are base models with some refinements. One is allowed and one isn't. But, both guns share the same basic characteristics of being factory offerings with refinements. One is legal SSP and one isn't. Guess which one isn't.

Follow the money.

Oh, I don't see any reason to believe that favoritism doesn't play a part in IDPA's decisions. You'll get no argument from me on that.

But the production numbers don't come into play on this particular issue. Or, at least, IDPA has not attempted to make them part of the issue.

It's obvious to me that IDPA is taking a stand against subcontracting.

The AccuShadow and mythical AccuTarget only get downgraded because CZ didn't do the slide modifications in house. The crime was paying someone else to make the bushing and do the mill work.

[GOF]

Yeah, I think you get it fully +1... and the WilsonBeretta was all done by Beretta at their factory? But, it's SSP legal and the CZ isn't? And, production figures for THAT particular handgun are no now longer a factor... except for the WilsonBeretta, where production figures were announced as being lower than IDPA rules would allow... except, well... think... picture should become clear.

The Golden Rule... and Wilson owns the "for profit" IDPA entity.

[BillR1]

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...

[ctay]

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...

If they were done by the manufacturer they aren't modifications. They are Stock.

If Wilson is constructively the manufacturer (ie stepping into Baretta's shoes for this purpose) when referring to the 92G Brigadier, why isn't CZ Customs constructively the manufacturer (ie stepping into CZ-USA's shoes for this purpose) for the Accu-Shadow or the Accu-Target? The argument is actually much stronger for CZ Customs when you consider that CZ-USA actually sells and has a SKU for the Accu-shadow and Beretta does not for the Wilson Brigadier.

[MikeRush]

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...

No bushing, but the integral (as in part of the slide) front sight is machined to accept a fiber optic rod. Other modifications could arguably be construed as external but seeing as how Wilson gets to make the rules...