Carlos Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Agree 100% w/ Vlad & Bear. Anyone remember the .356 TSW (which once stood for "team smith & wesson"). How's that team doing these days? How about the guns, the ammo, the R&D costs? Where did those go? (last time I saw mention of TSW products, they were dumped on a close-out seller for pennies on the dollar). Seems to me that S&W is now home to the Winter Nationals; - the IDPA winter nationals that is. IPSC had better think long and hard about the monumental mistake they have made; lets hope that USPSA has the good sense to differ with IPSC on this point. D.C. Johnson www.shootersparadise.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 They are forming factory shooting teams, they are supporting matches, they are providing product for the prize tables, and they introduced NEW, FACTORY PRODUCED FIREARMS, BASED ON OUR ESTABLISHED RULES! I am a bit amused that when I pointed out that the SP-01 was a race gun some time ago, people who have just voted to remove it where singing its praises as manufacturers reacting to needs of IPSC and blessing it as a good thing. The most bizzare thing is the twisted logic. When did we decide that long dust covers are a bad thing? Damn it, I like nose heavy guns for everyday shooting not just USPSA. By what rule and definition of production did people come up with this? When I pointed out that having a list as opposed to a definition and a production count, certain people basically told me to shove it. Now it turns out there is a problem with lists and factory race guns. Vince please come back. I have some questions. EDITED: it seems that I somewhat mistaken. Vince was not involved in that voting. However the problem is still the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Let's just admit one thing. The process is definately political. It doesn't have to live up to a standard like: the G34 is allowed this should be allowed too - that would be way too simplistic. Let's also aknowledge that politics is about interests and who benefits and who is hindered it is not about principal in any way. Now place the above statements with the fact that the World shoot is this year and you have influential shooters and shooting teams lobbying to allow this or that based on political interests not based on principal. When taken in this light these strange twists don't seem so strange after all. No one said life was fair and the powers that be will take advantage of their influence to create rules that benefit themselves. Is it right? - hell no in a perfect world. Should it surprise us that these twisted rules come about? - not really. It's sad when manufacturer's play by the rules to create something that will play the game to it's fullest extent and then the rules are changed. That's completely not acceptable. Rick Ingle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 This has got to be one of the most frustrating things that's come about in IPSC in....well, in IPSC history. I can only imagine how I would feel if I were a gun company executive/owner or such. We've got enough on our hands fighting outside battles with public opinion, legal restrictions, environmental protection issues, and do I have to even mention law suits? We just can't keep changing the rules and slamming doors in the faces of our shooters and sponsors. Some clearly defined requirements need to be set in stone and once a gun is on the list it should remain on the list. Turning coat after the fact is a seriously low blow.... I have enjoyed all the input so far, thanks. All this preaching to the choir has made me hungry, I'll catch y'all later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I don't have a problem with the new uber-SP01 having a long dust cover. I do think that they need to be readily available to anybody that might want to shoot one in Production. I think there might be (at best) 30 of them in the USA right now?. (Carlos, is that the latest count?) I just can't see how 30 = "Production". In the red book, it called for 2,000 guns Produced for USPSA Production. When we went with the IPSC list (green book), we lost that exacting criteria. Have I mentioned, lately, how much I don't like the idea of "lists" ? This is a great example of why...somebody gets to decide what goes on the list...instead of the gun meeting the established criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I don't have a problem with the new uber-SP01 having a long dust cover. I do think that they need to be readily available to anybody that might want to shoot one in Production. I think there might be (at best) 30 of them in the USA right now?. (Carlos, is that the latest count?) I just can't see how 30 = "Production". In the red book, it called for 2,000 guns Produced for USPSA Production. When we went with the IPSC list (green book), we lost that exacting criteria. Have I mentioned, lately, how much I don't like the idea of "lists" ? This is a great example of why...somebody gets to decide what goes on the list...instead of the gun meeting the established criteria. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Flex, well said! I'm also on a page with Carlos though ---- IPSC declared the gun legal, and shooters acquired them, either through factory sponsorship or through purchase. To remove the gun now is a problem, especially for the shooters who shelled out hardearned dollars for them. (I'm hearing the equivalent of $2K for some European shooters.) It's also reminiscent of the .356TSW and the eight round revolver disasters. How's CZ going to react to this news? Will it affect their current teams? Now? Next Year? I'm really jazzed to see mainstream manufacturers sponsoring teams again --- it would suck if Sig, Beretta, CZ, Glock, or S&W decided to abandon the sport again..... I'd support a return to the 2000 produced and available for a year --- as long as we grandfathered in everything that was ever on the U.S. Production list. As long as we have a mag cap limit and minor only scoring, I'm never going to get beat by a gun ---- shooters are a different story...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Flex wrote: "I think there might be (at best) 30 of them in the USA right now?. (Carlos, is that the latest count?)" My understanding is that Angus is expecting or has just received the initial 20 SP-01s brought into the USA through Customs/DHS. In addition, he owns the gun he used to win the Europeans last year, so there are perhaps 21 guns total in private hands in the USA right now. If its any indication, CZ-USA Shooting Team member Todd Sindelar (Turtle) showed up to last month's club match with the 85 Combat since he had not yet received the SP-01. AFAIK, the SP-01 has not yet won a single Production competition in the USA & yet it has been deemed unsuitable for Production due to a feature which allegedly provides a "competitive advantage" in USPSA. Where is the evidence that these guns will not be suitable for Production division? Has the P-01 (which is widely available) been wining every match in the USA? Can anyone cite a Rule (IPSC or USPSA) which these guns violate? The real problem I have is with IPSC's tortured logic in banning the guns from Production (full-length dust cover). There are other guns with full length dust covers including Glock. Does our sport really need another lawsuit? I hope that the BOD will reconsider their decision. Regards, D.C. Johnson www.shootersparadise.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Over on the IPSC Global Village ( that is where Vince went ) The thread on this same subject they keep refering to the spirit of the division. I would like to see this spirit on paper and who's responsible for creating this spirit. This change isn't a rule change, it's a change to the gun LIST, so the GA doesn't have to vote on it. Bear's post is one of the best posts I've read on this subject. But the problem is the wheel squeeking the loudest got their way because they said the sky is falling with these guns that don't comply with the Spirit on the Division. Flex there's one thing worst than a List and that's the Spirit of the division. Some thing that can't be seen but, every body has a different opinion as to what it is. Rich P.S. They did one thing right,IPSC put the XD on the List. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Carlos: I know where the .356TSW Limited Division guns are...unfired in my safe ! This is due to the same sort of "ruling" IPSC and USPSA have applied to the CZ and Tanfoglio "dust cover" models. Yup, they're O.K. ..no wait....they're not...sorry about that. They just can't seem to leave well enough alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I thought the whole idea for production was bring whatcha got as long as it isn't a 1911 and shoot. We're going to go the way of IDPA if we keep screwing with the rules. I can see another splinter sport being formed because some clown whines that this gun has an advantage. Yep folks it is the gun the shooter doesn't really have anything to do with it right? Go back to the 2000 produced and toss the lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MstngLX50 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 All I can really say is wow, except the following which I can also say. I was torn between production and limited but chose limited because of the US 10rd limit. Had I chosen production my plan was to buy and SP-01 and use my worn out 85 as a backup. If I had already purchased an SP-01 I would have left the sport after this decision. When an orginization makes a change that will affect this many people without some form of warning or dialogue it bothers me. This ruling is in effect post facto legislation that will place an undue financial burden on shooters. And by all means lets upset several of the manufacturers who support this sport. This is hopefully not what actually happend but from where I'm sitting it looks like someone said hey lets allow a single action pistol on the IPSC list, the XD. Lets remove a few pistols that are in full compliance with the rules because we don't like them. Now all we need is a reason, hmm they all have extended dustcovers. But wait so do Glocks. How about weight, no then we'd lose the Para. No problem we'll only penalize steel frames with dustcovers. Bingo no more CZ race production wonder uber match winners, I mean no more pistols that don't follow the spirit of the division which is such an obvious and quantified spirit that nobody thought to write down the fact that a full length dust cover wasn't it. My only hope is that with significant and overwhelming protest by the members who convey the right to govern upon the board this decision will be reversed. Regards, Alan In an unrelated matter I think I might still buy an SP-01 for personal defense. Even though USPSA/IPSC deems it a competition only pistol I think I might be able to mount a light on it and use it effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 It looks very much like a repeat of 1994 or there abouts when USPSA dissed Wilson and a bunch of others and IDPA came into being. It is very bad business and it is certainly not sporting to make arbitrary changes to rules, especially in the middle of a game. I read on one of the bopards that several of the major manufactureers has already responded by pulling support from the WS. Not good. I know that is I had just spent $1000 or even $250 on a gun to shoot a particular division and after only six months that gun was suddenly made illegal in that division, I would be royaly PO'd. Keep in mind that while I or you may consider a $2000 gun a bit of pocket change, so what I'll buy another, some other shooter may have only had the $300 or so to buy a used gun and is now out of luck, He may well not be able to afford another gun for a year or more. Reading in other places, certain countries limit you to the gun you are using in competition and maybe a back-up gun in that division. You can't have a safe full ot different guns, so having bought your new blaster, you are now not only out of money, you have a gun that is not competitive in the remaining divisions and you may have a considerable wait to obtain permission to buy a new gun as well as having a gun that is essentially rendered worthless as who is going to buy it since it can't be used in the division it was built for? Others have said it, but I'll echo it, If a gun is added to the list, it needs to remain on the list for a minimum of 5 yearrs. Also, if a gun is removed from the list, it should have a two year advance notice. THis will give people time to find a buyer. It also will, assuming the shooter does a bit of research first , hopefully prevent the shooter from buying a gun that has been listed and 1 month later finding himself with an orphan. Common Sense and Rules Stability! We need and seem to be lacking both. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I just wrote my Area Director and copied the rest of the board as well as Voight and Amidon, requesting that they reinstate the SP-01 and P-01 to the USPSA Production List, for a number of reasons but primarily pecause there are reportedly already USPSA shooters out there shooting the little P01 and even 1 or 2 shooting the SP-01. (That might be just one guy on the CZ team) In any event, my take is that we can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by alienating the owners of once legal/now illegal guns. Area 8 Director George advises that eh will be taking the matter up with the other members of the board of directors. He shares my concerns, at least to the point where he feels that a discussion with the rest of the board is warranted. I firmly believe, that when IPSC changed their list, USPSA automatically updated their list --- and I believe that up until now, no one had quite considered such a situation. I believe no one on the Board of Directors made an active decision to drop the affected guns from the USPSA Production list. If you have opinions on reinstating the SP-01 and P-01 to avoid the mistakes of the .356TSW and 7&8 shot revolvers, please write your AD and copy the other board members, Voight and Amidon as well. This is our sport --- lets act as if it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Others have said it, but I'll echo it, If a gun is added to the list, it needs to remain on the list for a minimum of 5 yearrs. Also, if a gun is removed from the list, it should have a two year advance notice. THis will give people time to find a buyer. It also will, assuming the shooter does a bit of research first , hopefully prevent the shooter from buying a gun that has been listed and 1 month later finding himself with an orphan.Jim Norman <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I'd rather see this applied to all divisions where there's a gun list: Removal of a gun from the list for reasons other than safety, will only take effect on January 1 of the sixth calendar year following the date of publication of said removal decision. Make and publish the decision today to remove a gun from the Production list, shooters can continue to compete with that gun until 12/31/2010. That ought to protect a shooter’s investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilTerry Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 They were never on the USPA list! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 They were never on the USPA list! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Even better... we should put 'em on just to be contrary. Damn Americans and their contrariness!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilTerry Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I posted the same information much earlier in this thread but people seem to want to argue about an issue which is of no relevance to USPSA Production class. As the IDPA boys say IPSC stands for Immature People Squabbling Constantly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 They were never on the USPA list! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Phil, I'm sorry --- you're wrong. Larry Eckert from Topton pulled a copy down off the USPSA server, and converted it into a document that could be printed on standard paper, folded in half and inserted into the USPSA rulebook for easy reference by match staff. That printout, handed to me at a section meeting in early February, clearly lists the SP-01 and P-01...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 As the IDPA boys say IPSC stands for Immature People Squabbling Constantly <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Phil. Doesn't IDPA stand for "I Don't Practice Anymore" Let's keep this on track, we are supposed to be talking about why IPSC suddenly decides to remove approved guns from the list a few months before the WS. Is it just to anger a few shooters? To annoy a couple manufacturers? To appease a few other manufacturers? This is going altogether to much along the same lines other changes Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilTerry Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Jim, The international body decides, for whatever reason(s),to align its list of Production guns with our USPSA list and we spend days debating it on this board? The vast majority of forum contributors here are from the US so why don't we just accept that the rest of the Production world now agrees with our choice and let it go! There are some IPSC internatioanl competitors who may have invested unwisely, I suspect very few, and no USPSA shooters. This is a none issue and I can't believe it has raised so much steam on this board. As somebody in the IDPA threads said a few days ago "can we go back to discussing shooting" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilTerry Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Nik Paste across direct from the USPSA web page CZ 75 (all SA/DA and DAO models except SP-01 series), 85 (all models), 97-B, 99, 100, 101, 110 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 NikPaste across direct from the USPSA web page CZ 75 (all SA/DA and DAO models except SP-01 series), 85 (all models), 97-B, 99, 100, 101, 110 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Phil, I get that that is what it says today --- but that's not what the list said a month ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Phil, I'm quite certain that Nik is correct and the phrase you pasted is from the "new" and recently modified gun list. It seems that he even has the paper trail to prove it... Regards, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_Mink Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Yeah Nik's right because Angus had to have Vince add the SP-01 to the list last year when he went to the Euro Championships. It was on the list as early as last September or October or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 They were never on the USPA list! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Phil, I'm sorry --- you're wrong. Larry Eckert from Topton pulled a copy down off the USPSA server, and converted it into a document that could be printed on standard paper, folded in half and inserted into the USPSA rulebook for easy reference by match staff. That printout, handed to me at a section meeting in early February, clearly lists the SP-01 and P-01...... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The USPSA list is simply the IPSC list with USPSA annotations indicating additions to the list, removals from the list, or interpretive comments on the list in red. The USPSA list you can view from the rules area of the USPSA web site is actually a composite of data from two sources. The items on the list displayed black are loaded directly from the database on www.ipsc.org, and the red alterations come from USPSA.org. If IPSC were to add a gun to the list on thier website, it would show up on the USPSA list instantly, and that data is retrieved from both IPSC.ORG and USPSA.ORG each time the list is accessed. USPSA is aware of the removal of some guns, and NROI is studying the issue. The removal from the USPSA list was not a specific act by USPSA, but a reflection of our incorporation of the IPSC list by reference. I expect USPSA will be able to state a position on this matter once NROI and the board has had time to gather and evaluate the relevant facts. 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