Cz Sp-01/p-01 And Tangfolio Stock Out Of Pd

[jkushner1]

From : jkushner@Famecoretail.com

Sent : Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:28 PM

To : <area8@uspsa.org>

CC : <jkushner1@hotmail.com>

Subject : CZ SP-01 and P-01 disallowed in Production

To: George Jones - Director Area 8

From: Jon Kushner USPSA # TY51061

Date: 3/22/05

George:

As you are my senator to the USPSA, I am forwarding some comments copied from the CZ Forum. I want to open by stating that I firmly believe that the entire concept, spirit and essence of Production Class was irepperably harmed with the approval and admittance into the Production Class of the Glock Model(s) G-34 and G-35 (and I own a G-35). Personally, I believe that these are single action guns not to mention the fact that they were built for competition - no ifs, ands, or buts. The other manufacturers have to be given a level playing field, Glock set the bar, but it seems that other manufacturers have to live by a different set of standards. I have too much faith in the integrity of our leadership to believe its political, but these guns redefined the class and therefore these other companies have to be treated equally and fairly, CZ and Glock are both huge IPSC/USPSA supporters, and now CZ has pulled their sponsorship from the World Shoot, Tanfoglio is probably going to do the same and is considering legal action, our sport can't afford this double standard that is losing us critical sponsorship commitments. There has to be one standard and Gaston has to live by them too. I am a huge CZ fan so I am emotionally biased here but there are definite grains of truth in everything I say.

See the the below email - its pertinent - its appears under "Ask Angus" on CZforum.com

__________________________________________________________________________________________

____________

In addition, I propose the following motions to the IPSC BOD as an IPSC & NROI member:

MOTION: Glock handguns (all models) are hereby REMOVED from the list of approved handguns for IPSC Production division. Justification: the above-mentioned handguns are not double action handguns and are more properly considered single action, thus not suitable for Production division. In addition, the above-mentioned handgun has features in common with recently prohibited models ( CZ SP-01, P-01 and the Tanfoglio Stock Custom) which have been deemed competition-only features and thus the gun is not within the spirit of Production division. Specifically, some Glock models have full length dust covers.

MOTION: The Beretta Ellite II is hereby REMOVED from the list of approved handguns for IPSC Production division. Justification: the above-mentioned handgun has features specifically added by the factory as competition-only features and thus the gun is not within the spirit of Production division.

MOTION: The Sig 226 and 228 are hereby REMOVED from the list of approved handguns for IPSC Production division. Justification: the above-mentioned handguns have features specifically added by the factory as competition-only features and thus the gun is not within the spirit of Production division. The above-mentioned handguns have features in common with recently prohibited models ( CZ SP-01, P-01 and the Tanfoglio Stock Custom) which have been deemed competition-only features and thus the gun is not within the spirit of Production division. Specifically, the above mentioned Sig models have full length dust covers.

I want these motions put forward at both the USPSA & IPSC BOD meetings. I have a right to have my motions heard & put up for a vote. I have a right to know how the representatives vote on these (BOD votes are NOT by secret ballot; I want names).

The recent decision by IPSC (and apparently USPSA) has put funding for the World Shoot in jeapordy. The leadership needs to hear from us often until they reverse this ruling. Please feel free to copy/alter whatever part of this post you so choose.

Regards,

D.C. Johnson

USPSA# TY-44934

www.shootersparadise.com

NROI

[jkushner1]

As is his style, my Area Director (Area 8) responded immediately to my email stating that he would confer with John Amidon and Mike Vogt asap. I truly appreciate his reponsiveness.

Jkushner1

[Merlin Orr]

Yes.

[GeorgeInNePa]

Yea, that's a great idea. Ban them all! Burn them! Draw and, oops ok never mind.

Actually, a more silly idea I have never seen. That should piss off a lot of folks.

[Bob Hostetter]

This has been a problem with Production from day one and is the main reason I no longer compete in Production Division.

The division was formed to allow stock service style pistols to compete equally with other stock service pistols. Then Glock came out with the G34 and G35, S&W started building custom shop 5906's and now we have Sig, CZ, and everyone else building "stock" service pistols for Production which are basicially Limited division guns with a DA first shot. Some are being allowed, some are not. Some modifications are being allowed, some are not. The most classic in recent memory is grip tape is ok but stippling is not. Or how about Production guns being required to have all safeties functional unless they are 1911 based (Then you can eliminate the grip safety).

As I have stated many times before, these issues must be addressed quickly before we start losing manufacturers, sponsors, and competitors. Production was a good idea, but needs to be clearly defined and the rules enforced.

[XRe]

It's sounding like Congress' definition of pornography - "We'll know it when we see it...."

I like the concept of Production, for various reasons, all of which have been discussed on the forum ad nauseum. I also tend to think that some wide, general rules on what equipment is and isn't allowed are far better, and less ambiguous, than this "we get to pick what's on the list stuff". Almost anything is better than the ambiguous.

I don't shoot Production, but might in the future, and have a couple of potential noobs interested in it. My vote is 2K production, box, 10rd limit, no external mods, leather where it's at now (ie, IPSC Standard position). Pistol must match a factory config that meets all criteria for that exact model number (ie, if they sell 2000 model X pistols w/ FO front sights, you can put one on yours, otherwise, you can't), etc, etc....

But, what do I know???? :)

[jkushner1]

A shooting friend emailed me that I may have been a little misdirected in my commentary that started this thread. In review, he is right.

I should not have villainized Glock, my apologies

I wrote to him in reponse the following:

From : Jon Kushner <jkushner1@hotmail.com>

Sent : Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:10 PM

To : Shooting Friend

Subject : I've calmed down - should not have villainized Glock

Friend:

I agree. I'll have to shoot my glock at the next event so I'm not assaulted. My response was clearly emotional in that I had an SP-01 slated for purchase from Angus Hobdell and was pretty excited about it - and if I was to re-write the email I would not have villainized Glock, Glock basically just happens to be the lucky gun(s) that the NROI crossed the line with via approval. I'm sympathetic with the NROI and whoever else votes on these matters because I have sat on and currently sit on Boards where any decision no matter how simple or easy becomes contraversial. So we've established, now that I'm less hyped up, that my problem/concern isn't with Glock, its that I think that the spirit and essence of the original intent/definition of Production class (or maybe my personal interpretation of Production class) has now been so diluted, massaged and conviluted it might as well be called, with humor regarding lost original intent, the new USPSA "DA/SA - DAO 10 CLASS" and have a limit of 10 rounds and let people do whatever they want to the guns as long as they fit the box are DA-SA or DAO and are capped at 10rds.

In summary, I admit some selfish motive exists with my "Level the playing field" request, they allowed Glock a light trigger, an extended mag release, an extended slide release, so now let the other companies have some leeway (and I know they have already, its just a "not in my backyard" statement because CZ was the lucky gun that they have drawn the opposite line on to try to recapture some of the Production Class original intent), Thats all.

Jon Kushner

Hotmail: jkushner1@hotmail.com

[Chriss Grube]

#@@#

Edited March 24, 2005 by Chriss Grube

[Merlin Orr]

I took the original post as a means of pointing out that there are other guns that appear to have been designed as a "competition gun" (while still fitting into the current guidelines) that are not being singled out and outlawed. A little tongue & cheek if you will....

All you kids come and play - ahhhh - except YOU - you can go home.

[Gary Stevens]

Words mean things. It is a Division, not a Class.

[GeorgeInNePa]

Does anyone remember, back when Limited first came out? '93 or so? Then some of the changes that were made, even though "our original intent was" was different than what was happening. Does anyone seem to see the same things happening now that happened back then?

Theres a whole bunch of "our original intent was" and "it wasn't meant to be this".

You can not stop technology.You can not stop people from wanting any percived advantage.

Either clearly define what a "Production Division" gun is or give us a box rule, mag limit, say it has to be DA/SA or DAO and then LEAVE IT ALONE.

[mactiger]

Amen.

Troy

Either clearly define what a "Production Division" gun is or give us a box rule, mag limit, say it has to be DA/SA or DAO and then LEAVE IT ALONE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[AikiDale]

Or........

USPSA solicits bids from the manufacturers for a USPSA Production Pistol. Low bidder gets to make the gun to spec, USPSA sells the guns to prospective Division shooters, USPSA makes a small profit (for the Junior Program) and everybody shoots the same gun, no modifications allowed, ala IROC, and we prove its the shooter not the gun. Low bid manufacturer provides the amunition at level III matches.

Click heels three times and repeat:

"There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home."

[/tongue in cheek]

When USPSA adopts this I think it only fair I receive a royalty on each pistol sold.

© AikiDale 03/23/2005

[MstngLX50]

except for the low-bidder i think that sounds like a pretty cool idea, i'd rather not compete with this.

[John Dunn]

Hi Points Rock!

[diehli]

Hi Points Rock!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See my sig line.

[BritinUSA]

except for the low-bidder i think that sounds like a pretty cool idea, i'd rather not compete with this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What the heck is that !?

[MstngLX50]

What the heck is that !?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the risk of exposing myself to a lawsuit by appearing to endorse its use, that is a Hi-Point C-9 Comp which retails for $120

The only model I've personally fired was a .380. Sadly it was accurate and functioned flawlessly. It also passed the California tests instituted to remove the "saturday night specials" from the street. However, it failed to pass my personal highly subjective fugly test by a large margin and I won't buy one.

Back on topic let's get a box stock G-23 class started(except things Alan Elam currently has on his, those will be legal and subject to change, sometimes frequently. Currently legal: Lasermax, 3.5lb disconnector, A-Grip, G17 trigger, night sights, and significant holster wear.)

Proposal submitted by Alan Elam

I do seriously think a stock, as in the only modification to the way it was received is removal from the box and or bag, insertion of loaded magazine and fired at targets, stock class would be pretty cool. My vote would be a CZ 75, but I realize a G-17 would probably appeal to more shooters. With the number of police trade ins available they can be had on the cheap, and I think this would be the only way to truly prevent an equipment race. Institute an NHRA style teardown policy as well, actually I would like to see this in production now, the number of factory options I'm not aware of grows each match. Full length metal guide rods being number one.

I'd even settle for an IROCesque side match at area and nationals where any manufacturer who wishes may submit a request and one is chosen by random drawing to supply enough identical pistols for the stage/match.

Excuse my incoherent babbling please,

Alan

[Matthew_Mink]

While we are dreaming, how about a National USPSA Production match where the manufactureres who want to contribute sends guns for the competitors to shoot. You get a box stock gun, 6 mags, and 1 hour to do whatever work you want to do to one, sights, trigger work, grips, whatever, but you only have 1 hour to do any modifications. You gotta supply the holster and gear. Ammo companies send ammo to use. Wouldn't that be fun?

But....companies will try to game this up too, those sneaky organizations will start offering 'stock' guns with modifications already done to them, like better triggers, sights, etc...and the shooters will want those instead, because they will easier to shoot.

There is no way to stop the equipment race, give us some guidelines and leave us alone.

[RIIID]

Hey Matt,

I need one hour and two minutes and they must provide 3 phase power supply for the mill.

Rich