Legal Production Gun?

[Vlad]

Sorry, nope, no way. If you want to compare this to the SCOTUS, then I remind you that we debate their decission for months, pass laws that work around them, and argue endlessly about the type of judges we send the bench. My concern goes deeper then this particular case and at the core of it is that I think that the production divion is being badly mishandled by the IPSC and that it is heading for a crash.

I think that blind acceptance of this kind of issues only makes it worse. Miss JG can be forgiving, and also she may not have an option because she also has to represent her sponsors. I dont have that problem. In the end, if we do not examine what the IPSC and USPSA leaderships are doing, then sooner or later we wont be shooting the same game.

Vlad

[BritinUSA]

The issue (to me at least) is not the arbitration, I think that was handled quite correctly by Julie.

The issue to me is that we have this Production Division which is very clear about what can or cannot be done to the guns. They are supposed to be standard issue guns. Yet there is no mechanism to ensure that the rules are being met.

This restriction on PD guns requires a similar restrictive process to ensure that the guns are in compliance.

Just as ammunition is checked during a chronograph session, so should the PD guns.

Manufacturers could supply measurement data for their guns and these can be compared to the guns being used by the competitor. If there are discrepancies then they can be investigated.

If the guns are not to be examined then there is no point in restricting what can or cannot qualify for PD division. The rules must be enforced or there is no point in having the rules in the first place.

It's decision time for IPSC; Either aggressively pursue the rules or abandon this division.

[driver8M3]

It's decision time for IPSC; Either aggressively pursue the rules or abandon this division.

actually, in this case i think the IPSC rule ("modifications...other than minor detailing, are prohibited") is better than the USPSA rule (no external modifications-other than sights).

[Crusher]

All due respect 8M3 how should "minor" be defined ?

Should the "minor modifications" be preformed by the factory or the guns owner?

Minor Modifications unless spelled out (sights, grip tape, ect.), open up a "Pandora's box" to a path that can "bastardize" the PD, we could wind up at a destination where we do not wish to be and had no intenet on ever being.

[BritinUSA]

The gun seems different. The gun shown in the second WS picture (previous post) does not look like a CZ-85 Combat...

It looks like a SP-01... Look at the rail under the dust cover in the WS picture. That rail is not there on a CZ-85, also there are serrations on the slide in the WS picture but the CZ-85 does not have serrations at the front of the slide... Vince says that they examined a CZ-85 Combat... ???

If you look at John's pictures the gun is definately a SP-01, it is NOT a CZ-85.

[driver8M3]

All due respect 8M3 how should "minor" be defined ?

Should the "minor modifications" be preformed by the factory or the guns owner?

Minor Modifications unless spelled out (sights, grip tape, ect.), open up a "Pandora's box" to a path that can "bastardize" the PD, we could wind up at a destination where we do not wish to be and had no intenet on ever being.

well, if the uspsa rule is so good, tell me how you'd rule on my mag release, which i say has the sharp edges worn down from repeated practice, but which may have been worn down with sandpaper. how about the seam on the underside of glock trigger guards. sometimes the seam sticks up a bit and irritates the shooters fingers. under uspsa rules, technically the shooter cant smooth that seam at all. seems kind of silly to me. minor modifications, such as tyc's, or smoothing the seam on a trigger guard, don't make a darn bit of difference in the final results of matches.

since IPSC allows minor mods, we dont have to open up a huge investigation to see if tyc ever took a dremel or sandpaper to the underside of his trigger guard. if the match were held under uspsa rules he could say its from wear, and it would probably be impossible to prove he was lying.

[LwE]

IPSC production rules prohibit any dehorning of the pistol, according to Vince Pinto in a two-year-old thread on this forum somewhere entitled "IPSC Production - Triggers & Mags."

[driver8M3]

LwE,

i found it:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...production&st=0

lots of interesting stuff in there. and youre right, vince seems to indicate that smoothing out an external surface (like the one under a trigger guard) would not be allowed. i had interpretted "minor detailing" to include something like that (it sure doesnt seem like "major" detailing to me). if that's not true, that would certainly add to the WS XIV issue.

here's the relevant Q & A from that thread:

Q: Can a "carry bevel" to remove sharp corners job be done on the frame. I consider this "polishing and detailing" of a factory component.

A: No. This extends beyond the "minor detailing" allowed to enable proper gun operation.

[Jasonub]

bingo your right

[davidwiz]

No argument from me that they sometimes get it wrong; just look at the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain. However, just like the decisions of the Supreme Court, there is no appeal under Rule 11.6.3: Decision is Final. There can not be (nor should there be) any further examination of the issue; it is resolved.

While there is no appeal of a SC decision, Congress does have several avenues at its disposal such that the SC decision is moot: 1) amend the Constitution, 2) change the Court's jurisdiction or 3) remove a member of the SC. To say that once the SC or the IPSC World Body makes a decision that no one can further talk about it is wrong, IMHO. If that was the case, then Dredd Scott and other boneheaded decisions would still be the law of the land.

[XRe]

So, Vince has posted a model correction. He says they inspected a CZ-85 Combat II - apparently the "II" version has rails on the short dustcover. Anyone have a pic of one? There isn't one on the CZ website....

[dirtypool40]

Well at least IPSC can take it's solice that they thought things out well and Production did not become and equipment race. Much like IDPA.

Ha

ha ha

muhooo hahahahaha

aaaahhhhaaaahahahahaha

*gasping for breath*

hah HAH AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

*sounds of more gasping and rolling on floor, unable to breath, laughing so hard*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAH

sorry.

[eerw]

So, Vince has posted a model correction. He says they inspected a CZ-85 Combat II - apparently the "II" version has rails on the short dustcover. Anyone have a pic of one? There isn't one on the CZ website....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably this one

CZ75/85 II

[bgary]

So, Vince has posted a model correction. He says they inspected a CZ-85 Combat II - apparently the "II" version has rails on the short dustcover. Anyone have a pic of one? There isn't one on the CZ website....

Hesitating to jump in the middle of this thread, but one of the key differences between USPSA "production division" and IPSC "production division" is that USPSA requires that 2000 of a model be "produced" and available for sale before it can be ruled eligible for use.

IPSC has no such requirement, and has ruled that "all models" of the CZ-85 are legal for use in Production Division. Which, unfortunately raises the possibility that a CZ 85 "Combat II" might be a CZ-85 "Combat", with a bunch of shooter-specific modifications done at the factory (such as thinning the trigger guard... just a wild random example)... never having been produced in quantity or offered for sale in that configuration... and still be a perfectly legal "production" gun. In theory, CZ could build a completely custom-to-the-shooter gun, and as long as the manufacturer designates it as a "CZ-85" variant, it will be legal in IPSC.

Independent of whether Adam's gun was illegally modified or not.... I think the above is a loophole that IPSC *must* close, otherwise "production division" has no meaning.

Bruce (whoo... was that a black helicopter?)

[BritinUSA]

Good point Bruce. Also does the CZ 85 Combat II have serrations on the front of the slide (as we can see in the WS pictures).

[eerw]

here is a photo of a gun listed at a CZ75 combat II...not sure if that means its an 85 also or if something was changed to make it a 85..

supposedly available in Czech.

[BritinUSA]

That gun is not listed on the CZ web-site

[XRe]

Probably this one

CZ75/85 II

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That could definitely be the gun in the pics. It looks an *awful* lot like an SP-01, and the front bits of the muzzle are down in the cup in the holster in Flentz's pics. Now, if we just had a strong side pic of one, we could clear the whole thing up BTW - my understanding is that the 85s are basically 75s w/ ambi controls??? Same frames otherwise?

Bruce... well, I'll again restate my belief that ambiguous and arbitrary rules aren't rules - they're creativity tests. Not requiring a Production division gun to actually *be* production is, well, asinine, to put it politely. Needless to say, I agree with your assessment....

[dirtypool40]

Probably this one

CZ75/85 II

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ambiguous and arbitrary rules aren't rules - they're creativity tests.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dave, that is an excellent insight.

[Two Mikes]

These rule discussion have taught me alot about IPSC rules (arbitration, IPSC production, etc.) and helped me get motiviated to finish my RO renewal test.

Mr. Gary, you are right. IPSC needs to move its production rules more in line with the US rules or call the division something else, like Limited.

We should have a category that is for plain jane-unmolested-stock-off the shelf-common person pistols, not one that allows limited editions and "minor" detailing inside and outside.

[Middle Man]

If I remember correctly, from several months back, the CZ 75/85 II or I've seen it called a SP-01 II (with short dustcover & rails) was the CZ factory's answer to IPSC's inital outright ban of the SP-01 (full length dustcover & rails). As far as I am aware, both guns are only generally available in Europe. The only way to obtain one in the US is ordering through Angus, as he has them imported 25 or so at the time. Having said that, the CZUSA website, nor 2005 catalog shows these guns. There was a lone sample or two at the 2005 Shot Show, which were jelously guarded and not on the display rack in the CZUSA booth.

The SP-01's have been seen very, very little here in America, and the new chopped dustcover model probably not at all. Combine the IPSC rule book vagueness, IPSC's inital outlawing of the SP-01, unfamiliarity with a new gun, and some human nature factors on all sides and when you look at the whole thing from a distance you can start to see the actual molehill that has become the current mountain.

[Flexmoney]

... one of the key differences between USPSA "production division" and IPSC "production division" is that USPSA requires that 2000 of a model be "produced" and available for sale before it can be ruled eligible for use.

Bruce, we had those rules in the red book, but they were dropped with the introduction of the green book (and the "list").

There is no requirement...other than that which is deemed/promised by the BOD when reviewing guns for the list.

Waaaay back when, I brought this up with my Area Director and with JA...both told me that they would use the 2000 produced and available for (???) criteria to judge guns listable.

It is my opinion that we have guns on the USPSA list, guns shot at the highest levels of our sport, that don't meet those criteria.

We have guns in USPSA Production that aren't readily available to the common shooter. You gotta know somebody to get one...or order one (of few) thru a sponsored team member.

Oh...btw, the USPSA list reads the EXACT same as the IPSC list with regards to the CZ85 (all models). They are USPSA legal by default of USPSA using the IPSC list as a base.

There are holes in our system and they are not getting addressed. It will get worse in Production unless things are fixed.

(I'd be happy to write up a proposal to address the issues. I think I could include a few alternatives/choices. I'll do so if it is welcomed by the BOD. I won't likely spend time on it if it won't be addressed, however.)

[tekno]

We have guns in USPSA Production that aren't readily available to the common shooter.  You gotta know somebody to get one...or order one (of few) thru a sponsored team member. 

Well, I have the same feeling here in Norway...

I had to wait 12 months (!) after ordering my Para LDA before I received it.

In my case I think getting a CZ would have been much easier.

[Vlad]

Well at least the LDA is listed on a web page somewhere as a manufactured product. Show me a link to cz-85 II.

[bgary]

Waaaay back when, I brought this up with my Area Director and with JA...both told me that they would use the 2000 produced and available for (???) criteria to judge guns listable.

The "2000 produced" was, in fact, pulled out of the green-book, but at the same time was put into a formal "NROI policy" document specifying what criteria guns must meet to be added to the USPSA list.

It is my opinion that we have guns on the USPSA list, guns shot at the highest levels of our sport, that don't meet those criteria.

I'm not all that up-to-speed on current Production equipment. Have examples that we can talk about? (publicly or privately is OK with me, your call) If we have a problem, I want to fix it.

(I'd be happy to write up a proposal to address the issues. I think I could include a few alternatives/choices. I'll do so if it is welcomed by the BOD. I won't likely spend time on it if it won't be addressed, however.)

Please do. I think we'll have the hood open on the rulebook at the Board meeting in October, and I'd be happy to bring some suggestions to the table. I can't guarantee that it will be *addressed*, let alone "welcomed", but I'm pretty sure I can make sure it is "heard".

Bruce