perttime Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Laugo Arms has photos, but not detail: http://www.laugoarms.com/ipsc-retro-pdo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoops! Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Let me try to clear some things up. First, I don't work for Lancer, this is just some info I've gathered. $5k for the initial signature run. $3500 for the regular production afterward (the regular production will not include the red dot and a few other things). I don't expect a year wait after the signature run but I have no good info on release. Yes, there is already a compensator for the gun. It supposedly makes a great open division platform. Makes sense with the innovative gas system which supposedly self regulates for hotter loads. Also, the fixed barrel and optic mount from the factory - you're telling me I can have an extremely accurate gas operated open gun with whatever optic I choose for about $4k? Sounds pretty good. The best striker fired triggers on the market will not be as good as the trigger on this gun. My sources at the shot show have already left, so I don't think I can get any additional info for anyone. Either way, let's wait and see what happens. The company already seems a lot more responsive than the miserable customer service nightmare that Hudson was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YVK Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 On 1/28/2020 at 11:04 PM, perttime said: Laugo Arms has photos, but not detail: http://www.laugoarms.com/ipsc-retro-pdo.html I know that they had to do what they had to do to comply with IPSC rules but this looks horrible. Height over line of sights is huge and, given Alien's bore axis location, height over bore is even worse. I sincerely hope that the Lancer / Laugo team has enough knowledge, resources and maybe even connections to give this gun a true chance. The USPSA CO rules say only that the optic cannot be attached to the frame. The gun needs to be made available in sufficient quantities and pushed through for a CO approval without this IPSC compliant contraption. Following that, I think that sponsoring a well thought-through shooting team would go a long way. Wait and see indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highhope Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 tooooo expensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avastcosmicarena Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) On 1/29/2020 at 1:45 AM, Whoops! said: $5k for the initial signature run. $3500 for the regular production afterward (the regular production will not include the red dot and a few other things). I don't expect a year wait after the signature run but I have no good info on release. Lancer themselves have said there's a good chance there won't be anything until 2021 in videos from SHOT Show. Quote Yes, there is already a compensator for the gun. It supposedly makes a great open division platform. Makes sense with the innovative gas system which supposedly self regulates for hotter loads. Also, the fixed barrel and optic mount from the factory - you're telling me I can have an extremely accurate gas operated open gun with whatever optic I choose for about $4k? Sounds pretty good. Has anyone seen it? There are no videos on the internet of it. Also, doesn't the gas system push the slide forward? Pretty sure I saw that mentioned in one of the videos. Not saying it won't cycle open guns though, but I don't think if it will actually soften the recoil much at all. Should be interesting. At 42-43 oz (was something like this), I guess it would be about the same weight as a 2011 with a polymer or aluminum grip. So, maybe not ideal, but not terrible. Quote The best striker fired triggers on the market will not be as good as the trigger on this gun. Yeah, that's because it uses a different design, which I believe is actually SAO in nature, which should disqualify it from Production & Carry Optics... it seems like they found a loophole in IPSC. Will be interesting to see what USPSA does. Quote I know that they had to do what they had to do to comply with IPSC rules but this looks horrible. Height over line of sights is huge and, given Alien's bore axis location, height over bore is even worse. Agree with this. Also kinda negates the main advantage of the gun. Would be better suited to being sold as an Open gun where it won't get caught up in restrictions like this, probably. Quote I sincerely hope that the Lancer / Laugo team has enough knowledge, resources and maybe even connections to give this gun a true chance. The USPSA CO rules say only that the optic cannot be attached to the frame. The gun needs to be made available in sufficient quantities and pushed through for a CO approval without this IPSC compliant contraption. Following that, I think that sponsoring a well thought-through shooting team would go a long way. Wait and see indeed. I think USPSA would sooner change the rules to clarify them further & disallow this gun or require the same mount as IPSC. Other competitors would quickly complain about the unfair advantage of the fixed optic, like what happened in IPSC. I'm still interested but too many unknowns to commit to it for that kind of money. Need to see what divisions it will be allowed in, what parts will actually be available, how quickly problems are taken care of, etc. Edited January 31, 2020 by avastcosmicarena Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XDoctor Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 It's just so ugly! I kinda want one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YVK Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, avastcosmicarena said: I think USPSA would sooner change the rules to clarify them further & disallow this gun or require the same mount as IPSC. Other competitors would quickly complain about the unfair advantage of the fixed optic, like what happened in IPSC. USPSA has been more willing to implement user- and market driven changes. I think that they will be less likely to stifle the technological progress. In addition, all notions of an unfair advantage are only theoretical right now. Trigger still needs to be pulled. The muzzle still lifts, we see it on videos. Recoil still happens. As far as others complaining, that will always be the case. I think that due to USPSA's more liberal approach to the rules the complainers have less grounds. I mean, can CZ say anything about unfair advantage when USPSA changed the rules to allow slides be modified into unrecognizable so CZ users can enjoy all the advantages of those guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoops! Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, avastcosmicarena said: Lancer themselves have said there's a good chance there won't be anything until 2021 in videos from SHOT Show. Has anyone seen it? There are no videos on the internet of it. Also, doesn't the gas system send the slide forward and not dampen the slide going to the rear? Pretty sure I saw that mentioned in one of the videos. Not saying it won't cycle open guns though, but I don't think if it will actually soften the recoil at all. Should be interesting. At 42-43 oz (was something like this), I guess it would be about the same weight as a 2011 with a polymer or aluminum grip. So, maybe not ideal, but not terrible. Yeah, that's because it uses a different design, which I believe is actually SAO in nature, which should disqualify it from Production & Carry Optics... it seems like they found a loophole in IPSC. Will be interesting to see what USPSA does. Agree with this. Also kinda negates the main advantage of the gun. Would be better suited to being sold as an Open gun where it won't get caught up in restrictions like this, probably. I think USPSA would sooner change the rules to clarify them further & disallow this gun or require the same mount as IPSC. Other competitors would quickly complain about the unfair advantage of the fixed optic, like what happened in IPSC. I'm still interested but too many unknowns to commit to it for that kind of money. Need to see what divisions it will be allowed in, what parts will actually be available, how quickly problems are taken care of, etc. Again, a lot of misinformation. Please do research before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yigal Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 On 1/29/2020 at 8:45 AM, Whoops! said: Let me try to clear some things up. First, I don't work for Lancer, this is just some info I've gathered. The best striker fired triggers on the market will not be as good as the trigger on this gun. it's striker? maybe for aliens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoops! Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 57 minutes ago, yigal said: it's striker? maybe for aliens Again, no. Someone else compared it to a striker driven gun. Please, for the sake of the entire firearm’s community, I strongly encourage everyone to take the time to read and do proper research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avastcosmicarena Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Whoops! said: Again, a lot of misinformation. Please do research before posting. lmao ok, bud. I've done plenty of research. I've been following this gun for the past year, and there are like 20 videos from SHOT Show 2020 on YouTube stating everything you said in this thread. You didn't provide any new information. What misinformation? The only thing I am unsure about is the trigger, because they haven't clearly explained how it works or how the design will fit into specific competition divisions. SAO actions are not allowed in USPSA Carry Optics & Production, because they would provide an advantage. Striker fired guns are allowed against CZ-style DA/SA guns because they are considered DA guns due to the safety mechanisms. I assume this is not a CZ style DA/SA gun. So, what is the safety mechanism that has allowed them to get by this rule? As far as Carry Optics goes, even if the trigger is legal, which is definitely possible, I don't think they'd allow the fixed top mount, because it would give a single very pricey gun a hefty advantage and go against the spirit of no frame mounts. If you allow a fixed top mount, why disallow a frame mount? It wouldn't make sense. This is why IPSC made them make the mount to make the optic reciprocate with the slide. As far as "striker fired" goes, Laugo Arms themselves advertise the gun in this way. Read the website: http://www.laugoarms.com/alien.html "User friendly standard striker fire controls" Yet, it's clearly using an upside down internal hammer. If this is not a DA/SA design, many would argue that this should not be allowed in USPSA CO or Prod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zerofade Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 minute ago, avastcosmicarena said: So, what is the safety mechanism that has allowed them to get by this rule? I assume the hinged trigger (trigger dingus) is the safety mechanism they used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppswed Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 16 minutes ago, Zerofade said: I assume the hinged trigger (trigger dingus) is the safety mechanism they used. So if any of the companies making SAO pistols add a hinged trigger safety to their design, I guess they should be allowed in Production too then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoops! Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, avastcosmicarena said: What misinformation? 1. That Lancer in their videos was implying wait for regular production version of a year after the signature edition. They are currently anticipating 6 months after the signature release in any available video that speaks to it. BUT, it is strictly a business decision on their part, which is why no one really knows. They will obviously want to sell all of the signature edition first. 2. The way the gas system operates. 3. That there are no videos of the compensators, further implying that they don’t exist. Edited January 30, 2020 by Whoops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoops! Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, avastcosmicarena said: You didn't provide any new information. Again, more misinformation. Show me anywhere that lists the regular production version price. I can see you are getting offended. I am not bothered by your offense. I am bothered by the misinformation you continue to spread on what should be a place for accurate, well-informed knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 7 hours ago, YVK said: The USPSA CO rules say only that the optic cannot be attached to the frame. Um, no. You missed a bit. Quote Optical/electronic sights REQUIRED; must be attached directly to slide between rear of slide and ejection port, and may not be mounted to the frame in any way Supposedly Troy saw it at SHOT and has an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YVK Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) Fair enough. I guess we'll have to see what Troy thinks. Maybe it is worth the effort for Lancer / Laugo to find that out privately. Might save them money and effort of bringing more than 500 units stateside, unless they want to try playing in the Open. Edited January 31, 2020 by YVK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouboy02 Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Here’s a picture of the Alien from Shot, in the CO setup with a slide mounted optic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yigal Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) On 1/19/2020 at 2:47 AM, Zerofade said: I was able to purchase a full spare parts kit in Canada. The parts kit includes the following: x1 recoil stud x1 firing pin x1 firing pin spring x2 pins x1 extractor x1 extractor spring x1 screw u forgot to buy a hammer too for this "striker" in my opinion this gun neeeeed external safety Edited January 31, 2020 by yigal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perttime Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 10 minutes ago, yigal said: u forgot to buy a hammer too for this "striker" in my opinion this gun neeeeed external safety A hammer strikes, so it must be a striker There's an external safety too: on the trigger. Somebody said that Glocks etc. are accepted as DA because of their safety mechanisms. That is not how USPSA - or IPSC - rules define DA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yigal Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 10 minutes ago, perttime said: A hammer strikes, so it must be a striker There's an external safety too: on the trigger. Somebody said that Glocks etc. are accepted as DA because of their safety mechanisms. That is not how USPSA - or IPSC - rules define DA. yeeeees it's classic striker. and about this safety on the trigger i don't know how to define this piece of plastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 I’m interested to hear what Troy/USPSA has to say/rules on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lroy Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 On 1/31/2020 at 4:26 PM, zhunter said: I’m interested to hear what Troy/USPSA has to say/rules on this. They changed the production number to 500. That makes this allowed, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, lroy said: They changed the production number to 500. That makes this allowed, no? I doubt the Alien hold up with be number produced or weight, I think it might be the design of the hammer. I am not a likely user of the Alien, but I think it is a super cool design with new technology, but the single action type hammer might be an issue I hope it gets approved!!! Edited March 6, 2020 by zhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perttime Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 I hear people have been asking Laugo to make the Alien in .40 - and a comp version is supposed to be on the way for Open. 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