cking Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 STI gram says. With the IPSC decision that the "TruSight" gun is "legal" for Standard Division, the influx of orders has started with a "bang". USPSA has inferred that it will meet the definition for "Limited" in it’s original configuration. We are still mulling over the "expansion chamber". We find no Rule in the current Rule Book that would prohibit it. We’ll keep you posted. I can't find anything out about what this means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuildSF4 Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I saw the TruSight in their pricing list, can't find any pictures or descriptions of the gun... ??????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cking Posted October 8, 2005 Author Share Posted October 8, 2005 Secret marketing strategy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterLefty Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I played and drooled on the prototype two weeks ago. Better put in your order. Kenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan W Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Yeah, I've seen the new gun too...It's pretty interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eerw Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I played and drooled on the prototype two weeks ago. Better put in your order. Kenny <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I've seen the new gun too...It's pretty interesting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well????!!! are y'all sworn to secrecy???..or can you give some details... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuildSF4 Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Yeah, what's up with that? No reviews, no pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Basically, it is a Hornet with the Trubor not...bored. Instead of a comp, the end of the barrel matches the slide profile for 3/4", with the front sight dovetailed on top. The gun is exactly the same weight and profile as a standard 5", so no weight was added or "external modifications" done. The inside of the end of the barrel/front sight assembly is backbored, forming an expansion chamber; like a comp with no external ports. Neat stuff. A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eerw Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 does it kind of look like this??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercomp9 Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Yes That is It .. if feels as good as it Looks.... they had one at the Dbl Tap match (Feb/Mar) and also was at the Texas limited Match... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Whoa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cking Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 Boy that is ugly. So it is an expansion chamber with bore size hole in front? Will that pass as not being a comp? Is that a 4.15 slide on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Quick, someone refresh my memory, why do we have a limited class again? If we're going to allow this sort of gamey stuff, why don't we just kill limited class and just go ahead and use the IPSC Modified class rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspian_45 Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Sure looks like a barrel weight to me. I think I'll keep my money and spend it on ammo for my " limited " gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmon Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 how is it a barrel weight if the part is the same piece as the barrel? not arguing, and part of me doesnt think this should be limited legal...but then again if we didnt embrace change we would all be shooting singlestack 45s this should be OK if infinity can have the sightracker, if they meet the production #s it should be OK for limited...since it doesnt weigh more than a 5 inch gun, the only thing thats heavier is the barrel. what makes this different than the sight tracker? harmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspian_45 Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 (edited) Hey Harmon. I am just stating my opinion. It is not, at all, what was discribed to me when Dave Skinner told me about it. Dave explained it would look like any other limited gun with a 5 in slide. The difference would be the last 3/4 in of the barrel would be bored out to .500 or so. If you didn't look at the muzzle you wouldn't know it was any different than what we run now. The pic posted sure looks like a commander length "Pin Gun" used at Second Chance all them years ago. Besides, we have allowed 6 in limited guns. Why not build it with a 5 in slide and barrel then add the....whatever you want to call it out on the end. I think SVI's "Sight Tracker" is just fine. The concept allows you to have several barrels (ported. hybrid, comped, etc) fit to the same frame/slide. You only have to swap barrels to go from standard/ limited/l-10 to modified or open. And I love to shoot 1911's, and Glocks, and, STI's......... well........pretty much anything that goes bang. I think we all know what it takes to get something approved. Crazier things have happened and are being planned right now. Edited October 9, 2005 by Caspian_45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Boy that is ugly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree, and I'll pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopalong Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Caspian45 beat me to it......First thing I thought of was the old Wilson Pin guns. IMHO, (that dont really mean squat).....It's the Indian not the Arrow!!!! HOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspian_45 Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Caspian45 beat me to it......First thing I thought of was the old Wilson Pin guns.IMHO, (that dont really mean squat).....It's the Indian not the Arrow!!!! HOP <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You learn well grasshopper. Now for your next lesson, counting past 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRBean Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 A short dust cover frame with a classic slide profile would do wonders for its looks. As far as legal or not? Remember building a better mouse trap within the confines of the rules is what competition is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooterj Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 A short dust cover frame with a classic slide profile would do wonders for its looks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> JR, you took the words right out of my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 USPSA Limited "Division" has a rule about external weights or devices to control or reduce recoil are specifically not allowed. I would be surprised if this would be ruled legal in USPSA Limited "Division", just my guess though. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I have an old .45 ACP that looks like that kinda. Well only its on a sprinfield national match frame and is 5"slide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDean Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Bernoulli's principle states that ....as velocity decreases, pressure increases (works for both fliuds and gasses). The expansion chamber to would seem to decrease velocity of the gasses therefore increasing pressure. The only place for the increased pressure to go is out the one hole in the muzzle. This would INCREASE the "rocket effect" and theoretically induce more muzzle flip. What am I missing here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Two things that I am thinking of while reading this post. One is the CZ SP-01 episode where a gun manufacturer designs something within the rules then someone wants to rewrite the rules because of it's introduction. Personally I don't know if this falls within the rules or not, it is just what this reminds me of. Secondly, is a phenom that I have seen over and over again. I first experienced it in the sporty clay arena. People keep trying to buy this new gun or that new gun to gain a competitive edge. The truth of it is that more improvement in scores would take place by adding some time to your dry fire routine than buying some new fangled piece of hardware. Human nature is that we just want to buy it and not earn it. We all want a pill to take that we can eat like pigs and still look like a 25 year old body builder. We want to buy the shinny new gun that will make us shoot better without added effort. It's the human beast. Sometimes things are introduced that do help mechanically, but at this point they are usually small increments. After the fundamentals are there much of match performance is between your ears. So if the new shiny gizmo makes you think you will be better who am I to say not to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts