Adam B Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 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? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to agree also, I take a sight tracker any day over that ugly thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Looks to me like a way to create a barrel mounted front sight without milling the slide and by using components they already have (Hornet). Basically an easy way for STI to achieve the functionality. Until someone really plays with the expansion chamber, who knows what that means. I think the sight tracker looks OK. I don't care for the looks of the posted trusight setup. I think SVI has always had a leg up on STI in the looks department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 And for those who are comparing me to Chicken Little with their snide, flippant comments, how about a detailed response? What do YOU see as the purpose of having a Limited division? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay. Limited is Open with five (5) restrictions: 1)No compensators. 2)No optics. 3)Minimum production numbers. No prototypes. 4)Mag length of 140mm instead of 170mm. 5)No external devices to control recoil. That's what Limited is and that's what it should be. Don't try to make it into something it isn't. BTW, I'm all for getting rid of numbers 3 and 5. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> +1 Me too. Limited was supposed to be a single stack friendly division way back when. It's not and never was. Limited is almost Open, always has been, always will be. Innovation is the hallmark of this sport. Get down with the sickness. Ps. I think it's ugly and won't be building one, I don't see the advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 Well even though it's part of the barrel, and doesn't add any more weight than a standard 5" gun, I'd still call it an external barrel weight. It's outside the confines of the frame and slide, therefore it's external to the inner workings of the gun (i.e. while a bull barrel is internal). The purpose of the additional metal, and it's corresponding contour to match the slide is to provide additional weight at the muzzle. Putting the two pieces together...external barrel weight. Just my two Lincoln's and I'll pass on it and the SVI version and shoot Limited. SPC Richard A. White, Senior Medic 249th MP Detachment (EACF) Camp Humphreys, ROK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoNsTeR Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 With the invention of tungsten barrel sleeves, the "no barrel weights" rule has become completely pointless and should be dropped. Besides, the trend at high levels is toward lighter guns, so clearly heavier is not always better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 A while back I had the 'expansion chamber' idea, but bored into a standard bull barrel.. the idea was that if you did it right, you could smack a lot of gas mass into a front-plate, thus reducing recoil, and then let it out somewhat slower, akin to the suppressor model. I ran it past a big name gunsmith/shooter and he said "yeah, I built one of those once.. found out that while it reduced recoil, the shorter barrel made me need more powder to make major, so it was about a wash for recoil" Maybe the same thing here.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> +1 to that. A good friend/shooter, Tawn Argeris, ran the expansion chamber idea past me, probably, around '99 or so. We kept it top secret at the time - neither of us had ever heard of anything of the sort, and we thought it might be super cool. So, at a mystery machine in the dead of night, a barrel was sacrificed... and after testing, sadly our conclusion echoed shred's. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbear38S Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Here's the first picture of the production model: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmon Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 again neat.. i wonder if the barrel is carbon steel or not? otherwise blueing would not take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Might not be bluing. STI has been playing around with some pretty cool finishes. The new Legacy model uses a PVD coating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazos Custom Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 The barrel is stainless steel with a special type of blueing that works for stainless steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 reminds me of the original open guns way back when. Only now we are putting 20+ rounds into it. Blah thats not limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intel6 Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 The STI dealer down here in SE AZ that I got my Edge from is visiting STI this week and set up a chance to shoot this thing. I will be interested to see what he thinks. He has the first one he gets sold so when he gets in it I hope to get a look at it before he sends it off. Neal in AZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I really hate that gun for Limited. Its sort of like pornography, which is hard to define on paper but I know it when I see it and yes IMO that is porn, not in a good way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbadaboom Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 When will they enforce limits on what can be used in Limited Division? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 When will they enforce limits on what can be used in Limited Division? Which limits are you referring to? I believe that, for Limited, the gun or components have to be produced in a quantity of 500+ No optics, no comps, no ports... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eerw Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 When will they enforce limits on what can be used in Limited Division? There are limits..and they are enforced...just that now manufactures are being more creative inside those limits and challenging the traditional thinking of what a limited gun is.. some may love the innovation and marketing being offered by manufactures..others will hate the change... in the end..none of it really matters much..because its still align the sights on the target and pull the trigger.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I still think that really looks like an external weight adding modification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I believe that, for Limited, the gun or components have to be produced in a quantity of 500+ If we are playing that way, I want one of the five hundred Springfield 6" widebody .40 guns. Anyone see any of the other 497 for sale? ...ever? These new STI are pretty neat. I don't see much need for one, or for the SightTracker, over my 6" FatFree40, but that is just me. Innovation rules! Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny hill Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 It's still the SHOOTER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I agree its the shooter. Rules are meant to be enforced only if you don't have a trademarked name in this sport. But I would like one of the 497 6" springfield .40s. But we all talk about how to get more people interested. Showing them something like this isn't going to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 The rule does read "or components". I don't know, but I am, pretty sure that there have been 500+ frames built on the Para/Springfield/Enterprise platform? Certainly, there have been 500+ 6in. slides and frames? This current STI gun, I'm not sure what to make of it. But, to be legal, there needs to be 500 of "the new thing" produced. We do need to make sure we aren't just looking at this through 1911 tinted glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I don't know, but I am, pretty sure that there have been 500+ frames built on the Para/Springfield/Enterprise platform? Certainly, there have been 500+ 6in. slides and frames? We are not talking frames with Para logos, or the Enterprise knockoffs of those. We are talking factory guns here; specifically Springfield Armory .40 6". So...please show evidence of production for at least 500 Springfield widebody .40 of any barrel length. Show me any 6" Springfield .40 slides or barrels. Show me where Springfield EVER made a 6" .40, wide or narrow. I have six different flavors of "Blue Book", and none of 'em show those varients as a Springfield catalog piece...ever. Could be just me, though, as I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night Since we don't enforce the "500" rules NOW, the discussion of "legality" on this STI is rather moot. And...the rule is Appendix D7, line 16: "Any complete handgun or components produced by a factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced. Prototypes are specifically not allowed." We can parse that sentence, and reach an interesting conclusion. If we use the "...produced by a factory" part ONLY, then any gun assembed by anyone, ever, using any factory parts is just ducky. Even if it says "CZ 85-II" or "Springfield Armory" on the slide But, if we look at the whole sentence, it talks about complete guns or parts produced by A (that means one) factory, that anyone can buy. No one (or three) offs. Well, I guess that depends greatly on your definition of "is" Again, I think the TruSight is cute. And legal. But legal is a slippery concept, depending on who is doing the asking Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Precision Designs Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 After reading through the last three pages of this thread, I am indeed raising an eyebrow. Years ago I welded up the dust cover in my Para to full profile to match my full profile SVI/Infinity slide. I looked neat, but it wasn't quite as weight adding as those in the "Texas Alphabet" guns. At a match an RO politely told me to "saw it off" by the next match. Yet it was ok to shoot my gun which did not contain a single part assembled into it by any of the several parts manufacturers included in it. I have not seen 500 of anybodys 6" longslides out there, or 500 "Sight Trackers" either. Now we have the "Tru-Sight" as legal, and yet nobody has seen one in a match, nor are they available (to my knowledge) to the public as of yet. But they are all "legal". I guess if a manufacturer "promises" to build them and make them available for sale "somewhere" in the future, it si ok and they are deemed legal. Evolution is evolution, and will continue whether we like it or not. We can always go and shoot "Production". (Whatever that will be interpreted?) A note though that has me puzzled. What is to stop someone from fitting a "solid" tru-bor, and slightly longer set-up and get away with it? I can't imagine an RO looking up the muzzle, or "tapping" on it to see if it is hollow. As for whether is deemed some kind of compensator friendly issue????? Here is a photo of one of my very early "frankenguns" which I put together when "hanging out" learning at the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute around 1971 with some other students at the schools machine shop. It was attached to a .22LR semi-auto Mossberg rifle set-up in a bullpup configuration. It had the "expansion" chamber to "stabilize" the gases and DELAY them, while the bullet exited through a hole slightly over its diameter. I added three angled exit holes at the top for gases to exert downward pressure. Being a .22LR the gases were not enough to do "didley-squat". But it was called a "recoil reducer". There is also another picture of my (carry-gun) 10mm LDA Para with a heavy barrel extension. Maybe I can claim its "hollow"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I don't know why everybody has a hard time with understanding the "...or components..." part of the rule. It seems clear to me. Seems pretty simple. If you want to use a part on your Limited gun...make sure there are 500+ of those parts out there already. If you want a long dust-cover on your Caspian...then there needs to be 500 Caspian frames with the long dust-cover. Right? I don't know anybody's numbers for anything. I don't know if STI has made 500 of these things or not. I don't know how many wide-body Para/Springfield/Enterprise frames are out there either. (I do know that TGO's 6in gun that he used at the 2004 Nationals wore an STI slide.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 The "component" aspect isn't understood because it isn't completely clear or applied equally. I wanted to build a "sight tracker" gun using SV components (slide and frame) in 45 acp. I was told by USPSA that it wouldn't be legal because SV didn't offer a model in 45 acp. All the components are available. Surely they make 500 frame kits, slides and barrels (all that would have to be aquired is a Hybrid barrel BEFORE the holes are machined in the rib). Still, I can not build it and have it Limited/L10 legal according to USPSA. Now, TGO uses a 6 inch Springfield with an STI slide. Yup...Springfield met the manufacturing requirements for frames and yup STI made the manufacturing requirements for slides and he was allowed to assemble a gun and use it. According to USPSA...the "frankenstein" pistol met all requirements for 500 or more "components" utilized to assemble the pistol therefore it's deemed legal. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face... it's a fine example of a double standard. Rules applied in certain circumstances...not in others. Technical advancements should not be the issue here...correct and fair application of the rules is the issue. If you look at the STI example...it is nothing more than a short slide version of a Clark Pin Master only STI took the concept one step further. They added an expansion chamber without utilizing a port to vent the gasses. Call this gun what it is...a short slide gun with a barrel weight that contains a small expansion chamber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts