Flexmoney Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Technical advancements should not be the issue here...correct and fair application of the rules is the issue. I agree with you there. I just don't know about the other stuff. I agree, it sure sounds questionable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMC Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 So as it apears you could take a compensator blank with no holes and screw on the end of a threaded barrel and call it a tru-sight and everthing is ok, unless your forced to prove the comp blank and barrel are one piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 As long as the barrel weighs the same as a standard bull barrel I don't see a problem. Any extra weight.... well then there's a problem. -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wileecoyote Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 A lot of discussion about the 500 quantity issue. I don't think it's an issue. While USPSA requires 500 to get into Limited, IPSC does not require 500 guns to make standard so STI will sell a good whack of the first ones to foreign countries shooting IPSC. They'll hit that 500 mark in no time at all and be able to satisfy USPSA's minimum requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Precision Designs Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 As long as the barrel weighs the same as a standard bull barrel I don't see a problem. Any extra weight.... well then there's a problem.-ld Can you tell me what is the acceptable (applied) weight of a 5"+ bull barrel. Schuemann makes a full profile that is heavy, Ed Brown doesn't. Remember that you are not allowed to "sleeve" a threaded barrel, (so I'm told) to make it into a bull barrel, whether you use Titanium or Tungsten. ( and these sleeves exist) I suppose what this means is that you are allowed to "obtain the new part" from STI and retrofit it, provided all things are equally acceptable "per manufacturer's agreement with USPSA". No more, no less. It is a way to "help protect the manufacturer" who made the particular variant legal for use. Seems fair to me. (Not neccessarily perceived as fair or "sportsmanslike by those using what they now feel is "arcaic or obsolete" unless they purchase the new thingy.) Of course this would leave out the "home tinkerers" bent on improving their own mousetraps, as their concoctions would fall under the clsassification of "prototypes", which are not allowed. I wonder why it is that my car is not a Model T Ford? Some people feel the "growing pains" more than others, or as somebody said: "some people are more equal than others". But if you pay the price, you can be just as equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbadaboom Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 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... As long as the barrel weighs the same as a standard bull barrel I don't see a problem. Any extra weight.... well then there's a problem.-ld It has to be available to the public for at least one year prior to being USPSA legal. It can have no external weights in order to be USPSA legal. IMHO that looks a lot like an external weight no matter what slant you wish to give it. It also states that bbls. length must be "original factory standard" and I feel that if I can't place a 6" bbl. in a 5" slide (Per John) then how can they get away with that? This is for USPSA, I don't shoot IPSC rules so going by the original title of this thread I guess my point is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 - Ah...good point about the one year rule for USPSA. - The "original factory standard" for the barrel appears to be a rule in Production, not Limited? Unless I missed that? - I am with you on the 6in barrel in the 5in slide thing. I had a G24 barrel in my G35 for a moment. Amidon told me that it fell under the "external weight to reduce/control recoil" rule. I thought that was weird, as it didn't reduce or control anything, really. I guess that subject has come up in the past and that is where they drew the line? - I think a lot of folks are looking at this from a stand point of "gun X" being the standard...and this is just a modification. And, I can easily see that perspective. But, if you can look at it as being a completely different model, then perhaps that changes things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 As long as the barrel weighs the same as a standard bull barrel I don't see a problem. Any extra weight.... well then there's a problem. -ld Can you tell me what is the acceptable (applied) weight of a 5"+ bull barrel. Schuemann makes a full profile that is heavy, Ed Brown doesn't. Remember that you are not allowed to "sleeve" a threaded barrel, (so I'm told) to make it into a bull barrel, whether you use Titanium or Tungsten. ( and these sleeves exist) I suppose what this means is that you are allowed to "obtain the new part" from STI and retrofit it, provided all things are equally acceptable "per manufacturer's agreement with USPSA". No more, no less. It is a way to "help protect the manufacturer" who made the particular variant legal for use. Seems fair to me. (Not neccessarily perceived as fair or "sportsmanslike by those using what they now feel is "arcaic or obsolete" unless they purchase the new thingy.) Of course this would leave out the "home tinkerers" bent on improving their own mousetraps, as their concoctions would fall under the clsassification of "prototypes", which are not allowed. I wonder why it is that my car is not a Model T Ford? Some people feel the "growing pains" more than others, or as somebody said: "some people are more equal than others". But if you pay the price, you can be just as equal. Well okay, fine. Set a range by weighing a bunch and deciding what the accepted max should be. Or just take the heaviest, currently legal barrel, and base it off of that. Given that there are followers of both the light and heavy gun variety it probably won't make a huge difference anyway. -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbadaboom Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 - Ah...good point about the one year rule for USPSA. - The "original factory standard" for the barrel appears to be a rule in Production, not Limited? Unless I missed that? - I am with you on the 6in barrel in the 5in slide thing. I had a G24 barrel in my G35 for a moment. Amidon told me that it fell under the "external weight to reduce/control recoil" rule. I thought that was weird, as it didn't reduce or control anything, really. I guess that subject has come up in the past and that is where they drew the line? - I think a lot of folks are looking at this from a stand point of "gun X" being the standard...and this is just a modification. And, I can easily see that perspective. But, if you can look at it as being a completely different model, then perhaps that changes things? Appendix D7 line 19 last sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazos Custom Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) The problem with the rule is that the factory can make any modifications they want and claim they made 500 and then it is legal. They can add barrel weights, add weight to the frame, etc. It is not a modification if it came from the factory that way is the interpretation. I fought with John Amidon for many years about holes in limited gun slides and what was legal and what was not and then Glock cut a slot in their slide and all of a sudden the whole problem mysteriously went away. Edited November 4, 2005 by Brazos Custom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Precision Designs Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 The problem with the rule is that the factory can make any modifications they want and claim they made 500 and then it is legal. They can add barrel weights, add weight to the frame, etc. It is not a modification if it came from the factory that way is the interpretation. I fought with John Amidon for many years about holes in limited gun slides and what was legal and what was not and then Glock cut a slot in their slide and all of a sudden the whole problem mysteriously went away. I really wonder if under the guise/description of COMPONENTS, anyone with the means and goods to be called a MANUFACTURER can, lets say build 500 similar barrels as those made by STI and make them even longer, or of a "variety" non-conforming to the accepted present "standards" and "submit" for equal consideration as manufacturer to the USPSA/IPSC ??????????? Will they be approved and be able to distribute them for sale and use by participants in LIMITED ???????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 ....and "submit" for equal consideration as manufacturer... There is no "submit"...a manufacturer just says "I did it" and that is it. I figure that you knew that, which is why you used quotes But...in the spirit of "submit", lets discuss, say, the Sight Tracker. According to my direct sources, SVI did not build 500 complete Sight Tracker pistols up front (and, if I'm guessing, still hasn't...they have no grips ); instead they used the fact that Wil has all of his Hybrid barrels machined (not ported) in one operation, and ported in a separate operation, to complete the "500 unported Hybrid barrels built" written certification. Of course, you couldn't BUY a unported Hybrid from Wil (I tried), but hell, USPSA only enforces rules that it wants to (or decides that it flat doesn't recognize IPSC rules, or just blatently ignores rules such as popper calibration at the Nationals, or...). All I want is a set of written rules that I can read and follow objectively. If I didn't want clear and objective rules, I'd shoot IPDA Since USPSA's 500 rule is not only unenforced, but unenforceable...bring on the TruSight! And the Sighttracker! And Donner, and Blitzen... Alex PS Just drink the Kool-Aid already, it will make everything clear... AW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombat Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Of course, you couldn't BUY a unported Hybrid from Wil (I tried) AW I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 I received 2 of these barrels from Wil the day I got the magazine stating that the sight tracker was legal. I don't see the problem getting the barrels from him. and I am not a big name shooter by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tintin Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 While USPSA requires 500 to get into Limited, IPSC does not require 500 guns to make standard so STI will sell a good whack of the first ones to foreign countries shooting IPSC. At the IPSC forum, Vince Pinto said the gun is legal for Standard Division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 Look at the money STI puts into the sport, of course its legal. If it was not they would not keep pouring the money in. It has nothing to do with numbers or if its legal. It has to do with money. We all can see if we did that regardless it would not be. If Benny put 500 screw on comps onto commanders they would still call it a bbl weight. Not saying Benny does not put money back in, but compared to STI no one hits the amount they contribute. Its the same with guns that no one else has. If you have the right name, you can shoot whatever you want. Hence the TGO gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Wombat, Kingman: Maybe now, but not two years ago. Now he HAS to sell them to the great unwashed 'pub-lick' because they are pretending to comply with the line 16 (...available to the public...). Nice try, but wrong. Alex PS All of you have not yet drunk your Kool-Aid...it is good for you, just slurp it on down and all will be good... A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Maybe now, but not two years ago. You just didn't ask the right way. My previous Open gun, built 8 years ago, was built on an unported, 6" Tribrid barrel. At that point, to get unported Tribrid barrels, you had to buy a minimum of 10 - his manufacturing process didn't include that as a standard item. After exhausting 8 of the first ten barrels (2 were kept as spares), my gunsmith switched to unported 5" Hybricomp barrels, as they were readily available in singles from Schuemann. Something may have changed in between - but... point being that it's not exactly a new concept to be able to buy unported, ribbed barrels from Schuemann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Ah, so, all becomes (slurp the Kool-Aid) clear. When I said "...I want to buy a 5" unported Hybrid in .40" and Wil "I Don't Guarantee My Barrels In Open Guns" Schueman said "No"...I SHOULD have said "...but, I'll buy 10. 20. 30, plus I'll throw in some Norweigian hookers, and that is my final offer, no wait, 40 and a first-class ticket to Vegas..." My bad. Geez. I took "no" at face value; what a fool I am. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Like I said I managed to get bbls from him right after the sight tracker was announced as legal. You just have to ask nicely. Its not bad to get stuff from him, and he has always been pleasant to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 And your experience was, again, AFTER he was forced to sell them to the public due to the implications of Line 16 Two years ago, I should have tried the Norwegian hooker line. Saying "I have money, and want to give it to you" is just about as polite as I can get. Which wasn't enough. But hey, who cares? Any further commentary would get into the verboten SV v ST thing, and I'm rather firmly in one side of that goat-rope and not the other for a whole host of personal and professional reasons. More Kool-Aid, please. A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I've got a wheel of cheese I can send you, Alex.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I've got some old well-used board games around here that some folks are welcome to borrow, as they seem to have never played the like themselves...Clue, perhaps... Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 If anybody has anything to add about the STI Trusight, please pm me and I will reopen this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts