Bob Hostetter Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 It appears that Bob at Brazo's has posted on another forum that Mr. Armidon has approved STI's TruSight pistol for use in USPSA Limited and Limited-10 divisions. I couldn't find anything on the NORI website but that doesn't mean much since I am doing good just answering email........ For those who don't know, this is a pistol designed with a 4.15" slide and an expansion chamber (unported comp) on the barrel bringing the overall barrel length to 5". Although an unported expansion chamber doesn't work as well as a ported comp, it still will make a noticeable difference especially if you switch to slower burn powders and lighter bullet weights such you would with an Open gun. IMHO this is not a god thing for Limited/L-10 and it should not be allowed......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegot38 Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 It appears that Bob at Brazo's has posted on another forum that Mr. Armidon has approved STI's TruSight pistol for use in USPSA Limited and Limited-10 divisions. I couldn't find anything on the NORI website but that doesn't mean much since I am doing good just answering email........For those who don't know, this is a pistol designed with a 4.15" slide and an expansion chamber (unported comp) on the barrel bringing the overall barrel length to 5". Although an unported expansion chamber doesn't work as well as a ported comp, it still will make a noticeable difference especially if you switch to slower burn powders and lighter bullet weights such you would with an Open gun. IMHO this is not a god thing for Limited/L-10 and it should not be allowed......... Where is it posted? Want to look myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nobody asked me, but I hope this is a fad like the Devel "free boring" or whatever he called it, and it just quietly goes away. Limited / Standard is the toughest division in the world, with several types of guns truly competitive, I would hate to see it all flushed for some gamey gimmicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 I still haven't shot one of these guns, but... I've said it before, I've shot a gun w/ something similar cut into the front of the barrel (not as big as the TruSight's chamber, obviously, but... It had no discernable effect on recoil control. I doubt the TruSight is going to be so revolutionary as to make everything else obsolete. It *does* give STI some competition against the "hybrid w/ no ports" option that SV (and custom gunsmiths) can offer - that's really about it... Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind once I get a chance to shoot one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny hill Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 It's not the arrow but the indian shooting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 It's up on the NROI section under policies. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 It appears that Bob at Brazo's has posted on another forum that Mr. Armidon has approved STI's TruSight pistol for use in USPSA Limited and Limited-10 divisions. I couldn't find anything on the NORI website but that doesn't mean much since I am doing good just answering email........ For those who don't know, this is a pistol designed with a 4.15" slide and an expansion chamber (unported comp) on the barrel bringing the overall barrel length to 5". Although an unported expansion chamber doesn't work as well as a ported comp, it still will make a noticeable difference especially if you switch to slower burn powders and lighter bullet weights such you would with an Open gun. IMHO this is not a god thing for Limited/L-10 and it should not be allowed......... Where is it posted? Want to look myself. NROI Rulings Title: STI TRUSight Created: 3/29/06 Updated: 4/11/06 Effective: 4/11/06 Rule number: US Appendix D7/D Applies to: Pistol Ruling authority: John Amidon Status: Released Question Has the STI TruSight been approved for Limited/Limited 10 division? Ruling Yes, NROI has received the proped documentation that this model has reached the requirments. It is legal in Limited/Limited 10 divisions in a 5" .40S&W caliber only. Return to NROI Rulings Copyright © 2004 USPSA, P.O. Box 811, Sedro Woolley WA 98284 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hostetter Posted April 14, 2006 Author Share Posted April 14, 2006 Benny, it will always be the best shooter who win's. Thats not the issue, at least with me. The issue I have is that Limited is starting to look too much like Open. If STI (and USPSA) want to offer a pistol with a front sight on the barrel like SVI has with their Sight Tracker then the barrel extension should be solid. I doubt that a 1/2" thick flange with the front sight mounted on it is going to be much heavier then the Sight Tracker rib. With a hollow chamber you are going to have the escaping gases impacting the front baffle in the chamber and it will make a difference, however small. So if they want to even out the front sight issue between STI and SVI then the flange would be the proper way to do it. Or just require SVI to make the Sight Tracker barrel available to the public like its supposed to be anyway to be legal in Limited............ Limited division is supposed to be "No Optic's, No Comp's" and I have never seen an USPSA ruling that comp's aren't comps if they don't have exhaust ports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Limited division is supposed to be "No Optic's, No Comp's" and I have never seen an USPSA ruling that comp's aren't comps if they don't have exhaust ports. Indeed, they ruled the other way at the 3-Gun nationals, moving a suppressed rifle (one exit hole) to Open. Where's the consistency? Just because the STI version doesn't work well as a comp doesn't mean crappy comps are now OK in limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al503 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Bob is a great smith and also great shooter. I asked him about this gun and he told me that while he thought it might be a little better than a stock Edge, it wasn't as good as one of his limited guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFoley Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 It's not the arrow but the indian shooting it. I totally agree, but I don't mind if everyone else uses crappy arrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulm540 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 It hasn't really taken the division by storm or has it?? I wouldn't worry about it. anybody shot one or has done a side side comparison with a LDC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Religious Shooter Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 It hasn't really taken the division by storm or has it?? I wouldn't worry about it. anybody shot one or has done a side side comparison with a LDC? The ruling is effective 4/11/06. It's currently 4/13/06. You/we need to give it a tad bit more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 It's not the arrow but the indian shooting it. I totally agree, but I don't mind if everyone else uses crappy arrows. I hope people knock themselves spending $ gear and less on ammo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ong45 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Has anyone noticed the sighttracker making big inroads into limited? James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 (edited) Most of the gimmicks being developed to improve a shooters performance is a waste of money. Take the money and use it for a shooting class, for practice ammo, or a major match. That would be money well spent to improve your shooting ability. With that said. If someone builds a gun with a 6" slide and a 5" barrel. Take the slide and cut away the slide to a 5" profile except the top of the slide with the front sight. A 5" barrel is legal, a 6" slide is legal, and lightening a slide is legal. Is the gun legal? I'm building one right now for kicks and grins, all I want is the extended sight radius. Rich Edited April 14, 2006 by RIIID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 It's up on the NROI section under policies.Rich The section under "policies" on www.nroi.org is a link to the "NROI Rulings" on www.uspsa.org/rules. USPSA has a central repository of all formal NROI rulings since the introuction oft the current green rulebook in a single location for reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 (edited) I've shot the SV Sighttracker and only picked up & handled the STI Trusight. The SV was nice, didn't really notice the front sight appearing more stationary than the rear but that was with 180 PF loads. It was nowhere near the effect of the old 1980's Open guns with the front sight on a genuine comp. The SV's owner, a B or C class shooter, said that after a while he could notice the difference on the front sight. In any case they are very pretty. The Trusight, my opinion, was really ugly. Has a lot of the 'long' dust cover cut off. Looking down into the so-called chamber, it really doesn't look like it would do much. If someone gave me theirs to play with for a few weeks I'd load up different powders & bullet weights & such but I wouldn't have my hopes up regarding the comp & for sure I'd never invest any of my own money to try one. A used SV sighttracker - with unmolested triggerguard - that's something I might consider. Agree with all the opinions that these have no place in Limited. Proving your comp is not very good is a bad reason to have 100's of shooters invest 1000's of dollars in new stuff. Edited April 14, 2006 by eric nielsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Limited division is supposed to be "No Optic's, No Comp's" and I have never seen an USPSA ruling that comp's aren't comps if they don't have exhaust ports. Indeed, they ruled the other way at the 3-Gun nationals, moving a suppressed rifle (one exit hole) to Open. Where's the consistency? Just because the STI version doesn't work well as a comp doesn't mean crappy comps are now OK in limited. USPSA changed this ruling in the online meeting 9/05. I think the reason for the Tru-Sight's "expansion chamber" is to keep the weight similar to stock by removing metal, so it's not an external weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hostetter Posted April 16, 2006 Author Share Posted April 16, 2006 (edited) Did a little follow up and discovered a few things........ If the Green rulebook is still valid then on page 95 item #14 states, "Compensators Premitted? No". Item #15 states, "Ports Permitted? No". Special Condition states, "Only barrel porting prohibited". It seems to me the rulebook specifically separates comp's and ports cut into comp's. If my understanding is right then Mr. Armidon's ruling is incorrect....... Edited April 16, 2006 by Bob Hostetter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbadaboom Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Did a little follow up and discovered a few things........If the Green rulebook is still valid then on page 95 item #14 states, "Compensators Premitted? No". Item #15 states, "Ports Permitted? No". Special Condition states, "Only barrel porting prohibited". It seems to me the rulebook specifically separates comp's and ports cut into comp's. If my understanding is right then Mr. Armidon's ruling is incorrect....... This was my conclusion also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L9X25 Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 (edited) I think that, if his ruling is final, he has opened the door for a lot more abuse. How about a 5" or 6" tribrid barrel with the top ports not machined? How about a 5 chamber comp with no ports machined? This follows very closely with what a supressor would do, without the tax stamp. If they were forced to remove the "wiper" the ruling would make a lot more sense. Edited April 17, 2006 by L9X25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 (edited) Regardless of its effectiveness, I was wondering why it isn't barred under item 18: "External modifications such as weights, or devices to control or reduce recoil are specifically not allowed, such as but not limited to, thumb rest, extended slide stops, etc." 1. It's an external weight modification...Lawman's counterargument to this is that the chamber inside lightens it to a degree that it's not an *external* weight. This isn't quite true; lightening the device on the end of the barrel might mean that it does not constitute *extra* weight (but "extra" compared to what?). However, the rule doesn't say anything about whether or not the device on the end of a barrel is extra weight, but rather whether or not it is an *external* weight. By merely extending past the front of the slide it still adds some weight that is external to the slide (and not by the little bit of muzzle that normally peeks out the front of a slide) so it would seem to me that it is an "external weight." Given that the rule says nothing about *extra* weight and given that there is no standardized barrel weight, if this ruling allowing a device to extend beyond the slide is allowed to stand, what prohibits a competitor from throwing on an old unported Pinmaster barrel weight, or making 500 copies of a similar item offering an extended sight radius? 2. Does it "control or reduce recoil?" Well, "control or reduce recoil" compared to what? I seem to recall earlier claims that it did reduce recoil/muzzle rise compared to a 5" STI Edge that were questionable. Regardless, this rule appears a little subjective when it comes to barrel devices like this. Will it reduce recoil compared to a gun with a 4.15" barrel? Definitely, just by virtue of the added mass. So, if it is an external modification (as a barrel mod that extends beyond the slide) that reduces recoil compared to a gun without the external modification (a plain old 4.15" barrel) why is it allowed? If this rule has the breadth to allow the Tru-sight device without an infraction, I don't see how an unported Pinmaster or similar device could be prohibited, assuming 500 are produced. I think under the current rules, this is a bad ruling and either this ruling needs to be reversed, or, if the people want this device to be allowed, the rule needs to be rewritten in a manner that would logically suggest it is allowed, clearing up the issues I pointed out above. Edited April 21, 2006 by mpolans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Wrong context. It's not compensators vs. barrel porting that are being compared, but rather barrel porting vs. slide porting (lightening). If you look, #15 says "see below." Then, if you look at #17, it says: "Only porting of barrels is prohibited. Slides may be ported." I still think the ruling is incorrect, but for the reasons I state in the post above this one. Did a little follow up and discovered a few things........If the Green rulebook is still valid then on page 95 item #14 states, "Compensators Premitted? No". Item #15 states, "Ports Permitted? No". Special Condition states, "Only barrel porting prohibited". It seems to me the rulebook specifically separates comp's and ports cut into comp's. If my understanding is right then Mr. Armidon's ruling is incorrect....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I am sure Jim Clark made more than 500 unported pinmasters. So Now I am to take it that I can use one in limited if he sends in proof. Wow, we are going down hill in Limited in USPSA 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