mpolans Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 wide 45, You high lighted the rule that makes the gun illegal (19). STI is starting with a short slide so they would have to use a short barrel. They produced a new model gun which after 500 produced you can modify other models, if it is legal. As far as I know STI never produced a short slide with a barrel sticking beyond it till the Trusight so where is the factory standard.This whole thing can be twisted around to how one wants to see it. I see it as a weighted device, an extended sight radius, and a comp. Once again USPSA can't follow their own set of rules. In mpolan's idea a shortened 6" slide by 1" with a 6" bull barrel with a dovetail for a front sight or better yet a tungsten coned bushing. Ya thats the ticket. If the Trusight is legal then this set up would have to be legal. Rich STI has submitted documentation claiming that they have produced at least 500 TruSight guns, and have had this model available for sale for at least one year. The TruSight IS a factory standard. So, under the same reasoning, if Clark submits documentation that it has built at least 500 complete Pinmasters from the ground up, they should be allowed to start building them again for Limited class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 (edited) So I finally decided to read this thread and can't believe that this thing is allowed in Limited Division. You've got to be kidding me. Way back in 1998-ish, I was joking with some folks about the idea of a non-ported Scheumann barrel and if it would be legal in Limited. Most said no and agreed that it was super-gamey. Low and behold, SV comes out with one and even funnier, the biggest anti-IPSC guy back home, goes and gets one once he decided that IPSC is actually a fun game to play. So just when I thought the bastardization of Limited Division was over with, I see this 'thing'. Frankly, if someone feels they can get an advantage using this, so be it. If there is an actual advantage to using this, STI and USPSA really need to look at themselves and reconsider pushing this as something that is alright in Limited Division. In the end, the best shooter will win. Is it worth compromising the overall image/integrity of Limited Division to allow these gadgets? Sure there has always been trick parts to Limited guns (fluted barrels, tungsten barrels, etc.), but always internal. Nothing that would tarnish the image of the pistol looking other than a "stock" competition 1911/2011 and that's what has always been a strong selling point to USPSA. That a stock 1911-type pistol can win (and not just in the L10/SS divisions). This is a definitely bad decision to allow this modification and I don't care how much STI sponsors the sport. So now that this design is approved, what keeps Joe machinist from removing it and making it out of a piece of tungsten and threading it on? How about a nice combination of gadgets. 4.15" slide built with a 5" Scheumann non-ported hybrid barrel. Then machine the rib 0.85" back from the muzzle and thread on a tungsten "expansion chamber". Blue it and build on a STI short block kit. Are we going to pre-check all firearms before competition? And if you don't think people are that gamey to try it, don't be surprised. If we have people using multiple uppers in 3-Gun matches, thinking that they can get away with it, you can bet people will try this too. Obviously none of the top shooters, but it's at the grass roots level where the sport is made or broke, our integrity maintained or compromised and new faces gained or lossed. Just my $0.02. Rich Edited June 10, 2006 by uscbigdawg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 looks pretty close Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 (edited) How about a nice combination of gadgets. 4.15" slide built with a 5" Scheumann non-ported hybrid barrel. Then machine the rib 0.85" back from the muzzle and thread on a tungsten "expansion chamber". Blue it and build on a STI short block kit.Rich That's what I want. With some green grips with shamrock decals. Since the powers-that-be decided that the hybrid barrel and the expansion chanber are not porting or extenal modifications pursuant to US App.D7, once 500 of the component parts of each are sold, I believe that those gadgets used in combination would be legal. Don't know about the tungsten -- unless STI builds them that way. Also, it would still have to be in .40 with a 5" barrel to be legal. I shoot Production and love it. But, if I were to switch to Limited, and was going to spend a couple-three grand on a new pistol, I would buy one with all the bells and whistles. Why not? Its a game we play, and if I were to spend the cash I would want what I belive to be the best equipment. Gamey? Of course. Would I really receive any advantage. Doubtful. The gadgets have been deemed legal. So, I really don't see it as being different than 6" vs. 5", long dust cover vs. short, lightened slide vs. non, etc... Everyone will have her/his personal preferences, and not everyone will be able to own/shoot exactly what she/he dreams of owning/shooting -- unless you happen to be sponsered by S_I. Let the games begin. Cheers, -br Edited June 12, 2006 by joker22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMH Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Let the games begin. Cheers, -br I have to agree. If we didn't want every possible advantage, we would leave stock sights, and factory triggers on production guns too. It seems ridiculous to me but I've seen a glock modified with a toothpick in place to improve the trigger. As long as there is a score sheet involved we have to get every edge we can get to be competitive, or we can sit back and shoot, and not be concerned with the score, but that's really not in human nature. The powers that be have decided what is legal, and if we don't like it we can either vote them out, take their jobs and do better ourselves, design something better on our own, or even worse, don't play the game. We play in the parameters that they set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Yep. They're both black. looks pretty close Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 (edited) You know, I'm sure a number of manufacturers have made more than 500 compensator blanks. So it would seem to me, you could just screw one on, mill your slot for your front sight and under the present rulings you should be legal That's actually kind of tempting. Edited June 11, 2006 by mpolans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) So, under the same reasoning, if Clark submits documentation that it has built at least 500 complete Pinmasters from the ground up, they should be allowed to start building them again for Limited class? Limited Division. Why not? allowed to start building them again USPSA will not allow, or prevent them from building anything. If asked, they will determine if what has been made, meets the requirements for the Division. Edited June 12, 2006 by wide45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) So, under the same reasoning, if Clark submits documentation that it has built at least 500 complete Pinmasters from the ground up, they should be allowed to start building them again for Limited class? Limited Division. Why not? allowed to start building them again USPSA will not allow, or prevent them from building anything. If asked, they will determine if what has been made, meets the requirements for the Division. Being a wee bit pedantic aren't we? Edited June 12, 2006 by mpolans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Been a long day, and I'm tired of saying the same things over and over. It was not my intent to offend. For that I am sorry. If you still misunderstand the rules, I have failed. For that I am sorry too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveM Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Just a quick shooting impression of the trusight. I'm "upgrading" from a glock 24. I thought the trusight was pushing the rules but I figured since it was approved for limited and I was paying $2,000 "When in Rome" But honestly guys I don't think it shoots any softer than my Glock. I haven't tried any light bullet loads yet but rest assured they didn't make your Edge obsolete with the trusight. I just hope someone doesn't reverse the ruling on the trusight or I'm out $2K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigp226 Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Don't worry Dave i'm sure if they reverse the ruling they will send you a check for $2k lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveM Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Don't worry Dave i'm sure if they reverse the ruling they will send you a check for $2k lol Yes I'm sure they will, just as soon as cows fly. It would be par for the course for them to reverse the ruling though. Every time I invest in a nice gun for USPSA they become obsolete (or illegal I guess). I have a nice single stack .45 cal compensated open gun. It's about as usefull as a hay rake in a corn field but I have one. I got it just in time for everyone else to get Hi-cap 38 supers with red dot sights. I knew I should stick to production. Seriously, I have shot the trusight a lot more now. I have a couple of friends that have Edges and really it is no better. The best shooter is going to win with either one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 The .45 single stack is still perfect for bowling pin shooting, if you have those matches in your area. It's the nature of the game. IPSC shooting is like racing...technologies and rules change to the point you can expect periodically upgrading your equipment. We're fortunate in that we have a class were things change very little (Production Division). In this specific instance though, while I have sympathy for those that might be caught in a reversal, I think we really need a few better written rules and some different rulings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmaracing Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 (edited) I'm kinda confused. Why all the fuss? I think IPSC has pushed hand gun design and performance from it's inception, and this thing isn't that radical, no more so than full/heavy underlugs and bull barrels were compared to standard 1911s of the day. Imagine you took an Eagle 5.0, slotted the slide to allow for a front sight mounted to the barrel to stick through and took a proper sized bit and milled out the front 3/4 of an inch of the barrel to approximate the recoil reducing properties of the trusight. What's so revolutionary about that? Commander slides aren't exactly revolutionary. As far as I can tell, the only thing this ruling has given us is a more definitive picture of what constitutes a compensator. All I wanna know is if it's much better, and when can we build these ourselves from comp blanks, so we can make our own versions that aren't so uuuuugly!! jm Edited June 26, 2006 by jmaracing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Why all the fuss? Because rules are rules and limits are limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I'm trying to reconcile the idea I have that suppressors are comps and the TruSight isn't. Maybe USPSA should nip this in the bud and say that a single, enclosed chamber is OK but two or more isn't. 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