Revolvers That Are Not Legal In Uspsa

[hdgun]

Now to put this to bed, I just got an e mail from John A. As long as I fill in the holes it will be OK. This has been one long day. I'm gonna have a beer.

[10mmdave]

Now to put this to bed, I just got an e mail from John A. As long as I fill in the holes it will be OK. This has been one long day. I'm gonna have a beer.

Well I'm glad your all set.....now what am I gonna do

[dgsmith]

someone please tell me where the advantage was. I could see if you made if heavier. Why was it illegal. If he took the underlug off to replicate a 25-2 would that have been legal?

[10mmdave]

someone please tell me where the advantage was. I could see if you made if heavier. Why was it illegal. If he took the underlug off to replicate a 25-2 would that have been legal?

That's the point dg, we haven't added weight, if anything we took off weight which makes

the gun recoil more !

When I read the rules, 17 says a revo assembled from parts.

Then 19.2 says replacement barrels are okay as long as they are the same length

as OFM standard.

Nothing about original manf. barrels

So does that show that rule 19.2 contradicts rule 19.4 ??

So as I read it, I can use a Shilen/Douglas/Pac-Noor barrel blank, create a barrel that

looks just like I have and I'd be legal ?

So that's what I did, I made a new barrel for my 610 the way I wanted it to look

And just so John S. isn't catching all the flack about this, I started him on this psychotic

journey because I like to play by the rules. He and I are attending the Summer Blast and

the last thing I want to do is show up at a major match and have an RO say my stuff

isn't legal "just because". Figured the issue should be nipped in the bud, well yes, maybe should

have asked before I did the work but from past post's here on BE it didn't seem like an issue.

I have emailed my Area rep with what I sent to John Amidon, I still believe I am operating

within the rules as presently written, so now I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

[Flexmoney]

Not too many Revolver guys writing the rules.

Might be a good idea if some active revolver shooters wrote up some suggestion (in rule form) that would cover what the revolver shooters think is fair and unfair? Then sent them off to USPSA (BOD and NROI) for consideration.

As a match official, I might not be looking real close at the revolvers in the match...if you know what I mean. But, as soon as somebody asks me to check something out, then I'd have to get up close and pull out my rule book.

[10mmdave]

Not too many Revolver guys writing the rules.

Might be a good idea if some active revolver shooters wrote up some suggestion (in rule form) that would cover what the revolver shooters think is fair and unfair? Then sent them off to USPSA (BOD and NROI) for consideration.

As a match official, I might not be looking real close at the revolvers in the match...if you know what I mean. But, as soon as somebody asks me to check something out, then I'd have to get up close and pull out my rule book.

Okay Flex, I'm going to ask to put you on the spot.

So as a match offical, does the pic of my revo in hdgun's 1st post abide by Rule 19.2:

>> Replacement barrels, provided the barrel length is the same as the

>> OFM standard;

That's what mine is, and I can show you the barrel that came off it !

No mention in the rules that the replacement barrel has to be the same look or contour

as the original barrel ! just that it's a length "same as OFM standard" (which it is)

I haven't violated rule 18 and added weight !

I haven't violated rule 19.3 since it's a replacement barrel, not a cosmetic change !

So what do you think ?? (if you would be so kind to offer your opinion )

[Waltermitty]

Not too many Revolver guys writing the rules.

Might be a good idea if some active revolver shooters wrote up some suggestion (in rule form) that would cover what the revolver shooters think is fair and unfair? Then sent them off to USPSA (BOD and NROI) for consideration.

As a match official, I might not be looking real close at the revolvers in the match...if you know what I mean. But, as soon as somebody asks me to check something out, then I'd have to get up close and pull out my rule book.

That sounds reasonable, but gets complicated the instant you try to sit down and do it.

I’ll go out on a limb and say not many of us would have predicted the particular thing hd did to his gun (no offense hd). Trying to write a rule that would address it before the fact could easily result in a monumental document that would rival even the greatest incomprehensible writing found in the realm of Law (no offense Mike, Double Action, et al).

Rules and regulations are best when brutally simple (no offense ) and restricted to addressing only known prohibitions or specific allowances. Then, the default position for any Official is that if it isn’t specifically prohibited, it is legal.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the rules right now. The problems are with both of the rulings (interpretations) attributed to John Ambidon (no offense John, er, um, Mr. Ambidon). I don’t think any of us would consider the modifications seen and described thus far to be verifiable as giving a “competitive advantage” nor would we have ruled as such if we had to call it “cold” at a match. Further, the vague instruction to “fill in the holes” without the requirement to return the barrel to its original weight, either invalidates the basis for the first ruling or contradicts rule 18.

I’m not comfortable that we know the whole story and circumstances, but it sounds like the “new rule” is that you can cut, bore, plane or shave your barrel and reform/refill/reshape it with anything from Styrofoam™ to Mercury and as long as the “shape” is the same as “original” the gun is “OK”. Let’s please not go there.

There are two rules that address this. 1) Weights or other devices cannot be added to reduce recoil. 2) Barrels may be replaced as long as they are equal in length to the OFM standard. (which should be interpreted to mean any length produced in sufficient quantities to meet the OFM production requirement).

These rules *DO* contradict each other, however, they can be consistently applied without complex measurements or instrumentation and have been used without protest for years. They also accommodate the modifications many competitors want to make and were not violated in this case. I would firmly recommend against any effort to write up what we think is “fair” or “unfair” until or unless something truly grievous comes up. Otherwise we’ll have the same mess we’ve seen in Production division and IDPA.

[Flexmoney]

Okay Flex, I'm going to ask to put you on the spot.

Well...you asked for it...

Is your's the one with all the holes in it?

You are trying to line-item the rule...and read what you really want it to say.

My read on that set of rules is that they don't allow modifications. (The older Red rule book was even more clear on this.)

I view adding or removing material as a modification. And, one that certainly changes the balance and shooting/recoil characteristics of the gun.

If you look at 19 it says:

19. Modifications which are permitted are limited to:

Then it lists the exact and only things allowed.

In 19.1 it not only says you can replace the sights, hammers and cylinder releases...it also specifies that you can, specifically, modify them.

19.2 gives no allowance for modifying, only replacement of the barrel. My read there is it should look like something else that S&W makes...for that particular model of gun.

(Since the rules do allow for OEM components (available to the general public, no prototypes), then I read it as legal to put a non-shrouded barrel, like a 25-2, onto a gun that was originally framed for a full-lug.)

So, to sum up, if I had to make the call...

The gun with the holes in the under-lug, I'd have to bump that out of Revolver division. As a match official, I'd be bound by the rules...not whether I agreed on if it made any difference or not.

[Flexmoney]

Otherwise we’ll have the same mess we’ve seen in Production division and IDPA.

The very mess you speak of is from the lack of clear and definitive rules. Then, you get somebody that doesn't something different, and that sends up the flag. Controversy ensues.

That sounds reasonable, but gets complicated the instant you try to sit down and do it

LOL...no kidding. Imagine how tough it must be for the guys stuck doing the rule writing work...that aren't regular competitors in revolver?

Trying to write a rule that would address it before the fact could easily result in a monumental document that would rival even the greatest incomprehensible writing found in the realm of Law (no offense Mike, Double Action, et al).

Oh...I don't know that it would be that tough. My read on the Revolver rules is that it has always been written as a mostly off the shelf division...more like Production than Limited.

Then, the default position for any Official is that if it isn’t specifically prohibited, it is legal.

Or, as it reads now, the default position is that if it isn't specifically allowed, then it isn't legal.

I don’t think any of us would consider the modifications seen and described thus far to be verifiable as giving a “competitive advantage” nor would we have ruled as such if we had to call it “cold” at a match.

Changes the weight, balance, pointability and swinging characteristics of the gun. The way the gun performs has certainly been altered.

I shot a 24oz plastic gun in Limited Major. Most wouldn't consider that a "competitive advantage", but it is certainly tuned (or untuned) to my particular style of shooting.

Now, if I were shooting that same 24oz plastic gun in Production division (which I do), and it didn't fit me, my options would be limited. I likely wouldn't be allowed to modify the gun as I saw fit, I would be forced to find some other platform that did fit. Such is the nature of the rules.

---------------------

It sounds like most revolver competitors would like the Revolver rules to be more like the Limited gun rules ???

They aren't now. They are closer to the Production rules.

[Nemo]

It sounds like most revolver competitors would like the Revolver rules to be more like the Limited gun rules ???

They aren't now. They are closer to the Production rules.

Funny you'd say that... I was thinking about the same thing but understood the division to be more along the lines of limited revolver. Fixed sights and instead of 140mm mag length only six loaded in the cyl. The rest open to your imagination...

[10mmdave]

Okay Flex, I'm going to ask to put you on the spot.

Well...you asked for it...

Is your's the one with all the holes in it?

No sorry, Mine's the one that looks like a PC barreled 627

<snip>

19.2 gives no allowance for modifying, only replacement of the barrel. My read there is it should look like something else that S&W makes...for that particular model of gun.

(Since the rules do allow for OEM components (available to the general public, no prototypes), then I read it as legal to put a non-shrouded barrel, like a 25-2, onto a gun that was originally framed for a full-lug.)

<snip>

Why even mention replacement barrels if they didn't mean to include the aftermarket stuff ?

I can have a barrel blank machined to almost any shape and still not increase the weight

of the stock gun, but that maching would not look like what S&W does because most shops

don't have that kind of equipment.

That's why I believe a replacement barrel, made to the same OFM offered length of that

particular model, is legal under rule 19.2 ( and I've included a pic to this post so you don't

have to search back)

[Waltermitty]

It sounds like most revolver competitors would like the Revolver rules to be more like the Limited gun rules ???

They aren't now. They are closer to the Production rules.

Funny you'd say that... I was thinking about the same thing but understood the division to be more along the lines of limited revolver. Fixed sights and instead of 140mm mag length only six loaded in the cyl. The rest open to your imagination...

Revolver rules pre-date the Production Division and were found in the old Limited Division rules. No effort was made to strictly limit modifications because provision for a Production Revolver is covered under the Production Division rules and approved equipment list. Limitations found there should not be placed on Revolver Division in any way.

Revolver Division is to USPSA as Limited Division is to USPSA. Production Division is the place where strict limitations on modifications should be enforced. Production Division problems emanate from the list of "Allowed Modifications" to a supposedly "stock" division.

Read the Production Division equipment rules and see if it doesn't look/sound familiar.

[hdgun]

First, I just want to say sorry for bringing this up. My main goal here was to let people know that mods done to a barrel are not legal. ( my fault, and mine only )

I have seen some posts from people saying they wanted to cut the under lugs clean off. This was mainly for them.

I read the rules before I took my barrel to the mill. The way I read them ( Interpretation ) I was not beyond the rules.

I thought what I had done was OK, I had kept the barrel length, I had kept the same profile of the barrel. When all said and done it is still heavier than my 5" 610.

I am not a gammer by any means. The reason I did the mods was just to give the gun a little better balance and throw a little cool factor in. To chop the barrel to 5" and have an SDM sight base and sight is pricey. I was looking to save a buck and get the same results.

So, if I had a shorter barrel put on, it would give me the same result. ( which is legal to do )

To replace the barrel with a stock 5" is almost impossible. ( non to be had )

I did not do this to get any kind of advantage. I shoot revo div because for the most part it is simple, 6 rounds at a time. I don't give a flying S**T what kind of gun it is. You still have to pull the trigger and reload.

As far as putting the gun back to original state, I Plan on plugging the holes with Stainless Steel so to get the weight back. 1 whole oz.

In the end, Nothing has changed, This gun did not change any abillity I have as a shooter. I will shoot it or any other Revo I have the same way.

I love this sport and the people. They take their time to put matches together so we can have fun.

I do this as a hobby and a stess release. I spend more $$ than I care to mention. ( like Most ) The last thing I wanted to do is create a pissing contest. This is a game.

[Waltermitty]

snip

Hey, don't sweat it. It appears to me that you weren't trying to make trouble and I don't think trouble has been the net effect. There's a whole forum for rules discussions and some of those things go on for weeks. I just hope the moderator doesn't move this thread out of our own backyard to that forum.

With no observable malice from anyone (yet ) I think it's just another neat aspect of playing The Game (as you might say). Rule and equipment discussions are part of the fun, as long as they don't spiral out of control and suddenly disqualify thousands of dollars worth of current equipment or exclude improvements that are logical, practical and can improve the game.

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

Well John and Dave, all kidding and smart ass responses aside, as a reasonably new RO, I spent that snowy weekend in Harvard going over the rules. I read them and read them again. I read them a few more times and got a good grade on the final exam.

To the discussion at hand, I see nothing that violates the current edition of the USPSA rules as written. Note I say "AS WRITTEN". Interpretation is another matter. Interpretation is open to a lot of factors. The unfortunate thing is most of the interpretation comes from those that are NOT revolver shooters and many feel we don't belong in their sport. (No need to comment it has been beaten to death)

I shoot with you both, (although not enough), and know where you were headed with the mods and I feel what you did was fine work and should stay as is and we should all move on.

John, you were told to "Fill the holes". Brownell's sells plexiglass rods. Were I in your position, I would fill the holes with pieces of the proper size rod and call them filled. Carry the e mail from Mr. Amidon with you and move on. The holes are filled.

I look forward to seeing you both and shooting with you again. Maybe John can drag Dave to First Sunday at Bass River for one more before A7. Either way, I will probably see you there. If you get crap for the mods, be prepared to file for arbitration. I know I would.

Regards,

[Flexmoney]

Interpretation is open to a lot of factors. The unfortunate thing is most of the interpretation comes from those that are NOT revolver shooters and many feel we don't belong in their sport.

I hope you weren't pointing that statement at me. You guys asked my opinion and I took about and hour today putting it together.

There are two groups of people that have a stake in the wording of the revolver rules:

- The regular revolver shooters (how many of you are there? and how many are posting here?)

- The current USPSA rule writers.

Does it sound like either group is likely to step up and make clear rules???

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

Interpretation is open to a lot of factors. The unfortunate thing is most of the interpretation comes from those that are NOT revolver shooters and many feel we don't belong in their sport.

I hope you weren't pointing that statement at me. You guys asked my opinion and I took about and hour today putting it together.

Definitely not Flex. Your opinion was solicited and I appreciate your position on the subject.

The point is at most major matches, the person making the decision or causing a flap is usually a non revolver shooter. I have been insulted too many times to count by people that meant what they said and were not trying to be funny.

In this discussion, a lot of time is being spent and I feel it is valuable time for us all. We need to see what we, as shooters, are up against.

A lot of time and money goes into the sport whether you shoot Revolver, L10, open or whatever. Those reading the rules for themselves and taking a stand need to be heard no matter what they shoot and they need to be allowed to compete within their division.

I could have parsed my response with "No offense" but I did not mean any so it never entered my narrow little mind.

Regards,

Gary

[michaels]

In talking to John Amidon, he advised me that he had purchased a used 625 and gear to compete in the rev division to see what all is going on here...

This should make things interesting in the months to come...

Wait till they change the rules and make us go back to things like 'factory grips' only and such...then the howling will begin...

where can I put grip tape on my 627?

michaels

[Waltermitty]

In talking to John Amidon, he advised me that he had purchased a used 625 and gear to compete in the rev division to see what all is going on here...

This should make things interesting in the months to come...

Wait till they change the rules and make us go back to things like 'factory grips' only and such...then the howling will begin...

where can I put grip tape on my 627?

michaels

That's interesting. When did this occur? I say welcome and come shoot with us anywhere anytime.

We'll just need to see his stuff before he starts, could be somebody modified it before he got it.

[Carmoney]

Waltermitty is right. The law cannot possibly predict every situation that will arise. Neither can the USPSA rulebook. In the law, the courts have adopted certain rules of construction which can sometimes help resolve the conflicts of interpretation that come up.

There are instances where the USPSA rules are ambiguous (i.e. suscpetible to two differing, yet both reasonable, interpretations). This same thing also happens frequently when two parties attempt to enter into a contractual relationship with one another.

In the legal realm, the doctrine of "contra proferentum" holds that whenever a contract term is ambiguous, that term should always be strictly construed against the drafter of the contract.

Applying this logic, in those instances where the USPSA rules can be interpreted two different ways, the shooter (who did not prepare the rules) should always get the benefit of the doubt. Particularly when it don't frickin' matter.

[Merlin Orr]

Modified to suit MY purposes....

"The shooter should always get the benefit of the doubt. Particularly when it don't frickin' matter."

That should be in the rule book - line one - page one. IMHO

[haras]

In talking to John Amidon, he advised me that he had purchased a used 625 and gear to compete in the rev division

Hey, maybe he'll help us hit 20 at some of these matches.

Traveling around a little would be a good way to sample things and meet some side loaders (is that what we call ourselves?)

[Waltermitty]

In talking to John Amidon, he advised me that he had purchased a used 625 and gear to compete in the rev division

Hey, maybe he'll help us hit 20 at some of these matches.

Traveling around a little would be a good way to sample things and meet some side loaders (is that what we call ourselves?)

I'm a Breach loader.

[RePete]

As far as I can see, #18 doesn't apply, because you are enhancing the recoil by removing weight instead of reducing. AFAIC it would include the Ti cylinder.

#19.3 should apply, as the cuts are cosmetic, and are thereby reducing weight, hence adding recoil.

Good luck.

RePete.

[hdgun]

After reading the posts given, It looks like things are not as clear as we would like them to be.

Opinions, some strong fast and other with question. The world may never know.