Revolvers That Are Not Legal In Uspsa

[Mooney]

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.

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,

As Gary said, we know that it doesn't make a dang bit of difference- You're STILL gonna beat up on us...

That's a shame that you've gotta fill in the REALLY nice work you did. I enjoyed looking at it and even wished I had the time, talent, and tools to do it.

One of the guys suggested bejeweling your holes....it WOULD fill them in

How about putting spinners on our cylinders too? Bling Bling!!

Maybe us MA shortbussers will all catch up in NY- I head out next weekend- vacation with my bride followed by a match? SWEET.

Again, damn shame this came up, but I'm glad your butt is not on the line.

Greg

[hdgun]

Well Greg, The whole intent for this was to find out. Better know now than show up at a Major match and then find out. This is why the question was raised to John A.

On the other hand, I think Round Gun Shooter said, basicly, don't ask, don't tell.

Things might have been better if left alone but, If I am going to play the game, I'm gonna play it right.

BTW: all holes are filled. Stainless rod from the hardware store fit the bill.

Edited May 27, 2006 by hdgun

[R112mercer]

Just to insert my worthless opinion into a thread that never should have happened:

1- I gotta go with Mike on this one: Don't ask, don't tell. This would have never happened if attention wasn't called to the situation.

2- I cannot see how this gives any advantage to the shooter, and, therefore, why it shouldn't be allowed.

3- I spoke with John Amidon at last years Nationals and asked specific questions about revolver barrels. The response was along the lines of "as long as it's a factory offered length and not longer than 8.5" it's OK." I specifically asked about bull barrels and was given the previous response. As Tom Mainus is my witness .

4- I'll step up and rewrite the rulebook on this one:

Revolver Division: It's a revolver.

Production Division: It's not a 1911.

Not that that's cleared up, please, please do not contact your local law enforcement if you think you've commited some minor infraction of the law. Ditto for calling the ATF if you think something on one of your guns is illegal or may have been transported illegally. No good will come of this.

Edited May 27, 2006 by R112mercer

[hdgun]

Just to insert my worthless opinion into a thread that never should have happened:

1- I gotta go with Mike on this one: Don't ask, don't tell. This would have never happened if attention wasn't called to the situation.

2- I cannot see how this gives any advantage to the shooter, and, therefore, why it shouldn't be allowed.

3- I spoke with John Amidon at last years Nationals and asked specific questions about revolver barrels. The response was along the lines of "as long as it's a factory offered length and not longer than 8.5" it's OK." I specifically asked about bull barrels and was given the previous response. As Tom Mainus is my witness .

4- I'll step up and rewrite the rulebook on this one:

Revolver Division: It's a revolver.

Production Division: It's not a 1911.

Not that that's cleared up, please, please do not contact your local law enforcement if you think you've commited some minor infraction of the law. Ditto for calling the ATF if you think something on one of your guns is illegal or may have been transported illegally. No good will come of this.

AMEN!!

[caps]

FWIW, after asking another question about revolvers at the IPSC forum, I asked about the legality of the revolver in this thread, and the ruling from Vince Pinto was "No, firstly because the holes drilled through the underlug are not a standard feature of the gun, hence it is a prototype. Secondly, the holes are not one of the modifications permitted under Point 19 of the RSD rules.".

You can see it here http://ipsc.invisionzone.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=36136

Edited May 28, 2006 by caps

[Joseph]

I am new to the forum, But not new to shooting. I have been reading BE forum for some time.

It seams like there are a few members here would like this thread to go away. WHY?

Rules are rules, hdgun did somthing to his gun and found it not to be legal, He let the body of this forum know about it so it would not happen to another.

Is this like the white elephant in the room that no one admits to see?

[1911 rookie]

It's because nobody knows what to do about it. It would seem that shooters are insatiable tinkerers (initially nothing wrong with that). It would also seem that the majority of shooter believe that some modification will dramatically improve their shooting, or gives another shooter the advantage. It's when that belief and the tinkering cross that we have problems. The ruling organizations don't want people complaining all the time about what other people do so they try to narrow the rules to eliminate it, people then push those rules and it's a downward spiral. How many divisions has it led to in USPSA and IDPA? ICORE is great with two divisions but in another thread people were already tossing about creating more.

the difficulty lies in that most shooters refuse to accept that they are not as good as someone else, it might just be human nature, I don't know, I'm just a dumb shooter.

But remember that Jerry Miculek kicks the snot out of everybody with what looks to be a mostly stock (with an Apex hammer) 627. Is it the gun that makes him good? the tennis racket that made McEnroe, the football that made Montana? you get the idea. Can somebody name a person the excelled at something purely because they had an equipment advantage?

Jason

[Flexmoney]

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.

Sorry about the miscommunication (assumption on my part). I see you guys get worked up (and it sounds like, with reason), but my perspective is that I don't think any bad will towards revolver shooters...and, I don't hear any of that at the ranges I shoot at. (That might be why we got 20 revolver shooters at the Ohio last year.)

[underlug]

It's because nobody knows what to do about it. It would seem that shooters are insatiable tinkerers (initially nothing wrong with that). It would also seem that the majority of shooter believe that some modification will dramatically improve their shooting, or gives another shooter the advantage. It's when that belief and the tinkering cross that we have problems. The ruling organizations don't want people complaining all the time about what other people do so they try to narrow the rules to eliminate it, people then push those rules and it's a downward spiral. How many divisions has it led to in USPSA and IDPA? ICORE is great with two divisions but in another thread people were already tossing about creating more.

the difficulty lies in that most shooters refuse to accept that they are not as good as someone else, it might just be human nature, I don't know, I'm just a dumb shooter.

But remember that Jerry Miculek kicks the snot out of everybody with what looks to be a mostly stock (with an Apex hammer) 627. Is it the gun that makes him good? the tennis racket that made McEnroe, the football that made Montana? you get the idea. Can somebody name a person the excelled at something purely because they had an equipment advantage?

Jason PAMELA ANDERSON???

Edited May 28, 2006 by underlug

[Waltermitty]

I am new to the forum, But not new to shooting. I have been reading BE forum for some time.

It seams like there are a few members here would like this thread to go away. WHY?

Rules are rules, hdgun did somthing to his gun and found it not to be legal, He let the body of this forum know about it so it would not happen to another.

Is this like the white elephant in the room that no one admits to see?

The short answer is that if certain things were reversed, say, the leading rules authority was a revo shooter and really didn't know much about semi autos; and some youngster put a bull barrel on his new Limited Division Para and went and asked if this was legal.

The ruling, based on the logic and analysis applied so far, is that it would be illegal. That's how I read the current rules anyway. What response do you think would come from Limited shooters?

[warpspeed]

Correct me if I'm wrong ( and I know you all will ) but one of the problems here is that there are so few revo shooters that no one has every really given much thought to things like drilling holes in the underlug of the barrel. And since the written rules are very few, it is difficult to apply them.

Are revo's limited guns that have a cylinder or production guns that have a cylinder ?

We have to choose one or the other - we can't have both - we don't need both.

Perhaps if we should all send John A. a letter / email stating that we want the rules clarified to show that the relover division should be more like Limited and less like production.

[Waltermitty]

FWIW, after asking another question about revolvers at the IPSC forum, I asked about the legality of the revolver in this thread, and the ruling from Vince Pinto was "No, firstly because the holes drilled through the underlug are not a standard feature of the gun, hence it is a prototype. Secondly, the holes are not one of the modifications permitted under Point 19 of the RSD rules.".

You can see it here http://ipsc.invisionzone.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=36136

My generic response would be that rulings made for IPSC would not necessarily apply to USPSA as a start. IPSC rulings on USPSA issues are moot unless or until made a part of our rule structure.

I encourage everyone chiming in on this conversation and soliciting rulings from various icons in the sport to include a study of the current U.S. Production Division equipment rules in their analysis. I would also respectfully request that those icons review the same rules and the history and origins of the Limited and Revolver Divisions. The Production and Revolver Divisions were codified in the 14th edition of the rule book. Production Division at that time did not appear to specifically include revolvers. In the current rule book (the only one that matters) Production Revolvers are addressed with the exact sort of limitations that several folks seem intent on applying to Revolver Division. I contend this is not appropriate.

[haras]

Looks like ICORE is dealing with the same issues. Here is how they delt with it.

Limited Rules

Existing Rule

D. Any barrel other than a factory barrel or a factory replacement barrel made by the revolver's manufacturer and included in the revolver manufacturer's spare parts catalog or list.

Effective January 1, 2007, rule D is revised to:

D. Any barrel other than an unaltered factory barrel or an unaltered factory replacement barrel made by the revolver’s manufacturer. Alterations to the barrel other than what is required to safely install the barrel are not permitted in Limited Division. (Revised 2/16/06)

Reference:

http://www.icore.org/rulebook.html#Equipment

[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)

So Flex ??? I was wondering if you missed my reply ?? or did I in fact miss yours

Edited May 28, 2006 by 10mmdave

[Waltermitty]

Looks like ICORE is dealing with the same issues. Here is how they delt with it.

Limited Rules

Existing Rule

D. Any barrel other than a factory barrel or a factory replacement barrel made by the revolver's manufacturer and included in the revolver manufacturer's spare parts catalog or list.

Effective January 1, 2007, rule D is revised to:

D. Any barrel other than an unaltered factory barrel or an unaltered factory replacement barrel made by the revolver’s manufacturer. Alterations to the barrel other than what is required to safely install the barrel are not permitted in Limited Division. (Revised 2/16/06)

Reference:

http://www.icore.org/rulebook.html#Equipment

I'm all for using ICORE rules. They also allow .32 H&R mag, their power factor is 120, they permit 6,7,8 & 10 round revolvers in Limited division and require that *all* course design be 6 round neutral. They also have an Open Revolver division.

I really believe we shouldn't let a new rule in ICORE, which is even now hotly contested and may or may not actually become effective next year, confuse the issue in USPSA.

I mean no offense. ICORE's founding and charter was similar to IDPA's in that they were fleeing the "equipment race" in USPSA. While turmoil is currently underway in ICORE over this rule, it would make more sense in that game based on history than it does USPSA.

We had agreat ICORE match yesterday by the way.

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

Can somebody name a person the excelled at something purely because they had an equipment advantage?

Jason

John Force, Ron Jeremy, and lots more in different venues

Edited May 28, 2006 by Round_Gun_Shooter

[1911 rookie]

Can somebody name a person the excelled at something purely because they had an equipment advantage?

Jason

John Force, Ron Jeremy, and lots more in different venues

I thought we were all into gun porn, not guns AND porn

[Flexmoney]

The short answer is that if certain things were reversed... What response do you think would come from Limited shooters?

Again, I will point out, that the comparison is being made to Limited division. The Revolver rules, as written in the red book...and now the green book...more closely resemble Production division rules.

If that isn't the prevailing wind with the revolver community, then efforts need to be made...by those who care...to get the rules worded like you want them.

So Flex ??? I was wondering if you missed my reply ?? or did I in fact miss yours

Sorry, not sure if I addressed your particular situation directly...with my opinion.

The fact is, I don't know enough about all the revolvers out there to know if you configuration is legal or not.

My default is, the revolver rules read and have implied that changing things to fit your particular tastes, aren't legal. If your barrel configuration (weight and balance) only show up on a 627 model...then I can't see you running your own version of that on a 625.

Limited (and L-10) have rules in place that require 500 guns or components produced. Production is in a similar place. Revolver isn't any different. The idea, I believe, is that somebody shouldn't been perceived as having an equipment advantage...

(Note: I shoot a 24oz Glock in Limited...I know all about the Indian and the arrow. we are talking rules here though.)

[Patrick Sweeney]

The problem with trying to nail down any kind of a barrel configuration rule is made difficult by the fact that S&W has been making them for over a hundred years. I'm sorry, but the "that configuration came on a 627, and not a 625, so you can't make it" won't fly, if you consider that S&W may well have made thousands of something just like it, decades ago.

Were I in charge, the rule would be simple: if it was ever made, you can duplicate it. You like an eight-inch pencil barrel? Cool. If anyone arbitrates it, be ready with documantation that S&W (or your frame maker) offered it, and you're in.

Cosmetics? Who cares about cosmetics? You want to swiss-cheese your barrel and frame, and install cubic zirconium, knock yourself out. As long as they CZ insets don't hinge, to uncover ports, I don't care.

[Waltermitty]

The short answer is that if certain things were reversed... What response do you think would come from Limited shooters?

Again, I will point out, that the comparison is being made to Limited division. The Revolver rules, as written in the red book...and now the green book...more closely resemble Production division rules.

If that isn't the prevailing wind with the revolver community, then efforts need to be made...by those who care...to get the rules worded like you want them.

So Flex ??? I was wondering if you missed my reply ?? or did I in fact miss yours

And again, I will point out that Revolvers were originally in Limited division. Saying Revolver interpretations should more closely "resemble" Production interpretations is spurious because 1) There are separate Revolver Division rules derived from the original Limited division and 2) Revolvers that should "resemble" Production Division rules are covered, specifically, in current PRODUCTION Division revolver rules.

Revolvers in Limited Division pre-dates the concept of a Production Division by many years. Revolvers were moved to a separate division for obvious reasons that had nothing to do with the creation of a "stock" division like Production.

Edited May 28, 2006 by Waltermitty

[Barrettone]

The short answer is that if certain things were reversed... What response do you think would come from Limited shooters?

Again, I will point out, that the comparison is being made to Limited division. The Revolver rules, as written in the red book...and now the green book...more closely resemble Production division rules.

If that isn't the prevailing wind with the revolver community, then efforts need to be made...by those who care...to get the rules worded like you want them.

So Flex ??? I was wondering if you missed my reply ?? or did I in fact miss yours

And again, I will point out that Revolvers were originally in Limited division. Saying Revolver interpretations should more closely "resemble" Production interpretations is spurious because 1) There are separate Revolver Division rules derived from the original Limited division and 2) Revolvers that should "resemble" Production Division rules are covered, specifically, in current PRODUCTION Division revolver rules.

Revolvers in Limited Division pre-dates the concept of a Production Division by many years. Revolvers were moved to a separate division for obvious reasons that had nothing to do with the creation of a "stock" division like Production.

OK, OK, I'll take the bull by the horns and start a poll since there is such a difference of opinion as to what the revolver rules should mimmick...limited or production. Starting another thread.

Jeff

[hdgun]

Well i guess I will be the first, since I am the fool who started it to begin with.

I personally think it should resemble Limited. not because of the mess I got my self into. But it would leave less for interpritation. I mean face it, how much can you do to a revolver that will give a competetive advantage.

A revolver is pretty basic to begin with, with the mods that shooters do to them now IE: trigger job, hammer bobbing, champher cylinder, grips, ect. those are the only mods that really make a differance. And for the most part, we do all of them now.

Anything beyond those mentioned IMHO dont mean squat. Like I had said in a previouse post, 6 rounds, reload, 6, rounds, reload, ECT, ECT

Revolver shooting, again IMHO is more the shooter than the gun.

[cking]

I like the way it looks, is it production, I'd have to say no. Is it limited, I'd have to say yes. But then I really had not bother to read the rule book to see if we have all the class's in Revolver.

Should we, sure why not.

[SIX SHOT]

Don't let this happen to you!

I have just found out that my 6.5" 610 is not USPSA legal.

I was told, by milling the holes in my barrel gave me a competetive advantage.

These holes took a wopping 1oz reduction in weight.

this goes for 10mmDave's gun as well.

So all you guys doing Ty cylinders and cutting lugs off barrels lugs better think twice.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...pe=post&id=3908

OK, a couple questions:

(1) Who told you your gun is not USPSA legal? Lots of people have opinions on things, but that doesn't mean those opinions are correct.

(2) The picture is pretty fuzzy--do those holes in the barrel actually penetrate through to the bore? If so, it's pretty obvious they would be considered porting, and porting has never been allowed in Revo division. If not, I don't see any problem with them.

Now, to act as devil's advocate here, and at the risk of frustrating you further, why did you bother doing that to your gun in the first place? One ounce can't possibly make any meaningful difference in the handling of the thing. I can see where taking off the whole underlug would change the dynamics some, but even then all you guys are accomplishing with all this effort is to approximate the handling of a 5" 610 or 625 or a 6.5" 25-2. I know that 5" 610s have become godawful expensive, so I understand the effort to avoid that cost. But are you really that married to the idea of shooting .40/10mm? I mean, it's kinda cool to be different, I suppose, but other than that can anybody articulate one single reason to insist on shooting a 10mm revo in USPSA when the .45 ACP can do everything just as well (and some things better), and you can find the guns for $500 or less all day long?

Haven't been able to log on for quite a while, finally got it worked out so I could reply to Mike's comment about the 610's not being competitive with the 625's. I couldn't disagree more. They made a whole lot more 625's than 610's, but the 610 is probably the best kept secret in the revolver division. Those that say different haven't shot them much, if at all. I will concede that its easier to miss an occasional reload with the 610, but 99% of the time the 610 is extremely close to the 625. A few advantages the 610 has over the 625 are: the 610 is more accurate, put them side by side, upside down or weak hand, doesn't matter, the 610 will outshoot the 625. Longer sight radius, this is a huge edge, if you don't agree, shoot a 4" 625 against a 5" 625 and see for yourself, the gun with the longer sight radius will win everytime. Faster recovery from shot to shot. A 4" 610 weighs more than a 5" 625 & the 6 1/2" gun is even heavier, helping to dampen recoil and allow for faster recovery, this is like dropping 3-4 power factor, maybe more.

The best way to find out who is the best revolver shooter in a match, regardless of classification is to shoot against other top shooters head to head, the best way to find out which gun/caliber combinination is best, or at least as good, is classifiers. You must shoot accurate & you must reload fast, if you can't then you have no chance of moving up. Ron Ankney of Wyoming is currently ranked 3rd or 4th master with a revolver, guess what caliber he shot all his classifiers with. It was a 4" 610.

Besides myself, there are 4 others in our local area that have switched to the 6" 610 & every single one has shot better in the last 2 months than they've ever shot. Kal Kirby had been averaging in the mid 60% for a long time, he switched to the 610 2 months ago & has 2 classifiers in the mid 80%, with several other good ones, if the gun was handicapping him you would have a hard time convincing anyone who's watched him shoot/reload.

One of the interesting things about the 40 cal. in revolver is the lack of good, round nose bullets. Thats changed. Magma makes a great 200 gr. RN, actually 205 when I cast it from wheel weights. When I was using a 160 gr. RN I fueled it with 5.1 grs. of WST, when I started using the 205 gr. RN I went all the way down to 3.7 grs. of WST. This load crono'ed 170.6 at Area II last november. The reason is the long bearing surface of this cast slug, its surperbly accurate and in the muzzle heavy 610, as soft as any load you can shoot & still make major.

It would be very interesting to see one of the 3 Amigos, Dan, Cliff or Mike, who are probably the TRUE best shooters behind Jerry, although you would have to add Tom Kettels, after 3-4 matches shooting a 6" 610, none of them would go back to the 5" 625, too many disadvantages!

Dick

[Carmoney]

I figured someone would take me to task for saying the 610 is probably not the best choice for USPSA shooting--surprised it took so long!

Dick, I appreciate your well-reasoned response. I guess I'm just still not sold on the idea of shooting a significantly muzzle-heavy gun like a 6" 610 in a sport like USPSA, where movement through the stage is so much more important than the recoil-dampening effect of the heavier barrel. (See my post on the other thread for my thoughts on bull barrels, etc.)

Classifiers only tell one small part of the story. The way the class system is currently set up for Revolver, you can shoot lights out on two different classifiers back to back, both with near-perfect runs, and have one of them score 66% and one of them score 128%. I know that for a fact! Besides, the class system only tests competence at certain specific shooting tasks, and we all know those tasks alone do not necessarily translate to real match success.

I'll take your word for the improved accuracy of the 610, but I know my 625s are accurate enough I wouldn't trade them for a slightly more accurate gun with slightly slower (on average) reloads. Not for USPSA.

Now who knows.....maybe I'm wrong about all this. And it's completely possible that certain shooting platforms will create different advantages that will benefit different shooters in different ways, right?

Nothing wrong with "gaming the equipment" within reasonable parameters to allow each shooter to maximize those individual benefits.