Attila Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I saw in the new Front sight magazine that USPSA listed a date that the new XD .45ACP would be legal for production. Does anyone know if such a date is known for the M&P? I would like to start shooting mine in a local match as soon as they are legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I saw in the new Front sight magazine that USPSA listed a date that the new XD .45ACP would be legal for production. Does anyone know if such a date is known for the M&P? I would like to start shooting mine in a local match as soon as they are legal. Quick answer: When S&W demonstrates that they have been available for 1 year and that they have producded 2000 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted June 28, 2006 Author Share Posted June 28, 2006 Quick answer:When S&W demonstrates that they have been available for 1 year and that they have producded 2000 of them. Damn! I guess that is my own fault for not stating that I understood the requirements. What I was specifically looking for was what date is that year up (And yes I know it is 365 days after the first one was produced, but when was that?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 It is sometime in December 2006. The 2000 and one year should be tossed. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 now ask when spare parts will be available.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kend Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 The 2000 has been met, they have 30,000+ in the hands of law enforcement now along with whatever they've sold to civilians. It'll be December before the 1 year is met....hopefully Langdon and the S&W bunch can convince USPSA to waive the 1 year. I'm not holding my breath though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 The 2000/1 year is OK, but it should be added that if certain production level for civilians has been reached, the 1 year may be waived. 2000/1 year or 12,000 produced for the civilian market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 The 2000 has been met, they have 30,000+ in the hands of law enforcement now along with whatever they've sold to civilians. It'll be December before the 1 year is met....hopefully Langdon and the S&W bunch can convince USPSA to waive the 1 year. I'm not holding my breath though. If they waive it for the M&P, what good is the rule? Seriously, either the rule is valid, or it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 If they waive it for the M&P, what good is the rule? Seriously, either the rule is valid, or it's not. I am assuming the 1 year rule is to ensure that everyone has had an oppurtunity to purchase one if they can afford one. If a certain model has achieved the same accessabilty by producing a large enough quantity that they are not in short supply, hasnt the same goal been reached? That is why I said along with the 2000/1 yr, they also have a figure that if prodution reaches, the one year be waived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 It should be a gun that meets the Production rules and is availible to the public, go have fun. No number or time limit. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz-0 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 It should be a gun that meets the Production rules and is availible to the public, go have fun. No number or time limit.Rich In general, I agree, however you have to define "available to the public." They chose the 2000/1 year thing. I think it's kind of flawed in that you can have some company produce a jillion pistols that are in every other gun shop aorund the country, and they aren't legit for a year. the .45 XD isn't exactly in short supply, neither is the M&P. The .40 will be good in december, anyone know the date for the nearly identicle 9mm that isn't terribly hard to get either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandman_sy Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 In the website below, under S&W, there's a "M&P9", does that mean that's legal to use a M&P 9mm on IPSC competition?? it just got here in the Philippines (roughly $1,000.00 after taxes and stuff ) I like the gun, but what's the use of buyin one if you can't use it on the sport http://www.ipsc.org/proddiv.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 It is sometime in December 2006.The 2000 and one year should be tossed. Rich When will spare parts be available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 In the website below, under S&W, there's a "M&P9", does that mean that's legal to use a M&P 9mm on IPSC competition?? it just got here in the Philippines (roughly $1,000.00 after taxes and stuff ) I like the gun, but what's the use of buyin one if you can't use it on the sport http://www.ipsc.org/proddiv.php I don't think IPSC has the same requirement as USPSA for the 1 year availability. Julie Goloski shot one at an IPSC match in El Salvador recently. She is listed as Prodcution in the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandman_sy Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) So it's good to go!! hehehe. thanx warpspeed! Edited July 12, 2006 by sandman_sy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbadaboom Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I did a search and found this thread as the closest to what I wanted to mention. It appears, looking at the production gun list on the USPSA web site, that they have done away with the one year rule. This seems conspicuously like a "Please the sponsors" move since JGo started working for S&W, shoots production and they have the M&P. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the rule went away and I will now go out and buy an M&P and set up for production, and I'm glad that things laid out the way they did with Julie, S&W, the M&P and so on but why did it take this? Why did they have the one year rule in the first place and why didn't they listen to the shooters and do away with it years ago? It sucks that, if my perception is correct, they only listen to the sponsors and sponsored shooters and tend to ignore, to a certain degree, the average shooters. Just my observation. I could be mistaken, it's happened before many times; Just ask my wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99gski Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I did a search and found this thread as the closest to what I wanted to mention.It appears, looking at the production gun list on the USPSA web site, that they have done away with the one year rule. This seems conspicuously like a "Please the sponsors" move since JGo started working for S&W, shoots production and they have the M&P. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the rule went away and I will now go out and buy an M&P and set up for production, and I'm glad that things laid out the way they did with Julie, S&W, the M&P and so on but why did it take this? Why did they have the one year rule in the first place and why didn't they listen to the shooters and do away with it years ago? It sucks that, if my perception is correct, they only listen to the sponsors and sponsored shooters and tend to ignore, to a certain degree, the average shooters. Just my observation. I could be mistaken, it's happened before many times; Just ask my wife. Hi Daniel, I would love to think I had that much sway in the decision but actually the intro of the XD .45 and then the M&P in the same year along with the fact that the BOD wanted to encourage the smaller manufacturers to innovate and design new, innovative guns as well, is what did it. The year wait... really silly especially for guns like the XD and M&P who are meant totally to be law enforcement/military hard chargers. One of the main arguments was that if a cop showed up to a match with his duty gun and had to shoot "open" with a clearly production firearm, UPSPA would be GREATLY hindering the growth of the sport to our public defenders. Insane. I certainly helped with my nudging of my area directors, but I am very confident they had been working to address it all anyway. As for not listening to the non-sponsored shooters, I think that's plain wrong and I so hope that's not the case. Being an Area director is a thankless job, but even if things take a bit more time than we'd like, our sport has come so far and I hope continues to grow. Hope that helps!!! All the best, Julie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbadaboom Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 (edited) Thank you very much for your reply. For you to take the time while shooting the Nationals to read and reply about my concerns speaks volumes. When production division was first developed and started I, along with many others, made note of the one year rule and voiced our concerns with our A.D.'s, the NROI and Sedro. I'm not sure about everyone else involved but I did not get any kind of response from anybody regarding the issue and the rule remained in place. I again started addressing it when I first saw the promo disk for the M&P that Ean Stafford showed us because I wanted to get my hands on one as soon as they came out in order to shoot in production. Again I got no response and it remained. I know that the BOD listens to the shooters in a lot of instances but I also know that they don't "To a certain degree" or it may better be stated "In some instances" The rule changed due to whose arguements? Was it the shooters or the manufaturers making the arguements? I don't know the answer but the appearance is that it was the manufacturers. Again, I'm probably just as wrong as the folks who were saying that the one year rule was placed because Glock has a lot of pull and wanted to put off the competition. What I do know is that if they had listened when the shooters first brought about concerns regarding this I could have been shooting an M&P in production since last Nov./Dec. Edited October 12, 2006 by Bigbadaboom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz-0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Perhaps they finally listened because when the shooters, the good shooters looking for sponsors, and the sponsors/ potential sponors out there were all telling them they were wrong a the same time, it became apparant something had to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 ... This seems conspicuously like a "Please the sponsors" move ... And Amen for it! It's all about reciprocity. USPSA help out manufacturers/sponsors, and the sponsors in turn support us through funding matches and supporting competitors who race their equipment. The adult, give-and-take relationship that USPSA has with the industry beats the hell out of what's going on "elsewhere." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbadaboom Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 And Amen for it! It's all about reciprocity. USPSA help out manufacturers/sponsors, and the sponsors in turn support us through funding matches and supporting competitors who race their equipment. The adult, give-and-take relationship that USPSA has with the industry beats the hell out of what's going on "elsewhere." I agree 100% and I'm not speaking out against USPSA listening to the sponsors (I'm aware that I may have worded my post to sound that way). I'm talking about them not listening to the shooters 5 years ago when the stupid one year rule was brought up by us. But now, all of a sudden, it's important. Again, If they had listened back then we could have started shooting the M&P last year and S&W would have a stronger place in production today therefore listening to common shooters helps the sponsors just like listening to the sponsors helps the common shooters. I see it as one being just as important as the other but it appears that USPSA doesn't or, at least, didn't. The one year rule for production is now a dead issue so I'm going out and buying a 9mm M&P and start prepping for production/IDPA shooting. I just hope that future issues don't run the same route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Daniel, just because they didn't listen to you, doesn't mean they weren't listening to the shooters. There were many shooters that wanted the one year rule to remain in effect. Including several on this forum. The idea is to prohibit sponsored shooters from using the fancy guns the factory shooters have access to but no one else does, i.e. the CZ85 Combat II at the last World Shoot, or some other one off guns that only certain people can get. I think the BOD looked at the M&P and, to a lesser extent, the XD 45 and realized that there were probably 10K plus on the market in the first six months and that they were cheap, and available and met everyone's criteria for being a great production gun. (Okay, some people still think both of them are single action but lets avoid that little argument for now) I still think there should be a time delay from the manufacturer putting it on the market till it is legal. That would probably have avoided some of the arguments with the Tanfoglio Custom Stock. But maybe a sliding scale could be used, something like 1 yr and 500 units, 6 months and 2000 units and 3 months and 5000 units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keninaz Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 The S&W M&P in .40, 9x19 and .357Sig are now on the approved list for USPSA. I just looked. Kendall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckw Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 The idea is to prohibit sponsored shooters from using the fancy guns the factory shooters have access to but no one else does, i.e. the CZ85 Combat II at the last World Shoot, or some other one off guns that only certain people can get. What are you talking about? According to French, German and other Euro shooters the CZ85 Combat II was freely available in Europe before the world shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The idea is to prohibit sponsored shooters from using the fancy guns the factory shooters have access to but no one else does, i.e. the CZ85 Combat II at the last World Shoot, or some other one off guns that only certain people can get. What are you talking about? According to French, German and other Euro shooters the CZ85 Combat II was freely available in Europe before the world shoot. Sorry, I was basing that on what the CZ factory rep at the World Shoot told me. He said that it was a recent model and that CZ wasn't planning on manufacturing it. He said that the Combat II was only created to get around the issue of the SP-01 being illegal, and that now that it wasn't that it wouldn't be produced. 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