BritinUSA Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Click on this link to Tanfoglio's web-page to see a 76kb .pdf document of some emails from Tanfoglio to IPSC concerning Tanfoglio's attempt to get a new gun approved for Production Division. 76kb .pdf document I think that USPSA needs to ensure that we don't suffer from the same problems. I'd like to avoid a political US(A) versus them thread here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) I would like to declare the month of October to henceforth be "Screw Tanfoglio from All Sides Month." If the worldwide shooting body that your pistol is designed for isn't rendering your product illegal, the distributor in the world's largest civillian firearms market won't stock your off-the-shelf product in a market where competing pistols are a 6 to 18 month wait. And the baby Jesus cried his little eyes out... Edited October 9, 2006 by EricW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) This is why I've said over and over again that the Production rules are broken. The concept of "not made for production" is absurd to me. How can anyone know FOR SURE? I depsise the concept of a list of approved models, I would much more like to see a list of approved and denied features, and a listing a models meeting those standards or breaking them. It is a subtle difference but a crucial one. Tanfoglio may really try to sell a gun, but I can't say that IPSC has been stelar in its handling of the issue either. It shouldn't take months and months and then a decission be made on a subjective reason like "We think you made it just for us!". Anyone else think it's strange? It is as if you went to a cake conference, you stood up and said "I like cake. I have lots of money I want to spend on cake. I like strawberry cake with chocolate frosting and little mice made of colored sugar on the frosting" and then when a company came to you and offered to sell you a strawberry cake with chocolate frosting and little mice made of colored sugar on the frosting, you got all upset because it was made just for you. No No ... Everyone should like the cake I do and you should convince everyone to like my cake. Only when you have convince everyone to like my cake, even those who don't like cake, only then will I'll buy your cake. Huh? Edited October 9, 2006 by Vlad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-man Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) WOW, that sucks. I for one think that having gun companies making guns "specifically for IPSC/USPSA production" is a great thing. Shouldn't we be trying to gain further support from gun makers rather than chasing them off? Isn't that the point, to make the very best firearm possible? What if I could go to my local gun dealer and for around $500 buy a pistol that has great sights, a nice trigger, secure grips, an accurate barrel (ie, all the requisites for a fine competition gun) and not need to do a single thing to step into production division? I have a hard time understanding this type of mentaility. It's almost as if production division has to be the "shoot a cheap piece-of-crap gun and don't dare try to improve it or else it's no longer STOCK" mentality. As an exclusive production shooter hoping to enjoy international matches (IPSC) in the future, I hope that reason prevails. Edited October 9, 2006 by Z-man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Calling that thing a 'stock custom' was about as smart as calling a new target 'classic'. Despite whatever the intentions were, it riles up a lot of people for no good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Shameful. IPSC and it's officers should hang their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Incredible.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I wasn't surprised, and neither should anyone else who is familiar with those players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxD Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) I wasn't surprised, and neither should anyone else who is familiar with those players. May 8 2004, 12:54 PM Post #34 QUOTE (Detlef @ May 8 2004, 08:35 PM) are you therefore saying that the (or even just a) main purpose during conception of PD was to induce manufacturers into producing more/better IPSC competition-ready products? Really (hand on heart!)? Yes, right hand on heart, left hand holding the Bible, that's exactly what I'm saying. As I've stated ad nauseum, the primary criteria of Production Division is "no SAO handguns", however secondary criteria included (among other things) our desire to encourage mainstream manufacturers to offer better products off-the-shelf, to counter the (God awful) mindset which pervades IPSC of "buy a new gun, immediately fix it, and spend mega bucks in the process". POSTSCRIPT: I also remind you that manufacturers have previously created guns specifically for IPSC divisions. For example, the "CZ 75 Standard IPSC" is described by CZ as being "designed from the ground up for IPSC competition", and Glock created their G34/G35 models specifically to fit the IPSC box (i.e. for Standard and Modified Divisions). These are both examples of IPSC competition driving handgun development. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a quote from Vince Pinto on this forum May 8, 2004. Find it here: brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13012&hl Edited October 9, 2006 by TxD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Thanx TxD, I was looking for that quote but couldn't find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA Friday Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Talk about stunting progress in firearms manufacturing. I wish half of the other manufacturers would take this sport as serious and incorporate the typical modifications they are finding in practice in the production division. It's just little things, but they make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 I think that this is a picture of the Stock Custom that they submitted for approval. If you are wondering about the holes in the frame it's because they use the same frame for Limited and Open guns. It's a modular approach to gun-making, using the same parts for different guns reduces operating costs. Glock, CZ and others do the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) Honestly, I don't care if Tanfoglio calls it a "Production Open Unlimited Race Bullet Hoserator" - it meets the criteria for PD. Edited October 9, 2006 by EricW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resjudicata Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I'm not too sure Tanfoglio wasn't their own worst enemy in this case. Though IPSC certainly doesn't come out with the moral high ground either. (I've seen many posts by Mr. Pinto on the USPSA forum. I'm not too impressed). Looks like a bad situation that wasn't much helped by either side. FYI, Message to Tanfoglio: We can buy them and use them. The "Witness Elite Stock" and "Witness Elite Limited" are approved here. However, if you don't start getting them here soon then other companies will have filled the void. Like say, CZ? Chris I think that this is a picture of the Stock Custom that they submitted for approval.If you are wondering about the holes in the frame it's because they use the same frame for Limited and Open guns. It's a modular approach to gun-making, using the same parts for different guns reduces operating costs. Glock, CZ and others do the same thing. Damn, nice double action Limited. I'm starting feel the same way motorcycle heads do when they see the new super hot bike that is only available overseas and will never make it here. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 I've sent an email to John Amidon to see what he thinks of the gun. USPSA rules require that a formal request for approval be sent in so John may not be able to give an answer just by looking at the photo, but it will be interesting to hear his views on it. The only apparent difference between the Witness Elite Stock and the proposed 'Stock Custom2' is the longer dust cover (like the SP01 has)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxshooter Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) I would have to agree that Production Division should come up with requirements that the pistols used must be : double action, maximum weight, maximum barrel length and possibly a maximum retail cost ( in an effort to keep it "grass roots for the person on a limited budget or to negate the "arms race") and be available across the counter to anyone wanting to purchase it. I don't think the intent of the gun companies to limit availability as they are in business to sell firearms. Should they have to be available for a year or should it be approved after a certain number are assembled and ready to ship? Edited October 9, 2006 by Jaxshooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 Under USPSA rules, the company has to have made 2000 and they must be available to the public, meanig I guess that they are either for sale or sold... 2000 manufactured and available to the general public . No magwell attachments or external flaring of the magwell, the lateral internal width of the well may not be more than 1/4" wider than the lateral width of the magazine. The lateral width of the well to mean the narrow width where the mainspring housing is inserted, the lateral width of the magazine to mean the narrow side that faces the mainspring housing when inserted into the handgun. Must meet the criteria listed in the appendix of the current rule book as well as that listed above. The gun must be viewed by NROI prior to its acceptance. A production gun approval form filled out and signed and returned to NROI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resjudicata Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Doesn't USPSA also require that it be available for 1 year? If that is the case I wonder if the fact that EAA doesn't seem to be able to actually get and sell Tanfoglios would prevent the year from running? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-man Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Is the picture posted of the Stock Custom or Stock II? On EAA's website (don't they import Tangfolio guns?) the "Elite Stock" doesn't have the full length dustcover. The gun posted above looks more like Tangfolio's limited/standard gun (only difference being the DA/SA trigger I'm assuming). Does anyone have any idea what the cost of such a gun is? I can imagine it'd be more apt to be rejected if it looks just like the company's limited gun and costs nearly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 Judging by the cost of the other Tanfoglio guns in USA, I suspect it would be below the $600 mark, probably in the same ballpark as the SP01. There are guns on the IPSC list that cost considerably more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musky Hunter Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 really looks like some unfair business. Its an SP01 that is stainless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRT Driver Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 WOW! Tanfoglio gets my vote and if this model were sold in the US, I'd buy one without hesitation just on principle. The situation really sucks and hope it doesn't happen in the US. Given the amount of discussion regarding the "intent" of PD, I wonder. So the difference between CZ SP01 and Tanfoglio is that a few hundred SP01's were sold to a special LE unit which makes the SP01 OK for PD? Even more reason to leave USPSA PD rules more open ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-man Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 I'd be interested in seeing the gun if they start coming into the US. Looks like a beautiful gun, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't let it play our game!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 really looks like some unfair business. Its an SP01 that is stainless. I think that's a hard chrome finish. I had a similar Tanfoglio years ago with that finish and was very happy with it. Good looking, and durable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaseyJ Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 WAA WAAA, why are they so mad that their pistol does not conform, if they made it for the division only it is not allowed! Maybe if they made a pistol that conformed to the divisions rules and slod it as a Police model, then it would be allowed! that is after the year long wait. As for their rights, maybe they should produce pistols in the US! just my $.02 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