Tanfoglio Vs Ipsc

[Loves2Shoot]

I just read the other side of the story, or at least some of it on the Global Village (Sorry Jim). Still left a lot of issues left open. There definitely seem to be some missing emails, or at least one. But it still doesn't explain the lengthy time frame that the decision took. The thread is closed over there. It got very heated, slanderous and was very unproductive.

IPSC seems to be using the "built for Production" criteria as the main reason for disallowing the TSC. I'm waiting on an answer from Vince regarding this issue ( I only PM'd him two minutes ago, I haven't been waiting 7 months). I think it might be wise to use this thread to try and come up with some useful ideas about how to work with IPSC/USPSA and manufacturers rather than deciding just how thick of a spit we need to roast Vince over the fire.

How about a check list of requirement/specifications for legal guns. Ones that are measurable (NOT subjective), that way the RO's know what is legal by checking the list. Makes a lot more sense to me than approved models AND it allows new players to introduce new product. If a manufacture wants to make a better product, why discourage that, doing so is just ignorant. Do we want to be a 1990's SASS (semi auto shooting society) as far as gear? It seems some of our rules favor that mentality.

It seems to work for limited and open. I do think we should remove the quantity sold to incourage inovation and not just protect the players in the game.

Those who can win know the limitation of performance today is NOT determined by the gear, it is the ablility of the operator. in 2006 we have tons of good product to chose from. The arms race argument is just an excuse for those who don't know any better and want to keep their head in the sand.

ps. I've been shooting a basic 4" XD (trigger job and fixed Dawson, sights totally PD legal) a lot lately and I can't shoot any of my 3K limited guns faster (or even measurably more acurately.)

Edited October 13, 2006 by Loves2Shoot

[Chuck Anderson]

Got the response from Vince. In a nutshell, they do want manufacturers to make better guns, but not competition oriented better guns. Per Vince it seems they're looking for practical usable (for other than competition) and not wanting to have one gun that "THE" gun for the sport. Not sure I agree but that's what he said.

[Loves2Shoot]

I really wish that made sense...

A good 9mm with a small magwell, good trigger, nice release and good sights seems like it would be real practical to me. Go figure.

[Z-man]

I might be able to understand that logic if there was a significant difference in what made for a good "practical" gun and a "competition" gun, especially given the other requirements for production class.

[rubberneck]

Per Vince it seems they're looking for practical usable (for other than competition) and not wanting to have one gun that "THE" gun for the sport.

What is the point having rules to define what a production gun is if those in charge apply a standard that isn't even in the rule book? I must be slow because I don't recall ever reading that a gun has to be "practical" to be considered legal for production.

This is insane. A company can submit a gun that meets every single standard required of a production gun, but can still be rejected because it is not in the boards mind "practical" whatever the heck that is supposed to mean.

And people rip on IDPA.....

[chuckbradley]

I deleted my post, it wasnt something Brian would want on his forum.

Edited October 14, 2006 by chuckbradley

[Alan Meek]

Maybe all Tanfoglio needs to do is the make the full length dust cover a light rail. Problem solved.

[Loves2Shoot]

cruiten,

Thanks for the correction...

Edited October 15, 2006 by Loves2Shoot

[cruiten]

Not to nitpick, but the Glock 34 is not legal for IPSC Production competition...

Check out the complete list at http://www.ipsc.org/proddiv.php.

Just thinking but...

Wasn't the G34 was obviously designed for Production competition: lightened slide, extended mag release, striker fired (not DA), extened slide stop, and flared mag well and all.

Maybe the IPSC board missed that one, or maybe some members had an interest in getting it "approved."

From the sounds of it any well establised company that tried to get a gun approved with the same features of the G34 would probably would get nixed for being too much of a race gun.

Something stinks.

[Mapzter]

It's approved for USPSA Production though.

[Skywalker]

4. This discussion has not devolved in any way such as to merit closing the topic.

Eric,

I wanted to keep off of this thread for various reasons, but I feel I have to reply to your statement.

The policy at the GV is no antagonistic tones or personal attacks are acceptable when posting.

I understand, BTW, that almost the same policy applies here in Enosland.

No antagonistic tones will be tolerated.

Please post respectfully or don't post at all.

Threads or posts not following this spirit will be locked or deleted, and offenders will be warned or banned from posting.

The topic at hand was, and is, a perfectly legitimate one, and we didn't close the thread due to this.

What we could not tolerate was the tone of the initial post, and the subsequent ones, where a GV member directly attacked another, made implicit and explicit allegations, and finally accused the whole IPSC to be "sponsored" from another firearms manufacturer.

Sorry Eric,

you've been a mod in the past, and you should've known better.

The discussion was not being a polite and constructive one, and it got shot down.

I don't see anything flawed with this, according to the forum rules.

[EricW]

Luca,

With all due respect, I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I haven't been to the GV for quite some time, so the only thing I'm talking about is what has gone on *here* - which in my opinion - has not violated BE's guidelines. What goes on at the GV is Uncle Vinny's problem, not ours. I've not read the thread there and honestly don't ever care to.

And my *opinion* on the Tanfoglio issue is that with regards to the *administration* of PD rules, America got it right...again. I don't necessarily like all the consequences of US PD rules, but when it comes to the fair and logical administration of those rules, USPSA has no peer. IPSC ought to take notes.

Once again, very respectfully,

E

4. This discussion has not devolved in any way such as to merit closing the topic.

Eric,

I wanted to keep off of this thread for various reasons, but I feel I have to reply to your statement.

The policy at the GV is no antagonistic tones or personal attacks are acceptable when posting.

I understand, BTW, that almost the same policy applies here in Enosland.

No antagonistic tones will be tolerated.

Please post respectfully or don't post at all.

Threads or posts not following this spirit will be locked or deleted, and offenders will be warned or banned from posting.

The topic at hand was, and is, a perfectly legitimate one, and we didn't close the thread due to this.

What we could not tolerate was the tone of the initial post, and the subsequent ones, where a GV member directly attacked another, made implicit and explicit allegations, and finally accused the whole IPSC to be "sponsored" from another firearms manufacturer.

Sorry Eric,

you've been a mod in the past, and you should've known better.

The discussion was not being a polite and constructive one, and it got shot down.

I don't see anything flawed with this, according to the forum rules.

[Skywalker]

Eric,

I might have misunderstood you, but here's what I got: you were talking about the thread at the GV, (politely) expressed you opinions, stated that the (GV) thread was not to be closed because it had not degenerated (hence the quote).

I felt differently, and explained why it was shot down.

Now, re-reading your post along with the above one, I realize you were answering ipscbob's request to close this thread, not commenting on the closure of the GV one.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.