Tanfoglio Vs Ipsc

[BritinUSA]

Why are they so mad that their pistol does not conform ?

I will tell you.

Tanfoglio make a gun for PD. It meets ALL of the published criteria for IPSC Production Division. The gun is approved. People buy the gun, people use the gun. Then IPSC decides that the gun is not approved for PD.

The biggest complaint was the magazine well. It's a huge mag-well. IPSC tells Tanfoglio perhaps if you remove the mag-well things may change.

Tanfoglio removes the mag-well, puts shorter grip panels on it and resubmits the gun.

Then we have the emails in the .pdf document. About 7 months of emails going backward and forward with Tanfoglio just trying to get a straight answer to the question, "is the gun now legal for PD ?"

This goes on and on and on, there is nothing in the new design that violates any of the PD rules (there wasn't before either which is why it was approved before is was dis-approved)

At the end of the day the gun is rejected because IPSC says that the gun was designed for Production Division. All together now.... HUH !!!!??

That's the only complaint.

The PD rules at the time the gun was made did not place a restriction on the mag-well, so they added a restriction, then they added a restriction that says the guns in Production Division cannot be made for production division.

Even if Tanfoglio sells the gun to all manner of Police, Army, Special Forces etc. it still won't be allowed because when it first came out it was designed for Production Division.

Does all this make sense ? Can you now understand why Tanfoglio is just a little miffed, especially when the SP01 is almost identical, picture a chromed SP01 and essentially that's the Stock Custom.... it is crazy !

The point of my original post was to highlight a situation that has developed under the subjective IPSC Production rules and one that USA does not suffer from, unless we adopt the IPSC rules at some point.

[lynn jones]

ipsc created the monster, now they can't control it, sorry vince, but you screwed the pooch on this (non-glock)

lynn

[ampleworks]

I guess IPSC wants everyone shooting $250 used Ruger P89s?

That's a slick looking machine though.

[Loves2Shoot]

The only good thing is that companies are making better guns now IMO.

I think the IPSC governing body should be ashamed of it's behavior from reading that. If the SP01 is legal, go figure, especially after the ruling at the WS about Adam's "special" gun, which apparently was made specifically for Production. 2000 made like that, I think not.

Just a sad example of discrimination. Build a good gun and it meets the criteria of the Division and they will not allow it, that is bull.

Production is messed up because it doesn't account for progress and companies making better guns for the folks who want them.

[Chuck D]

"I think the IPSC governing body should be ashamed of it's behavior from reading that. If the SP01 is legal, go figure, especially after the ruling at the WS about Adam's "special" gun, which apparently was made specifically for Production. 2000 made like that, I think not."

I was waiting for someone to bring this up....

"As for their rights, maybe they should produce pistols in the US!"

Huh?

"Tanfoglio make a gun for PD. It meets ALL of the published criteria for IPSC Production Division. The gun is approved. People buy the gun, people use the gun. Then IPSC decides that the gun is not approved for PD."

I was never a fan of this gun in PD. It was nothing more than their Gold Team Limited/Standard Division gun with a DA/SA trigger group BUT once IPSC allowed it...they should have kept their word, made the owners remove the mag well and called it a day.

"Does all this make sense ? Can you now understand why Tanfoglio is just a little miffed, especially when the SP01 is almost identical, picture a chromed SP01 and essentially that's the Stock Custom.... it is crazy !"

What's crazier will be the "call" from IPSC looking for match sponsorship money from Tanfoglio for the next big European IPSC match....

[vincent]

The picture looks like a Limited gun to me with a DA/SA trigger and no magwell. The thread says it started out with a big magwell so the only difference in the beginning was the DA/SA trigger. First impressions are important and I bet the first impression was not good. Even the modified gun (no magwell) was said to be presented with aluminum grips which seems a bit odd.

The SP01 doesn't have the adjustable sights, the extended safety, the extended mag release, and it has a "tactical" rail. These features make put it closer to a service model. Although the guns are similar I'd say the SP01 has some things going for it that the "Stock Custom" does not.

Edited October 10, 2006 by vincent

[Wakal]

Wow.

So the "CZ 85-II" is ok, but any OTHER gun with a "-II" is RIGHT OUT.

After watching, with my own four eyes, John Amidon test and approve a new gun for USPSA at the Nationals a few years ago, and having read that string of emails with the cabel that Pinto heads, I see why USPSA wants to run USPSA matches and not play IPSC.

Interesting. Thank you for the post!

Alex

[rubberneck]

The SP01 doesn't have the adjustable sights, the extended safety, the extended mag release, and it has a "tactical" rail. These features make put it closer to a service model. Although the guns are similar I'd say the SP01 has some things going for it that the "Stock Custom" does not.

I honestly don't see how that should matter. If the gun has all the attributes that are required for inclusion in the division and none that would cause it's exclusion than it should be in the division. Period. If IPSC changed the name of division from production to service pistol (i.e. a side arm that could reasonably be used in LE or military) than it would matter. Until then it seems very odd that they would disallow a gun that met their written criteria.

Seems to me that IPSC more or less told manufacturers (wink, wink, nod, nod) that it was ok to make production guns with features that would give it the maximum advantage in the class, and then when Tangfolio did just that they had a problem with it. The real problem, as I see it, is that Tangfolio wasn't the only company to do so yet they were the only ones jerked around for their effort (see the Vince Pinto post linked to earlier in the thread). Either way it isn't a very wise decision for the future of the sport to jerk around a major manufacturer and sponsor in the manner that they did. If I ran Tanfoglio it would be a cold day in hell before I gave money to that governing body.

[vincent]

My references to service models were based on Vince Pinto's comments in the emails posted. I think that is something worth pointing out. Written or not the thread seems to point to a lean toward service oriented models or guns based on service oriented models.

----------

I didn't make any statements about how Tangfolio was treated.

----------

This thread does point out that the USPSA Production division needs solid guiding principles and supporting rules to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen in the US.

I would rather not see USPSA Production turn into the "Limited Minor division".

[GeorgeInNePa]

Would I be a bad person for stating that I am glad to live where USPSA runs matches?

[BritinUSA]

Would I be a bad person for stating that I am glad to live where USPSA runs matches?

No, just darn lucky.

[Musky Hunter]

With reference to IPSC, why does a PD pistol ahve to be used by LEO or MIL. dept? It should never need to meet that criteria, IPSC PD was meant to make avail. a pistol that was competitive out of the box.

[Wakal]

Military or "duty" use has nothing to do with IPSC's cabel of Production gurus. Recall the saga of the CZP01, the first batch of which (if I remember the story correctly, paging Angus and That Other Guy, what was his name?) ALL WENT TO THE government. For, well, duty use.

Yet the P01 was "banned on sight" by IPSC.

Which of course resulted in the "CZ-85-II" fiasco, which was...just fine, according to members of the same IPSC cabel on direct examination. The "CZ 85-II" was, of course, a P01 with the accessory rail shortened and a "85" marked slide The ruling had nothing to do with the fact that it was an American who filed the complaint that drove said examination, or that the magic pistol was...not being shot by an American. Just a coincidence, naturally.

I find it amusing that the gun companies are FINALLY making pistols that (gasp) real shooters WANT, and the second best shooting sport on the planet (IPSC) treats them like that. Shades of S&W, there.

Alex

Edited October 11, 2006 by Wakal

[Skywalker]

As much as I love proudly supporting "Made in Italy", I have to ask (myself) if I have been given all info on this topic to give an opinion.

Closely reading all the emails, (to me) it looks like something is missing.

Perhaps a few emails have been strategically omitted: looks like there are some gaps in the flowing discussion.

Besides this, I wouldn't jump to the conclusions without knowing more.

[Z-man]

Just a thought, but looking further into this subject, it is clear that the IPSC powers that be are very concerned with any firearms that are made "specifically for production division" (why didn't they call this "law enforcement/military" division then ). The fact that Tangfolio's gun was made with production in mind seemed to exclude it despite the fact that it fulfills further criteria. Here's an interesting comparison though... a Swiss company "Sphinx" makes a gun called the "3000 Competition Production" model that IS on the IPSC approved list! Seems a bit strange to me. Here's a picture of that gun and it doesn't seem to be much different than the Tangfolio (looks like a cool gun too). No wonder Tangfolio was feeling a bit mistreated.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Z-man

[BritinUSA]

I think the gaps in the discussion were where IPSC was not responding. There was an interesting discussion about Production Division in USPSA at the members meeting last night. They are definately trying to avoid falling into the same trap as IPSC.

Thanks for posting that picture of the Sphinx. You are right it is almost exactly the same as the Tanfoglio.

[GeorgeInNePa]

I think the gaps in the discussion were where IPSC was not responding. There was an interesting discussion about Production Division in USPSA at the members meeting last night. They are definately trying to avoid falling into the same trap as IPSC.

Thanks for posting that picture of the Sphinx. You are right it is almost exactly the same as the Tanfoglio.

Just for the sake of discussion, what trap don't they want to fall into?

[Chuck Anderson]

The trap of rules that really don't make any sense. I was listening to a shooter the other day tell me about his plan for really high cap XD mags. OEM Springfield tube, Mec Gar guts and a special follower. Said he could cram a bunch in. I brought up that with IPSC you have to use OEM parts in a OEM mags but aftermarket you can do what you want (within limits) His solution was to mark the whole mag as an aftermarket item. Have it invoiced by a company as an aftermarket tube with aftermarket parts and well, that's what it is.

Going further, IPSC has no idea what the heck they're doing with Production. Ask Vince how often he's had to say No in the last 5 years. The rules lack clarity and the ones they do have don't make a lot of sense in some regards. (Not that we are perfect in the US and we've certainly had a lot of the same issues but I don't think tossing out our goofy set of rules and switching to their goofy set of rules makes a lot of sense.)

The Tanfoglio situation is a prime example. Sponsor or not, they make a lot of guns of use to us in this sport. They asked repeatedly for clarification of certain questions. Questions that were specifically worded. Not, "What can we do to be legal" But, "Will we be legal if we do X"

Instead of receiving an answer in a timely fashion they got the run around. I understand that the Production Committee is volunteer, but come on, we live in the digital age. How long does it take to email back and forth and answer these poor folks.

Another thing. Isn't IPSC doing a lot to avoid an appearance of Military or LE? No heads, no realistic scenarios, no camo. Not that this is a bad thing but why have a requirement for a Division be that the gun is good for this stuff. That doesn't make sense.

What's even dumber is saying that the Tanfoglio can't play but allowing the Sphinx, which has been there for years. (Please don't get rid of the Sphinx) The Sphinx for those who aren't familiar is a little bit more expensive than the Tanfoglio, say 2-3K in the US compared to 6-800 for the Tanfoglio.

And another thing, how about the Sig X-5. Roger Sherman is apparently shooting one here at Nats. How is that not purpose built for competition?

My bottom line. There is nothing about Tanfoglio's Custom Stock II, Stock II or whatever the heck they want to call the model without the magwell that goes against any kind of "Principle" or whatever IPSC wants to call it. There's no reason the thing shouldn't be allowed.

[ipscbob]

Since we only have one side of the story, maybe we should all just refrain from making ill informed comments on this! Time to use some good judgment and close this thread......

[Skywalker]

Since we only have one side of the story, maybe we should all just refrain from making ill informed comments on this! Time to use some good judgment and close this thread......

Wise words ...

[Chuck Anderson]

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.

[Damn_Bastard]

The Tanfoglio Stock Custom:

The reason it was disapproved for PD is this:

At the General Assembly, Vince put pictures of various guns on the overhead, and they held an acclaimation vote for each one, based upon a single picture. An acclamation vote is lots of people yelling "Yeah!" or "No!".

So, when the Stock Custom came up, lots of the type of people that would waste their time going to a general assembly yelled "No!".

All the silly emails and footwork by IPSC since then is just an attempt at justification.

The Stock Custom should be production legal, but it's no kind of advantage. My Tanfoglio Stock came out of the box with a 13 lb double action, and an 11 pound single action. WTF. And no gizmos to fix it, as are available for CZ.

Suffice to say, I still shoot the Glock.

Given the leeway CZ has gotten over the years, if martians show up and submit heat rays for inclusion in PD, they should be approved, just for the sake of fairness.

[Vlad]

I've asked some questions regarding the military/leo issue myself, and got no answers, I've also asked how IPSC can state that we want to encourage manufacturers to make cheaper/better products and then ban those cheaper/better products. No answer on that one as well and the thread is now closed. Oh well. I don't bother PM the IPSC secretary, never got a straight answer before.

[EricW]

Since we only have one side of the story, maybe we should all just refrain from making ill informed comments on this! Time to use some good judgment and close this thread......

1. Both sides of the story are clearly presented via the link to Tanfoglio's website.

2. We've been down this road before with IPSC, so this is not new news. IPSC has repeatedly made decision after decision based on personal prejudices and grudges rather than on objective criteria.

3. A notable player in IPSC-land chose to leave and start his own treehouse, so if his view is not here, that his by his own choice and not anyone else's. His emails via Tanfoglio's site would certainly seem to suffice in his absence.

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

5. I am *exceedingly* happy about USPSA's choice about how to keep the orgs on separate playing fields because of issues exactly like this.

6. If IPSC is upset about threads like this, it would behoove them to swallow their pride, apologize to Tanfoglio, and do the right thing.

[rubberneck]

Since we only have one side of the story, maybe we should all just refrain from making ill informed comments on this! Time to use some good judgment and close this thread......

Wise words ...

I read Vince's responses on the global village and he either ignored, glossed over or completely contradicted posts that he made here in the past.

I understand that Vince is not to sole voice on all matters IPSC but he is the only one that makes himself available. That is probably the biggest cause of this whole mess. Decisions were made by PDC and not explained to Tangfolio or the general membership in a timely and concise manner.

I suspect most folks would support removing guns from the PD list if they are given a good reason. I still haven't heard a good reason from IPSC on this case other than it looks like a "race gun" dressed up as a production gun. Never mind that fact that it meets every single criteria for inclusion in the division and none that would exclude it. If we applied the rational for excluding this gun to the rest of the list there would be a bunch of guns removed from the list.