Nik Habicht Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 IPSC unelected senior staffers have stated (in writing) that "we want to see the gun companies make decent products for our game", and then stated "we can't have gun companies making decent products for our game." Where did they say "for our game"? Vince made it very clear at the GV that IPSC didn't want guns "made specifically for production division" (our game). Can you show an actual quote to support your claim? For starters: Post #1. However I welcome the development of the improved products I've seen over the past 18 months, and I'm delighted that manufacturers have, in my opinion, created guns specifically to comply with the criteria for Production Division without going overboard trying to "beat the system" and/or charging silly prices for them. --- Vince Pinto, 11/17/2004. ....I don't understand how people can grumble about manufacturers building guns to meet the criteria we dictated. Nobody is forcing anybody to pay $3,000 for a PD gun, and if you really think that the price of the gun you use makes any difference in Production Division, I'd be delighted to introduce you to David Sevigny (and Jerry Miculek if you like wheel guns)....... --- Vince Pinto, 11/18/2004. Post # 2 I heard that Tanfoglio will soon produce another version of the Stock which will be (basically) their current standard pistol (Limited HC) with a double action trigger. It will have Fiber optic, magwell, ambi safety, long frame, bull barrel. --- Julien Boit, April 20, 2004. And that is precisely the concept behind Production Divison. As I said in another thread (see here), we want the gun manufacturers to offer better products to competitors, in accordance with Production Division rules, instead of competitors having to buy what is effectively a piece of junk which they must immediately send to their gunsmith to fix. If and when Tanfoglio produce such a gun, you watch how fast other gun makers such as Beretta and others follow suit. And once again, IPSC competition is driving gun development ............. we created a new division, and the gun manufacturers are taking notice. ----Vince Pinto, April 20, 2004. Post # 3 There's probably more to be found, since I remember us going round and round on that subject for a while, but I'm not going to read 2000+ posts to find it all..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Thanks, Nik! Boy, accurately quoting (in context) is fun And just to add a bit to the accurate conveyence of information based on FACTS...accept no substitute... "The P-01 features: - A forged aircraft grade aluminum alloy frame" http://www.czusa.com/product_detail.php?id=28 Although obviously the (S)P-01 is the one we meant to talk about: http://www.czusa.com/product_detail.php?id=73 Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusher Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 (edited) December's are ALLWAYS "Months to Remember" poor Vince. I really DO miss the posts. FWIW the new Tanfoglio production release was SHOT TO HECK for the list too. 2 up> 2 DOWN. Edited December 11, 2006 by Crusher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramas Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 It looks like this to me: it is a political decission, because when TCS was not aproved it was a lot of screams pointing to SP-01. So, what do you expect now? Tanfoglio Custom allowed CZ75 SP-01 allowed. TSC not allowed, CZ75 SP-01 Shadow not allowed. It is pretty clear, the score is 1-1 ))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramas Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Sorry, I don't see any citation about "triggerjobs" (permitted or not permitted) on appendix D4 of the "Handgun Competition Rules" book, 2006 edition www.ipsc.org/pdf/RulesHandgun.pdf) Stefano You know, You are wrong: only minor detailing is allowed in PD by IPSC rules.(look in Apendix D4, condition 19.1). Trigger job is not minor detailing, i think You read about it in other forum )) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caps Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 What's the difference between buying the Shadow and paying $850 or buying the SP-01 and paying $595 for the gun, $125 for an action job (which Angus performs on the Shadow before it is shipped out), $65 for new grips and $100 for new sights and a competition hammer and still having an IPSC legal gun? As far as I know "action jobs" have never been permitted in IPSC no matter who performs them or when, and that's the rationale behind IPSC having a minimum trigger pull from Day 1. This is a whole different ball game to the trigger pull about to be foisted upon us here in the USA after people have spent lots of money on trigger jobs which have always been allowed. There's probably more to be found, since I remember us going round and round on that subject for a while, but I'm not going to read 2000+ posts to find it all..... I admit those quotes look incriminating but is it possible the policy changed since 2004? I recall there was a big kafuffle in 2005 (??) about some guns being booted off the list, and that tells me something changed. And just to add a bit to the accurate conveyence of information based on FACTS...accept no substitute... "The P-01 features: - A forged aircraft grade aluminum alloy frame" I had a Homer Simpson moment! Yep, the P-01 has an aluminum frame and that's what I meant to say - I'm a big CZ fan and I also have a CZ100 and THAT has a polymer frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 There's probably more to be found, since I remember us going round and round on that subject for a while, but I'm not going to read 2000+ posts to find it all..... I admit those quotes look incriminating but is it possible the policy changed since 2004? I recall there was a big kafuffle in 2005 (??) about some guns being booted off the list, and that tells me something changed. Caps, it is well documented on this forum that Vince...with flashing neon signs and fireworks...stated time and time again that an IPSC goal was to get gun makers to produce specifically for Production division. I recall one post where he mentioned pestering Dave Skinner (STI) about making a Production legal version (DA-first shot) of their guns. The "possible change in policy" that you mention is the very thing that has people up in arms. There has been a complete 180 shift (just as Alex mentioned) and it seems to have been done at the whim of those in power to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mapzter Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 By the way, I don't know ONE PD shooters who didn't tried to improve the tiggerpull on his gaun ... I know one (but I guess I don't count since I don't shoot PD anymore, and my SIG is just taking up space in the gun cabinet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 There's probably more to be found, since I remember us going round and round on that subject for a while, but I'm not going to read 2000+ posts to find it all..... I admit those quotes look incriminating but is it possible the policy changed since 2004? I recall there was a big kafuffle in 2005 (??) about some guns being booted off the list, and that tells me something changed. Pretty much what Flex said ---- those posts, and others, indicated that Vince's (and possibly IPSC's, since he was speaking for them) underlying philosophy of Production Division was to get the gunmakers to build better mousetraps for that game, rather than letting the shooters develop them to their individual preferences. Then, some time after that, there seems to have been a change in the underlying philosophy --- that better competitive mousetraps aren't after all in the spirit of Production, and that that spirit is now more closely aligned with duty guns.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzygä Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I guess it bothers me that IPSC is saying no to guns with added features that many people want anyways and can legally add themselves. If you just want a stock SP-01 than have at it. I like the fact that I can call CZ and order the shadow and when the gun gets to me I have a gun with all the mods I like right out of the box. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 So ... If USPSA is going to have its own rule book as well as the IPSC rulebook, it would lead me to believe that the USPSA rules wouldn't be IPSC rules. Is there a reason why USPSA could not ... export its rule set and see if other shooters in the world would like to hold matches under those rules? Oh crap .. was that gasoline I poured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckw Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The "possible change in policy" that you mention is the very thing that has people up in arms. There has been a complete 180 shift (just as Alex mentioned) and it seems to have been done at the whim of those in power to do so. But why all the wringing of hands and banging of heads at the wailing wall by shooters who aren't even remotely affected? Seems to me the loudest and most persistent critics of IPSC are those who never have -- and probably never will -- shoot Production internationally! This is like me complaining about the price of fish in Uganda! If the Shadow is the best thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone kicking down John Amidon's door to get it on the USPSA list? Same thing for the Tanfolio etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The "possible change in policy" that you mention is the very thing that has people up in arms. There has been a complete 180 shift (just as Alex mentioned) and it seems to have been done at the whim of those in power to do so. But why all the wringing of hands and banging of heads at the wailing wall by shooters who aren't even remotely affected? Seems to me the loudest and most persistent critics of IPSC are those who never have -- and probably never will -- shoot Production internationally! This is like me complaining about the price of fish in Uganda! If the Shadow is the best thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone kicking down John Amidon's door to get it on the USPSA list? Same thing for the Tanfolio etc. Okay, how about those folks planning to shoot IPSC matches in the US? I shot International IPSC last year. I'm shooting at least four IPSC matches next year and I'm planning to shoot on in 2008 as well. I've got an SP-01 that I'm tinkering with and considering switching to. It's technically not an SP-01 but almost all the features are the same. I'm complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-man Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) Since there will be more attempts to offer IPSC matches in the US, I'd say this affects quite a few people. As one hoping to shoot production abroad and participate in (hopefully) several of the qualifier matches next year, I know I'd like my SP-01 to be legal. Besides, what happens to IPSC will have some effect on what happens to the USPSA (especially as our BOD begins reformulating its own rulebook). Part of the reason the Shadow hasn't been an issue here is because practically everyone shooting an SP-01 here IS shooting a Shadow. While it may not have the name, the custom work done is the same. I think that is part of the reason this type of ruling seems so strange (to say the least). Edited December 12, 2006 by Z-man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) But why all the wringing of hands and banging of heads at the wailing wall by shooters who aren't even remotely affected? Seems to me the loudest and most persistent critics of IPSC are those who never have -- and probably never will -- shoot Production internationally! Cast your eyes to the left and look at where I live. The only thing keeping me from regularly driving up to shoot IPSC Production with a M9 is my duty schedule [edit] Alex Edited December 12, 2006 by Flexmoney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckw Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) [edit] Edited December 12, 2006 by Flexmoney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mminmm Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 (edited) Is there a reason why USPSA could not ... export its rule set and see if other shooters in the world would like to hold matches under those rules? Don't bother asking the Philippines - we're not interested in having colonial masters again Come visit us some day. We just had our Nats with 500 shooters in a beautiful valley range. Edited December 12, 2006 by mminmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefano Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Sorry, I don't see any citation about "triggerjobs" (permitted or not permitted) on appendix D4 of the "Handgun Competition Rules" book, 2006 edition www.ipsc.org/pdf/RulesHandgun.pdf) Stefano You know, You are wrong: only minor detailing is allowed in PD by IPSC rules.(look in Apendix D4, condition 19.1). Trigger job is not minor detailing, i think You read about it in other forum )) Well ... this is - of course - YOUR opinion I respect it, but - please - let me free to have a different opinion ... In PD the only certain thing about trigger is that you have a minimum trigger pull limit of 5 Lbs on the firse shot (obviously in DA ...): nothing about any limit in SA. I shot in Production since 2 years, and I've never found only 1 PD shooter (like in the others division) without triggerjobs on his gun (in the limits stated by appendix D4) ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I've had to edit a couple of posts, for reasons noted earlier in this thread. no antagonistic, offensive, or quarrelsome tones. Once again, leave the Vince-fest out of this discussion. And, the rest of us need to remember this is a discussion. We aren't here to win arguments, vent frustration, or just get on the soap-box. I'm not sure where this thread can go from here, but if it goes downhill further, it will have to be closed. So, please post constructively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_Mink Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 But why all the wringing of hands and banging of heads at the wailing wall by shooters who aren't even remotely affected? Seems to me the loudest and most persistent critics of IPSC are those who never have -- and probably never will -- shoot Production internationally! Cast your eyes to the left and look at where I live. The only thing keeping me from regularly driving up to shoot IPSC Production with a M9 is my duty schedule [edit] Alex Yeah, that and the fact you have told me several times you would never shoot a division that limits you to 10 rds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmshtr Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 IMO, FIX IPSC PRODUCTION: 1. 15 round capacity limit 2. No mag wells 3. Double/Safe Action only 4. Non race holsters - side note, why make these gun so "stock" then put them in a race gun holster? "That's just dumb." (Ricky Bobby) 5. Anything else goes. Honestly, the first two are the only ones that would make any difference. I wonder how many shooters (not people who shoot) are making these rule decisions? There...I said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driver8M3 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 5. Anything else goes. now that's funny! good thing vince doesnt come around here any more...he'd have a heart attack over that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Yeah, that and the fact you have told me several times you would never shoot a division that limits you to 10 rds! Silly...sorry, Matt who?...mag limits are for USPSA! In IPSC Production, my M9 magically transitions from a oversized underpowered fragile 10-shooter with a crappy trigger to an oversized underpowered fragile 15-shooter with a crappy trigger! And I don't even have to say "...clatu verada...necktie" or anything Of course, my favorite duty rig is hardly one of those IPSC-Production-legal raceyracey holsters, though Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walli Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 First I would like to say hello to everyone! The interesting thing is that the CZ 75 SP01 Sport (with trigger stop!) is approved. This gun is more or less a Shadow in 9x21! Also approved are: Sphinx 3000 “Competition Production Model 2005”, Sphinx 3000 “Target”, SIG “Sport Stock”, SIG “X-Five Allround”. The last one is advertised as the perfect gun for target and action pistol shooting. All these guns are not build for competition shooting, just named and advertised as such?! Sometimes it is difficult to understand the decisions taken by the IPSC board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Hobdell Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 (edited) All I can say is thank god I live in the USA now. USPSA has got the better end of the production rules.... I think the Global Village should be renamed. Vince Pinto's Global Village Edited December 15, 2006 by Angus Hobdell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts