Eaa Witness Hunter For Limited...

[sfinney]

If someone where to claim it such a change would cause it to be considered a prototype, if so, then what gun built from the ground up by a gunsmith couldn't be considered a prototype?

Exactly my point..... where does having to have 500 complete guns made, OR 500 components made start and stop on rulings like this? Doesn't seem to be a consistent test.

[ken hebert]

My interpritation of that would be that the 500+ .40S&W barrels made were not for nor do they fit the Model 20.

OTOH, might cost a bit more in brass, but download the 10mm cartridge to .40S&W at 165+pf and roll with it. Then you just go around John Amidon.

[sfinney]

My interpritation of that would be that the 500+ .40S&W barrels made were not for nor do they fit the Model 20.

OTOH, might cost a bit more in brass, but download the 10mm cartridge to .40S&W at 165+pf and roll with it. Then you just go around John Amidon.

There are .40 barrels to fit a model 20 being made by various manufacturers, I'd be very surprised if there were less than 500 in existence..... but verifying those numbers would be a chore, unless any one barrel maker made 500+ probably.....

Or you could by a "10mm" marked barrel, and just short chamber it a bit.....

[ken hebert]

Wouldn't it (the barrels in question) have to be made by to original manufacturer (Glock)?

Realise, this is a moot point for me, but I am interested in the answer to the question. I'm not just being argumentative, just trying to learn how to interprit the rules.

[sfinney]

Wouldn't it (the barrels in question) have to be made by to original manufacturer (Glock)?

Realise, this is a moot point for me, but I am interested in the answer to the question. I'm not just being argumentative, just trying to learn how to interprit the rules.

Aftermarket barrels are ok for every USPSA Division (even including Production). So it would stand that if KKM (for example) made a conversion barrel for a Glock 20 for .40 in excess of 500 units, the .40 barreled Glock 20 would be legal in Limited. Wouldn't the .40 KKM G20 barrel be covered under "or component" if it was made in high enough numbers? So they are Limited legal.

This same line of reasoning would make the Hunter rebarreled to .40 Limited legal, if:

a) the Hunter has been built in numbers in excess of 500 (thus making it not a prototype), and

at some time a 6" barrel in .40 that would fit this gun was made in numbers in excess of 500.

Asking for the factory to submit records of manufacturing numbers , and "applying" for the gun to be made legal for Limited (in any caliber) is kind of selective isn't it? How many new Para, SV, and STI models with sligthly different shapes, fluting, or included features are asked by USPSA to apply for recognition as Limited legal? Only the Sight Tracker and TruSight have had to be "approved" because of innovative distinct features that may be percieved as an advantage. 6" 1911s and EAAs (or at least longslides) have been around for years.

For the record, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't own a Glock 20 or EAA. I just don't like what seems like obstructionist rules that stifle new competitive pistol entries to our sport, when they clearly meet the current rules.

Edited March 28, 2007 by sfinney

[BR]

NROI has nothing on file from EAA requesting this gun be approved for

Limited and that a minimum of 500 have been

produced and available to the general public.

Regards,

John Amidon[/color]

My initial impression was that USPSA has now adopted some sort of "approved list" for Limited guns, i.e., "nothing on file requesting gun be approved . . ." However, upon further review, US App. D7, para. 16 provides: "Any complete handgun or components produced by factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced. Prototypes are specifically not allowed."

Is there any evidence that EAA has offered the six inch slide for one year? The 2006 model had a five inch slide and the homunculus "tru-sight"-style expansion chamber. The new gun -- with the six inch slide -- appears to have been available for only a few months. While I often disagree with Mr. Amidon's interpretations of the rules [particularly that "caliber" changes when one switches from .40 to 10mm], this time I might have to agree with him. One year from now, I think his interpretation must change.

Believe me, I hate to agree with authority figures, but until the six inch slide has surpassed the one year and 500 unit marks, Mr. Amidon is correct. Cheers,

-br

[sfinney]

NROI has nothing on file from EAA requesting this gun be approved for

Limited and that a minimum of 500 have been

produced and available to the general public.

Regards,

John Amidon[/color]

My initial impression was that USPSA has now adopted some sort of "approved list" for Limited guns, i.e., "nothing on file requesting gun be approved . . ." However, upon further review, US App. D7, para. 16 provides: "Any complete handgun or components produced by factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced. Prototypes are specifically not allowed."

Is there any evidence that EAA has offered the six inch slide for one year? The 2006 model had a five inch slide and the homunculus "tru-sight"-style expansion chamber. The new gun -- with the six inch slide -- appears to have been available for only a few months. While I often disagree with Mr. Amidon's interpretations of the rules [particularly that "caliber" changes when one switches from .40 to 10mm], this time I might have to agree with him. One year from now, I think his interpretation must change.

Believe me, I hate to agree with authority figures, but until the six inch slide has surpassed the one year and 500 unit marks, Mr. Amidon is correct. Cheers,

-br

I'm pretty much just playing devils advocate here.

I agree totally with what you are saying. By current rule, this current gun should not be legal till 500 produced, or 1 year. But how many other guns out there now have never "applied for approval", its just assumed they have past the 500 mark? Or were "waived" and approved on the spot? Whats the official measurement, and where is the list of all other guns that are "approved"? What allows a gun to get instant approval, and what makes others wait 1 year? It just seems kind of selective.

And, if you look at the picture of the new model of the Hunter coming out soon that Henning showed, it shows a 1 piece slide in full 6" length, 6" barrel, no funny comp looking thing. Will that gun be Lim legal as soon as it hits the street? There have been many more than 500 EAA longlside topends in .40/10mm/38 etc made in the past, and it would seem that would meet the "or component" argument. Just thinking out loud.

[Flexmoney]

AFAIK...there is no "official" approval process for Limited/L-10.

And, the new "official ruling" for the 40 barrel in the G20(10mm) is for Productin Division...from my read of it.

[sfinney]

AFAIK...there is no "official" approval process for Limited/L-10.

And, the new "official ruling" for the 40 barrel in the G20(10mm) is for Productin Division...from my read of it.

"I have a Glock model 20 which is 10mm, can I replace the barrel for this with a .40 S&W and have it still legal for competition?

Ruling

"same as original factory standard" Is interpreted to mean equivalent to the factory barrel for that model of firearm in all ways including (but not limited to) caliber, chambering, length, weight and profile. This would make what you request illegal for Production Division. "

USPSA Production Division

"21.3 Replacement barrels allowed provided barrel length is same as

original factory standard. Heavy barrels and/or barrel sleeves not

allowed."

Flex, the ruling does specifically address Production Division, you are correct. So I read that as G20 w/ .40s are legal in Lim/Lim10/Open. The funny thing is the original question never mentioned Production, it was just assumed. I wonder if the question was about a Limited gun, or Production?

As I can't find any other verbage under the Lim/Lim10 rules about barrels (similar to whats in the Prod rules above) I assume (as has been the case) barrel swaps, caliber changes, whatver, are legal in Limited..... unless that barrel change is of an item that there are less than 500 of, made for less than 1 year, or would make the gun considered a "proto type". And then maybe the manufacturer forgot to write to USPSA for "approval" for their gun or item in Limited.

Edited March 28, 2007 by sfinney

[Flexmoney]

I think there is...or was...wording that excluded "caliber" changes in Limited/L-10. But 40 and 10mm are the same caliber.

[caspian guy]

There have been many more than 500 EAA longlside topends in .40/10mm/38 etc made in the past, and it would seem that would meet the "or component" argument. Just thinking out loud.

I would suspect that if true this might be sufficient.

To satisfy the process I believe that a statement is required by the manufacturer to that effect.

Maybe Henning could get EAA/Tanfoglio make that statement? Or a statement about the production numbers of the Hunter?

[sfinney]

I think there is...or was...wording that excluded "caliber" changes in Limited/L-10. But 40 and 10mm are the same caliber.

Yup, I've been looking for those words, can't find them. Maybe that was the old book? I'm pretty sure thats the reference regarding where I read something from Amidon at some point about Limited "caliber changes" and how he had said 10mm and .40sw were different calibers, and there was dissension about his use of the word caliber, and its proper definition as applied to 10mm and .40. Can't find that reference anywhere either.

Oh well.

[996fan2007]

There have been many more than 500 EAA longlside topends in .40/10mm/38 etc made in the past, and it would seem that would meet the "or component" argument. Just thinking out loud.

I would suspect that if true this might be sufficient.

To satisfy the process I believe that a statement is required by the manufacturer to that effect.

Maybe Henning could get EAA/Tanfoglio make that statement? Or a statement about the production numbers of the Hunter?

I wonder how long the long slide STIs were available before they were allowed to be used for Limited? How long did Caspian have to have 6" slides sit on the shelves before gunsmiths were allowed to build limited guns with them?

My thoughts:

1. The clarity with which are rules are currently written, suck.

2. Many of the interpretations made, even given the lack of clarity, have been short-sighted.

3. Given the already questionable interpretations made with regard to the Sighttracker and the TruSight, not to mention all of the from-the-ground-up custom guns built with long slides, to disallow the EAA Witness Hunter would look very . . . questionable.

Edited March 28, 2007 by 996fan2007

[caspian guy]

There have been many more than 500 EAA longlside topends in .40/10mm/38 etc made in the past, and it would seem that would meet the "or component" argument. Just thinking out loud.

I would suspect that if true this might be sufficient.

To satisfy the process I believe that a statement is required by the manufacturer to that effect.

Maybe Henning could get EAA/Tanfoglio make that statement? Or a statement about the production numbers of the Hunter?

I wonder how long the long slide STIs were available before they were allowed to be used for Limited? How long did Caspian have to have 6" slides sit on the shelves before gunsmiths were allowed to build limited guns with them?

My thoughts:

1. The clarity with which are rules are currently written, suck.

2. Many of the interpretations made, even given the lack of clarity, have been short-sighted.

3. Given the already questionable interpretations made with regard to the Sighttracker and the TruSight, not to mention all of the from-the-ground-up custom guns built with long slides, to disallow the EAA Witness Hunter would look very . . . questionable.

The thing is Amidon did not say in his email to me that they would not approve this gun... Just that no one had yet asked them to look at it or provided the necessary documentation as to production numbers/avalibility. He even made some similar statements to your's about the fact that there are already guns that are legal that have some of these features.

So there is hope.

[sfinney]

There have been many more than 500 EAA longlside topends in .40/10mm/38 etc made in the past, and it would seem that would meet the "or component" argument. Just thinking out loud.

I would suspect that if true this might be sufficient.

To satisfy the process I believe that a statement is required by the manufacturer to that effect.

Maybe Henning could get EAA/Tanfoglio make that statement? Or a statement about the production numbers of the Hunter?

I wonder how long the long slide STIs were available before they were allowed to be used for Limited? How long did Caspian have to have 6" slides sit on the shelves before gunsmiths were allowed to build limited guns with them?

My thoughts:

1. The clarity with which are rules are currently written, suck.

2. Many of the interpretations made, even given the lack of clarity, have been short-sighted.

3. Given the already questionable interpretations made with regard to the Sighttracker and the TruSight, not to mention all of the from-the-ground-up custom guns built with long slides, to disallow the EAA Witness Hunter would look very . . . questionable.

The thing is Amidon did not say in his email to me that they would not approve this gun... Just that no one had yet asked them to look at it or provided the necessary documentation as to production numbers/avalibility. He even made some similar statements to your's about the fact that there are already guns that are legal that have some of these features.

So there is hope.

Yup, there is hope. His language indicates it will probably be approved if someone from EAA puts the request in. I'm sure that will happen at some point. But....

The frustrating thing to me is that there is an approval process at all, when the Divison rules pretty clearly spell out what is legal and what is not already (excluding the 500/1 year/prototype thing).... and there is not currently a formal "Approved" Limited gun list being maintained (that I'm aware of), like there is in Production.

If for example, someone wanted to shoot a new model XYZ gun that is legal by letter of the Limited Division rules, but the manufacturer never bothered or cared to send in production numbers or dates... would that gun be de facto illegal for Limited? Thats sucks for anyone that happens to one of their guns. How does a person know if a gun has been "approved" for Limited, if there is no official "Approved" list? NROI Rulings name a couple particular models that were spelled out as legal.... what about every other potential Limited gun out there? Do we just assume the rest is legal? (evidently not, the Hunter needs to be "Approved").

This is the type of process that fosters confusion. Some poor sucker is going to shoot his XYZ gun all year, no problems on the local or even Area level, but someone at Nationals is going to bump him to Open because his gun was never "Approved", or is ruled a "proto type" even though its clearly a mass production gun that meets the written Limited division rules.

Thats my last whine about rules, promise, back to discussing this Hunter pistol as cool piece for competition (potentially).

[caspian guy]

Thread bump.

Can anyone with connections at EAA/Tanfoglio help with getting the correct documentation to NROI. So this thing can be ruled on?

Edited March 30, 2007 by caspian guy

[Carlos]

Thread bump.

Can anyone with connections at EAA/Tanfoglio help with getting the correct documentation to IROA. So this thing can be ruled on?

Good discussion.

Can anyone clarify which completed Caspian models are allowed in Limited and L-10? How were they certified/approved?

[996fan2007]

Thread bump to see if there's an update on this from anyone with connections at EAA.

Also, where is this "approval process," outlined in the rule book?

Did everyone here that has gun that was custom built from a pile of parts, and with all sorts of lightening cuts, holes, serrations to those parts,(i.e., not an off-the-shelf STI or SV) get their gun "approved?"

If not, by Amidon's apparent reasoning, wouldn't that be a "prototype?"