Jon Merricks Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 The limited gun on the slide show looks like it has a hybrid barrel but no holes. The front sight is mounted on the barrel. http://www.sviguns.com/photos/solid_hybrid...d_c_350_350.jpg Anybody know anything about this gun. Talk about a heavy barrel. (Tungsten sleeve dont need no stinking Tungsten sleeve.) BE havent you said something about putting the front sight on the barrel in a post somewhere. (Edited by Jon Merricks at 3:28 pm on Sep. 9, 2002) (Edited by Jon Merricks at 3:30 pm on Sep. 9, 2002) (Edited by Jon Merricks at 3:32 pm on Sep. 9, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 Jon, Yes, I came up with that idea when working for SV but was told (informally) it would be illegal. I remember thinking it would be really cool, but when I actually tried it I began to doubt. But who knows, it might be the coolest thing ever. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 I handled one at the RGN. What you see is what you get, a long/wide/slab Limited gun with a hybrid barrel/slide, sans ports. What they need to to is make that barrel with tungsten, then I'll be impressed. I don't know how it will work with an extra-heavy barrel and an extra-light slide. I'm most curious about how the front sight tracks on the end of the barrel instead of on the slide. Somebody mentioned it would be worse because the barrel moves up and down as it locks and unlocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 Btw, Chuck at Shooters Connection tried to float that idea a few years ago and got it shot down as a "prototype". They didn't mention the front sight issue at the time (which seemed like the main point to me, given Brian's book-- I guess he's mollified that now). Seems like another not-really-needed arms-race deal to me, but what do I know, I mostly shoot Open Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted September 9, 2002 Share Posted September 9, 2002 I remember this combo came up a few years ago and was approved for Limited. I heard some rumors that the big dogs tried them and didn't care for them. But I never saw one or even heard of somebody building one. I guess the front sight is not an issue, as back in the day people had their sights on their comps, same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted September 10, 2002 Share Posted September 10, 2002 I thought you guys never use the front sight but instead use the Force to shoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted September 10, 2002 Author Share Posted September 10, 2002 It should have a high CDI factor though. Brian you think you could get a T&E and let all of us try it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted September 10, 2002 Share Posted September 10, 2002 Jon, I'll get right on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted September 10, 2002 Share Posted September 10, 2002 "CDI"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted September 10, 2002 Author Share Posted September 10, 2002 Chicks Dig It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted September 11, 2002 Share Posted September 11, 2002 Hah! I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eerw Posted September 11, 2002 Share Posted September 11, 2002 Quote: from Jon Merricks on 4:34 pm on Sep. 10, 2002 Chicks Dig It I was guessing "Cool Dude Index" so is this legal in Limited?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted September 11, 2002 Share Posted September 11, 2002 I believe Chuck Bradley tried to get this set approved for limited back in 1997? and was turned down. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted September 12, 2002 Share Posted September 12, 2002 Yup-- That's what I meant up above.. there was considerable "discussion" on the IPSC list at the time, and the net result was it's not limited-legal unless somebody makes 500 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gm iprod Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 They have got 1, I'll take another so you lot have to get the other 498. Get to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zak Smith Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Someone over on 1911Forum is claiming this has been homologated for Limited Division and is now Limited-legal. http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread...5053#post555053 Can anyone confirm? -z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 I'd like to know. I called SV about 6 months ago; their response was: OK for IPSC, NOT OK for USPSA. I asked them a question, they answered. I think they know a thing or two about USPSA & IPSC. As to the "why?" part, I think their phone number is on their website if you want to call. Better yet, somebody get another ruling from Amidon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 It would suck if they (i.e. Amidon) change their minds now, especially after the trouble Chuck Bradley had with this mess a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 The first gun i shot uspsa with was a singlestack 10mm, front-site-on-the-comp 1911. I can tell you for my eyesight, taping over one eye, that setup is MUCH, MUCH easier to track during recoil than any conventional major caliber autopistol. If you want to compare, just shoot a .22 that has a moving rear sight and a fixed front sight. If anything, your timing with that is even better than with the rear sight fixed (like on a Ruger .22). Way way easier to track than both sights moving, like a Ciener or AA conversion. SV can make 5000 of them & I would bet it's not approved for limited or IPSC standard. My $.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Boit Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 I can't see why it wouldn't be approved for Limited or standard division. As the new rules state that only porting of the barrel are strictly forbidden. Lightening the slide is ok, so does the "hybrid without holes" barrel. But I believe it was already legal, I wouldn't see it as a prototype , it was built with widely available parts (remember the thread about TGO's pistol) just like any gunsmith would do. A swiss shooter friend of mine recently acquired one and he's very pleased with it. He believe this is a very good setup , easy to track but i didn't had the chance to try it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 If the barrel is not considered an external weight all they have to do is make 500 or more. Has anybody asked them on there count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Julien, that setup is starting to get really popular for IPSC back here. Also in the rise are short dust frames being recut and welded to make a heavy long dust version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 just a quick "pirep"..... Back before I got into IPSC and was a novice with toomuch credit at the gunstore I had a PARA / Hybrid built. I also had a Glock 19, and the P-14 Hybrid gun kicked much less BUT the thing even a newbie like me noticed was that the front site stayed in focus all the time. If it's true that these things are legal they would be a hosers dream out to 15y at least. I shoot a short dustcover relatively light weight gun, but if I could keep the front site from moving so much the better!!! It is like shooting one of those S&W .22's where the front site is mounted on the barrel. Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Not saying it's fair or it's the thing to do, just saying from past experience, this is the sort of new modification that uspsa will usually put their foot down and say, "it's too much of an advantage gained, at a high cost to the shooter." Like $400 to your existing gun, the way I figure it. The welding on a "replacement" dust cover falls in the same catagory; they already changed their mind about the Fred Craig super-heavy Caspian 40cal. I was drooling at the thought of THAT gun until they said no - not in the spirit of the rules. If I'm wrong, you'll see this set-up catch on quickly & win Limited often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Boit Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I don't think this set up would be a big step for limited. Of course, I'm Ok with all the research it required and the "next step" it brings limited to. It wont make you shoot better, well in fact, it could but, if you're a C class shooter, it won't make you win GM class. It's still the driver, not the car ! This might make a difference at the highest level, but guys which are using that kind of "space age blasters" are not concerned about the extra cost . 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