Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Limited 6" SightTracker?


jasmap

Recommended Posts

So basicly it's the same principal used to keep the recoil down in true target pistols like the S&W model 41, the majority of the weight is in the barrel, and weight of the slide is minimized, so less mass is actually traveling back and forth, and a greater mass is stationary. It shouldn't be that hard to make one in a "Major Calibre".

543585772_75a8e5ee85.jpg

At a match a while back, some guys where talking about 6" guns, but only having a 5" barrel. That is, the muzzle end would be bored out just enough, and you only have 5" rifling on a 6" slide. Is that a possible option? Are there guns built like that or was it just wishful thinking?

The prevailing reason why a 6" gun would be slugish is the added weight of the slide in itself. That total weight/mass needs to be moved back and forth (action-reaction) and that motion needs to be controlled/absorbed by the shooters hands. In a better balanced system you have those "reciprocating/interacting" parts cancel each other out as best possible, so that less motion is transferred to the shooters hands.

A few years ago (when it was allowed to experiment and shoot it at a match untill they told you it could be done no-more :angry2: ) I took a single stack Colt Commander and went to town with it. The slide's barrel tunnel was reamed out to .800" (normal is around .700") and the barrrel was completely threaded (.575-40"). A full profile "sleeve" was installed into the barrel and relieved just enough to allow lock up. By doing this I accomplished two things. Transferred weight from the slide into the barrel, and allowed that slide to cycle like greased lightning. Since the major portion of perceived recoil is created by the slide after it unlocks and before it locks again, and because the combined mass/weight of barrel and slide helped soak up the power of the load fairly well, and the recoil spring was not too heavy (and yes I used a shock buffer), that particular combination worked much better than full sized 5" guns. It shot/cycled much faster and there was hardly any muzzle jump. After a few matches, complaints arose and I was told to shoot that gun only in Open.

Some of this knowledge is gained through parallel studies in other areas, and sometimes borrowed from real life. A few years back I was driving in a bi-forked intersection. I was driving straight through (with a stop light) while the road splitted to my right (without a stop light) As I came to the intersection (I was driving a 1500 GMC p/up) the stop light was red and there were already two vehicles (a full size van and a Toyota Corolla in front of it) that had come to a full stop. As I had just gotten to a full stop, there came from behind a medium/large truck that had failed to completely stop and hit me hard and pushed my smaller truck into the van in front of me, and the van in front of me was also pushed into the car in front of it. The forward-most car received extensive damage while the van in front of me and my truck looked like accordion bellows pressed in. I was virtually unharmed but shaken. I was amazed that the truck that hit me/us was able to maintain so much energy and pushed all three vehicles quite a few yards in front of our original stopped position. Soon enough a wrecker came and parked to our right in the bifurcation of the road. While parked there, a "rubber-necking" car plowed into the back of the wrecker. The wrecker barely moved while the car self destroyed. I could barely believe that the combined weight of our wrecked section/group with a combined set of six axles and twelve tires fully braked was moved so far forward, while the car hitting the truck/wrecker had not even budged it. Somewhere in there is the foundation (although a little bit vague) for calculating the formula for balancing the weights of our slide/barrel/springs according to our cartridge power. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Does the shooter with the part in question have to, or is it a protesting shooter or match director that has to prove 500 parts were produced? Seems like it would be a big hassle if a shooter were to have to prove that every part in his gun was legal.

- As the shooter, I am the one signing my score sheet.

- Every match is run under the rulebook. Which means we have the text of the rulebook and any rule interpretations that get posted as "official" on the USPSA website to go by.

- There is no approved gun list for Limited or Limited-10

- The 2008 book does say that a builder can submit a complete gun for approval (weird, as we don't have an approved gun list). It says nothing about parts.

If I were shooting with parts that weren't standard...I'd make sure that I'd covered my bases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this in the 4" thread, but may be of interest here.

Check out this photo, showing Jorge Ballesteros shooting is standard pistol -- sighttracker with barrel longer than the 5" slide:

http://www.jorgeballesteros.net/Archivo/Fo...SCN2542_JPG.htm

I copied the above picture from this thread: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...25&start=25

Jorge says in that same thread:

hi guys,

sandro sent me this link, its very interesting topic. The gun i was shooting spanish and italian nationals is a home made gun, my dad and i were developing and testing some combinations. Most of you know that im mainly an Open shooter, and i took standard like a true challenge. Its really hard and takes lot of training and time to get the same level in both divisions. I think that chris t. knows what im talking about. For that reason, i needed to have a standard gun similar to my SV Open Gun. In Open im using a IMM 5" with 6 round holes and 4 ports compensator, and thats the fastest gun i ever tried. What we made is change the slide. I putted my 5" slide to my standard gun and we made the sight tracker for the hibrid barrel. It really works, the recoil was much faster, but i still miss something, the gun was to light. We added a long tunsteng guide rod with a steel piece screwed in the top end. That was the key! the perfect combination for me. We also cutted the rear bomar sights to make it thiner, i didnt like that black screen, it hides too much for target transitions.

For me, i choose sight tracked without any doubt, its always less weight for the slide, and allows you faster recoil control cause you can see the frontsight all the time. I dont know why my gun could be illegal for limited....its a 5" factory slide.

About Shooter Vs Gun, we are agree that shooter is 95-99% if the gun works. But, at top level, the quality of your machine really matters. if somebody there watch F1, Why Fernando Alonso change Renault to Mercedes-Mclaren been still World Champion?

take care

jorge

DVC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some points to consider.......

Getting a 6" slide to weigh what a light 5" slide weighs is not a problem, getting it to Commander weight isn't a problem either.

Distribution of mass in the complete gun is a LOT more involved than saying 'this new sight tracker barrel weighs one ounce more than this other barrel so I will take another ounce out of the slide, that'll even it out'. It doesn't work that way.

If you don't believe that a bull barrel 6" will have front sight dip I suggest you build it, test it, go through ALL of the spring rate testing (both main and recoil including combinations of the two), go through all the firing pin stop geometry testing, lighten the slide, test some more including all the other variables, lighten the slide some more, test it, and do it all over again with the spring changes, firing pin stop changes and all combinations there each time you change the slide weight. You will get it to the point where it doesn't dip if you understand how the gun works. Now do the same thing with a bushing barrel. Cost is probably less than $1000 if you can do the work yourself. Please be sure to let us know how it works out and what you settled on as the more robust solution.

Each configuration needs to be balanced mechanically. Balance is the key factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about something like the new STI Tru-sight, except adding the "expantion chamber" to the end of a 5" gun? Or maybe just a longer barrel without the "expantion chamber"? Just another thought, you could keep the slide mass down, because it's a 5", and you could really lighten someting like that up with fluting. If the Tru-sight's legal maybe someone could try that. Again, just a thought, keeping the thread alive for a compadre.

Jason

In arguing why the Tru-sight never should have been allowed, I mentioned this very possibility before in another thread. I know STI sells TruBore blanks in .355 ( http://www.stiguns.com/Products/index.php?pid=146) ; surely they've sold over 500. If they've also made 500 in .40, using the same reasoning that allows the TruSight, someone could use one of them, mill a slot for a front sight in it and have the benefit of a long sight radius, low slide mass, and high barrel mass. I've sent an email to STI asking whether they've made 500 in .40, but haven't received a response yet.

Edited by mpolans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Jorge's pistols is using a 5 inches slide with a longer barrel.

According to our IPSC rules, the pistol have to fit in the Box. I believe he meant that he put his IMM length slide (which is 3/4 of an inch shorter I think) with a 5 inches barrel and keeping it legal for standard division.

Some Spanish shooters used a similar setup at the European's in France, and I was squadded with them.

It was definitely a shorter slide with a 5 inches sightracker barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Jorge's pistols is using a 5 inches slide with a longer barrel.

According to our IPSC rules, the pistol have to fit in the Box. I believe he meant that he put his IMM length slide (which is 3/4 of an inch shorter I think) with a 5 inches barrel and keeping it legal for standard division.

Some Spanish shooters used a similar setup at the European's in France, and I was squadded with them.

It was definitely a shorter slide with a 5 inches sightracker barrel.

I remember some time in the '90's I did a match with a Colt Commander fitted with a 5" bull barrel. I was told to never do it again ... :unsure: Maybe if I did it now and the Match was "strictly" IPSC (instead of just USPSA) I would be able to continue shooting it ????

I can see and understand that since the only "party" submitting any homologation for Sight Tracker barells (SVI/Ifinnity) to the USPSA did so "only" in the 5" in .40 S&W version, that it IS the only variation allowed, at this time. I can also see that the rules do not allow "adding" weight but it allows removing it from the slide ... that cutting the slide length might fall within that (grey???) area.

Maybe I should dig-up that Commander slide with the 5" bull barrel and try using it again (in USPSA ) ???? I think trying to get Schuemann Barrels to make a "homologation" request (for 6" Sight Tracker barrels) to the USPSA is also in order, before they completely close the door ???

Edited by Radical Precision Designs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once asked Amidon about the possibility of cutting down the slide to reduce weight. I forget the actual wording of the question and answer, but he deemed it to be a "prototype" and thus not allowed...

If he's going to call that "prototype," than what about all the various types of slide lightening cuts made? Surely there can't be 500 slides with the same cuts made for every variation. This is why I think our rules need to be clearer; it wouldn't be hard to do this without ticking off all but the folks using TruSights and Sighttrackers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Jorge's pistols is using a 5 inches slide with a longer barrel.

According to our IPSC rules, the pistol have to fit in the Box. I believe he meant that he put his IMM length slide (which is 3/4 of an inch shorter I think) with a 5 inches barrel and keeping it legal for standard division.

Some Spanish shooters used a similar setup at the European's in France, and I was squadded with them.

It was definitely a shorter slide with a 5 inches sightracker barrel.

I remember some time in the '90's I did a match with a Colt Commander fitted with a 5" bull barrel. I was told to never do it again ... :unsure: Maybe if I did it now and the Match was "strictly" IPSC (instead of just USPSA) I would be able to continue shooting it ????

I can see and understand that since the only "party" submitting any homologation for Sight Tracker barells (SVI/Ifinnity) to the USPSA did so "only" in the 5" in .40 S&W version, that it IS the only variation allowed, at this time. I can also see that the rules do not allow "adding" weight but it allows removing it from the slide ... that cutting the slide length might fall within that (grey???) area.

Maybe I should dig-up that Commander slide with the 5" bull barrel and try using it again (in USPSA ) ???? I think trying to get Schuemann Barrels to make a "homologation" request (for 6" Sight Tracker barrels) to the USPSA is also in order, before they completely close the door ???

First, regarding your first idea (Commander slide, 5" barrel), since there have been at least 500 of each part available for a long time now, I don't see how anyone could say you aren't legal for Limited. Regarding the second ideal (>5" Sighttracker), assuming there have been the required number available to the general public for the required amount of time, I don't see how they could not be allowed under the present (and 2008) rules. Any cutting of slide would be analogous to simply making any other type of lightening cuts. In fact, if you look at some of the fat-free 6" guns, they usually have cuts that are way more radical than that necessary to allow the use of a 6" Sighttracker barrel.

Of course, my personal feeling is that the Sighttracker and TruSight should never have been allowed in Limited. Now that they have, I think the rules (and rulings) that opened pandora's box allow for much more variety than simply lining the pockets of STI and SVI by purchasing only their off the shelf guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that for limited division porting of slides is specifically allowed.

The Sight Tracker and the TruSight are also allowed by NROI ruling based on the 500 produced/1 year available.

Edited by splashdown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Jorge's pistols is using a 5 inches slide with a longer barrel.

According to our IPSC rules, the pistol have to fit in the Box. I believe he meant that he put his IMM length slide (which is 3/4 of an inch shorter I think) with a 5 inches barrel and keeping it legal for standard division.

Some Spanish shooters used a similar setup at the European's in France, and I was squadded with them.

It was definitely a shorter slide with a 5 inches sightracker barrel.

I remember some time in the '90's I did a match with a Colt Commander fitted with a 5" bull barrel. I was told to never do it again ... :unsure: Maybe if I did it now and the Match was "strictly" IPSC (instead of just USPSA) I would be able to continue shooting it ????

I can see and understand that since the only "party" submitting any homologation for Sight Tracker barells (SVI/Ifinnity) to the USPSA did so "only" in the 5" in .40 S&W version, that it IS the only variation allowed, at this time. I can also see that the rules do not allow "adding" weight but it allows removing it from the slide ... that cutting the slide length might fall within that (grey???) area.

Maybe I should dig-up that Commander slide with the 5" bull barrel and try using it again (in USPSA ) ???? I think trying to get Schuemann Barrels to make a "homologation" request (for 6" Sight Tracker barrels) to the USPSA is also in order, before they completely close the door ???

First, regarding your first idea (Commander slide, 5" barrel), since there have been at least 500 of each part available for a long time now, I don't see how anyone could say you aren't legal for Limited. Regarding the second ideal (>5" Sighttracker), assuming there have been the required number available to the general public for the required amount of time, I don't see how they could not be allowed under the present (and 2008) rules. Any cutting of slide would be analogous to simply making any other type of lightening cuts. In fact, if you look at some of the fat-free 6" guns, they usually have cuts that are way more radical than that necessary to allow the use of a 6" Sighttracker barrel.Of course, my personal feeling is that the Sighttracker and TruSight should never have been allowed in Limited. Now that they have, I think the rules (and rulings) that opened pandora's box allow for much more variety than simply lining the pockets of STI and SVI by purchasing only their off the shelf guns.

Years ago we had a nice going firearms business in New Jersey known as Outdoor Precision Sports, d/b/a Precisioned Sports Inc. As such at the time we were touted next to the best thing to happen to "Spam" (not the Internetet kind but the "meat" kind !!) In those days (late '70's early '80's) business was brisk and we started building a nationwide (even worldwide) reputation as innovators. Waiting time for one of our custom guns soon was approaching over one year. Not hard to believe since in those days there were no real "custom" after-market parts to be had, and you had to design and build your own. Nothing wrong, so far with this picture, right ?? The real problem is that we were located in N. Jersey, which was known to be better than N. York where firearms was concerned, but was moving fast in the same direction. Every day I would wake up and check for the "news", to see IF we were still in business, or if they had changed the rules overnight ... Even my good friend and mentor Austin Behlert was thinking of, and eventually did move over to Pennsylvania. For us, the "curtain" came when our leased building was sold and the new landlord decided to quadruple the rent. Suddenly we found that many of the townships around had ordinances against firearms. In one town, after being told by the Mayor and Chief of Police that our business was welcomed, later on after a lot of money was spent we were told that we had to move it to the "warehouse district" and then greatly reduce our operations scope. As many others in the Trade I had to find my income elsewhere for the time being, and try to recover some of the losses ... Since then, as we well know New Jersey has become even worse. So what IS the lesson learned here ????

The lesson is that not all the Rules are clear, even when they are spelled out clearly ... AT THE MOMENT ! But what about in the future. Today you are told NO, then tomorrow someone else is told YES.

This is not meant to be a thread drift (even if it may look alittle bit like it) or a hate rant. (Far from that !!) But it is an illustration of how or why the frustration can build in issues such as the 6" Sightracker or even the 6" Tru-Sight. These guns/models can be built by parts already available in vast numbers (over the 500 mark) from various sources, including the manufacturers that initially "homologated" their 5" counter-cousins. But the rules as interpreted can be "edicted" to limit things a lot, even contrary to popular trends or demands. You can not take what you read in the Rule books for granted. This is so in all of our Sports.

The "clarification" I was given for the Commander slide with the 5" bull barrel was that it "would provide an unfair advantage, and in addition I could not use parts "not originally intended" for that model as made by its manufacturer..." At that time I replied that I could indeed start with a normal 5" bull barreled "Government" gun and rebate/cut the slide back to Commander length, as the rules allowed to "lighten" (but not increase weight), and this would indeed be a "lightened" 5" Government model. I was told that then "my creation" would fall under "prototype" and as such be relegated to Open division only. Imagine my surprise when years later the Tru-Sight was introduced and legally adopted. This ruling "trends" seem to be specifically directed at encouraging and enticing "large" manufacturers, but to discourage "smaller"entrepeneurs". I must say that this is strictly my opinion only.

On the other hand it seems to be that the "acceptance" of these variations are more prevalent within IPSC (outside of USPSA jurisdiction) in Europe. In Europe it is normal to see a Limited/Standard gun sporting a slide/barrel configuration such as Jorge Ballesteros decked up in addition with a slide racker and thumb rest. Try that in USPSA. It won't fly. Hey, this is NOT USPSA bashing !!! Just stating present facts. I abide by these facts, and recognize that "limits" have to be established so that our divisions do not run into anarchy, with everyone doing whatever the hell they please. As I was told: "go and tinker all you want, so long as it is in Open ... " Still ... disparities do exist. IMHO.

But, as I previously stated, there is hope, and if we try to prevail in "the right channels" maybe soon the 6" Sight Tracker (or even the 6" Tru-Sight) will be a reality. (LOL, but I wont' start holding my breath yet ... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree with you Venry.

That's part of what I like about "IPSC".

Open: Anything you want.

Modified: Anything goes as long as it fits in the box.

Standard: No dot/comp and it fits in the box.

Lots of creation trying to find a better mousetrap, which leads to innovations that somewhere down the road will hopefully make it into production guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right Matt, Standard division is more permissive than Limited.

Thumb rests are very common in STD division.

The prototype thing is not of any concern, and this is also common that gunsmith built one of a kind pistol.

Burch waffen, swiss importer of STI built what they called the Heavy Nose

And check out the other one with that big counterweight on Burch Website's.

SPS build one called the "Pelikano". Awfully awful in my opinion, but one was used to place 2nd at the last WS in Ecuador.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. This ruling "trends" seem to be specifically directed at encouraging and enticing "large" manufacturers, but to discourage "smaller"entrepeneurs". I must say that this is strictly my opinion only.

I think that is the point, right?

When I got into this game, around the year 2000, we still heard the gun rags dogging on us as an "equipment race".

The rule for 500 produced and available to the general public for one year would have taken some of that equipment race away.

What if Cheeley came up with a wiz-bang new way of doing a Limited gun? One that maybe gave a true advantage. Lets say it was a 5% advantage. That adds up to moving up the results MANY places at the Nationals. He is his own gunsmith. So, nobody else can get this 5% advantage unless he builds them a gun. Even if he is willing to do so, how many guns can/will he build in a year?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the rule, but I do see why we have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 6" SVI sight tracker, although with Aritocrat sights and designed for Bullseye and PPC it's a dream to shoot. I wouldn't hesitate a second to use it for IPSC was it allowed. A friend has one with Bo-Mar sights and its also a fantastic gun to shoot. It's like shooting a .22LR but the holes are bigger ;-)

Pictures of both can be found here.

http://www.matsbackstrom.com/index_pages/Guns.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone just build the thing!

Ok, ok !!

Hold on to your skivies ... I said I'd build it, and I am. Just not going to happen overnight or else some of you guys are going to complain about taking time off from working on YOUR guns. :cheers:

I have been talking to our USPSA/IPSC Section Coordinator ... we might be running some local matches under IPSC guidelines, as I believe it is allowed. (???) Seems to be that there are some local shooters that do participate a lot in IPSC sanctioned events, and they can use the practice ... (That is untill USPSA and IPSC come to better understanding of each other "???")

I brought out my IPSC "box" to do some planning. I believe this can be built to fit in the box !!! It will probably be 5 7/8" instead of 6" (LOL) and will use an abreviated beavertail with a "warp speed" hammer. Who knows, I might even install a "compact grip" and mags even if I loose a couple of rounds capacity. This reminds me of last years Single Stack Match. The fisrt day I used my Commander lenght gun with a bull barrel, since bull barrels are not allowed in 5" Single Stacks. Ok. Factory standard (as it comes down the assembly line specs.) Commander barrels are sized at 4.25". Somehow it was decided that the maximum legal length on such bull barrels was to be 4.20" !!!!!! A whole five thousandths of an inch shorter. Can you visualize five thousandths of an inch ?? That night I went back to my Shop and chucked the barrel in the lathe. One very minute pass and the five thousandths was gone. Didn't even interfere with the barrrel's crowning. The next day I was legal to shoot ... There have been other instances in the past of "red tape", but slowly we are creeping towards acceptance of some inevitable facts.

Now, if someone with a "gazillion dollars" was to contact me, I am sure that we could form a "large" manufacturing Company and make our dreams guns legal. Untill then let's keep the pressure where it counts.

Edited to include: Hey, wouldn't it be nice if somehow Frank Garcia was to conduct and run the yearly Florida Open Match under IPSC rules and guidelines ???? After all, it is intended to be an "International" Match, with many, many competitors that usually run IPSC guns ... Just a thought.

Edited by Radical Precision Designs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone just build the thing!

Ok, ok !!

Hold on to your skivies ... I said I'd build it, and I am. Just not going to happen overnight or else some of you guys are going to complain about taking time off from working on YOUR guns. :cheers:

I have been talking to our USPSA/IPSC Section Coordinator ... we might be running some local matches under IPSC guidelines, as I believe it is allowed. (???) Seems to be that there are some local shooters that do participate a lot in IPSC sanctioned events, and they can use the practice ... (That is untill USPSA and IPSC come to better understanding of each other "???")

I brought out my IPSC "box" to do some planning. I believe this can be built to fit in the box !!! It will probably be 5 7/8" instead of 6" (LOL) and will use an abreviated beavertail with a "warp speed" hammer. Who knows, I might even install a "compact grip" and mags even if I loose a couple of rounds capacity. This reminds me of last years Single Stack Match. The fisrt day I used my Commander lenght gun with a bull barrel, since bull barrels are not allowed in 5" Single Stacks. Ok. Factory standard (as it comes down the assembly line specs.) Commander barrels are sized at 4.25". Somehow it was decided that the maximum legal length on such bull barrels was to be 4.20" !!!!!! A whole five thousandths of an inch shorter. Can you visualize five thousandths of an inch ?? That night I went back to my Shop and chucked the barrel in the lathe. One very minute pass and the five thousandths was gone. Didn't even interfere with the barrrel's crowning. The next day I was legal to shoot ... There have been other instances in the past of "red tape", but slowly we are creeping towards acceptance of some inevitable facts.

Now, if someone with a "gazillion dollars" was to contact me, I am sure that we could form a "large" manufacturing Company and make our dreams guns legal. Untill then let's keep the pressure where it counts.

Edited to include: Hey, wouldn't it be nice if somehow Frank Garcia was to conduct and run the yearly Florida Open Match under IPSC rules and guidelines ???? After all, it is intended to be an "International" Match, with many, many competitors that usually run IPSC guns ... Just a thought.

I'm looking forward to seeing how it comes out Venry. Please keep us updated as it progresses...no matter how slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as for building sounds like an awesome blaster.

Getting it approved for limited would be a pita. 2 things are possible

1. Call SVI and see if they have the documentation to prove they have built 500 of them

2. Call Wil Schuemann and ask him if he has sold 500 non ported .40 barrels that are 6" in length.

From that point all it would take is submitting it to USPSA HQ for approval. I will say this though based on my 5" sight tracker a 6" would be pretty nose heavy.

Well, I need to report that we are doing some "headway", at leas in the right direction.

Earlier on in this thread I had a converstion with Brandon at SVI. As you know it was at the behest of SVI/Infinity that we got the original "SightTracker" approved for use in USPSA competition as a "complete gun in 5" and in .40 S&W". They submitted the entire gun for approval, and as such established the Sight Tracker barrel as then (and now) manufactured by Schuemann Barrels. The rest of the components for the Sight Tracker had already been established since STI had the "Edge" approved for use in USPSA competition in Limited Division. Therefore the only consideration USPSA had to dwell upon was the fact that SVI/Infinity had made and sold or had available for sale to the public the 500 5" SightTracker barrels as installed in the "Edge" established/approved platform. Since then SVI/Infinity has made quite a few of these Sight Trackers for sale in the domestic and international market. In addition any of the variants made by independent custom gunsmiths are also allowed and legal. You can shoot a fully SVI made gun designated as a Sight Tracker, or you can have your custom 'smith build you one of let's say: "and STI 2011 frame, a Caspian slide, C&S internals, Schuemann Sight Tracker barrel and SPS magazines, etc." Both would be legal to shoot.

The common denominator all along has been the Schuemann designed and built "ribbed bull barrel, unported", eventually designated as the Sight Tracker. Schueman also has built the same barrel in a 6" dimension, and it has been in production for about the same time as its 5" sibling. It also has been built in numbers to surpass the 500 minimum ... and it has been available for sale to the public. SVI has made it too, and it has been sold in numbers to the public. SVI could not verify for me how many they have made to the present in this 6" variation. The 6" "Long Slide" has been available from STI both in a "Classic" and in full profile: "Unique", establishing the legality of the 6" platform.

Today I had a good, fruitfull conversation with Mke C. at Schuemann Barrels. Mike C. is known to us here in the BEnos forums as "browndog". Now, "browndog" has agreed to look into this issue and possibly provide us and USPSA with the documentation necessary to establish and confirm the manufacture and distribution ot those 500 6" Sight Tracker barrels as "components that were and presently are available to the public by a "major manufacturer". After all in addition of these barrels, all of those sold by SVI/Infinity at the time they were homologated in their 5" designation, they were all built by Schuemann Barrels. Schuemann Barrels continues to manufacture both the 5" and 6" variations to this day.

I expect that by now "browndog" is monitoring this thread, and might chime in at any moment. Schuemann Barrels has been a big supporter of USPSA/IPSC for a long time now, and it deserves our full earnest consideration in the purchase of their products. As such, "browndog" is researching this subject, and I believe he will help us get this 6" Sight Tracker approval done.

I think we should all thank Mike C./ a.k.a./ "browndog" (and Wil Schuemann of course :cheers: ) for their efforts in our behalf, and we should steer our business in the direction of their wonderfull products.

Edited by Radical Precision Designs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Venry and Thanks Mike C.!

I expect a beer from every person that eventually buys one and 1% of the profit of all builds since I started the thread. I really think this gun will work. :cheers:

Edited by jasmap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Venry,

Here is your up-hill battle: http://www.uspsa.org/rules/nroi_rulings.ph...dit&indx=10

I don't believe that ruling jives with the wording of the rule book. But, my opinion doesn't get you too far. The (current, red) rule book clearly reads "or components". The ruling goes the other way. For example, by the ruling, even SV couldn't put their 5in sight tracker top end on a 1911 frame for Limited-10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...