vluc Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Give 'em a break, Vince. Absolutely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheirere Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I'm arriving late to this party and don't have much to add that's not already been said. However I do want to point out that I was totally unaware of this debate and I'm sure a good many other people are also unaware of this and could be greatly affected if the rules get changed significantly. In talking with a number of local shooters the overwhelming majority are against it being made a box stock division. No one I talked to sees where this will do any good to the sport and just alienate a bunch of existing competitors. I do a lot of shooting and have yet to see a modification that's legal under the current interpretation that is a significant advantage or is too far out of reach financially for the average Joe to afford. Heck, most of the mods cost less than a case of bullets!! Let's not blow this out of proportion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makomachine Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Just went to check the NROI postings on the USPSA sight and see it says they are usually posted on Tuesday's "so that we do not have a new ruling take effect during middle of a major match." Given this, I'm guessing no word officially on the site until this coming Tuesday. Hopefully one of the AD's can post here prior to then with some kind of 'informal' update if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 A little bird told me that they were working on a final draft this week, so... shouldn't be a whole lot longer, I'd imagine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 A little bird told me that they were working on a final draft this week, so... shouldn't be a whole lot longer, I'd imagine As soon as we get the final wording on this "peace accord" we are going to start on that whole mid-east thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makomachine Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 A little bird told me that they were working on a final draft this week, so... shouldn't be a whole lot longer, I'd imagine As soon as we get the final wording on this "peace accord" we are going to start on that whole mid-east thing Glad to see the priorites are set correctly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Just went to check the NROI postings on the USPSA sight and see it says they are usually posted on Tuesday's "so that we do not have a new ruling take effect during middle of a major match." Given this, I'm guessing no word officially on the site until this coming Tuesday. Hopefully one of the AD's can post here prior to then with some kind of 'informal' update if that's the case. That's good to know. I can stop hitting Refresh every 15 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 A little bird told me that they were working on a final draft this week, so... shouldn't be a whole lot longer, I'd imagine As soon as we get the final wording on this "peace accord" we are going to start on that whole mid-east thing Gary also drew the short straw on this and will get to sit next to Hillary on the ride over to Gaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Bruce is right, his logic is undeniable, all guns with trigger work are illegal in Production. Cease and desist, conformity is the only option. The words "trigger work" and "allowed" were never mentioned in the same sentence in the 2000, 2001, and 2004 rule books. The 2008 rule book is the law of the land, trigger work is not mention so it isn't allowed. Reverse the illegal mods or buy a new gun that complies.It was a long 8 year dream that trigger work was allowed, time to wake up and die. Rich Yep, Pam woke up and found Bobby in the shower. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Any speculation or conversation until the ruling that IS coming shortly is wasted breathe at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That is a pretty important question, as we haven't allowed that in the past because of the 9mm barrel in the 40 guns giving a 'bull barrel' effect. Barrels are visible externally and have been restricted all along. I said nothing about changing that. So what's the question that you want answered? And by whom? If you have an unmarked replacement Glock slide and an unmarked conversion barrel, the difference would not be externally visible at all . . . and if this combo IS legal, it would be functionally no different than a a gun with a stock Glock 35 slide with a conversion barrel. I don't have them handy, but I think the 'bull barrel' effect is a red herring...if it there were a 'bull barrel' issue, I would think the "2 oz over stock" weight limit would be a better way to address it. I just noticed a lot of would-be newbie shooters on here and glocktalk with Glock 22s and Glock 35s want to be competitive in Production, but don't reload. Being able to buy a conversion barrel for $100 would allow them to cut their shooting costs in half, rather than having to spend $500 on a new gun. Regardless of how the rules shake out, I really think there should be added language to the rule or a criteria for future interpretations of the rules that bases decisions on whether a competitive advantage is gained. Does anyone really think there is a "bull-barrel effect" in a bore size difference of .045"? Seriously? You can say, with a straight face, that the weight difference in putting a barrel made to shoot 9mm in a gun designed to shoot .40S&W is measurable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom D. Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) DELETED Edited February 2, 2009 by Tom D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makomachine Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Come on AD's - throw this dog a bone! I promise I won't tell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Folks, I viewed the near final product last night. It is more than a simple NROI ruling. It is trying to establish some things many of you have been asking for, a "mission statement" so to speak. We didn't get into this box overnight, and it will take an amount of time to get out of it, hopefully. It will still have to be posted and voted on, so just hold on. We want this off the table as much as you do. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxd9 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Thanks for the update Gary. I'm waiting to see if there will be anymore Production shooting for me after this. Shooting my 9mm in Limited has "limited" appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 That is a pretty important question, as we haven't allowed that in the past because of the 9mm barrel in the 40 guns giving a 'bull barrel' effect. Barrels are visible externally and have been restricted all along. I said nothing about changing that. So what's the question that you want answered? And by whom? If you have an unmarked replacement Glock slide and an unmarked conversion barrel, the difference would not be externally visible at all . . . and if this combo IS legal, it would be functionally no different than a a gun with a stock Glock 35 slide with a conversion barrel. I don't have them handy, but I think the 'bull barrel' effect is a red herring...if it there were a 'bull barrel' issue, I would think the "2 oz over stock" weight limit would be a better way to address it. I just noticed a lot of would-be newbie shooters on here and glocktalk with Glock 22s and Glock 35s want to be competitive in Production, but don't reload. Being able to buy a conversion barrel for $100 would allow them to cut their shooting costs in half, rather than having to spend $500 on a new gun. Regardless of how the rules shake out, I really think there should be added language to the rule or a criteria for future interpretations of the rules that bases decisions on whether a competitive advantage is gained. Does anyone really think there is a "bull-barrel effect" in a bore size difference of .045"? Seriously? You can say, with a straight face, that the weight difference in putting a barrel made to shoot 9mm in a gun designed to shoot .40S&W is measurable? If you asking me... - Do I think there is a "bull barrel effect"? Nope. Not really. Whether that is legit or not isn't really the point. It is one of the reasons that was given for that swap not being legal. Maybe it was a slippery slope issue? For sure, it was a line in the sand. Could we measure the difference in weight? I don't know. Don't care. I'm not into dragging a scale around anyway. The caliber is certainly measurable. Along the same lines, we have seen that putting a 40 barrel into a Glock20 (10mm) makes it Production illegal. But, shooting 40 out of a 10mm barrel is not (40 and 10 both being the same caliber). ?? On the externally visible part... We would allow guide rods to be swapped, but not barrels. Both are externally visible. ?? I'm not advocating any of the above one way or the other (though I could, as I have opinions on them after considering them quite a bit). When I suggested that it was a good question, it was because some of these issues need resolution and consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobMoore Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Subscribing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 USPSA members should pay close attention to the outcome and vote accordingly. Every member I've seen, heard, read or otherwise is sick of this. Excercise your right to voice your opinion when the time comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 That is a pretty important question, as we haven't allowed that in the past because of the 9mm barrel in the 40 guns giving a 'bull barrel' effect. Barrels are visible externally and have been restricted all along. I said nothing about changing that. So what's the question that you want answered? And by whom? If you have an unmarked replacement Glock slide and an unmarked conversion barrel, the difference would not be externally visible at all . . . and if this combo IS legal, it would be functionally no different than a a gun with a stock Glock 35 slide with a conversion barrel. I don't have them handy, but I think the 'bull barrel' effect is a red herring...if it there were a 'bull barrel' issue, I would think the "2 oz over stock" weight limit would be a better way to address it. I just noticed a lot of would-be newbie shooters on here and glocktalk with Glock 22s and Glock 35s want to be competitive in Production, but don't reload. Being able to buy a conversion barrel for $100 would allow them to cut their shooting costs in half, rather than having to spend $500 on a new gun. Regardless of how the rules shake out, I really think there should be added language to the rule or a criteria for future interpretations of the rules that bases decisions on whether a competitive advantage is gained. Does anyone really think there is a "bull-barrel effect" in a bore size difference of .045"? Seriously? You can say, with a straight face, that the weight difference in putting a barrel made to shoot 9mm in a gun designed to shoot .40S&W is measurable? If you asking me... - Do I think there is a "bull barrel effect"? Nope. Not really. Whether that is legit or not isn't really the point. It is one of the reasons that was given for that swap not being legal. Maybe it was a slippery slope issue? For sure, it was a line in the sand. Could we measure the difference in weight? I don't know. Don't care. I'm not into dragging a scale around anyway. The caliber is certainly measurable. Along the same lines, we have seen that putting a 40 barrel into a Glock20 (10mm) makes it Production illegal. But, shooting 40 out of a 10mm barrel is not (40 and 10 both being the same caliber). ?? On the externally visible part... We would allow guide rods to be swapped, but not barrels. Both are externally visible. ?? I'm not advocating any of the above one way or the other (though I could, as I have opinions on them after considering them quite a bit). When I suggested that it was a good question, it was because some of these issues need resolution and consistency. Since we can now change the barrel and the slide to aftermarket parts, does it really make a difference? Before, the slide might be marked G20 and the barrel marked nothing, now both parts can be marked nothing. Can someone on the BOD tell me how you would enforce that rule? It might look like a G20 and you might think there is a .40S&W chambered barrel in it, but how do you prove it? What do you use and how do you prove it? The rules = Fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I guess sometimes we just have to rely on personal integrity. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 It might look like a G20 and you might think there is a .40S&W chambered barrel in it, but how do you prove it? What do you use and how do you prove it? Easy, drop a 10mm ammunition in the barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makomachine Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Folks, I viewed the near final product last night. It is more than a simple NROI ruling. It is trying to establish some things many of you have been asking for, a "mission statement" so to speak.We didn't get into this box overnight, and it will take an amount of time to get out of it, hopefully. It will still have to be posted and voted on, so just hold on. We want this off the table as much as you do. Gary Thanks Gary. I'm not trying to be pushy - just thought we'd have some input today based on where you thoughts were previously. Given this, sounds like things are close. I'm just trying to figure out if I need to not worry as much about reload practice for this coming Saturday's match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Thanks Gary. I'm not trying to be pushy - just thought we'd have some input today based on where you thoughts were previously. Given this, sounds like things are close. I'm just trying to figure out if I need to not worry as much about reload practice for this coming Saturday's match. From what I understand, you still need to practice reloads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makomachine Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Thanks Gary. I'm not trying to be pushy - just thought we'd have some input today based on where you thoughts were previously. Given this, sounds like things are close. I'm just trying to figure out if I need to not worry as much about reload practice for this coming Saturday's match. From what I understand, you still need to practice reloads Isn't that the truth! Unfortunately, there isn't enough time in the day to practice EVERYTHING I need to do between now and Saturday to not embaress myself. Fortunate for me that I don't have self esteem issues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike cyrwus Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Folks, I viewed the near final product last night. It is more than a simple NROI ruling. It is trying to establish some things many of you have been asking for, a "mission statement" so to speak.We didn't get into this box overnight, and it will take an amount of time to get out of it, hopefully. It will still have to be posted and voted on, so just hold on. We want this off the table as much as you do. Gary Thanks Gary. I'm not trying to be pushy - just thought we'd have some input today based on where you thoughts were previously. Given this, sounds like things are close. I'm just trying to figure out if I need to not worry as much about reload practice for this coming Saturday's match. If youre a new uspsa shooter, the last thing you should be worrying about is this thread. You be 1000x better if you were dry firing instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts