spook Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 Alex,Is it a factory option available to anybody? If so, then they'd be legal for IPSC Production Division. Vince, the next WS will see a lot of "factory letters", believe you me. QUOTE It's the job of the RO to apply the rules. Not the shooters job to check and see if they can get closer to 1st place by ratting on some fellow shooters. No sir. It's the competitor's responsibility to comply with the rules, just like it's a driver's responsibility to observe the speed limit and not drive under the influence of alcohol. This is the whole problem with PD! Why do you think I asked the original question in this thread? I don't know what is allowed. You say I can't use a FO. Wakal says you can. How the hell am I supposed to know that a small police department in, say, Alabama ordered their glocks with FO's from the factory? I cannot see how this division is not turning into an equipment race. Rules need to be clear, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Vince, If Shizkickkr Police Department can special order Glocks with fiber front sights (and from what I've read, have done so)...then technically anyone can do so. You may not like the price, but... Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Take a look at the Custom Glock Racing, "Race Cut" Heinie sights. They have the rear notch widened to allow more light. The rear notch is deeper than stock and the front sight is thinner and taller than stock. The sight faces are serrated. Nice sight picture and quite durable. No slide alterations required. http://www.gunracing.com/Qstore/c000002.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 Vincent, thanks, but unforunately the site says: this product is not available outside the USA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Flex, The USPSA Red Book (14th Edition 2001) is waaaaay out of date in respect of all IPSC rules, including the Divisions, and you should return it to the Smithsonian before the late fees kill you. My third post on page 1 of this thread quotes the correct current (and future) rules. FYI, we intentionally removed the word "polishing" because the intent of the rule you quoted was "make them pretty", however we were reliably informed that, to a metal worker, the term "polishing" means "major grinding, with prejudice". Spook, You say I can't use a FO. Wakal says you can. I don't know the credentials of our dear friend Alex, but I'm Chairman of the IPSC Handgun Rules Committee and Chairman of the IPSC Production Division Commitee. Your call. In any case, when Alex says "I'm under the impression" and "Is it true", my guess is that Adrian Monk would probably describe those comments as "a clue" that Alex was making an enquiry, not a ruling. I don't mean to sound facetious but, with all due respect to Alex (who has unwittingly been dragged screaming into this), if I give you IPSC rules advice, my friend, you can go to the bank with it. Here endeth the heavy, yet playful, spanking Alex, If Shizkickkr Police Department can special order Glocks with fiber front sights (and from what I've read, have done so)...then technically anyone can do so. Sorry for using thy name in vain above. Anyway, as I said earlier, "Is it a factory option available to anybody? If so, then they'd be legal for IPSC Production Division", and that's a general statement of fact. Perhaps if you could tell me the exact source of your information, I can do some detective work. Or I could refer the case to Adrian Monk. (Note to self: Reduce caffeine intake) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 IPSC Production rules SUCK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Thanks for your positive and eloquently written contribution to our discussion which captures, in a few words, the essence and spirit of the Brian Enos Forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Flex,The USPSA Red Book (14th Edition 2001) is waaaaay out of date in respect of all IPSC rules, including the Divisions, and you should return it to the Smithsonian before the late fees kill you. Nope...I gotta keep it. It is still effective in all the USPSA matches that attend. My third post on page 1 of this thread quotes the correct current (and future) rules. FYI, we intentionally removed the word "polishing" because the intent of the rule you quoted was "make them pretty", however we were reliably informed that, to a metal worker, the term "polishing" means "major grinding, with prejudice". hmmm...I am confused. Since I don't have a copy of the current IUPSC rules, I went the the IPSC website. This is what I found: 20. Polishing and/or detailing of components available from the original manufacturer for the approved handgun are permitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Lighten up a bit, Vince... seems you do need to lay off the caffeine. Notice my " ". I'll insert another one here, just in case: . No offense meant, but I DO prefer USPSA Production rules. They seem more in line with the American ideal of "fixing what ain't broke." Mikey likes to modify, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Flex, Mea culpa. My earlier post dealt with sights, but you're talking about other modifications. Yes, the rule you quoted above is current, but the revised rules in the next IPSC rulebook (January 2004 Edition) are: 19. Original parts and components offered by the OFM as standard equipment, or as an option, for a specific model handgun on the IPSC approved handgun list are permitted, subject to the following: 19.1 Modifications to them, other than minor detailing, are prohibited. 19.2 Base plates and/or any other devices which provide additional ammunition capacity (e.g. “+2” magazine extensions), are prohibited. 19.3 Front sights may be trimmed, adjusted and/or have sight black applied. 20. Aftermarket parts, components and accessories are prohibited, except as follows: 20.1 Aftermarket magazines which match the external dimensions of standard magazines offered by the OFM for the approved handgun are permitted. 20.2 Aftermarket sights of the same type and kind offered by the OFM for the approved handgun are permitted, provided their installation and/or adjustment requires no alteration to the handgun. 20.3 Aftermarket grips which match the profile of the OFM standard for the approved handgun and/or the application of grip tape is permitted, however rubber sleeves are prohibited. Let me know if you have any further questions - I'm happy to spend as much time as you need on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Spook (et al), For the avoidance of doubt and to give you a published reference in respect of your query about sights, please see Q17 of the IROA FAQ on the IPSC website. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Mikey likes to modify, that's all. Hi, That is your good right, but we already have several (!) Divisions where extensive modifying is allowed. So why "mess" with PD ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Take a look at the Custom Glock Racing, "Race Cut" Heinie sights. If my Glock had come with that kind of sights I would want to replace them immediately for the factory sights that are on my Glock now (Each individual has his/her preferences ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted October 29, 2003 Author Share Posted October 29, 2003 This is what's going to happen: I'll attend a match...say the EC2004. I have a Glock 17 and some nice Heinie sights on top of it. I see a fellow squadmember with a Glock and some Fiber Optic sights on it. I'll ask him: "are those allowed?". And he'll respond: "yeah, sure, some police deparment in Georgia ordered some Glock 17's with FO sights, a couple of weeks ago. Here's the letter to prove it." Face it. It is a plausible scenario. And it'll suck like any "modrace" does. PD is supposed to be a "fair" division, where people with equal stuff compete with eachother. It sucks to go to the WS with your box stock glock with nasty sights and seeing someone with some nice aftermarket sights. Mods like sights do make a difference. It is easier to hit a plate at 25 yds with sights that don't cover the whole plate. So, Vince, Q17 of the IROA FAQ doesn't help. I understand the rules. It's the fact that some of that are unmaintainable (is that even English?). It is practically impossible to verify if aftermarket sights are offered on whatever brand of gun. And besides, suppose some little police dept. issues G22s with FO-sights, does that mean I cannot use them on my G17, I guess it does. Wouldn't it be easier to allow everything notch and post or "original" (steyr M9)? Or wouldn't it be easier to get rid of all FO's in PD? Draw a line that will be there for the next 5 years. That's better than having guncompanies draw the line for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Spook, Yes, it's a plausible scenario, but I don't see a problem. If a competitor has a letter from a manufacturer confirming that they now offer fiber-optic, ghost ring or any other kind of "Open Sights" to whoever asks for them on an approved gun, that's great, because it's part of the thinking behind Production Division. We want competitors to drive mainstream manufacturers to create better competition guns, which is historically a very small segment of their sales. Take Walther for example - they offer fibre-optic sights as an option on their guns, so they are legal for PD. If there's sufficient demand for them, Glock and other manufacturers will follow suit, but we won't lose the "spirit" of PD because the guns will still be factory guns. If I'm not mistaken, the Para-Ordnance LDA was created specifically for PD. Anyway, if you still don't agree, no problem, but here's a challenge - you draft a set of "Spook Rules" to deal solely with the issue of "approved sights", and I'll see if I can pick holes in it. And I'm not trying to be difficult - it's just that it's much easier to criticise rules, even constructively as you do, than it is to write them. Well, what are you waiting for? PS: I know exactly how to write clear "sight" rules for PD, but I thought it'd be fun to give you a few gray hairs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted October 29, 2003 Author Share Posted October 29, 2003 We want competitors to drive mainstream manufacturers to create better competition guns, which is historically a very small segment of their sales [....] If I'm not mistaken, the Para-Ordnance LDA was created specifically for PD. Vince, if that was the intention of PD, I take back everything I said. I always assumed PD was designed as an easy-eantrance division in which people could be competitive with the cheap and simple guns they already owned (or at least wouldn't have to spend a fortune on). I had no idea it was designed to make gun companies get off their butts and start designing some nice competition guns. Anyway, if you still don't agree, no problem, but here's a challenge - you draft a set of "Spook Rules" to deal solely with the issue of "approved sights", and I'll see if I can pick holes in it. I'm on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted October 29, 2003 Author Share Posted October 29, 2003 Started a new thread: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=27&t=8917 enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Yes, it's a plausible scenario, but I don't see a problem. I can see it as being a problem...and a big one. Imagine if Beretta were to come out with the "Langdon" model (it would be sooo smart for them to do so). All the bells and whistles that Langdon can work into a Beretta (Barsto barrel, fiber optic front sight, speed bump trigger, etc.). Beretta could easily sell enough to make them Production division legal. THAT gun would be much better, off the shelf, than any other (of course, you'd have to pay for the difference). Could somebody do the same to a Sigma? Not in the real world...even if they could be tuned up as well...they wouldn't sell enough to be legal. The logistics aren't there to support that. And there is this... Someone mentioned eariler that David S. showed up at the World Shoot with a letter from Glock stating that his sights were a production item. OK...it was then mentioned that you can bet that next time there will be plenty of shooters showing up with letters. That is a problem. If you can't see that...then there can be no hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Flex, It looks like we'll have to continue to disagree on every electron of IPSC Production Division rules but, frankly, I don't understand why you're so critical, when those particular rules don't affect you. In any case, if Beretta bring out a Langdon model, that's fantastic. Another mainstream manufacturer creating a gun specifically for IPSC competition. However IPSC has an approved gun list (not a "quantity" rule) so, if the gun doesn't comply with our criteria, my committee won't approve it. If you see the "Langdon Beretta" as a problem, you would've been abhorred when the first double-stack, polymer framed 1911 was used at a match, at a time when the rest of the IPSC world were shooting single-stack, steel framed guns. And, this one time at band camp, this American guy stuck a scope on top of his gun and ................. Letters? The more the merrier, because it means our competitors understand and want to play by the rules, and they've made a special effort to avoid uncertainty. Bravo! Sure makes the Range Official's job easier. Anyway, despite your doom 'n' gloom about IPSC Production Division (and other) rules, the results of our "screw ups" are encouraging. The number of new regions has jumped 50% in 6 years, our "body count" has been growing at 10% per year since 1996 and the number of Level III matches keeps growing at a rate of 20%, year-on-year. Trust me dude, the glass is definitely half full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 I'm jumping in on the tail end of this and it may have already be stated here (or somewhere), but to make things simple, insert the following where it would make most sense... "No competitor may use any firearm that has been, in any way and with any method, means or materials altered from the from the factory new condition. This includes, but is not limited to, modifications, alterations or changes to the sight(s), grip(s), barrel, magazine(s), side or frame." Make the the rule absolute. In insurance, we have absolute exclusions, use em here. If you want to modify your gun, come to limited/standard, modified or open. Just my $0.02 Flame on!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Flex,It looks like we'll have to continue to disagree on every electron of IPSC Production Division rules but, frankly, I don't understand why you're so critical, when those particular rules don't affect you. Well, I fear that the IPSC rules just might be a problem for USPSA in the future. Looking into my "highly polished and detailed" crystal ball...I can see where there is a road that leads to the alignment of the Divisions of USPSA and IPSC. Regardless, just because a set of rules doesn't directly change my life, that doesn't mean they need to be ignored. In any case, if Beretta bring out a Langdon model, that's fantastic. Another mainstream manufacturer creating a gun specifically for IPSC competition. However IPSC has an approved gun list (not a "quantity" rule) so, if the gun doesn't comply with our criteria, my committee won't approve it. Yikes...no offense to you personally, but a "list" to be approved by my committee" sets off all kinds of red flags. If you see the "Langdon Beretta" as a problem, you would've been abhorred when the first double-stack, polymer framed 1911 was used at a match, at a time when the rest of the IPSC world were shooting single-stack, steel framed guns. I don't see it as a problem at all. Letters? The more the merrier, because it means our competitors understand and want to play by the rules, and they've made a special effort to avoid uncertainty. Bravo! Sure makes the Range Official's job easier. Completely off base. I am not all knowing, but I do have a pretty good handle on what goes on with Glocks...and I read up on the rules as much as anybody. I actually shoot with Hienie sights on my Glock...and I had never heard that they were available as a factory option. A letter that only a handful of people know about...that doesn't not make for a level playing field. The number of new regions has jumped 50% in 6 years, our "body count" has been growing at 10% per year since 1996 and the number of Level III matches keeps growing at a rate of 20%, year-on-year.Trust me dude, the glass is definitely half full. First, good job IPSC. Second, get more glasses. And, be careful not to fall into the mindset that the Detroit auto industry had in the 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Flex, Don't worry about a possible "merging" of IPSC and USPSA division rules - this was never on the table, and I can assure you that it's not an issue for IPSC. In fact, this is why we didn't even bother trying to "solve" the really minor variances in Open Division (IPSC is 160pf & 120 grain, USPSA is 165pf & 112 grain), which we could've decided with a coin toss while having a couple of beers at Hooters (Coin? What coin??). There's nothing sinister about "my" committee - IPSC has Production Division Committee, it needs a Chairman and I'm the lucky bastard. The position comes with a private Leerjet, a 60 foot yacht, 12 vestal virgins and unlimited booze, all paid for by IPSC. I also believe in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy is my best pal (Note to self: change to decaf). David Sevigny didn't need the letter - his Heinie sights were Production legal, but he was obviously concerned about avoiding any claims of impropriety, especially since he (and the rest of the world) knew that he was a top contender for the world title, which he subsequently won. It was a smart move, and his stock went up another 10 points in my book as a result. And please don't mention Detroit, OK? I still haven't forgiven the ratbags at Ford who named the exploding car after me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 I'm not so sure that it isn't closer to the table than you suspect...though, perhaps not from your side of the table. Again, no offense to your personally...since you happen to be on that particular committee... Most committees are sinister by nature. Especially the ones that aren't needed. (lists? Tweak the rules, eliminate the lists...and the committee.) Don't mind me...I am all for a minimalist governing body, and rules that promote innovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted October 29, 2003 Author Share Posted October 29, 2003 In any case, if Beretta bring out a Langdon model, that's fantastic. Another mainstream manufacturer creating a gun specifically for IPSC competition. I think those "special IPSC guns" will have a "special price tag". So Vince, wouldn't this result in people paying more money to get a better gun? And isn't that exactly what PD tries to avoid at all costs? I am beginning to see that PD rules have many problems more than just the sights. "Factory parts"-rules offer the same problem. My bet is that in the end, IPSC PD will be this: 1) minor only 2) fixed number of rounds (my bet is 10) 3) 5 lbs. 1st shot 4) no single action (and pleaaase look at the HK P7 again, it's not SAO, it's squeeze action ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Spook, Yes, one of the ideas behind PD is "low entry cost" but we have no intention of trying to control prices. It's a sad fact of (IPSC) life that too many competitors have a mindset that spending more $ on a gun will somehow give you a significant edge. And, as P.T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute". Anyway, let's cross the "problem" bridges if and when we come to them. Judging from all the matches I attend all over the world, and from reports I receive from matches I can't attend, the sky is defintiely not falling around IPSC PD. It's a huge success and I have no reason to think it won't continue to grow. And, um, IPSC PD is already "Minor only", with a 5lbs double action first shot but, again, we'll cross the magazine capacity issue if and when we come to it. The term "single-action" refers to the trigger, so the H&K P7 series are indeed SAO. But you knew that already 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