Dawson Adjustables

[Wakal]

Finally got in touch with someone in the Glock backshop, but he called back and left a message on machine instead of catching me loafing/surfing/sleeping at my desk (go figure). The short story: Glock has shipped a LOT of different sights as special order options, and I need to call back to tell him which ones, exactly, I was interested in. I suspect my message was garbled when passed to him...

I'll try again tomorrow

Alex

[Detlef]

Vince,

Just one small correction: Para Ordnance certainly did not come up with the LDA specifically for IPSC PD (as in: to be purchased only or mainly by IPSC PD competitors). The IPSC market is way too small to support a new creation by a major manufacturer. They may have had input from IPSC shooters (isn't that Todd's real job?), but the main market is of course safety-crazed law enforcement, where the mere thought of a SA trigger would make city and state officials faint, and private citizens in the US. All of PO's LDA advertising is aimed at LE and at carry-gun owners, and they've come out with a plethora of small models that are completely unsuitable for IPSC PD.

--Detlef

[Garfield]

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  )

Should PD move towards a fixed number of rounds I'm moving to SD

But let's not worry about that now

Oh and Spook just sell the HK and buy that G17 you so dearly want

[Vince Pinto]

Detlef,

Thanks for the correction about the LDA. My little grey cells (both of them) have been overworked lately.

[spook]

Anyway, let's cross the "problem" bridges if and when we come to them.

That seems like a good idea. Who knows, maybe it won't give any problems at all.

The term "single-action" refers to the trigger, so the H&K P7 series are indeed SAO. But you knew that already 

Yes I did, but I cannot seem to part from my little accurate P7

Should PD move towards a fixed number of rounds I'm moving to SD 

Even if that fixed number would be 15 + 1? I could understand a rule like that, because right now, I think the main thing a PD gun get chosen for is magazine capacity (or do you think people buy GLocks because of their lovely triggers ). Think about it. IPSC has the "maximum of 9 shots per position" rule. If I buy a Glock 17 (17+1=18 rounds), I can shoot two maximum rounds positions without a reload. If I buy a CZ75 or a Beretta or a HK USP or a Tanfoglio Stock, Capacity is limited to 1 or 2 rounds less.

I can see problems rising there, but OTOH, you're right when you say we should wait until the probelm rises.

[Garfield]

The good thing is that there are choices.

What is the magazine capacity of that LDA gun our fellow NPSA-member has recently bought for competing in PD ?

The fun is that there is a trade-off. Previously I owned a CZ75 which had a "better" trigger than my current G17, but a smaller magazine capacity. I choose the G17 because it has a consistent trigger pull (No DA/SA change during a COF), no external safeties and a fairly high magazine capacity.

Should the number of rounds get limited, one of the advantages of a Glock to some other guns will vanish. That is not bad by itself but it limits the options available even further. I hope I expressed my self in such a way that you understand me

[shred]

This reminds me of the bad old days of stock car racing when the cars had to be "stock". If you knew the secret L587 option code to check on the order sheet, you got the 429 engine with acid-dipped body panels, hefty shocks and no AC. It was a "stock" car since the manufacturer made it, but it pretty much only shared the body with the run-of-the-mill cars. We keep limiting production to only what the manufacturer produces and we're in danger of ending up like that again (see the "Langdon Beretta" example above, or the Para LDA Limited models with overtravel stops, tuned triggers and so on)

No problem if you want to shoot a currently-produced gun that the manufacturer supports with the right special options, but try and use something no longer made or not supported and you'll be behind the curve with no way out.

[Vince Pinto]

Shred,

That's the beauty of having an approved gun list. So far we've not declined to list any gun which fits the general criteria of Production Divison but, if push comes to shove ..............

Frankly though, I don't think we'll ever come to that point but, if we do, we'll deal with it.

[Detlef]

Chairman,

I have always wondered about the peculiar wording of the sight rule, now:

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.

I assume that the "requires no" has a purpose, and was chosen intentionally over something like "is performed without". The former would (IMHO) allow an unnecessary (for the purpose of sight installation) alteration to the handgun (maybe for a repair?) while the latter would emphasize that no alteration be done. I know that external mods are verboten in a different paragraph, am I maybe reading more into this than there is?

Since everyone gave their .02, here is mine:

I, too, consider the IPSC PD rule too restrivtive.

-As David pointed out, modifications that every responsible carry-gun owner should perform on his gun are, at least to the letter of the rule (what about in practice???), excluded (trigger job, dehorning & sharp edge removal).

-Difficult to enforce, even recognize, rule violations, intentional or not. I have two Para LDAs 18-9 (one meant as backup), and they differed substantially straight from the factory (one has a straight backstrap, one curved; one came with "memory pad" on the grip safety, one not; one came with a different looking mag release from the other). I consider myself a specialist on these guns, but in a match I would have been tempted to rule one of my own guns PD non-compliant, they're just too different; turns out the factory uses "the part of the day"....more than I thought). How can match staff possibly be expected to rule on this, for all guns on "the list"?

-By the letter of the rule, even modifications that just repair a breakage or deficiency which renders the gun non-functional are not permitted (crack in slide? can't fix it by welding...; magazines don't fall free? can't take material off the release...; rounds don't feed? can't modify follower [well-known problem on Paras].

Otherwise, PD is obviously a great idea!

--Detlef

[Radagast]

Vince, a question for you.

The 2004 rules allow sight black on OEM sights.

A bunch of Production shooters here in OZ use fluro orange or pink nail polish on their front sight, be it OEM or not. What will the situation be next year with adding a colour other than black to a front sight?

And if a sight has a colored dot can the dot be changed to a different color?

Thanks in advance.

Ken

[Vince Pinto]

Ken,

Welcome to the BE Forums. You've always been a constructive contributor at the IPSC Australia Forum, and I'm sure you'll be just as helpful here.

In respect of OFM sights, the rule specifically only allows the application of sight black (as a form of refurbishment), so other colours are, by definition, not alllowed. The basic concept of IPSC PD is that you cannot modify OFM parts or components in any way, except for minor detailing, which essentially means the removal of burrs.

However if you want to replace the OFM sights with aftermarket sights, there's no problem provided they are of the "same type and kind".

So, replacing a "matt" white dot with a "matt" red or green dot would be acceptable, but you would not be able to replace a "matt" colour with "fluorescent" colours, unless the OFM offered sights with fluoresence.

[Radagast]

Thanks for that. Time to get out the nail polish remover.

Don't you love it when I can't argue with your answer?

Ken