Fireant Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 OK, so I was just messaging a member about sight trackers only being allowed in 5 inch 40 cal guns when I got to thinking. The way I understand barrel making all of our 5 inch barrels start life as a 6 inch blank then get chopped down to 5 inches or what ever we asked for. So, if 500 5 inch barrels are documented wasn't this actually 500 6 inch barrels that just happened to get chopped down? Then I got to thinking on the whole 9mm deal. I realized that the 5 and 6 inch .355 barrels are the same ones used in a boat load of open guns that just have the rib drilled for that division and the end threaded for a comp. So, with all that couldn't Schuemann make a case that the numbers have been met in both 40 and 9mm for 5 and 6 inch guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcs Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 OK, so I was just messaging a member about sight trackers only being allowed in 5 inch 40 cal guns when I got to thinking. The way I understand barrel making all of our 5 inch barrels start life as a 6 inch blank then get chopped down to 5 inches or what ever we asked for. So, if 500 5 inch barrels are documented wasn't this actually 500 6 inch barrels that just happened to get chopped down? Then I got to thinking on the whole 9mm deal. I realized that the 5 and 6 inch .355 barrels are the same ones used in a boat load of open guns that just have the rib drilled for that division and the end threaded for a comp. So, with all that couldn't Schuemann make a case that the numbers have been met in both 40 and 9mm for 5 and 6 inch guns? From what I understand, Schuemann has made every case there is to USPSA. The bottom line from what I understand is USPSA is not going to budge until the "paperwork" has been submitted for a 6" sight tracker model by ?. Having sold 500 barrels is not going to cut it. I believe from previous posts many of us in USPSA do not aggree with the answer, but we have to live with the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireant Posted January 20, 2010 Author Share Posted January 20, 2010 Hmm, I wonder why they want proof of 500 guns when the rule reads or components? I also wonder if they have made the arguement for the .355 barrel to be allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Ah I love Politics............................................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Hmm, I wonder why they want proof of 500 guns when the rule reads or components? I also wonder if they have made the arguement for the .355 barrel to be allowed? I went round and round with DNROI a couple of years ago trying to get a 6 inch Glock 21 approved for Limited. Not happening until someone certifies that they built 500 guns in that configuration.... My personal opinion is that Limited equipment rules should be a lot closer to Open Division rules --- .40 or greater for major; no dots, optics or comps; 141.25 mm max DS mag length, 171.25 SS max mag length, built out of whatever you want to see where blaster development takes us..... Do pretty much the same thing for L-10 --- and you've got three race gun divisions where equipment developments can be tested. I don't anticipate an equipment race coming out of that.... You've got Production and SS where development is constrained somewhat, for the folks who'd rather trade some innovation for equipment stability.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Hmm, I wonder why they want proof of 500 guns when the rule reads or components? I also wonder if they have made the arguement for the .355 barrel to be allowed? I went round and round with DNROI a couple of years ago trying to get a 6 inch Glock 21 approved for Limited. Not happening until someone certifies that they built 500 guns in that configuration.... It's not complete guns. That is not the rule. CCF frames for the Glock were "approved". Have there been 500 guns built on a double wide Springfield frame that feature 6in barrels...in 40 (actually, the wording doesn't seem to be in the current rule book with regards to caliber or cartridge)? I'm kinda tired of this process being somewhat cloak and dagger like. (Now, I have myself confused...lol ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireant Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 Yep, exactly and why is a 6 inch 9mm sight tracker legal in limited for steel, but not limited in USPSA? I have heard a first hand account of how that was approved and it does not make sense. All I would like is a system that makes sense and is followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Hmm, I wonder why they want proof of 500 guns when the rule reads or components? I also wonder if they have made the arguement for the .355 barrel to be allowed? I went round and round with DNROI a couple of years ago trying to get a 6 inch Glock 21 approved for Limited. Not happening until someone certifies that they built 500 guns in that configuration.... It's not complete guns. That is not the rule. CCF frames for the Glock were "approved". Have there been 500 guns built on a double wide Springfield frame that feature 6in barrels...in 40 (actually, the wording doesn't seem to be in the current rule book with regards to caliber or cartridge)? I'm kinda tired of this process being somewhat cloak and dagger like. (Now, I have myself confused...lol ) It's not USPSA or DNROI that holds up approval. Most of the time, the manufacturer just won't send in the paperwork, regardless of how many they've built. The organization has had a hell of a time getting weights from the manufacturers, even given the fact that they don't have to be that exact--a range is allowable for manufacturing tolerances, etc. USPSA paperwork is probably pretty low on a lot of gun maker's lists of "things to do today", so it doesn't get sent in a very timely fashion. Just wanted to clear this up a little. (I don't have anything to do with the approval process--I get a list like everyone else. I just happen to know from talking with John about the problems we see.) And, in order to prevent prototypes in a highly restricted division, it's a necessary evil. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
818-DVC Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Yep, exactly and why is a 6 inch 9mm sight tracker legal in limited for steel, but not limited in USPSA? I have heard a first hand account of how that was approved and it does not make sense. All I would like is a system that makes sense and is followed. Steel doesnt penalize for minor pf, and there arent that many rules equipment wise for steel challenge. I know USPSA owns Steel Challenge, but thats pretty new and I'm sure USPSA doesnt want to screw up a prefectly good recipe that has worked for a while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Hmm, I wonder why they want proof of 500 guns when the rule reads or components? I also wonder if they have made the arguement for the .355 barrel to be allowed? I went round and round with DNROI a couple of years ago trying to get a 6 inch Glock 21 approved for Limited. Not happening until someone certifies that they built 500 guns in that configuration.... It's not complete guns. That is not the rule. CCF frames for the Glock were "approved". Have there been 500 guns built on a double wide Springfield frame that feature 6in barrels...in 40 (actually, the wording doesn't seem to be in the current rule book with regards to caliber or cartridge)? I'm kinda tired of this process being somewhat cloak and dagger like. (Now, I have myself confused...lol ) It's not USPSA or DNROI that holds up approval. Most of the time, the manufacturer just won't send in the paperwork, regardless of how many they've built. The organization has had a hell of a time getting weights from the manufacturers, even given the fact that they don't have to be that exact--a range is allowable for manufacturing tolerances, etc. USPSA paperwork is probably pretty low on a lot of gun maker's lists of "things to do today", so it doesn't get sent in a very timely fashion. Just wanted to clear this up a little. (I don't have anything to do with the approval process--I get a list like everyone else. I just happen to know from talking with John about the problems we see.) And, in order to prevent prototypes in a highly restricted division, it's a necessary evil. Troy I think we need to make the process easier. Last I checked...the declaration form isn't even on the USPSA website (not that a manufacturer would even know to look for it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Yep, exactly and why is a 6 inch 9mm sight tracker legal in limited for steel, but not limited in USPSA? I have heard a first hand account of how that was approved and it does not make sense. All I would like is a system that makes sense and is followed. Let's not compare apples to oranges.... SCSA is not USPSA, even though it's owned by USPSA..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireant Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 But it is not apples to oranges since the rules for steel say the gun must meet the requirements for the declared USPSA(or IDPA)division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 But it is not apples to oranges since the rules for steel say the gun must meet the requirements for the declared USPSA(or IDPA)division. Oh. Nevermind.... But then it likely shouldn't be legal for steel either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireant Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 You would think so, but it is specifically approved, see what I mean? Just like a 6 inch 40 sight tracker is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Boit Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 For once, IPSC rules for Standard division are less restrictive than USPSA. Ok, we still have this box rule for gun and mags, but there is nothing about any limited quantity of pistols or parts made to be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomadera Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Note: merged into existing thread. - Admin. Is the six inch sitetracker style (Schuemann Hybrid barrel) legal? The last I heard it was still awaiting approval of the BOD. Edited March 28, 2011 by Flexmoney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZGunut Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 What I don't understand is why a system like the new Camonilli barrel weigh (as seen in the new front sight) is approved but the 6" sighttracker is not. I am willing to bet there are at least 50 times the number of 6" sighttrackers than the new stationary screw on weight thingy. I am privy to some info on the 6" sighttracker and none of it makes sense! 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