New IPSC rules interpretations: Fibreoptic OK on PD guns.
- Thread starter Radagast
- Start date
If I see guns that are obviously not within the rules for Production, I'll say something to the shooter and give them the opportunity to change it before they shoot their next stage. If they blow me off, I'll let at least one RO know. There are plenty of mods I could do to my gun that would make it much nicer to shoot, both internal and external. But if I can't do well with it the way the rules want it to be then I need to practice more. I hold that true for others as well. If you have to cheat to win, I am not going to let you win. pretty simple really.
but damnit I knew I should've ordered that FO sight!
but damnit I knew I should've ordered that FO sight!
- Location
- Halifax - NS
Exactly.USP said:
- Location
- Halifax - NS
No, not really - about the same for the past few years. The thing is Open already existed. No one's that interested in spending the coin it takes to build a Modified gun (which is the same as an Open gun) when there's no division to shoot it in in North America. If we recognized it, someone might, but then how many - and it would just split off Open. More divisions = Match director's nightmare.USP said:
I like using 10rds, make for planning a stage more fun, and more eventfull.
Damn, ran dry, oops.....
we've all done it,....hell I still do it when my plan goes to s**t. My brain wants to do this and that, yet I forget to reload, and I am also terrible for shooting too many rounds at targets...
give me a few more years and I'll get the hang of it...
Damn, ran dry, oops.....
we've all done it,....hell I still do it when my plan goes to s**t. My brain wants to do this and that, yet I forget to reload, and I am also terrible for shooting too many rounds at targets...give me a few more years and I'll get the hang of it...
- Location
- Halifax - NS
Sentimentality will keep it around for a while, but it's unfortuantely never grown...at the very least - it doesn't have a high price to play.USP said:
pmt said:
production under USPSA rules is VERY different from IPSC production; there is no min trigger pull weight, trigger jobs are perfectly allowed, guns which are not allowed in ipsc (like the Glock 34/35) are allowed in USPSA, etc.
I find the extremely funny, to see someone post on one of the US forums "... ohh, yeah, that guy [fill in a name] can take an XD, lower the trigger pull to barely over 2lb, shorten the trigger resent to almost non-existent, put custom sights on it, change the recoil spring, put in a mercury filled guide rod, and boy, that becomes one sweet production gun." HOW that is a "Production" gun, I don't understand, but hey, they have their rules. I mean, for me to go shoot in the USPSA production with my IPSC production gun, it's almost like me shooting Std here (minus the Minor/Major scoring). Honestly, that's why I'm not overly eager to go shoot in the US - what's the point. I'd rather fly to some of the nicer European matches... But then I'll get DQ'ed for muzzle pointing too high up during a mag change
pmt said:
Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. I never saw your post until Omen answered, above.
I didn't mean to say USPSA was bad. I meant that their definition of what is a production gun is bad... maybe I should say silly. It's a production gun, so long as it looks relatively unmodified. Right.
OK, an XD in IPSC production has to have a 5 lb trigger... that said, it's still a single action gun. An XD in USPSA production is still single action, but now has no minimum trigger pull. They might as well allow STI Edges as "Production" guns.
Always single action, made in a factory.
That said, the DA first shot rule is kind of limp, as enforced. Look at the number of Glocks and XDs in the sport.
Cheers.
Bartledan said:
Are you referring to Canada/International as opposed to the US? Don't forget that the IPSC Rulebook defines Double Action differently from our standard definition.
I don't think the popularity of Glocks and XD's is based entirely on the trigger's action on the first shot. Grip size and distance from backstrap to the front of the trigger are important features. No decocker, no safeties...
Personally, I'm going to start looking at the new Tanfoglio's and CZ's for Production division, even though I started with the Glock.
IPSC Beginner question:
Assuming the thread is correct, is there any way to confirm that this is the case "officially" , and FO sites can be used? (Eg this is someones interpretation on the vague wording. is there a way to get an actual confirmation to an example?)
Assuming the thread is correct, is there any way to confirm that this is the case "officially" , and FO sites can be used? (Eg this is someones interpretation on the vague wording. is there a way to get an actual confirmation to an example?)
- Location
- Halifax - NS
The interpretions are law as of Thursday.
The General Assembly could possibly vote it down on the 4th of September but the odds are against it.
The General Assembly could possibly vote it down on the 4th of September but the odds are against it.
Last edited:
hungrybeagle said:
It's that different rule definition that is what I'm getting at.
Because the Glock has a single-and-a-half trigger and the XD has an out and out single action (albeit ####ty) trigger, the rule becomes completely arbitrary.
Example:
The XD, a single action pistol, made the production list.
The Tanfoglio Stock Custom, a Double Action/Single Action didn't, even with the magwell removed. It is too "racey", or somthing.
Yet, the Para LDA is on the production list, in spite of being a 1911... with a double action trigger. Also compatible with a magwell, but not production legal if one is used.
And the CZ 75 Combat II is on the lsit, in spite of the fact that only one exists in the world... in Adam Tyc's gun cabinet.
The CZ SP-01 with a whole bunch of gunsmith fitted accesories is on the list, too.
What. The. ####.
My conclusion is that the "production list" is complete hogwash... and the only way I can think of to do it. Otherwise, we wind up with USPSA's de-facto DA Standard Division.
