IWI Jericho 941 9 mm

Exactement. Les shadow sont adaptés pour la compétition.

gunguru a écrit:

Peter Venkman a écrit:

CZ serait mon 4ième choix.

Glock G34  --  PAS ACCEPTÉ EN PRODUCTION
Sig 226 ST
Sig 1911 ( je ne me rapelles pas du modèle exact... mais je l'ai en photo quelque part. C'est mon prochain achat )  --  PAS ACCEPTÉ EN PRODUCTION

puis CZ shadow 2.

J'aime pas le trigger. c'est personnel.

Regarde la description du G34 sur leur site web :

Obtaining the greatest accuracy for target shooting was the main reason for the development of the GLOCK 34 which has an extended barrel, greater slide dimensions, and unmatched reliability in a 9x19mm pistol. This highly accurate pistol has found widespread use as a competitive pistol for USPSA, IDPA, IPSC, GSSF and other sport shooting organizations.

Assé trompeur non !!!

jmeur a écrit:

Bonjour à tous , j ai un Jericho en 9 mm depuis environ 6 mois, et il fonctionne à merveille. Très précis, très souple , tiens bien en main.
Le seul problématique c est derrière le gun. J ai tendance à tirer bas. D ou ma question pépère, les mires ajustable tu les à trouver ou ?

C'est LPA en Italie qui les fabrique, mais je suis passé par Optics Planet pour en acheter pour mon Ruger P-90.
Comme ce n'est pas frappé par les règlements ITAR, tu peux les importer et payer la différence et la douane mais t'en tirer encore correctement.
http://www.lpasights.com/en/products/25-tanfoglio?vmcchk=1

Mais pour mon Jericho, j'ai acheté la même mire (arrière seulement) à cette adresse au Canada: http://www.canadashootingsupply.ca/lpa-mim-rear-sight.html
C'est LPA qui les fabrique pour un modèle de pistolet CO2 en acier. C'est le modèle identique; le seul problème, c'est qu'il te faudra trouver une mire avant plus longue (pas vendue au Canada, ce serait trop simple ) sinon tu vas tirer trop haut.
Moi j'ai modifié l'arrière de la mire pour qu'il puisse descendre juste un poil plus bas, ça a fait l'affaire. De toute façon, je fais toujours une visée "6 heures".
Je pense que Falcon, un membre ici, en a une à vendre. Contacte-le.
PP.


PP.

PerversPépère a écrit:

Avec un peu de polissage aux bons endroits et des mires ajustables, c'est un "sleeper" qui peut surprendre.
PP.

Je viens de relire ton commentaire et je me demandais si ce '' polissage' était accepté en production, je pensais que rien ne pouvait être changé/modifié ?

Là, je ne sais pas.
Tant que la pièce reste la même, je suppose que le polissage ne sera pas interdit?
Mais tout doit dépendre de la catégorie aussi.
À demander à des pros.
PP.

Si tu demandes « est-ce que je peux ...? », bien oublie ca, la reponse est non en production.

Pas de modification, c’est tout.


Et pour le G34, tu peux l’utiliser En IPSC, mais pas en division production (standard ou open)

gunguru a écrit:

Si tu demandes « est-ce que je peux ...? », bien oublie ca, la reponse est non en production.

Pas de modification, c’est tout.


Et pour le G34, tu peux l’utiliser En IPSC, mais pas en division production (standard ou open)

C'est wierd qu'un polissage est considéré comme une modification et qu'un changement de grip arriere ne le soit pas non ?

Photos ???

Blackthorne a écrit:

Photos ???

Une photo du polissage ?

Un truc: tu mets du Dursol sur toutes les surfaces glissantes et sur les arrêts de détente; ensuite, tu places un dummy dans la chambre et tu y vas pendant environ 500 cycles en double action, histoire de lisser le tout.
Tu flushes ça avec du Rem-Clean ou autre nettoyant en spray et tu huiles le tout.
Ensuite, tu vas tirer avec.
Pas de démontage donc pas de "polissage" tel qu'entendu dans le règlement.
Voilà-voilà...
PP.

Un polissage peux cacher un changement de piece, un changement de géométrie, permettre d’abaisSer considerablement une détente ou autre. Donc, c’est non. Et pour citer Vince, si les règlements de production ne te plaisent pas, change de division. Il te reste standard et open pour t’amuser.

Il n’Y a pas de notions d’avantage ou autre, c’est gun non modifié sauf exceptions mineures, dont les grips pourvu qu’elles respectent le contour d’origine.

gunguru a écrit:

Un polissage peux cacher un changement de piece, un changement de géométrie, permettre d’abaisSer considerablement une détente ou autre

Très bonne explication, merci

gun guru a écrit:

Et pour citer Vince, si les règlements de production ne te plaisent pas, change de division.  Il te reste standard et open pour t’amuser.

C'est pas une question que j'aime ou n'aime pas, c'est juste que je voulais comprendre les subtilités du sports !

Tu as une autre solution: vas tirer 500 cartouches; au bout de ça, ta détente se sera lissée et tu auras aussi acquis une bonne prise en main.
Et personne ne trouvera à y redire. C'est tout bénef'...
PP.

Quand même weird qu'ils permettent tous les changements de spring que tout le monde fait sur les shadow 1 et des reloads à la limite du power factor en production pour que ça recoil comme un 22lr mais que polir les composantes d'origine n'est pas permis. Je pense que l'esprit de la classe production devrait être stock 100% avec des munitions équivalentes à de la munition de service. Mais bon, c'est très personnel comme opinion.

En fait, seul les springs OEM sont permis, si offert de serie par le fabricant pour cette arme. Aucun springs non OEM n’est permis (wolf ou autre). Ce n’est pas parce que le monde triche que c’est permis...

Et le munitions doivent respecter le power factor de 125.

gunguru a écrit:

En fait, seul les springs OEM sont permis, si offert de serie par le fabricant pour cette arme.  Aucun springs non OEM n’est permis (wolf ou autre).  Ce n’est pas parce que le monde triche que c’est permis...

Et le munitions doivent respecter le power factor de 125.  

Je sais que c'est ça la règle, ce que je questionne c'est si ça respecte vraiment ce que voulais l'esprit de la catégorie. Sans rentrer trop dans le philosophique...

gunguru a écrit:

Vince Pinto, IPSC Executive Director a écrit:

Posted August 23, 2006

Production Division - The Underlying Philosophy

Hi folks,

Since so many people quote bogus, third-hand, "somebody told me" or "my guess is" reasons why Production Division was conceived and created by IPSC, I thought it's time for me to explain the actual concept and the underlying philosophy, in the order of importance:

1. The Religious Decision: Thou Shalt Not Use Traditional Single-Action-Only Guns!

As you all know, STI/SVI and similar SAO guns have overwhelmingly dominated Open, Standard & Modified Divisions for years. As much as those guns are fantastic for those divisions, we unintentionally failed to provide a competitive division for the hundreds of "regular", not-built-for-competition guns out there. In fact, the message we were sending out was "Come shoot with us, but that gun in your safe just won't cut it".

After we slapped ourselves on the head and came to our senses, Production Division was born!

====================

2. Le Menu, Madame: Le Approved Gun List!

Why? Well, for starters, some people will argue that striker-fired guns like Glocks and the Springfield XD series are SAO, or at least not the same as a traditional DAO whereby you can keep pulling the trigger, which keeps rising and falling without a need for a detonation or having to rack the slide so, strictly speaking, they should be excluded. Of course, these differences of opinion would result in different rulings about those guns from match to match, and this is a bad thing!

Anyway, there was no doubt in our mind that these particular striker-fired guns qualified as "regular" guns, and the Approved Gun List (AGL) tells you they are acceptable.

The AGL also allowed us, perhaps in an unscientific way, to reject guns which didn't fit the "I can't define it, but I know a suitable gun when I see it" credo.

Hence guns which are "For Team OFM Members Only", or which are only available to "insiders" or other privileged persons, or which are "raceguns cleverly disguised as PD guns", will not be approved.

Internally, we have a "generally available for 1 year" criteria, but this cannot, and is not, carved in stone, which is another reason why we have a Production Division Committee (PDC), comprised of three of the greatest minds in IPSC (and me!), which considers each model on a case-by-case basis and, if thought fit, approves them for listing.

For example, if Glock offer their new Model NN, which is identical in all respects to a Glock 17, except that it's in 38 Super, we'll most likely waive the 1 year period, but not because we love Glock, and certainly not because we're chasing sponsorship dollars which they rarely, if ever, give us. In this case, the different calibre is neither here nor there but, for argument's sake, it helps Regions who can't use 9x19mm (e.g. Italy), without hurting anybody else.

By the same token, we approved the S&W M&P series almost immediately after we lovingly fondled them at the 2006 SHOT Show, because it was obvious that the M&P series was going to be huge worldwide, and they weren't being "made specifically for Production Division", another class of gun we'll reject. Remember we're trying to appeal to products made by "mainstream" gun makers, not create yet another "cottage industry".

Why don't we have a "minimum quantity produced" criteria? Again, the PDC decides if a particular gun is made, and is available, for general consumption and not "made specially for PD". In any case, how would we ever know if the manufacturer's declaration is true and correct?

"But how come you're approving guns like the SP-01?", you ask. Because firstly it was not "made for PD" and, secondly, it's basically a CZ75 with a few "acceptable for PD" improvements. Our intention is not to kill innovation, but we do want to limit the extent of features and modifications allowed in PD, and CZ have merely made a better CZ75. Most importantly, the SP-01 is not just a garden-variety CZ75 with a bigger mag. It has numerous other new features.

And we fully expected that gun manufacturers would up the ante and start producing better, higher spec guns, and that's perfectly fine with us because the identical gun will be available to everyone.

"But, but, but what about the price tags of some of those Approved Guns?", you ask. Well, how you spend your money is for to you to decide! You can buy an improved CZ75 or a Glock for US$600, or you can buy the same thing with more bling for US$2,000 but we're not your Momma, OK?

====================

3. The Answer Is No! Extremely Limited Modifications Permitted (aka TINKERERS & GUNSMITHS NOT WELCOME)!

There were three ways we could have gone. On one hand, we could follow the original (but now defunct) Standard Division method and publish a full list of "Go/No-Go" features. The other way was "Anything Goes Except X". However, after much wringing of hands and scratching of heads, we decided to go with "All Aftermarket Items Are Prohibited, Except Three Minor Concessions" (sights, grips/grip tape and magazines).

Personally, I wish we didn't even have those concessions, but at least we still prohibited "chop shop" activities, such as milling of slides to accept sights etc.

Moreover, we even prohibited some OFM items, such as using parts intended only for Model X on Model Y, add-on magwells etc. The other thing is that we imposed a minimum 5lb DA trigger pull test as a simple way to keep people honest in respect of illegal internal modifications!

And don't even think about the term "competitive advantage"! One man's "it's only a cute widget" is another man's "that's the widget I need to become IPSC World Champion", and we'd be back to creating an Accessory List From Hell, trying to classify each item on one side or the other of a "Go/No-Go" list.

PD is based on the notion 1. Go to your local gun store, 2. Buy a gun which is on the approved gun list, 3. Go to a match and shoot the bloody thing. Do not pass Go Faster Stripes Gunsmith. Do not spend an extra $200. Do not use a dremel tool. Improve your match results through practice, not by adding widgets!

BTW, if you have to ask the question "Can I .....?", you're in the wrong division, my son, because it means you want to add, remove or change something, and that's not what PD is all about.

====================

4. Yes Dear, We Intended It To Be A 9mm Division!

Why? The single biggest problem facing IPSC competitors attending Major Matches today (and in the future), is the carriage of ammunition on board commercial passenger aircraft. Now if we had Major and Minor scoring, it's clear from the other Divisions that the vast majority of people would chose to shoot Major calibre rounds for the higher points available for peripheral hits on paper targets, but they'd be caught in the same "custom-made" ammo recipe trap.

One definition of "insanity" is "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome"! By only offering Minor scoring, competitors would be able to use generic factory ammo and easily achieve Minor, rather than having to rely on home brews to make Major!

The idea was that if you had a problem getting your double-the-IATA-5kg-limit of 600 rounds of (whatever) factory brand of 9mm on board your flight to World Shoot, you can buy factory ammo at your destination, and your gun will work just fine and dandy. In other words, rather than perpetuating a known problem of shipping "custom-made" ammo, we found a solution, and all is well in Camelot and the birds are singing ......

"But why didn't you impose a maximum rounds loaded limit?" you ask. Well folks, I personally support the idea because, as I've often stated, some people would sell their first born child if they could load an extra round in their mags.

The easiest solution is to use the existing IPSC box. Another method is to limit the number of rounds loaded. I proposed 15 rounds, which I believe is psychologically more palatable than the evil number 10 but, despite my best efforts, the IPSC Assembly has so far rejected the notion, but I won't give up trying to convince them we need a limit, because manufacturers have begun to embark upon a "capacity race" in order to sell more guns than the next guy.

Some people think that if we have a rounds-loaded limit, Governments who don't understand the reason for IPSC imposing a limit (i.e. to eliminate capacity from the gun purchasing decision), would use that as an excuse for tougher (and more silly) gun laws.

The fact is that Governments couldn't care less about IPSC rules. The 10 round limits in the USA and Canada had nothing to do with IPSC rules. An uninformed Bureaucrat probably picked the number 10 because that's how many fingers he has on both hands (and let's be thankful the limit wasn't decided by Four Finger Woo!).

Besides, we have a Revolver Division with only 6 rounds .......

====================

5. No Dear, It Was Never Intended To Be A Cheap / Entry Level / Shoot What Ya Brung / (Fill In The Blank) Division!

If it was supposed to be "cheap", we'd have a price limit, but we don't!
If it was supposed to be "Entry Level", we'd exclude accomplished shooters, but we don't.
If it was supposed to be "Shoot What Ya Brung", we wouldn't have an Approved Gun List, but we do.
If it was supposed to be "Duty Guns Only", we'd only approve models in current use with Law Enforcement, but we don't.

That's all I have to say about that!

Footnote: Since Production Division is now the fastest growing division in IPSC, I think the plan worked!