1911?

As I understand it, it's not a matter of trying, but complying with Mass recs on guns, which most manufacturers are not willing to do for one state who demands things like loaded chamber indicators and such. Not worth their time and $$$ for one state. That's how it was explained to me at least by the reps at a few gun companies I spoke to a while back.

A pathetic excuse, given the number of manufacturers who are on the AFR. This is especially true if the manufacturer is approved for sale in CA, as most of the CA test is accepted for MA compliance.

Note also that SVI is the ONLY manufacturer on the Target Roster, for which crap like loaded chamber indicators, etc. are not required. Kimber, Baer, etc., would almost certainly qualify - if they bothered to try. [slap]
 
A pathetic excuse, given the number of manufacturers who are on the AFR. This is especially true if the manufacturer is approved for sale in CA, as most of the CA test is accepted for MA compliance.

Note also that SVI is the ONLY manufacturer on the Target Roster, for which crap like loaded chamber indicators, etc. are not required. Kimber, Baer, etc., would almost certainly qualify - if they bothered to try. [slap]

Maybe they don't think they deserve the treatment that Glock received in this state so they don't tolerate it. I'm sure if they thought they could make a profit on doing business in MA, they would.
 
i remember reading something about springfield armory saying that mass laws are to confusing and for that reason they wont attempt to find out if they will be shot down or approved

another thing to consider is that they have to send a bunch of there guns for testing and i dont think they want to take that loss (we all know they would make up for that in a couple of months )
 
Our wonderful AG didn't think they complied well enough... so we don't have them in MA because Glock didn't like getting dick'd around and didn't redesign/resubmit.

Exactly. It's been proven time and time again that business won't flourish until rule of law is in place. At least when it comes to guns, MA is essentially an autocracy.
 
Our wonderful AG didn't think they complied well enough... so we don't have them in MA because Glock didn't like getting dick'd around and didn't redesign/resubmit.

I guess SVI being on the target list and not having to have all the goofy safety gadgets explains quite a bit there. Does SVI make a straight up 1911, or do they only do target comp guns? Looking at the page, I saw pics of high end comp guns, but I didn't search deeper there. I guess Baer et al could get there, but i appears they just don't feel it's worth jumping through the MA hoops at this time. At least that's my take, and as mentioned, they may also be seeing the treatment of Glock as a good reason not to try.
 
Last edited:
Which more or less is what I said, it's not about just trying, but complying, which is not worth bothering with for most companies, due to BS laws and politics that is MA. Still does not explain why a little niche company like is VTI approved and or why they decided to even bother with MA. If Glock for example does not want to part with a bunch of guns for testing (as an example) I sure don't see VTI being able or willing to do it. Interesting...

What part of SVI are you having trouble with? [rolleyes]
 
A friend of mine bought Scriv's old Para double stack 1911 w/ 17 extra mags.....needs some TLC but he likes it. Seems to eat whatever he feeds it. Or was it a Kimber?
 
A friend of mine bought Scriv's old Para double stack 1911 w/ 17 extra mags.....needs some TLC but he likes it. Seems to eat whatever he feeds it. Or was it a Kimber?

I've never owned a Kimber. And it was more like 9 or 10 mags. It ate 200 grain SWC's w/o complaint, and those were the cruddy hard-cast, crayon-lubed bullets; not the poly-coated projectiles I use now.
 
Back
Top Bottom