Ma. Kimber pistol

[drgrant]

Why would any vendor submit their product for the restricted target status (and a restricted market)?[

Uhh, because it's functionally no different than getting it on the other roster? (well, in terms of sales. ) It's better, actually. (The guns on it are AG reg exempt) And all the vendor has to do is fill out some paperwork. No destructive testing, or any of that crap- so the costs of attempting to get their guns on that roster are pretty minimal.

-Mike

 

[PaulD]

So what qualifies a handgun as solely designed for target shooting (yes, I'm trying to read M.G.L. c.140, § 123 )? Is there an overview beyond MGL on the qualifications for the target roster?

 

[Scrivener]

Another absolutely silly argument.

Why would any vendor submit their product for the restricted target status (and a restricted market)?

A perfect example of the hideous rules, regulations, and laws that cause many vendors to just sit the whole thing out (political - not financial reason).

Another perfectly silly assertion from one severely in need of A Clue.

As those of us who actually know what is entailed, placement on the Formal Target Roster:

1. Saves time;

2. Saves money (LOTS of money); and

3. Gains the manufacturer FULL access to the MA market for the approved model(s).

Now regale us with your blindingly insightful arguments AGAINST seeking placement on that roster. We're waiting with bated breath.......

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Uhh, because it's functionally no different than getting it on the other roster? (well, in terms of sales. ) It's better, actually. (The guns on it are AG reg exempt) And all the vendor has to do is fill out some paperwork. No destructive testing, or any of that crap- so the costs of attempting to get their guns on that roster are pretty minimal.

-Mike

Mike, if you buy a gun that is on the target roster, does that mean you can't carry it?

 

[Scrivener]

So what qualifies a handgun as solely designed for target shooting (yes, I'm trying to read M.G.L. c.140, § 123 )? Is there an overview beyond MGL on the qualifications for the target roster?

You won't find it in the MGL; the statute merely creates the option. The actual criteria are set forth in the REGULATIONS created to implement that statute. Here you go:

501 CMR 7.13: Criteria for Placement on the Formal Target Shooting Firearms Roster

The Formal Target Shooting Firearms Roster shall contain firearms designated by the Secretary, with the advice of the GCAB, as solely designed and sold for formal target shooting competition. The GCAB shall make a recommendation as to whether a firearm should be placed on the Formal Target Shooting Firearms Roster using the following criteria:

(1) In order for a firearm to be considered for placement on the Formal Target Shooting Roster:

(a) the firearm manufacturer shall submit a report to the GCAB that certifies by affidavit that the firearm is solely designed and sold for formal target shooting competition; and

(b) the report shall identify specifications and features of the firearm which make it a formal target shooting competition firearm, including but not limited to the component requirements listed in 501 CMR 7.13(5) that are a standard part of that model firearm.

(2) The firearm manufacturer shall submit to the GCAB either a list of the specific types of formal target shooting competition for which the firearm was designed and sold, or documentation indicating that the firearm is recognized by a national organization as a firearm used in formal target shooting competition.

(3) Such manufacturer shall include any advertising or marketing materials sufficient to demonstrate that the firearm is solely sold for formal target shooting competition.

(4) The firearm, if it is a pistol, must have a barrel length of at least five inches, and if it is a revolver, must have a barrel length of at least six inches.

(5) The firearm must have match grade adjustable rear sights, or a match grade optical target sighting system.

(6) The Firearm.

(a) if a pistol, must have four or more of the following components, all produced at match grade:

1. A target trigger

2. A custom or bull barrel

3. A ported barrel or compensator

4. A custom barrel bushing

5. An adjusted, beveled or improved magazine well

6. An extended or custom slide release button

7. A target hammer

8. A custom feed ramp

9. A custom ejection port

10. A custom extractor

11. Target grips

12. A trigger pull weight of less than four pounds; or

(b) if a revolver, must have three or more of the following components, all produced at match grade:

1. A target trigger

2. A custom or bull barrel

3. A ported barrel or compensator

4. A target hammer

5. Target grips.

(7) After receiving a recommendation from the GCAB, the Secretary shall determine whether the firearm shall be placed on the Formal Target Shooting Firearms Roster.

(a) The Secretary shall notify, in writing, the manufacturer of a particular make and model of a firearm, whenever such make and model is approved for addition on the next published roster. This notice shall serve as certification that the particular make and model has been approved by the Secretary as being in compliance with M.G.L. c. 140, § 123.

(b) The Secretary shall also notify, in writing, the manufacturer of a particular make and model of a firearm, whenever such make and model is denied for addition on the Formal Target Shooting Firearms Roster.


Which is why I advise that as much, if not more, attention be paid to REGULATIONS.

 

[drgrant]

Mike, if you buy a gun that is on the target roster, does that mean you can't carry it?

No. You can do anything you want with it. It's just another dealer sales regulation, like the rest of the compliance crap. Obviously most of the guns on the roster will likely not be very suitable for carry. Most of them are likely to have adjustable sights, fiberoptic fronts with sharp blades, etc.

-Mike

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

No. You can do anything you want with it. It's just another dealer sales regulation, like the rest of the compliance crap. Obviously most of the guns on the roster will likely not be very suitable for carry. Most of them are likely to have adjustable sights, fiberoptic fronts with sharp blades, etc.

-Mike

Gotcha. I was more thinking if someone slid a pretty normal one through and just did some tweaks to meet the regs. Thanks Mike.

 

[M1911]

Mike, if you buy a gun that is on the target roster, does that mean you can't carry it?

No.

 

[PaulD]

You won't find it in the MGL; the statute merely creates the option. The actual criteria are set forth in the REGULATIONS created to implement that statute. Here you go:

501 CMR 7.13: Criteria for Placement on the Formal Target Shooting Firearms Roster

The Formal Target Shooting Firearms Roster shall contain firearms designated by the Secretary, with the advice of the GCAB, as solely designed and sold for formal target shooting competition. The GCAB shall make a recommendation as to whether a firearm should be placed on the Formal Target Shooting Firearms Roster using the following criteria:

(1) In order for a firearm to be considered for placement on the Formal Target Shooting Roster:

(a) the firearm manufacturer shall submit a report to the GCAB that certifies by affidavit that the firearm is solely designed and sold for formal target shooting competition; and
.
.
.

Thanks Scrivener. That was actually helpful.

Now that I've read it I can totally understand why there aren't many guns on that roster. How many guns really qualify as SOLELY designed for target shooting? The SVI is a good example and a Pardini .22 seems like another. The Sig X5 is a stretch.

Even beyond that bit of semantics, I have some experience as a product manager and if I were a product manager for a firearms manufacturer, I wouldn't bother with that either. This is an abject example (as is the AG BS) of how too much regulation can hamper business.

 

[Scrivener]

Even beyond that bit of semantics, I have some experience as a product manager and if I were a product manager for a firearms manufacturer, I wouldn't bother with that either. This is an abject example (as is the AG BS) of how too much regulation can hamper business.

The criteria are elements common to a target handgun. Many of the elements, such as grips, sights and bushings, are elements that could readily be added to base models as a parallel production line. Even the ramps and trigger group are more the products of time and attention than separate tooling.

The creation of the Target Roster eliminated the testing of five guns of each model, meaning it eliminated not just the cost of the guns, but of the ammo and lab fees. It also greatly reduced the time of approval.

I'd call that a benefit.

 

[drgrant]

Thanks Scrivener. That was actually helpful.

Now that I've read it I can totally understand why there aren't many guns on that roster. How many guns really qualify as SOLELY designed for target shooting? The SVI is a good example and a Pardini .22 seems like another. The Sig X5 is a stretch.

It's not a stretch at all. The X5 Competition and L1s are designed from the outset as target/competition guns that would easily dovetail into the above criteria, no problem. It would take an hour or two of someone's time at Sig to put together a package with enough compelling evidence to get most of the X5 (except the allaround) and X6 series on that roster. Any of the 1911 manufs can probably get their "match" guns on the roster no problem, as well. It is too bad the manufacturers are the only ones that can submit guns for approval. There are a lot of other guns by STI and others which are really only suitable as competition guns.

And yes, the regs still suck... but I still think more manufs could take advantage of this wallhack.


-Mike

 

[PaulD]

The criteria are elements common to a target handgun. Many of the elements, such as grips, sights and bushings, are elements that could readily be added to base models as a parallel production line. Even the ramps and trigger group are more the products of time and attention than separate tooling.

The creation of the Target Roster eliminated the testing of five guns of each model, meaning it eliminated not just the cost of the guns, but of the ammo and lab fees. It also greatly reduced the time of approval.

I'd call that a benefit.

But all those things have a cost. Even another part that's a direct replacement for an existing part has a cost in terms of inventory and a more complicated production line. That is why Japanese car manufacturers package up options and don't allow the mixing and matching of individual options like some of the higher end German cars do. Quite simply, everything you said is an added cost if an existing model is modified and, as I previously stated, the MA market simply isn't big enough to bother with.

Also, the word "solely" in that regulation would be troubling to me as a business person. If I look at an SVI 2011 or a Pardini, sure, those are solely designed for target shooting. How many other guns are, truly and solely designed for target shooting and make no sense for any other purpose?

So, this is only a benefit relative to bringing a normal defensive handgun to market in Massachusetts. It's still a detriment as compared to what it takes to bring it to market in other states, most of which have more interested people to market to. Yes, I guess it's nice that it potentially gives us MA inmates more options but that's the only benefit.

 

[PaulD]

It's not a stretch at all. The X5 Competition and L1s are designed from the outset as target/competition guns that would easily dovetail into the above criteria, no problem. It would take an hour or two of someone's time at Sig to put together a package with enough compelling evidence to get most of the X5 (except the allaround) and X6 series on that roster. Any of the 1911 manufs can probably get their "match" guns on the roster no problem, as well. It is too bad the manufacturers are the only ones that can submit guns for approval. There are a lot of other guns by STI and others which are really only suitable as competition guns.

And yes, the regs still suck... but I still think more manufs could take advantage of this wallhack.


-Mike

Yes Mike, I agree that SIG could probably get them on the roster and it'd be great if they did. I'm trying to see things from their end though. The X5 could easily be a nightstand gun too which isn't something I'd say for an STI. The regs would lead a business person to not only think about design intent but also potential use. Further, there's quite a bit of criteria there and if read in the light of typical Massachusetts BS, I'd get cold feet about even bothering.

In the end, it's simply more regulation in a state that has too much and it scares off business. Frankly, I can't blame any firearms manufacturer that doesn't bother with this state.

 

[troutbum_6]

Thanks for the many replies. I have seen the picture on the American Rifleman and wondered why you can't buy one in Mass. I am in the process of getting my permit and will probably buy a 92 FS. My son just bought one and likes it a lot.

Thanks again guys.

 

[M1911]

Thanks for the many replies. I have seen the picture on the American Rifleman and wondered why you can't buy one in Mass. I am in the process of getting my permit and will probably buy a 92 FS. My son just bought one and likes it a lot.

You can get 1911s in MA. But you can't get Kimbers easily. If you really want a 1911, S&W makes a decent enough gun.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Or you can find a pre-ban Colt

 

[drgrant]

Or you can find a pre-ban Colt

It doesn't have to be "pre ban". It can be any Colt handgun he finds that an MA dealer is willing to sell/transfer to him (likely papered pre 98 exempt, but not always) or that a licensed person is selling privately on an FTF.

-Mike

 

[TomH]

Perhaps they simply aren't willing to comply with any BS to sell their product. I for one respect the companies that take this stance.

drgrant, why are colts any different from kimbers on the transfer issue? Are you talking strictly in-state?

 

[sig2009]

Because they are crap!

 

[drgrant]

Perhaps they simply aren't willing to comply with any BS to sell their product. I for one respect the companies that take this stance.

drgrant, why are colts any different from kimbers on the transfer issue? Are you talking strictly in-state?

They're not... the rules are the same, actually. For dealer transfers they're supposed to be pre-98 with papers showing the gun was bought or registered in MA before the cutoff. That said, my point was that using the term "pre ban" in the parlance of handgun compliance is misleading. You can buy a post-98 Colt or Kimber on a private FTF sale (or from an MA dealer that doesn't know any better or doesn't care) and your possession of that firearm will still be legal. The guns themselves were not banned, the "act" of a dealer transferring them was. There is a difference- and it's a very important
difference, because I see a never ending stream of knuckleheads going around saying "this or that handgun was banned in ma" when that's not the case at all. I've even seen cases where these same knuckleheads have browbeaten a newbie into believing his post-98 Glock was illegal, at which point said newb returned the gun from the guy he bought it from, because these knuckleheads had struck the fear of god into him- by making him believe that mere possession of a non compliant handgun was actually a crime!

Another common scenario is inheritance. Say you are an MA LTC holder... and your great uncle passes away and leaves you a collection of 50 Colt 1911s in his will, all from varying vintages. (I wish ) Due to the BATFE "Interstate Succession" transfer exemption, if you are heir to those guns via the will, you could bring them back into MA (without an FFL transfer) and legally keep them all here, regardless of when they were made. (I believe you'd still have to FA-10 them all, though... )

-Mike

 

[Titan]

Uhh, because it's functionally no different than getting it on the other roster? (well, in terms of sales. ) It's better, actually. (The guns on it are AG reg exempt) And all the vendor has to do is fill out some paperwork. No destructive testing, or any of that crap- so the costs of attempting to get their guns on that roster are pretty minimal.

-Mike

I guess it makes sense...I just thought that if it made the list in a 'restricted manner', that it wouldn't be available for normal sale (the way some guns are LEO restricted).

If it's just a loophole, I'm all for it.

Scrivener should be along in a second to thrash me soundly for not knowing about this.

 

[Scrivener]

Scrivener should be along in a second to thrash me soundly for not knowing about this.

We'll just add it to your ever-growing list.......

 

[Titan]

We'll just add it to your ever-growing list.......

It's just so fortunate for you that you have so few paying customers that you can live on this forum and answer my posts within two minutes or less.

It must be quite a burden keeping track of all the things everyone else doesn't know.

 

[Scrivener]

It must be quite a burden keeping track of all the things everyone else doesn't know.

You're assuming everyone is like you.

And we know the old saying about assumptions......

 

[Titan]

You're assuming everyone is like you.

And we know the old saying about assumptions......

There's nothing I enjoy more than a rapier wit!

 

[Scrivener]

There's nothing I enjoy more than a rapier wit!

Then you've come to the right place.

Even if JKelly is gone.