Any Manufacturers Committed to Microstamping?

rdtompki · March 18, 2014, 07:08 AM

Has any manufacturer indicated a willingness to proceed with microstamping? I'm a recent CA gun owner and I suppose if I had it to do over again I'd wait the whole thing out; I'm happy with my purchases of an M&P 22 and M&P 40, but the double whammy of CA roster/microstamping didn't make for the most rationale market.

SamNavy · March 18, 2014, 08:08 AM

I just used my best google'FU and can't find anthing that says somebody is complying. Ruger and S&W have quit Cali altogether, and I suspect we'll hear of more companies declining to participate soon.

I know that Glock did not microstamp the 42, and that they've been active in at least one lawsuit challenging the "approved list" law... and declining the 42 is going to be a huge sales loss to Glock since CA is looks like it's going to start hemmoraging CCW permits very soon. Good for Glock... I wish they'd follow the lead of the Ronnie Barrett and tell CA law enforcement they can suck wind too.

I would also suspect that the first company to "give in" would feel the wrath of the entire rest of the industry almost immediately.

Jay24bal · March 18, 2014, 09:58 AM

For the sake of the rest of us in the other 49 states, I hope they do not give in and that the law gets overturned in the court system.

I do not care one bit if my primers get marked and identified as being fired by me. They are either fired at paper, or I will have a darn good reason why they were fired at another human being. I say this due to the cost of implementing the technology.

In most articles I have seen on the matter (I have no idea if their estimate is accurate) it is said the cost to adopt the feature would add about $150 to the cost of each gun. While this is not a small number (about 25% increase on an average Glock), it is not insignificant. And what worries me even more is the slippery slope it can lead us down. Let's say one of the other restrictive states says that handguns need to have some other more expensive feature added to them, now the manufacturers are taking on even more costs. It is said that the increased cost will only be seen in guns for that state, but sooner or later they will need to spread that cost across all their guns if enough states enact ridiculous laws like this.

L2R · March 18, 2014, 10:14 AM

I do care about my brass falling to the ground. What if I leave one on the floor and someone else picks it up?

In an indoor range, I can't pick up much if any and someone comes along later to sweep it all up.

After its sold, anyone could be easily framed. I don't know if they are clever and realize this is a threat to us to the point of giving up shooting or something that fell through the cracks. I haven't seen anyone discussing this aspect of microstamping and if I am wrong, someone correct me. This is a BIG deal to me.

Sharkbite · March 18, 2014, 11:04 AM

I doubt anyone on this site is worried about micro stamping due to our nefarious intent

The issue is one of cost and the negative impact on the consumer market. The whole thing is rather moot anyway. With todays forensic state of the art, that piece of brass can be positively tied to that gun with little margin for error.

The comment about leaving range brass behind to be planted at a crime scene seems a little much. Its not happening now. I dont see micro stamping making it popular with criminals

Again the cost to manufactures is the issue and the subsequent passing on of those costs or companies simply going out of business due to inability to compete.

The days of affordable guns will be OVER thats for sure

Sharkbite · March 18, 2014, 11:12 AM

The whole process is laughable. How long does it take to change the firing pin (striker) in a glock? 10 seconds?

How about a 1911?? Even faster!!

How about all the MILLIONS of un marked firing pins already in existence?? Do we create a NFA type registry for firing pins?

"Register all your firing pins before 2015, or you are in possession of.... blah, blah, blah"

Ok, rant over

maestro pistolero · March 18, 2014, 11:40 AM

One sweep of a file across a firing pin and 'poof' goes the identifying markers. Only the stupidest criminal would fail to either do this, or use YOUR stolen gun for the crime.

**Tom Servo** · March 18, 2014, 11:43 AM

If S&W or Ruger were complying, other manufacturers might follow suit. Given that they're not, there's no pressure for the smaller guys to do so.

So far, nobody's committed to following the regulation.

March 18, 2014, 07:08 AM	#1
rdtompki Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2014 Location: San Franciso Bay area Posts: 108	Any Manufacturers Committed to Microstamping? Has any manufacturer indicated a willingness to proceed with microstamping? I'm a recent CA gun owner and I suppose if I had it to do over again I'd wait the whole thing out; I'm happy with my purchases of an M&P 22 and M&P 40, but the double whammy of CA roster/microstamping didn't make for the most rationale market. __________________ NRA Life Member CRPA Life Member

March 18, 2014, 09:58 AM	#3
Jay24bal Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2011 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 735	For the sake of the rest of us in the other 49 states, I hope they do not give in and that the law gets overturned in the court system. I do not care one bit if my primers get marked and identified as being fired by me. They are either fired at paper, or I will have a darn good reason why they were fired at another human being. I say this due to the cost of implementing the technology. In most articles I have seen on the matter (I have no idea if their estimate is accurate) it is said the cost to adopt the feature would add about $150 to the cost of each gun. While this is not a small number (about 25% increase on an average Glock), it is not insignificant. And what worries me even more is the slippery slope it can lead us down. Let's say one of the other restrictive states says that handguns need to have some other more expensive feature added to them, now the manufacturers are taking on even more costs. It is said that the increased cost will only be seen in guns for that state, but sooner or later they will need to spread that cost across all their guns if enough states enact ridiculous laws like this. __________________ I like guns. Once Fired Brass, Top quality, Fast shipping, Best prices. http://300AacBrass.com/ -10% Coupon use code " Jay24bal "

March 18, 2014, 10:14 AM	#4
L2R Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2010 Location: North Carolina Posts: 358	Jay I do care about my brass falling to the ground. What if I leave one on the floor and someone else picks it up? In an indoor range, I can't pick up much if any and someone comes along later to sweep it all up. After its sold, anyone could be easily framed. I don't know if they are clever and realize this is a threat to us to the point of giving up shooting or something that fell through the cracks. I haven't seen anyone discussing this aspect of microstamping and if I am wrong, someone correct me. This is a BIG deal to me. __________________ L2R

March 18, 2014, 11:12 AM	#6
Sharkbite Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2013 Location: Western slope of Colorado Posts: 3,679	The whole process is laughable. How long does it take to change the firing pin (striker) in a glock? 10 seconds? How about a 1911?? Even faster!! How about all the MILLIONS of un marked firing pins already in existence?? Do we create a NFA type registry for firing pins? "Register all your firing pins before 2015, or you are in possession of.... blah, blah, blah" Ok, rant over Last edited by Sharkbite; March 18, 2014 at 11:18 AM.

March 18, 2014, 11:43 AM	#8
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	If S&W or Ruger were complying, other manufacturers might follow suit. Given that they're not, there's no pressure for the smaller guys to do so. So far, nobody's committed to following the regulation. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

March 18, 2014, 08:08 AM	#2
SamNavy Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2011 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 433	I just used my best google'FU and can't find anthing that says somebody is complying. Ruger and S&W have quit Cali altogether, and I suspect we'll hear of more companies declining to participate soon. I know that Glock did not microstamp the 42, and that they've been active in at least one lawsuit challenging the "approved list" law... and declining the 42 is going to be a huge sales loss to Glock since CA is looks like it's going to start hemmoraging CCW permits very soon. Good for Glock... I wish they'd follow the lead of the Ronnie Barrett and tell CA law enforcement they can suck wind too. I would also suspect that the first company to "give in" would feel the wrath of the entire rest of the industry almost immediately.

March 18, 2014, 11:04 AM	#5
Sharkbite Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2013 Location: Western slope of Colorado Posts: 3,679	I doubt anyone on this site is worried about micro stamping due to our nefarious intent The issue is one of cost and the negative impact on the consumer market. The whole thing is rather moot anyway. With todays forensic state of the art, that piece of brass can be positively tied to that gun with little margin for error. The comment about leaving range brass behind to be planted at a crime scene seems a little much. Its not happening now. I dont see micro stamping making it popular with criminals Again the cost to manufactures is the issue and the subsequent passing on of those costs or companies simply going out of business due to inability to compete. The days of affordable guns will be OVER thats for sure

March 18, 2014, 11:40 AM	#7
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	One sweep of a file across a firing pin and 'poof' goes the identifying markers. Only the stupidest criminal would fail to either do this, or use YOUR stolen gun for the crime.