Off Roster

[william444]

Can some one explain to me why the guns with no LCI can be advertised as off roster? The "model" isn't off roster in most cases, it's the features, and mainly, the unsightly loaded chamber indicators. Why would anyone pay twice as much for a used gun with no LCI when they could just as easily buy a brand new gun and purchase a new slide for a couple of hundred dollars extra? Even if you had to purchase a new barrel, in most cases it's still cheaper and you have the advantage of a brand new gun and extra parts. I would think "off roster" (you can't buy new in California) would apply to the model, and not the features.

[LeadFarmer74]

It does apply to the model. Models without LCI are off roster. The same gun with a LCI can be on the roster. You don't want to pay for off roster then don't, plenty of people will. The SKU number for the guns will most likely be different as well. That's why HC models can't be bought even if the mags are limited, different SKU.

[DDM4556]

Many manufacturers offer an alternate or "CA" version of a handgun which includes the LCI. As said above, these models will have a different SKU.

Your point is a very good one. It is indeed better to buy on roster and buy a new slide assembly IF the total comes out close to, or less than the price of the off-roster version. IMO that's a better value and I like having spare parts as well.

[william444]

It does apply to the model. Models without LCI are off roster. The same gun with a LCI can be on the roster. You don't want to pay for off roster then don't, plenty of people will. The SKU number for the guns will most likely be different as well. That's why HC models can't be bought even if the mags are limited, different SKU.

Thank you for the lesson in retail sales, and stocking shelves (SKUs)... In the example you gave "HCs", you can purchase the guns without the magazines if I'm not mistaken, and if there is a smaller capacity magazine available, even buy it with a magazine. AR's are a prime example.

[Librarian]

Thank you for the lesson in retail sales, and stocking shelves (SKUs)... In the example you gave "HCs", you can purchase the guns without the magazines if I'm not mistaken, and if there is a smaller capacity magazine available, even buy it with a magazine. AR's are a prime example.

ARs are not sold in the same way as pistols.

For pistols, the gripsize places limits on the capacity of magazines (unless you like the long things sticking out).

Generally, manufacturers package handguns and magazines and the collection is grouped under an SKU; a CA-version would have 10-round mags, while a non-CA would have something else.

But the Roster implementation is really bad; it can be very difficult to determine if a particular example of a handgun is the Rostered version or not; not all Roster entries have a SKU or some other number specific to a model. It seems that most LGS really don't want to take any risks on the point - and I blame them not at all.

[LeadFarmer74]

Thank you for the lesson in retail sales, and stocking shelves (SKUs)... In the example you gave "HCs", you can purchase the guns without the magazines if I'm not mistaken, and if there is a smaller capacity magazine available, even buy it with a magazine. AR's are a prime example.

What he ^ said. So HC in my example means high capacity (10+) and for instance a 3" Springfield XD bi-tone has a SKU of 9821HC and 9821. Even though they are the same exact gun only the 9821 is on the roster.

I would think "off roster" (you can't buy new in California) would apply to the model, and not the features.

The roster basically only applies to features such as microstamping and loaded chamber indicator. Since no guns have microstamping technology no new semi auto guns will be added to the roster atleast currently if all that makes sense.

[Lead Waster]

There are guns that were on the roster before the LCI and mag disconnect and microstamping requirements were tacked on.

The "Roster of not unsafe handguns" was actually just that. A list of guns that passed several tests to show they would not accidentally be fired if they were dropped from a certain height on certain parts.

So, for instance, the GLock gen3 models were on the roster when it was as simple as sending some guns in to be tested. Then after the addition of the sneaky LCI and Mag Disconnect requirements ... Glock gen4 pistols could NOT be added as they have no mag disconnect (technically the little bump on the extractor is an LCI as it sticks up a touch if it's on a loaded round in the chamber). So on the roster are all the Gen3 glocks, which Glock renews every year. Now with microstamping of course, nothing new can be added. Might as well say that each gun requires unicorn farts to be added.

[Lead Waster]

As further history, the Roster was created because there was a glut of cheap "Saturday Night Special" (A term that cannot be technically defined) guns used in crime. They were cheap throwaway guns, typically $80-$100 revolvers that crooks would buy, grind off the serial number, commit crime, then throw away.

Since CA could not say "Guns must cost at least $500 to be legal", which would have caused a huge crapstorm. They instead instituted the roster with a series of tests that typically can't be passed by cheap throw-away guns. The drop tests typically ensured that only well made and therefore MORE EXPENSIVE guns could pass it.

They couldn't just say "poor people can't have guns because criminals are using cheap guns", but that was basically why they did it. There was really no "safety" reasons for the roster, it was a disguised ban. ANd we've seen how it's been added to.

[william444]

Let's just say it's this month's, flavor of the month, the Sig P238. You can buy one brand new, in store for $699. It's the same Sig in every way except for the LCI, (even the older ones have a magazine disconnect) and if some one was a newbie and plunked down $1200 thinking it's an "off roster" gun, no longer available in California except through private purchase, based on the information provided by the seller, and found out later they could have bought a brand new one for almost half the price, they might resent it. You can always say, it's not your fault that some idiot didn't educate himself better.
It's just my opinion, but I think there should be a little transparency to avoid confusion, and an agreed upon set of rules when identifying, two, for the most part, exact same guns. IMO the "off roster" label is used a little too often and a little too loosely, for obvious reasons (inflated values).

And before anyone accuses me of anything, NO, I didn't buy an off roster gun and now I'm pitching a *****, after the fact. Values are a semantics game at best, but the value of anything is based on the information provided and "off roster" can be thoroughly misleading to the uninitiated buyer.

I'm not here to stir up crap, I'm just voicing an opinion about fairness, if there is even such a thing in this day and age. I would certainly like to think there is.

[LeadFarmer74]

So based on your example one was off roster and one was on roster and the only difference is the LCI? Hey if a buyer doesn't do their research then they probably won't do that next time. Maybe you don't understand the concept of off roster.....? I think you do and you just picking a small detail. I mean right the bat if it's off roster I would add atleast $100 to the msrp because that's atleast what the seller spent acquiring it.

[ke6guj]

Let's just say it's this month's, flavor of the month, the Sig P238. You can buy one brand new, in store for $699. It's the same Sig in every way except for the LCI, (even the older ones have a magazine disconnect) and if some one was a newbie and plunked down $1200 thinking it's an "off roster" gun, no longer available in California except through private purchase, based on the information provided by the seller, and found out later they could have bought a brand new one for almost half the price, they might resent it. You can always say, it's not your fault that some idiot didn't educate himself better.
It's just my opinion, but I think there should be a little transparency to avoid confusion, and an agreed upon set of rules when identifying, two, for the most part, exact same guns. IMO the "off roster" label is used a little too often and a little too loosely, for obvious reasons (inflated values).

And before anyone accuses me of anything, NO, I didn't buy an off roster gun and now I'm pitching a *****, after the fact. Values are a semantics game at best, but the value of anything is based on the information provided and "off roster" can be thoroughly misleading to the uninitiated buyer.

I'm not here to stir up crap, I'm just voicing an opinion about fairness, if there is even such a thing in this day and age. I would certainly like to think there is.

I would argue that a newbie should be doing all his purchases at a local gun shop, buying the "normal" product and not buying used online (marketplace forum), or even new online. as such, he'd only be offered that $699 on-roster model. only after he's gotten his feet wet should he start looking for "alternative" options because he wants something better or different.

[LeadFarmer74]

Not exactly true, again. There are models of guns that the manufactures don't bother "retooling" to fit either a magazine disconnect, or and LCI to, and those guns are not available in ANY form. Those are truly off roster guns.

Actually that's not true off roster guns can be acquired by PPT, new residents moving into the state, LEO purchases, and intrafamilial transfers, and SSE when available.

[william444]

As further history, the Roster was created because there was a glut of cheap "Saturday Night Special" (A term that cannot be technically defined) guns used in crime. They were cheap throwaway guns, typically $80-$100 revolvers that crooks would buy, grind off the serial number, commit crime, then throw away.

Since CA could not say "Guns must cost at least $500 to be legal", which would have caused a huge crapstorm. They instead instituted the roster with a series of tests that typically can't be passed by cheap throw-away guns. The drop tests typically ensured that only well made and therefore MORE EXPENSIVE guns could pass it.

They couldn't just say "poor people can't have guns because criminals are using cheap guns", but that was basically why they did it. There was really no "safety" reasons for the roster, it was a disguised ban. ANd we've seen how it's been added to.

Not exactly true, again. There are models of guns that the manufactures don't bother "retooling" to fit either a magazine disconnect, or and LCI to, and those guns are not available in ANY form. Those are truly off roster guns, and that is exactly my point, sir.

[static2126]

Let's just say it's this month's, flavor of the month, the Sig P238. You can buy one brand new, in store for $699. It's the same Sig in every way except for the LCI, (even the older ones have a magazine disconnect) and if some one was a newbie and plunked down $1200 thinking it's an "off roster" gun, no longer available in California except through private purchase, based on the information provided by the seller, and found out later they could have bought a brand new one for almost half the price, they might resent it. You can always say, it's not your fault that some idiot didn't educate himself better.
It's just my opinion, but I think there should be a little transparency to avoid confusion, and an agreed upon set of rules when identifying, two, for the most part, exact same guns. IMO the "off roster" label is used a little too often and a little too loosely, for obvious reasons (inflated values).

And before anyone accuses me of anything, NO, I didn't buy an off roster gun and now I'm pitching a *****, after the fact. Values are a semantics game at best, but the value of anything is based on the information provided and "off roster" can be thoroughly misleading to the uninitiated buyer.

I'm not here to stir up crap, I'm just voicing an opinion about fairness, if there is even such a thing in this day and age. I would certainly like to think there is.

I have had sigs without LCI run for 8k plus rounds. Both of my LCI sigs had LCI related issues (one at 3k one at 1.7k)

I will.not personally own any self defense guns with LCI or mag disconnect

[ke6guj]

Not exactly true, again. There are models of guns that the manufactures don't bother "retooling" to fit either a magazine disconnect, or and LCI to, and those guns are not available in ANY form. Those are truly off roster guns, and that is exactly my point, sir.

and so are Gen 3 Glocks that Glock molded in an alternate color (FDE, Grey) that they didn't want to spend the money to get rostered. I would pay above retail to get those off-roster variants, and they are off-roster.