waktasz Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 I feel like this ruling is in direct opposition to the rulebook https://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-NROI-ruling-details.php?indx=86 Replacement Hammers, Production and Carry Optics Note that this ruling is not yet effective Created: 2/27/17 Updated: 4/05/17 Effective: 4/12/17 Rule Number: D4, 21.6 D7, 21 Applies to: Pistol Ruling Authority: DNROI Status: Released Question: I want to replace the hammer on my Production/Carry Optics gun with one from an aftermarket shop. Are aftermarket hammers legal replacements in Production and/or Carry Optics, even if the external shape of the hammer is different? Answer: As long as the internal parts of the hammer used as a replacement function identically to the internals on the OFM hammer, replacing the hammer is allowed, despite the outward appearance. For example, an OFM hammer that functions as part of a decocking system can be replaced with an aftermarket hammer that looks externally different as long as it continues to function as a decocker hammer. Changing the function to a manually decocked hammer is not allowed, as this essentially changes the model of firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktm300 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Can I agree with you and like the ruling at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EngineerEli Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 I completely agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted April 11, 2017 Author Share Posted April 11, 2017 Just now, ktm300 said: Can I agree with you and like the ruling at the same time? I guess it could potentially open up some aftermarket manufacturers to start making hammers, which is fun...but this isn't a ruling, it's a rule change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 it does seem like a rule change, but a welcome one. We have all been told for years that the cajun gun works comp hammer is not production legal, but apparently now it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted April 11, 2017 Author Share Posted April 11, 2017 I was wondering if there was even an example of a part anywhere that this rule would allow. I guess there is. Are aftermarket triggers next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtturn Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) Show me where "function identically" is located in the rulebook. What a royal screw-up. • Per existing NROI ruling, any “internal” modifications which result in a visible change to the external appearance of the gun when it is in battery REMAIN PROHIBITED unless specifically allowed by the plain language herein Exchange of minor INTERNAL components (strikers, sears, springs, connectors/disconnectors, and other wholly-internal parts) INTERNAL parts: This clause is NOW interpreted to mean that a broad range of INTERNAL parts may be modified or replaced – either with OFM or aftermarket parts. Special Notes/Clarifications: • Strikers, sears, springs, connectors/disconnectors, and any other part which is NOT visible when the gun is in battery is considered an INTERNAL part and may be modified or replaced unless otherwise prohibited in these provisions (see section 22 for specific prohibitions). 21.6 Exchange of minor EXTERNAL components Sights, firing pins, firing pin retainers, pins, extractors and ejectors MAY be replaced with OFM or aftermarket parts.Any other components which are externally visible may ONLY be replaced with OFM parts which are offered on the specific model of gun or another approved gun from the same manufacturer except as specifically clarified below. Examples of external components which may only be replaced with OFM parts include (but are not limited to): magazine releases, slide stops, thumb safeties and triggers. The Vanek trigger, much like the Speed Bump trigger, has an external modification that makes it illegal for Production division. The Speed Bump trigger has the travel screw mounted to the rear of the trigger and is visible externally, the Vanek trigger, has relocated the pivot pin about 3/16” above the factory specs, and has filled in the original hole with a black material that is still visible on inspection. Special Notes/Clarifications: •Barrels are considered “external parts” and are subject to specific restrictions in 21.4 and associated rulings. •A factory/OFM magazine release which extends only the length of the magazine release may be used. A magazine release which provides a larger surface area (paddles, buttons) may only be used if it is an OFM part available on an approved model of gun.•Externally-visible parts from “custom shop” guns will only be considered “OFM parts” if the custom-shop gun is on the NROI list of approved Production guns. Edited April 13, 2017 by wtturn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 If we recognize this as a rule change, approved by the BOD, and not as an NROI ruling, does it change anyone's mind? I guess if it opens up some trick parts from aftermarket shops it's good, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtturn Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Then "production" is meaningless. It's limited ten minor without 1911s. It's a bullshit ruling either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktm300 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, wtturn said: Then "production" is meaningless. It's limited ten minor without 1911s. It's a bullshit ruling either way. There is a post on the USPSA Facebook page that lends a little more light on the subject. TMALSS it is really hard to tell what is an original factory hammer and what is an aftermarket hammer as people like CZ have a bunch of different hammers that come on the guns. I think they got to the point they couldn't enforce it so they scrapped it. Production rules in just about any sport are really hard to enforce unless you are going to have someone with immense knowledge at the crono table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 and who really cares about the whole 'production' thing anyway? Nils and others have shown that you can be entirely competitive even with a crappy plastic gun. Let people work on their guns a bit. working on guns is enjoyable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktm300 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 1 minute ago, motosapiens said: and who really cares about the whole 'production' thing anyway? Nils and others have shown that you can be entirely competitive even with a crappy plastic gun. Let people work on their guns a bit. working on guns is enjoyable. Dave won Limited Nats with a plastic gun, Nils did the same, Coley is competitive etc...... It really is the indian not the arrow. As to production, I think it is a great division, and this small change won't affect it at all. Some people like to stage plan and reload more than others and we shoot 10 round divisions. I get a kick out of guys shooting open and Limited obsessing about their one mag change. We have one too many 10 round divisions (L10) but......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtturn Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, motosapiens said: and who really cares about the whole 'production' thing anyway? Nils and others have shown that you can be entirely competitive even with a crappy plastic gun. Let people work on their guns a bit. working on guns is enjoyable. There are seven other divisions in which one can "work on their guns a bit" to some degree or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktm300 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, wtturn said: There are seven other divisions in which one can "work on their guns a bit" to some degree or the other. And most people already work on their production guns a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtturn Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, ktm300 said: And most people already work on their production guns a bit. Sure, I enjoy tinkering as much as the next guy. But there should be pretty strict restrictions when dealing with Production guns. Production: "something not specially designed or customized and usually mass-produced". (Merriam-Webster) There is a legal analogy re: production rules. Some rules of evidence are rules of INCLUSION and some are rules of EXCLUSION. Rules of inclusion means the presumption is that evidence should usually be admitted and one has the burden of proof to show why it should not be admitted (think open and limited). Rules of exclusion have a presumption that evidence should usually be excluded unless one shows good cause and meets the burden of proof of why it should be admitted. It's pretty plain that the production rules are rules of exclusion. Modifications are presumptively illegal unless it is explicitly allowed by the rules. This is the standard, and it appears we are turning that standard on its head by DNROI fiat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 I don't really see the point of all the restrictions. they are hard to enforce and don't really do anything to keep the playing field level, or keep costs down, they just annoy people and create a market for race-only guns like the shadow2 or EG model unicorn. Just like you can be competitive in limited with a box stock Edge, you can also be competitive in production with a number of box stock (and nearly box-stock) guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtturn Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 If you don't see the point of the restrictions in production division, then why do we bother with divisions at all? Everything and everybody is in open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 1 minute ago, wtturn said: If you don't see the point of the restrictions in production division, then why do we bother with divisions at all? lol, we could do with fewer restrictions and still be a long long long long long long long ways from open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtturn Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Just now, motosapiens said: lol, we could do with fewer restrictions and still be a long long long long long long long ways from open. Sure, but that's not the point, and that's not the standard. Words have meaning, and production is supposed to mean production. As in stock. As in factory. We have a variety of divisions so people can pick and choose the type of gun they wish to compete with. It would be pretty silly of me to shoot limited and then complain that they won't let me have an optic. It would be pretty silly of me to shoot production and then complain they won't let me use aftermarket hammers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EngineerEli Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) As I see it, this would mean someone considering entering the sport, will now look at other shooters and the rules and feel that they can not be competitive without investing in a new hammer for their gun. This will usually cost over $100 extra, and if they are just starting will probably have to pay someone to install it which means more $$. The more $$ it cost for a new shooter to get into what is supposed to be the 'gateway' division of USPSA, the less new shooters we are going to be seeing in the future... Yes, Indian not the arrow and all that is true to an extent, but there are certainly some guns that do benefit from a hammer of different weighting or different hammer hook configurations, which makes a very obvious different to the feel and reliability of a gun. Yes I understand that it is hard to enforce, but those people that need enforcing are cheating, and my hope is that most people in USPSA are not intentionally cheating. Making this change for that reason just seems wrong to me. Edited April 12, 2017 by EngineerEli Additional though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 37 minutes ago, wtturn said: It would be pretty silly of me to shoot production and then complain they won't let me use aftermarket hammers. It also sounds a bit silly to complain that they *will* let you use aftermarket hammers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 24 minutes ago, EngineerEli said: As I see it, this would mean someone considering entering the sport, will now look at other shooters and the rules and feel that they can not be competitive without investing in a new hammer for their gun. You can't fix stupid. those people are stupid. They already feel like they have to get a shadow2 or unicorn-blessed-by-EG, which costs a whole lot more than the hammer they don't need. Production already costs pretty much the same as limited with semi-custom guns, and more mags and pouches and stuff needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtturn Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 I guess we'll agree to disagree. The rules are crystal clear. Even if we (USPSA) decide that the change is desirable or necessary, the procedurally proper way to do it is to formally change the rulebook, not by DNROI fiat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, wtturn said: I guess we'll agree to disagree. The rules are crystal clear. Even if we (USPSA) decide that the change is desirable or necessary, the procedurally proper way to do it is to formally change the rulebook, not by DNROI fiat. I don't have a problem with that. We are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Slow day at work. At any rate, if current trends continue, production will probably wither and die and get overtaken by singlestack. pretty big ss fields at A2 and A1 Edited April 12, 2017 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, wtturn said: I guess we'll agree to disagree. The rules are crystal clear. Even if we (USPSA) decide that the change is desirable or necessary, the procedurally proper way to do it is to formally change the rulebook, not by DNROI fiat. The change was approved by the board, so it is more of a rule change than an NROI ruling and should be listed as such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now