Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
waktasz

Production division aftermarket hammer

Recommended Posts

waktasz   

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waktasz   
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waktasz   

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wtturn   

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 by wtturn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waktasz   

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wtturn   

Then "production" is meaningless.  It's limited ten minor without 1911s.   

 

It's a bullshit ruling either way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ktm300   
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ktm300   
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.........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wtturn   
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ktm300   
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wtturn   
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wtturn   

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.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wtturn   
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by EngineerEli
Additional though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wtturn   

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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :cheers:

 

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 by motosapiens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waktasz   
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×