LwE

I went back and looked at the published reports of the early World Shoots. Walters was third in 1977, and was the highest-scoring American. Dave Westerhout ran away with the match in 1977, a year when there was no shootoff. [And, correcting an error, Chapman won in '75, not '76.] In 1979, the "Qualification" portion of the match was won by Raul Walters by 6 points over Von Sorgenfrei. Walters had stage wins on the Obstacle and Field stages, which comprised two of the five preliminary stages. In the "Main Event," aka the Shootoff, Walters was beaten by Seyfried in the semifinals, and took fourth place. Seyfried then beat Von Sorgenfrei to win the shootoff. Walters lost 8 points to Von Sorgenfrei in the shootoff, and thus lost the World Championship. Had Walters been able to edge Seyfried in the semifinals and then lost to Von Sorgenfrei in the final bout, he would only have lost 4 points to Von Sorgenfrei, and Walters would have been the World Champion. Had the format been similar to the prior World Shoot matches in 1975, 1976, and 1977, there would have been no shootoff and the "Qualification" matches would have decided it. The Fates can be cruel. [Tightloop, The 1979 Nationals were held almost in my backyard when I was a teenager. I found out about them at the last minute and went and watched, mouth agape. Cooper and Taylor, in the flesh, seated in the shade on the range leading an informal discussion about shootings by SoCal SWAT types with 1911s. Chapman and others shooting the stages. Didn't know who Seyfried was at the time, and don't know if I saw him shoot. I was hooked and shot with the local IPSC club for a couple of years before getting sidetracked with other things. The three best guys locally in those days were Al Allen, Ralph Butler, and then-state champion Dennis Tueller, the Gunsite instructor. The matches were different then. Usually Standards were half the match with one or two Quick-and-Dirty speed shoots to keep it interesting. I recall spending much of the weekends prior to the monthly matches hammering out the needed 75 rounds of .45 ACP on a Lee Loader. Got Dillon? You betcha I gotta Dillon, Lance]

Tightloop, I hope not to sidetrack this thread, but I can't help asking if you know what ever happened to Raul Walters. He did very well in '77 and '79 at the World matches in Africa shooting a 6" Magna-ported Bar-sto barrel similar to the one used by Chapman to win in '76, and then seems to have dropped off the results sheets. Thanks for your posts, Lance

Carina, Thank you for posting this information. it would be great to see the Big Bear years recorded for posterity before it is too late. I read the Colonel's stuff from the 1970s pretty thoroughly as a kid and he mentioned several times that the fastest individual Leatherslap qualifying run (presumably, 1 of the 5 attempts allowed) he had seen was a .39 from Leonard Knight utilizing the Weaver. He used this to illustrate that the Weaver was no slower than shooting from the Crouch/Point/Hip. The impression one got from the Colonel's various articles was that the Weaver (Cooper) Stance took over at Big Bear pretty much by the early 1960s. However, a few years ago I saw a picture of Elden Carl shooting the annual Big Bear Leatherslap in 1967 which showed him still hipshooting a 1911 in that match. That would have been over a decade after Cooper first got things started at Big Bear in 1956, and well after Cooper developed and shifted over to the Weaver for most purposes in 1960-61. Since then I've wondered if the photo was mislabeled, or if the specific Leatherslap challenge had remained the one annual match where the specific technique of hipshooting hung on as the fastest technique until Knight came along at the end of the 1960s. Anybody know? Seyfried wrote a great article in a G&A Annual in the early 80s about his win of the 1981 World ISPC title in South Africa. The shootoff, in accordance with the Colonel's ideas as developed at Big Bear, was part of the main match back then. Seyfried accumulated enough points by defeating John Shaw in the semifinals to win the overall title, but--knowing he had won the overall--the wind went out of his sails at that point and South African Andy Goosen beat him to win the shootoff itself. I think competitor pressure in the 80s led to the change which made the shootoff a separate event from the main match. Perhaps a good thing, but something may have been lost as well. I can't help but think that Seyfried's win under the pressure of those conditions was a remarkable achievement. Lance

Something important is being overlooked in this discussion. We are not just trying to bring into USPSA the person who already has a crunchenticker or who can feasibly afford one, and not a racegun. We are trying to get the makers of the common guns back in support of our sport. Cast your mind back to the glorious days of yesteryear and recall that in the mid-90's there were gun prizes at the Limited Nationals down to eighty or ninetieth place. Lots of manufacturers were interested in proving their gear in our forum. That died when the dominance of the specialty manufacturers in Open and Limited became apparent. We're never going to get that back in those classes, but Production makes it possible to lure the mass gun producers back in--as long as the guns look stock on the outside for the advertising photographs. I think there was some talk of this when the class was first proposed. Progress has been slow. In 2003 there were guns down to 13th place in Production at the Nat'ls. In 2005 the gun prizes ran out at 5th or 6th place in Production, for some reason, despite a larger field. But things are picking up. Several manufacturers are sponsoring Production shooters and lots of potentially competitive guns are coming onto the market. Guns that ordinary gun-buying folks buy in large numbers. Guns that agencies buy in large numbers. Guns that manufacturers have an incentive to market broadly. Proving those guns against the competition in high-level championships may well contribute to an edge in market share. All the real technological excitement these days in USPSA is in Production, and USPSA should be using that to its advantage. Some day soon, perhaps this year, Production will start to come into its own and manufacturer support for USPSA will begin to look a little bit more like it used to in the glory years. That would be a great thing. Let's not leave that out of the deliberations. Lance

Mostly "other." The only competitive advantage I can imagine is that a shooter who really knows his POIs and routinely uses light or medium bullet weight competition loads might decide to load up with some duty 147s or Nato ball on a stage with an activating popper or two to speed up the array(s). With good adjustables, a couple of clicks might make a difference if there are some tight long shots also on the stage. As others have noted, the racecut Heinies offer as good or better a sight picture as the Bomars, but the drift-in Dawson adjustables have a very shallow notch and are to my eyes inferior to the Bomars. This is stretching it pretty far. The real issue is that milling in the buried Bomars necessarily involves that pistol with a gunsmith or a pretty close approximation thereof. Unlike most of the stuff we do under USPSA rules, you can't order the parts by mail and plug them in yourself as you go along. Everyone--particularly the carefully-cultivated new Production shooter--can see that the gun in that holster over there has been to a gunsmith. Human nature is hard to fight and one finds it difficult to avoid wondering what other magic has been done to the gun. Allowing obvious gunsmith modifications suggests that more experienced shooters see an advantage to incurring gunsmithing costs to compete at their level. From the outset Production class has been concerned with appearances. Let's not abandon that any more than has been done already. Lance

For the moment, under the rules as currently worded, it appears that any internal modifications under 21.4 must be justified as enhancing the reliability of the pistol. I would be very interested in hearing from Flex and/or anyone else who has experience with the common internal trigger modifications as to the reasons these various changes contribute to the reliability of the weapon. In making the pitch to the NROI it would be good to first have our ducks in order as to the legitimate reasons for these modifications under the current rule.

Found the Tungsten guide rod article in the May/June 2001 issue of Front Sight in an article by Robin Taylor which says in relevant part: "Fighting 'Weak Wrist' Malfunctions: The Glock's lightweight frame haunts USPSA shooters when they shoot weak-hand strings. If the shooter inadvertently grips the gun too low, the entire gun will recoil backwards as a unit. This robs the slide and barrel of the recoil energy needed to cycle cleanly. In the worst case, the gun malfunctions -- failing to eject, or pinning a live round on the feed ramp. "Gripped properly, a Glock will cycle every time, but in the rush of the moment, a poor grip on the gun can cause problems. Adding weight to the frame helps. "Getting Heavy: . . . "T.H.E. Guide Rod: Talk about a quick fix! THE's tungsten guide rod for the 34/35 weighs 2.0 ounces, a net gain of 1.6 ounces over stock. For a Production competitor, this is a no-brainer. Since the guide rod is an 'internal modification to improve reliability or function,' it's legal under the latest rule set (says John Amidon). The guide rod adds enough weight to help supress muzzle climb (slightly), but leaves enough margin that you can add steel sights to the gun and not go over the maximum '2 ounces over stock'." [Craig, I am sorry to see you stooping to profiteer from the misery of others. This is an arms race--let's leave that to the manufacturers, where it belongs [insert smiley face here].]

Holy Hand Grenades! Craig, I'm going to need that tuned CZ of yours THIS SEASON! What do you want for it? Bruce has nailed it with his elucidation of the meaning of 21.4 as it is written. That argument is over, it's not unclear. He took a further step onto ground that is a bit soggy when he characterized the heading of 21 as effectively stating: "there are only a few modifications allowed. here they are. If it isn't on the list, you can't do it in Production division." The heading does not say "The very few modifications allowed are [followed by a finite list]." The rule says "Allowed modifications are very limited and INCLUDE the following ," giving the impression that the writer(s) had in mind a possible class of additional very limited unspecified modifications which might also be okay but were not being listed at the outset. This is easily fixed by changing "include" to read "consist of" but it is a change. As a practical matter, I read the $0.25 trigger job with lightened springs as defensible to tune the mechanism to the recoil impulse, and the guide rod as an arguable mod to enhance reliability, but going further to round the plunger is probably out. I think I can shoot a good CZ better than a Glock with an unsophisticated trigger, so the equipment race may well be significantly accelerated for me. These next series of NROI rulings would likely make Sam Alito feel right at home were he to peruse them.

From the beginning, the history of Production under both U.S. and International rules has been that reasonable well-intentioned people read the same sets of rules differently. And several years down the road now, nobody appears to agree on what significant portions of the equipment rules really mean. Now the Vanek trigger has been taken out on the grounds of the written language of 21.5 as an external modification. I don't share their interpretation of the language, but some people--reasonable well-intentioned shooters--have expressed surprise that the Vanek trigger violates the external modification rule under 21.5. Others have further argued that the Vanek should be saved by reference to 21.4 which specifically allows "action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.)." That's a pretty decent argument, which I think a lot of Production shooters believed, but it hasn't persuaded the NROI. I don't think anyone here has made the argument that the open-ended rule statement that permitted modifications are few but "include . . . [the listed categories]" should be read to mean that there are also unlisted categories of additional permitted modifications. This is where I thought the Vanek had come to rest as a sort of unofficial, but commonly known and accepted modification. This argument is pretty obvious and it didn't persuade the NROI either. The Vanek is out under the language of 21.5 alone. (I made a weak argument that 21.5 might also be read to exclude an additional aspect of the common trigger jobs. I don't think it is reasonable conclusion, but I have been surprised before by just how much other shooters, whom I like and admire, can read a rule differently than do I. Note that effectively the same argument has been advanced against the Tungsten guide rods by reasonable well-intentioned shooters.) What interests me most here are the implications of Bruce's argument that the language of 21.4--which is what the NROI is evidently going to go by given the recent Vanek rule--allows trigger jobs only to enhance reliability. I think it is a very weak argument to claim that the trigger work we are doing is for the purpose of enhancing reliability. Many of the posts on the Glock Forum are focused on how to modify parts in order to get the lightest and/or smoothest possible trigger action just this side of inducing malfunctions or burst fire. Anyone disagree about the purpose of the trigger work? I took Bruce's posts, coupled with the Vanek ruling, to suggest that the powers that be in USPSA might be preparing to take a pretty good swipe at Production trigger jobs. That would be a real change in the game as we know it, and that possibility is the only thing that could tempt me to put a toe in the water here and risk getting swept away in a current of statutory construction. How does that go again, Expresio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius?

Then I guess we're agreed that the Tungsten guide rods, though visible, are okay. I seem to recall reading that Sevigny once had a Limited Glock with the rear of the magazine channel hogged out for better reloads. He didn't have that on his Production guns. Pretty clearly illegal for Production, but why? Both are internal modifications, both are visible through the mag well when holstered, and both contribute to the reliability of the gun to the same extent, that is, imperceptibly. I don't care what the ultimate answers are so much, just so that the playing field is level. This is interesting, thanks to all for the contributions to this thread. Lance

Craig, You are a generous man! What do you say we shoot Limited Minor for a year until they get this all sorted out? Could be fun, Lance

Flex, I think you are right, but under that view there'd be little (G34 length) or no (G17 length in G34) question about the legality of the Tungsten guide rods, and that issue still seems to be lingering unresolved. Now that we're going down this road, let's have definitive answers to a host of grey area question so that everyone is on the same page. I was thinking about getting a tuned SP-01 after this season, but I won't be parting with my money until NROI formally blesses the CZ competition hammer as a factory part. Lance

Staying with 21.5 for the moment, is the Vanek necessarily out of the woods just by reverting back to the stock trigger bar? The rounded plunger safety of the Vanek/Soleto/Homebrew trigger jobs is "externally visible" to the knowledable through the empty mag well under the right lighting conditions when the pistol is holstered during a match. ["No, young lady, I'm checking your trigger job for compliance with the new rule interpretations."] I have a Vanek on one match gun and a stock trigger w/Wolf 4lb spring on the other, and was thinking about resolving the problem by adding the Solteto kit to the stock trigger and going with that. As of the moment it looks like I will need to get an NROI ruling to know whether this solution clears both 21.5 and 21.4. While I'm at it maybe I should ask them what the meaning of the word "is" is; I'm sure that would go over well.

USPSA is very fortunate to have a John Amidon, who will make a call based on the rule as written and will let the chips fall where they may, even if it has taken a while in this case. I doubt anyone wants to wake up a few years further down the road to see an Enhanced Production and a Stock Producion class in USPSA. I was going to ask an innocuous question about the status of the tungsten guide rods, given that an article was published in Front Sight a few years ago in which the author (not Amidon) stated that the THE rod made legal weight (<2 oz. added) for Production class in the G34/35 length. I, and I think many others, took this as USPSA approval. It was obviously not an NROI ruling, but has NROI ever ruled on this? If so, and if the long rod is illegal because it can be seen through the sight installation hole at the bottom of the slide, does installing the shorter version for the G17 in the G34 solve the problem? No big deal, a ruling will resolve the issue one way or the other. Then Bruce lobbed this grenade into the discussion: And "Action work to enhance reliability" means just that. No matter how many times you leave that inconvenient context-setting part out, it is *still* the defining context - arguably, the constraint - of that rule. I have been operating under the apparent legal fiction that trigger work by definition enhances reliability, but only because the idea seems almost universally accepted as unremarkable. However, with the Glock pistols (with very few exceptions comprising only those few weapons which leave the factory in defective condition) no trigger work is needed to enhance reliability. Does anyone seriously contest this proposition? Thus, trigger work which lightens the trigger pull--which is the actual reason why we all do the .25 cent or the Sotelo or the Vanek trigger jobs--is apparently verboten under the written rule. Note in this connection that the Glock safety plunger is reshaped to a rounded profile in many of the trigger jobs done on the Glock. The only purpose of reshaping this part is to improve the trigger pull--the stock plunger, unless it has an out of spec burr, is 100% reliable. The bell has tolled for the current Vanek trigger. But hasn't it also tolled for the Sotelo trigger? Lance

IPSC production rules prohibit any dehorning of the pistol, according to Vince Pinto in a two-year-old thread on this forum somewhere entitled "IPSC Production - Triggers & Mags."