wtturn

That's a pretty bold claim. Please cite your sources so we can verify. Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

That's certainly a fair position to hold, and proof that you can disagree without ad-hominems and straw men. I don't live under a rock in the age of Stock II and Shadow 2. Production is as much a race-gun division as the rest of them. However, it is still a contradiction in terms to allow aftermarket externally visible parts in the factory division. Final thoughts, then I'm out. If USPSA decides that the value of the change (easier enforcement, more options to the shooter, financial incentives from aftermarket businesses) exceeds the cost of another small step away from the intent/spirit/purity of production division, then I will understand. I don't like it, but I understand the motivations. My objection is more a matter of direction than change in itself. If enforcement became so onerous that it was impractical to enforce, then let's make a change in the opposite, more restrictive direction, in keeping with the whole idea of "production". See you on the range.

Accusing me of trolling to dismiss my argument is facile and cheap. And perhaps ironic, considering you admit to mocking me instead of responding to an argument with an argument.

Don't be facile. It's a cheap tactic. You know perfectly well what my argument is, I've only posted it a half dozen times in this thread.

If you're ascribing this thinking to me, you're incorrect. I shoot a Glock for what it's worth. I'll still beat the CZ shooters I beat now whether they have a CGW hammer or not. I'll still be beat by the CZ shooters who beat me now whether they have the CGW hammer or not. My argument has never been on the basis of performance or competitive equity. But knock that straw man down all you want.

Ignorance is no crime. Willful ignorance is a different story.

Then your RO corps are derelict in their duty. Period.

I don't accept the premise that the rules ARE difficult to enforce. The rules are as simple to enforce as they are to comply with. This isn't the US tax code, it's a rulebook. In the 3+ years I've been involved in the sport, I can't remember anyone bemoaning the complexity and unenforceabilty of production ruleset until now.

That's fair. I don't think you have to persuade anyone that a stronger grip = more conducive to better shooting, that seems self-evidently true. I don't think anyone NEEDS to do a year-long study or heavy research to understand that the better shooters most likely have above-average or even superior grip strength. I just think the data would be interesting in its own right. Did you conclude that there is a mere correlation between grip strength and skill or that grip strength was the causation of higher skill?

It's not physics, it's magical geometry!

Got a link to the testing data?

Sure, but is "easier to manage" really the goal here? To what extent are we willing to lower our standards for the lowest common denominator? Is not that difficult to read and comply with the production rules. Either it's a factory division for factory guns or it's just limited 10 minor. But by all means, let's fix what ain't broken. Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are seven other divisions in which one can "work on their guns a bit" to some degree or the other.

Then "production" is meaningless. It's limited ten minor without 1911s. It's a bullshit ruling either way.

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.

Not legal. DQ will issue. COF begins at make ready. Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Mike, What you're describing is entirely different than the scenario of concern in this thread. I think your scenario is pretty clearly distinguishable and you WOULD be considered to be "loading" and would be committing a DQ-able action for having finger in trigger guard during loading. In fact, you would be explicitly loading by way of pulling the trigger. That's pretty clearly prohibited.

So same thing that happens to me with CZ. You may not be able to use the weak thumb in that manner on a CZ due to frame differences.

The gun is the least important part of shooting, to the degree that it's almost irrelevant. You can win with almost any gun on the production list. That's not a popular opinion here, but it's true.

Does your thumb rest forward of the slide stop lever when you're trying this method?