Skywalker Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Appendix D4 - Production Division19.3 Front sights may be trimmed, adjusted and/or have sight black applied. <Click> ...bzzzzz..crshhhh...Roger, narrowing of the front sight permitted, ...bzzzzz..crshhhh...awaiting confirmation from Darth Vader mothership...<Click> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miche Posted January 19, 2004 Author Share Posted January 19, 2004 Skywalker: Trim = to reduce = trim away=trim off?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Boit Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Vince: I believe like you stated there are three generations of full size frames, not mentionning the compact G26/27/33. The first generations around 1983 were stippled all around the grip like the one featured on the picture with the three frames and I believe the one with the rails are 3rd generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Miche, my dictionary says: Trim:1. To make neat or tidy by clipping, smoothing, or pruning. 2. a. To remove (excess) by cutting. b. To remove the excess from by or as if by cutting. The rulebook doesn't state you have to remove material from top, side, or anywhere else, thus, according to my understanding of english, trimming the front sight by removing metal from it is legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdj Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 This whole discussion is facinating to me. The notion of USPSA/IPSC Production is new to me (when was it instigated BTW?) and I'd been naively assuming that it was the Division where there was no argument about the gun since it was "Production". I now know that Production is not even equivalent to Production! I have been educated I guess it proves something but I'm not sure what Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Hi guys, I managed to escape for a nice Indian dinner tonight and I see you've been busy boys while I've been gone. Excellent. 1. Yes, "trimmed" means you can cut, file down or reduce the height and/or width and/or depth of the front sight provided you don't cut the slide or any other part of the gun, as advised by Skywalker. 2. Julien - that's why I said Glock have 4 generations. If I can remember the timing correctly, the "mini" Glocks were released as a kind of "3rd generation" (finger grooves only, no accessory rail) but I accept that it's probably best described as "2.5" because the "mini" Glocks will probably never have the accessory rail, so they will always be "2.5". The latest version are the medium and full size Glocks with finger grooves and the rail, and I guess most people consider them to be 3rd generation. Anyway, to go back to the original question, it looks to me from the images that Miche's gun is legal for Production Division provided he passes the trigger pull test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iron guns rule Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 very sad to see such a rear sight as being "production".......how about putting it on my cz 75 ...would it still be legal ??? and what's the stuff on the gripp....it sure as hell an't grip tape...... maybee i'm missing something here..... greetings from the netherlands..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Hi, Personal taste is a whole different discussion, but I can relate to your view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 IGR, Welcome to the BE Forums but I must confess that the growing Dutch Mafia presence here is starting to worry me. What happened at the Dutch Forum? Has somebody been eating too many er, um, beans? Anyway, the rear sight is legal according to PD rules and, yes, it would be legal on your CZ too. Would I personally use such a sight? No, but that's not the question. As far as the grip tape is concerned, Miche told us it's A-Grip and there's a link on the first page of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iron guns rule Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 nothing wrong at the dutch forum, only not so much activity at the moment, and maybee the dutch shooter's want to progress a bit and learn from other shooter's.... and NO i'm not going to use this rear sight on my gun (it look's so stupid ), but if this is allowed on my cz so will any adjustable rear sight.....now i only have to find a higher front sight..... greetings gerben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Vince, I know why Gerben choose "Iron guns Rule" as his nick name : he is current IPSC PD champion in NL and with his CZ75 he beats the crap out of the other guys, most of them with Glocks (including me) ! Welcome to the forum Gerben, I hope you enjoy it as much as we do ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
short_round Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 NO i'm not going to use this rear sight on my gun (it look's so stupid ), I have to agree with IGR. It's a good thing that we don't have a FTLR (Failure To Look Right) rule in IPSC. Watch out that it doesn't get snagged on your shirt during the draw too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Hi Gerben, nice to see you've joined the forum. with his CZ75 he beats the crap out of the other guys, most of them with Glocks (including me) ! And after he's done pistol whipping Arvid and the rest of the competition, he shoots a mean match too Polymer frames are nice and soft Arvid. Something you should have taken in consideration when you bought yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Don't keep rubbing in that I sold my CZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey177 Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Greetings. I was referred to this web forum by my shooting buddy. I would just like to ask if the XS Sight Systems (Ashley Express) Big Dot sights are permitted in Production Division on a Glock 19. Here is a link to an image of the sights in question: http://www.xssights.com/catalignment.html Does the new rule mean that the front sight should be in the shape of a rectangular post (following the same type and kind of OEM Glock front sights)? Or would IPSC rules consider the circular shape of the AO sight as a post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Mikey, Welcome to the Brian Enos Forums. The XS Express sights look legal as a replacement on the Glock 19 because they are the same "type and kind" offered by Glock (e.g. they appear to be a post & notch design with a tritium inserts, and those "type & kind" of sights are available from Glock. No deal though with the XS Ghost Ring sights on a Glock 19, because Glock do not offer anything comparable. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey177 Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Thanks a lot, Vince. The information you gave has been most helpful. To be on the safe side though, I think I'll print a copy of this page and bring it with me during matches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Hobdell Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 I did not read all the thread it was way to long and taxing for me. I believe that the sight deal is well detailed in the USPSA version of the PD rules. Sight modification may be allowed, basically as long as the do not change the weight of the gun but more then 2 ounces. There are several manufactueres out there alrady putting out tricked up PD guns, bomars, heinies, fibre optic front sights, i understand IPSC OFM rule but it sucks, if other manufacturers can have a heinie sight just by lisitng it in the brochure then what is the harm in other competitiors doing the same? Same as flared mag well some have it some don't, so you are pushing people to a specific type of gun if they want to be competitive. I understand the ideas but some competitors and manufacturers will always push the edge a little furthur. Why not make specific rule and stay with them, what EXACTLY can or cannot be done to the gun. The run with a sort of NASCAR deal where if you think some one is pushing the edge a little to far you can opt for a gun strip down by the match authorities. I think prodution is one of the most productive divisons in our sport it allows for entry level competiors and masters a like. Lets get on the same page with the rules and try to make some of this a little less complicated and intimidating. Same rule for everyone regardless. My 2 pennies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Angus, I believe that the sight deal is well detailed in the USPSA version of the PD rules. Really? Since USPSA PD rules specifically state "Square notch and post only", can I shoot a Steyr M9 with a triangular notch? i understand IPSC OFM rule but it sucks, if other manufacturers can have a heinie sight just by lisitng it in the brochure then what is the harm in other competitiors doing the same? Perhaps you don't understand the philosophy behind IPSC Production Division. We want manufacturers to offer more options on their guns, failing which competitors will most likely select a gun manufacturer which offers more OFM options. If competitors want to mix 'n' match parts and components from more aftermarket manufacturers, then Open, Standard & Modified Divisions offer them the flexibility they require. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iron guns rule Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 hello all, i finaly settled the sight question on my cz.....i sold it !! and bought a very nice shiny para ordnance lda 18-9...for now this must be THE production gun on the market.....no need to change anything.....good sights (i think lpa), good trigger and 18 rounds in the mag.....(and the best thing......it's still a real steel gun :-) ) greetings gerben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Hobdell Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Ok so not quite right but getting there. What is wrong with changing sights anyway. Do you have any idea how much it takes to get some manufactueres to change something they have been doing for years? Adding a bomar to the rear of a glock is Ok as long as glock offered it sometime in the past? Vince email me beacuse I really want to get this correct before I go to the Europeans and do something wrong. angus@ghostholster.com Iron mans comment says it all. If a manufauturer dosnt keep up then they are left behind, I don't exactly think that was the idea behind production or was that what was intended. They already tried to hurt glock with the 5lb trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Angus, If I were King of IPSC, you wouldn't be allowed to use anything in Production Division other than parts or components offered by the OFM (i.e. absolutely nothing aftermarket, including grip tape). However since it's easier to "loosen" rather than "tighten" division rules, I've already proposed to my Rules Committee colleagues that we should allow "any open sights" in Production Division in the scheduled January 2006 Edition rulebook onwards (the earliest this change could be considered is at the General Assembly to be held in conjunction with WSXV in Ecuador in 2005). If a manufauturer dosnt keep up then they are left behind, I don't exactly think that was the idea behind production or was that what was intended. Actually that was one of the ideas behind Production Division. We want the manufacturers to offer competitors a better product with more options and, if they don't listen to their customers, they will indeed be left behind. They already tried to hurt glock with the 5lb trigger. The 5lb trigger pull was not an effort to hurt Glock, but it was intended to stop Glock having total dominance of Production Division, and the plan has worked rather well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Funny how the Glock doesn't totally dominate PD over here in the states, they might have a majority, but Beretta, Sig and others make a respectable showing as well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Funny how the Glock doesn't totally dominate PD over here in the states, they might have a majority, but Beretta, Sig and others make a respectable showing as well.... Nik, that's probably because your PD requires only 10 in the mag. IPSC doesn't have this, so the higher the capacity the better. The 5lb trigger pull was not an effort to hurt Glock, but it was intended to stop Glock having total dominance of Production Division, and the plan has worked rather well. Hi Vince. I kept re-reading the above statement but I'd pose my question anyway. Is there hope of lowering the 5# pull limit in the near future? I was wondering about the trigger pull of Para's LDA that seems to get better (lower?) with use. Haven't really measure a friend's well-used LDA yet but personally I feel it would be such a waste to re-fit new trigger parts just because the factory option is now lighter due to intensive use? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 McOliver, Is there hope of lowering the 5# pull limit in the near future? In my considered opinion, it would be easier to achieve peace in the Middle East As a bit of history, when the Production Division rules were being discussed by the IPSC General Assembly in Cebu in 1999, I was Regional Director for IPSC Hong Kong and I seconded a motion proposed by IPSC Austria (!!) to remove the trigger pull requirement altogether. Sadly the motion was narrowly defeated by a margin of 23 votes to 7 BTW, this is a matter of public record and you can download the actual minutes of the meeting here (see Motion 19.22). 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