Garfield Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Detlef: you might be on to something there ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Can't we put common sense (back?) into Production Division? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Garfield/Skywalker, Pending confirmation from Miche, the Glock looks like a 3rd Generation to me (i.e. it has finger grooves but no accessory rail). If I'm correct, then the "Agrip" tape contours the original finger grooves - it does not create them. McOliver, "Type and kind" does not restrict the material used - it's to do with the design. Since Glock offer adjustable rear sights, then aftermarket adjustable rear sights of any material are allowed, as are front and/or rear night sights. However ghost ring and fibre-optic sights are not allowed because Glock do not offer that "type and kind". Julien, Yes, you understand my thoughts about relaxing the sights rules correctly. Detlef, If the competitor was reclassified for non-compliance with a division, he gets moved to Open Division. The only way he can get placed into Standard Division is if he makes no divisional declaration on registration, in which case the RM makes the call, and Standard is the likely candidate if, as you say, the gun fits the box. However the red paint on his front sight is not necessarily non-compliance unless he's painted a factory sight a different colour other than black which, judging from the photo, seems unlikely. If he purchased an aftermarket sight which has a red dot rather than a white dot, no penalty. And no, it's not against the rules to add an aftermarket sight which gives you a longer sight radius, no matter how silly it looks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Guys, I bow for the collected wisdom of so many Glock experts. I just did not recognize that the finger grooves were the standard Glock grooves covered with some kind of tape (in this case A-grip). I deeply apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused and crawl back under my stone... Your humble servant (stumbling backwards, trying to hide from the ferocious crowd) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 moved to Open, of course, not Standard (my annoying comon sense at work again...) and yes, upon rereading, competitor can purchase an orange FS for $ 20+ but not paint his factory FS (for $ 0.0000001) if he wants an orange FS. I better turn that common sense thingy off for today to avoid frustration and emotional distress on all sides... --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Detlef, If an honest competitor makes an honest mistake with his equipment, and he fails to comply with his declared division, he'll only be moved to Open Division once - he won't make the same mistake twice. However if the "worst case" is relegation from Production Division to Standard Division, a cheater (possibly a "gamer") really doesn't have so much to lose if he gets caught failing to comply with his declared division. Consider another honest guy in Open Division who inadvertently brings mags with his snazzy new shockproof basepads attached, but on checking during the match, they're found to be 175mm long. He's paid his match fee but he shoots for no score or recognition. What's your solution for him? And yes, I know you think IPSC Production Division rules stink, but what about the guy above who's only fault is having shockproof basepads which don't provide any additional capacity. What is his real crime? There must be a strong deterrent and punishment for non-compliance with Divisional rules but, if you can think of an alternative and comprehensive solution for all non-compliance issues, I'm listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 1. These days I shoot exclusively Prod Div (complying, checked several times at high-level competitions), if I thought the rules "stink" I'd shoot something else. 2. Yes, "come up with a comprehensive solution or shut up" is a nice try but it don't work every time Destructive criticism is often useful, and constructive but not comprehensive criticism is even better... 3. There should be a strong incentive to comply with divisional rules, not "deterrents and punishment" (this point may be subtle but substantial) 4. (and to the point) getting rid of as many "non-essential" non-compliance items as possible would be a good start. Of course, what "non-essential" is becomes a point of contention, but: Vince, it must strike you, too, as not meaningful when the same thing (orange FS) is once compliant and once not. PD is different things to different people (I listed this before: DA division, carry-gun division, out-of-box no-change division, 9mm minor division, to mention the dominant ones). We now have a few years of experience with it, what are the learnings? One of them (IMHO), is that we are regulating/outlawing too many tiny things, putting competitors in a state of uncertainty more often than desirable. Standard Div. has become a lot simpler over the years (just recently again), Prod Div should follow its path towards simplicity and easy enforcability. --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Detlef, No, I assure you that "destructive" criticism is never, ever useful. In fact, it tends to create bloody-mindedness on the part of the recipient. In any case, did you see my post on Page 1 of this very thread about relaxing the PD sights rules? I proposed a solution and I asked for comments, but so far there've been none because everybody seems more interested in A-grip or being moved from one division to another. I've been writing rules for IPSC since 1996, so I think I have a pretty good grasp of the fundamentals, I do see things which can be improved, I regularly seek (and get) a lot of constructive criticism and suggestions from BE Forum members, and I bring them to the attention of my rules colleagues. However just because I (or you) think something is a good idea, doesn't mean everybody else does. As I've stated here many times, there are some rules which I personally don't support but, once the Rules Committee decides by majority and it's ultimately endorsed by the General Assembly, I get over it and I support it - and so do my other rules colleagues who post here, such as Kees and Neil. In fact, here's a challenge. Identify one rule, just one rule, which has 100% unanimous support worldwide and I'll show you a rule which hasn't been written yet. Hell, I have guys complaining to me that a match DQ for dropping a loaded gun during a COF is too harsh! Anyway, you can be part of the solution or just a critic. It's your call, but I would personally be a lot happier to hear your constructive suggestions. PS: It's 6:00 am Saturday morning here, and I'm just going to bed, so any lack of s further reply is solely because I'm offline for a few hours sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 the Glock looks like a 2nd Generation to me (i.e. it has finger grooves but no accessory rail). Hi Vince, If I'm not mistaking, only the 3rd gen Glock has finger grooves. See this picture: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radagast Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 OK Vince, I'll add constructive criti.. nah, agreement. Any sight, non optical suits me. The older guys who shoot production because they can't tolerate majorloads, a fibreoptic will help with fading eyes. The gamers who just have to tinker, it gives them a chance to play around. The carry gun people, what ever they choose to use will be legal for play as well as work. The people who simply want to shoot faster will be able to apply some nail polish stolen from their GF, at no financial cost. Those who insist on the purity of the factory sight will not be greatly disadvantaged, as all shooters will be contending with minor scoring and factory triggers. Whisper touching the trigger as the dot sweeps past the target is not going to work. A Beretta with a Dawson Precision fibreoptic will never be a standard gun. Can you have this in place in time for the Australian Nationals? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Ken, Thanks mate, I appreciate your thoughts. No, it's highly unlikely (OK, it's bloody impossible) to have the proposed "relaxed" sights rule in place before the Australian Nationals because it's more than what's permitted as an "interpretation" under Rule 11.8 - it would actually be a rule change, and that requires General Assembly approval. The best we can do right now is maybe to drop the word "Front" from PD Point 19.3. However the feedback I've recieved so far (about 25 comments) have been 100% in support. Of course none of them quoted all the reasons quoted by you but they all quoted some of them. Well done - you get a gold star and an extra cookie with your milk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Garfield, Hmmmm. OK, my memory is not what it used to be, but I could've sworn there were four generations of Glock frame - in your diagram, it would be "2.5" (finger grooves but no accessory rail), however it's possible I'm thinking of the release of the G26/G27 which have never had an accessory rail (and probably never will due to insufficient length). Anyway, let's hope we hear from Miche soon and, in the meantime, I'll scour my files for more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 I think Vince is right, there was something along the lines of a generation 2.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 In any case, did you see my post on Page 1 of this very thread about relaxing the PD sights rules? I proposed a solution and I asked for comments Vince, since a long ago I started this thread about Production Division rules, you know that I'll always be in favor PD rules that allow easy enforcing and verification by the ROs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Dear Luca, Yes, in that thread you asked a general question about "enforceable" rules, and I think I gave you reasonable replies, but you did not mention a specific issue. In this thread, I identified a specific issue and I proposed a specific solution, although I'm not driven by "enforceability" - I fully understand and enforce the current PD rules - but I think the rules can be relaxed for the benefit of competitors while being faithful to the spirit of PD. And I would love to hear your views on the issue I've raised and the solution I've proposed - and the issue is allowable sights in PD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Why the heck is it so difficult for you guys to tell that it's a 3rd Gen? Light rail and finger grooves... granted, the rail is a bit washed out from the flash, but it sure as hell ain't smooth. It's a 3rd Gen. The sights are legal per Vince. Vince, as far as PD sight rules, they should mimic USPSA sight rules with the only restriction (if you MUST have one) being that the slide cannot be altered: basically anything that's not electronic goes, as long as you don't modify the slide. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Vince, as far as PD sight rules, they should mimic USPSA sight rules with the only restriction (if you MUST have one) being that the slide cannot be altered: basically anything that's not electronic goes, as long as you don't modify the slide. JMO. USPSA PD sight rules say "Square notch and post only". In my unqualified opinion, this precludes "ghost ring" sights, "double ring" sights and the "triangular" notch used on the Steyr M & S Series and I suspect a few other types of sights too. For example, is a fibre-optic front sight considered to be a "post"? I realise the fibre-optic insert is "post" shaped but it's lying down in a "cradle" which is not, by any stretch of my imagination, a post. And does "square notch and post" mean "square notch and (any) post" or "square notch and (square) post"? When you reply, don't guess - please tell me how you know for certain (e.g. a ruling from John Amidon). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 (e.g. a ruling from John Amidon). You mean an OPINION from Amidon, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Flex, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought John Amidon's "opinions" are, in fact, "rulings". If not, are you saying that what he publishes in Front Sight are merely "opinions" which can be ignored by everybody? And I've never heard about a USPSA rules committee. If there is one, who's on it? In IPSC, we have well-defined Rules Committees to write rules (names have been published many times before, but I'll happily repeat if necessary), and Rule 11.8 clearly states who issues interpretations of rules already published. When I reply to messages here, I quote rulings already made (not just my opinion) and, if a new issue arises, I always say I'll get back to the poster once I've had a chance to raise the issue with my colleagues. How does it all work in the USPSA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Amidon recently stated...in Front Sight...that even he doesn't over-rule the rule-book. I don't know how often 11.8 is used in USPSA matches (I've never seen it used, but that means little). Amidon does respond with clarification through his article in Front sight, and on the USPSA webpage. I feel this is one of those gray areas however. (The USPSA page says "rulings" in the heading and "opinions" in the actual page.) My take on it is that the rules are in the book, and we have the arbitration process to settle any disagreements. From what Amidon wrote in his Front Sight article a few issues ago...I think that is his take as well. And...I really think that the people writing the rules should NOT be the same people that get to make "rulings" on them. There are no checks-and-balances that way...too easy to play CYA. (thank you...and good day. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 My take on it is that the rules are in the book, and we have the arbitration process to settle any disagreements. Wow. This means the same issue can go different ways at different matches. When an ambiguity or other issue is first brought to the attention of IPSC, a Rule 11.8 interpretation is published on the IPSC website under the IROA FAQ section, which match officials can check before attending their next match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Wow. This means the same issue can go different ways at different matches. Do ya think? I'd have to say that if the RO...the CRO...the Range Master...and then the Arb. Committee can't figure out a rule...then, one guy, sitting 2,000 miles away (that isn't there to gather facts), is going to have a hard time handing down a "ruling". I'm sure we could have this conversation until we are blue in the face. But, I will take this opportunity to state...again...that the guy writing the rules should not be the one that is interpreting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Vince, my feelings (vibes, according to our host) are that the relaxation of the rules on PD sights you are proposing are OK, and will solve a lot of problems we are actually facing (i.e. competitors asking if their specific PD set-up is legal or not): I do believe that, if a WS reigning champion had to come to the match with a signed Glock letter, and asked to have his gun checked for compliance before the match start, this is a clear indication the rules are a bit puzzling to experienced competitors too. There is already rule 13 in Appendix D4 that deals with the possibility to transform a common handgun into a Star Wars space gun, thus I'd say that whatever kind of sight (of the same kind, according to definition given in 5.1.3.1) should be allowed, as you are proposing. But I'd like to expand on this: I initially thought that the very first idea behind PD, apart from single-action-only semiautomatics not allowed, was bring-what-you've-bought-factory-stock-gun, to avoid another arms race. Now, according to your posts, I learn I was wrong on this latter assumption. But, if this is the case, could you explain why "...provided no alteration to the handgun..." is still mandatory? P.S. I'm not feeding my baby (eartquake, as you already know) while typing with my right hand, but I actually have my left hand busy with the remote control of my VCR, trying to locate the starting of that Lion King Disney cartoon I bought 4 days ago (and already viewed 7/8 times...)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Skywalker, Dave Sevigny was just being overly cautious at WSXIII but, given the time, the expense and the fact that he was always a top contender to win PD (which of course he did), I understand his caution. Anyway, you understand the primary reason behind Production Division. Good. Once that had been established, it was time to consider secondary issues, and these were ultimately decided to be: 2. To have a maximum barrel length of 5". 3. To have a minimum trigger pull weight of 5lbs. 4. To restrict modifications (factory options except "+" basepads OK, aftermarket sights & magazines). 5. To require a DA first shot for all guns. 6. To have an approved gun list. And all of the above serve to keep Production Division for "major factory production guns" of the non-SAO variety and, to some degree, they exclude a handful of guns specifically souped up for competition. If you buy a "production" gun which otherwise qualifies for the division, but you need to spend $$$ on improvements, then it's no longer a production gun, now is it? If you really can't resist the urge to tinker, fiddle or play gunsmith, then we have another four divisions for you - knock yourself out. I guess in a nutshell, PD also strives to get away from the "1911 mindset" which pervades IPSC shooting (i.e. buy a brand new gun, fix it, go shoot it, fix it some more, repeat). To me, the funny thing is that some people think PD rules "suck" because of the restrictions, but the real problem is that they've been conditioned with the "1911 mindset", and that, my dear Jedi warrior, is what we're trying to overcome. Sadly though, some of our friends still don't get it. Can you imagine that same mindset applied to cars? Buy a brand new Fordodgerolet, fix it, drive it, doors won't open, fix it some more, drive it again, fix the exhaust, now it won't start, fix it some more, etc.? People would be screaming for Ralph Nader. Anyway, it's now been a few years since IPSC launched PD, and you're perfectly correct that the most frequent question we're asked about is sights, and this is why I propose a "relaxation" to the sights rule. To me, "open sights" are not a big $ item (unlike trigger jobs and other internal work which affect the operation of the gun), and they do not give a competitive advantage - it's more of a personal taste (or "minor customisation", not "fix it") issue. BTW, I have never supported the use of aftermarket magazines, but I was outvoted and that's that. I'm not complaining - I'm just stating an "FYI" fact. And don't worry about the Lion King. My eldest is 6 1/2 and I've had to play the Scooby Doo video game about 500 times already and now I can mimic the dog's voice perfectly. Wruff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miche Posted January 19, 2004 Author Share Posted January 19, 2004 It´s a 3rd generation. Another view: Vince, one more question: Heinie front sight narrowed to 0.080", Is it permitted? 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