Production legal trigger?

[mindcrime]

I am getting ready to shoot the Nationals and I got a Glockworx standard trigger (billed as Production legal). I was concerned about the legality since the trigger safety is obviously shaved. I have read other posts where the makers of the trigger claimed that they had received rulings from John Amidon that the triggers were legal. I wrote to Mr. Amidon with the question of legality of this specific trigger and he was good enough to send me this reply. I may be wrong, but the way I read it, the Glockworx trigger can not be legal since the external part of the trigger is no longer original factory. I hope this helps other shooters who may be in danger of being bumped to Open from Production.

According to the rules for Production currently in the rule book posted on the web site, the following pertains to your question:

21.6 Exchange of minor EXTERNAL components

Sights, firing pins, firing pin retainers, extractors and

ejectors MAY be replaced with OEM or aftermarket

parts.

Any other components which are externally visible

may ONLY be replaced with OEM 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 OEM

parts include (but are not limited to): magazine

releases, slide stops, thumb safeties and triggers.

What that means, is that internal parts of the trigger may be replaced, but the external part of the trigger itself, must be original factory.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Amidon

[spanky]

This is exactly why i took the gw trigger bar ouf of my gun

However, i know someone who has been to several major matches with one in his and hasn't been given a second glance.

Glockworks insists it is legal but i emailed john pretty detailed pictures of both and he said no. I believe Mainly because of the two holes on the right side that aren't on the factory trigger

Edited September 30, 2010 by spanky

[BlueOvalBruin]

I don't believe glockworx changes the hole locations on their trigger bars. They looked the same as a stock one to me. The fulcrum bar isn't legal for production but the standard one is. They take a stock bar, remove the pad, weld on a spacer to reduce pretravel (not visible), and put the stock pad back on. What’s not legal about that?

[spanky]

I don't believe glockworx changes the hole locations on their trigger bars. They looked the same as a stock one to me. The fulcrum bar isn't legal for production but the standard one is. They take a stock bar, remove the pad, weld on a spacer to reduce pretravel (not visible), and put the stock pad back on. What’s not legal about that?

I'm on my phone so can't find it now but I posted pictures of them. There are two holes on the right side of the glockworx trigger that isn't on the factory one.

[spanky]

The pictures are in this thread

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=109955&pid=1252969&st=0entry1252969

[twodownzero]

Can you say "open minor with iron sights"?

I hope so...because that's what I'd be saying to you if I saw this.

All we have is the rule book to go on...and it's pretty unambiguous about external modifications.

[BR]

I don't believe glockworx changes the hole locations on their trigger bars. They looked the same as a stock one to me. The fulcrum bar isn't legal for production but the standard one is. They take a stock bar, remove the pad, weld on a spacer to reduce pretravel (not visible), and put the stock pad back on. What’s not legal about that?

I recently received a "production legal" standard glockworx trigger. It has a heavily, and very obviously, modified trigger safety tab, and my first thought on seeing it - "there is no way this is production legal." I am not sure about any change in hole location or the addition of a spacer in the trigger. I concluded it was illegal just based on the external modification of the trigger safety tab.

It is surprising to me that glockworx marketed their trigger as production legal, even though they admittedly never received any written confirmation of such from NROI, Amidon or USPSA. Interestingly, two different individual shooters -- ostensibly entirely independent from each other -- were able to get prompt, written responses from Amidon on this exact issue. Just sayin', it is sort of curious.

-br

[spanky]

Im sure I still have the email from him. I'll try to find it later.

[kevin c]

It's the Nationals, in Production Division, the Division with the most restrictive rules. Those rules say specifically that ONLY published NROI interpretations of the rules will stand. An individual's comments, even if a high muckity-muck in NROI, will not cut it. Those rules require the competitor, if challenged, to cite the specific rule allowing the challenged equipment, and those rules specifically say no externally visible mods. JA's non-NROI published opinions will not count. It does not matter either that the same equipment passed inspection at another match; the experienced RO's at the Nats chrono won't take into consideration somebody's prior missed call. They will call what they see, and though it might get reviewed by the RM's, I doubt they will see it any differently.

I repeat, it's the Nats, in Production. Are you willing to chance, as it was very clearly put before, Open/Iron Sighted/Ten Round Minor at the LPR?

Edited October 1, 2010 by kevin c

[spanky]

It's the Nationals, in Production Division, the Division with the most restrictive rules. Those rules say specifically that ONLY published NROI interpretations of the rules will stand. An individual's comments, even if a high muckity-muck in NROI, will not cut it. Those rules require the competitor, if challenged, to cite the specific rule allowing the challenged equipment, and those rules specifically say no externally visible mods. JA's non-NROI published opinions will not count. It does not matter either that the same equipment passed inspection at another match; the experienced RO's at the Nats chrono won't take into consideration somebody's prior missed call. They will call what they see, and though it might get reviewed by the RM's, I doubt they will see it any differently.

I repeat, it's the Nats, in Production. Are you willing to chance, as it was very clearly put before, Open/Iron Sighted/Ten Round Minor at the LPR?

I might've missed it but I didn't see anyone say that they were going to attempt to use the trigger at Nats.

[BR]

Are you willing to chance, as it was very clearly put before, Open/Iron Sighted/Ten Round Minor at the LPR?

Ah, no. The OP and others who chimed in clearly seem to want to ensure they/we comply with the rules, and not to take a chance at nationals or anywhere else. That is why the OP, and others, contacted NROI in advance, instead of relying on a manufacturer's unsubstantiated sales pitch, to ensure there is no rule violation. And Amidon is the assistant match director at production nationals, so I suspect that his opinion may carry some weight at that match. Cheers.

-br

[mindcrime]

Spanky,

I was hoping to use the trigger for competition and GW has stated that many shooters have used them at the Nationals for the last 3 years. Like others have said though, it's not worth the chance of Open.

[kevin c]

Are you willing to chance, as it was very clearly put before, Open/Iron Sighted/Ten Round Minor at the LPR?

Ah, no. The OP and others who chimed in clearly seem to want to ensure they/we comply with the rules, and not to take a chance at nationals or anywhere else. That is why the OP, and others, contacted NROI in advance, instead of relying on a manufacturer's unsubstantiated sales pitch, to ensure there is no rule violation. And Amidon is the assistant match director at production nationals, so I suspect that his opinion may carry some weight at that match. Cheers.

-br

Sorry if I came on a bit hard, there. It's just that I have had John Amidon himself offer me an equipment legality opinion that was later overturned. Fortunately, it didn't cost me a move into Open Division. I'm going here on my own personal experience, that of others with other Glock triggers that were ruled illegal for Production for nothing more than a visibly moved pin location, and NROI's policy that only the written rules or NROI on line interpretations are official. I get that the OP and company want to confirm the trigger's legality before using it at Las Vegas, but I'm just not confident that an email or phone call before hand will be bullet proof, especially given that the trigger as pictured/described looks challengeable. Of all the matches where the rules might be strictly enforced, the Nats, with all of NROI being there, is one place where I don't want my equipment even remotely suspect (see my other posts where I have been agonizing over a fraction of an ounce and how the scale might read it...). Good luck and good shooting, and I'll see ya'all in a week or so.

[BR]

Sorry if I came on a bit hard, there... I'll see ya'all in a week or so.

Kevin-

No worries -- see you at the range or the buffet! Glockworx represents and markets its trigger as being production legal. Glockworx has claimed on this site that Amidon orally -- but not in writing -- approved its trigger as production-legal.

But, when I first inspected my glockworx trigger, it was clear to me that the trigger had obvious external modifications that make it illegal under the current production rules. Now, Amidon has set forth his personal opinion, in writing, that the trigger is not production-legal. So, caveat emptor if considering buying from glockworx. Cheers.

-br