Poll on 3lb trigger limit in Production

[Racer377]

The overwhelming consensus seems to be against trigger pull requirements. If that's the case, why not allow SA guns in PRD? If a 2lb trigger on a Glock is OK, why not allow 1911s/CZs/USP/P30 et al, to start cocked and locked? Or cocked and unlocked, for that matter?

It is unsafe to holster a single action gun without the sear block safety (thumb safety) engaged. Holstering cocked and unlocked is unsafe gun handling and grounds for an immediate DQ.

10.5.11 Holstering a loaded handgun, in any of the following conditions:

10.5.11.1 A single action self-loading pistol with the safety not applied.

10.5.11.2 A double action or selective action pistol with the hammer cocked and the safety not applied.

10.5.11.3 A revolver with the hammer cocked.

Why not change it? If a 2lb trigger Glock is safe to holster, sans safety, why not a 4lb pull 1911?

[Strick]

Glocks do indeed have a safety, at least 2 of them.

[Racer377]

Glocks do indeed have a safety, at least 2 of them.

So do series 80 or Schwarz 1911s. The series 70s have the grip safety. So why not allow them?

[steel1212]

This rule is nonsense. I disagree with it because this rule will only affect those shooting non-DA/SA production guns. 3lbs for every trigger pull would make more sense if a trigger weight limit is to be set.

No need to grip to MY Area director.... he voted correctly. Thanks Gary.

You taught me well

[Steve J]

The overwhelming consensus seems to be against trigger pull requirements. If that's the case, why not allow SA guns in PRD? If a 2lb trigger on a Glock is OK, why not allow 1911s/CZs/USP/P30 et al, to start cocked and locked? Or cocked and unlocked, for that matter?

It is unsafe to holster a single action gun without the sear block safety (thumb safety) engaged. Holstering cocked and unlocked is unsafe gun handling and grounds for an immediate DQ.

10.5.11 Holstering a loaded handgun, in any of the following conditions:

10.5.11.1 A single action self-loading pistol with the safety not applied.

10.5.11.2 A double action or selective action pistol with the hammer cocked and the safety not applied.

10.5.11.3 A revolver with the hammer cocked.

Why not change it? If a 2lb trigger Glock is safe to holster, sans safety, why not a 4lb pull 1911?

So, you're asking why don't we all just be unsafe because we'll too lazy to disengage a ergonomically perfectly placed thumb safety (at least on a 1911)? That doesn't justify a response. It's ludicrous.

Sorry for the thread drift, folks. Certain things I just can't ignore. Futile I know, but I can hope not.

[Racer377]

So, you're asking why don't we all just be unsafe because we'll too lazy to disengage a ergonomically perfectly placed thumb safety (at least on a 1911)? That doesn't justify a response. It's ludicrous.

Sorry for the thread drift, folks. Certain things I just can't ignore. Futile I know, but I can hope not.

Why is it any less safe than a 2lb Glock trigger?

[Glshooter]

The overwhelming consensus seems to be against trigger pull requirements. If that's the case, why not allow SA guns in PRD? If a 2lb trigger on a Glock is OK, why not allow 1911s/CZs/USP/P30 et al, to start cocked and locked? Or cocked and unlocked, for that matter?

As a Glock shooter I can tell you that even a 2 lb trigger on a Glock doesn't come close to a 1911 trigger. Let's also not forget the weight issue with plastic guns striker fired guns. Or should I say lack of weight.

[Nik Habicht]

The overwhelming consensus seems to be against trigger pull requirements. If that's the case, why not allow SA guns in PRD? If a 2lb trigger on a Glock is OK, why not allow 1911s/CZs/USP/P30 et al, to start cocked and locked? Or cocked and unlocked, for that matter?

For starters maybe because SA autos already have four divisions to play/be dominant in.......

Production should accept SA autos after Revolver division allows them to play...... :devil:

[Nik Habicht]

The overwhelming consensus seems to be against trigger pull requirements. If that's the case, why not allow SA guns in PRD? If a 2lb trigger on a Glock is OK, why not allow 1911s/CZs/USP/P30 et al, to start cocked and locked? Or cocked and unlocked, for that matter?

It is unsafe to holster a single action gun without the sear block safety (thumb safety) engaged. Holstering cocked and unlocked is unsafe gun handling and grounds for an immediate DQ.

10.5.11 Holstering a loaded handgun, in any of the following conditions:

10.5.11.1 A single action self-loading pistol with the safety not applied.

10.5.11.2 A double action or selective action pistol with the hammer cocked and the safety not applied.

10.5.11.3 A revolver with the hammer cocked.

Why not change it? If a 2lb trigger Glock is safe to holster, sans safety, why not a 4lb pull 1911?

1. When you holster a Glock with your finger off the trigger, the safety is applied.

2. When you pull the trigger on any striker fired auto you need muck longer trigger travel prior to the gun going off....

3. Because the rules were written that way -- by folks who actually demonstrate some knowledge of how the different types of guns work mechanically....

[Racer377]

1. When you holster a Glock with your finger off the trigger, the safety is applied.

2. When you pull the trigger on any striker fired auto you need muck longer trigger travel prior to the gun going off....

3. Because the rules were written that way -- by folks who actually demonstrate some knowledge of how the different types of guns work mechanically....

1. If something touches the trigger and applies the requisite amount of force, its going off, 1911 or Glock. If nothing touches and doesn't applies requisite amount of force, it doesn't. No difference there.

2. The SA pull on my CZ is far longer than any plastic gun. I've shot more than few plastic guns with almost all the pre-travel tuned out, making them even shorter still.

3. The 3lb minimum is a rule written by those same people. If you're going to use that as a justification, shouldn't it be used consistently?

Edited December 27, 2011 by Racer377

[bbbean]

My suggestion would be to fight one battle at a time.

What he said!

[Steve J]

Racer377,

Your beef is obviously with Glocks. If you think Glocks are unsafe at 2lbs, 3lbs won't fix that, nor will 4 or 5lbs. If you get your finger in the trigger guard while drawing or holstering, a Glock, XD, and M&P will discharge regardless of the trigger pull weight. Handling other firearms unsafely is not the answer. The stupidity of that is not making your point very well.

[Racer377]

Racer377,

Your beef is obviously with Glocks. If you think Glocks are unsafe at 2lbs, 3lbs won't fix that, nor will 4 or 5lbs. If you get your finger in the trigger guard while drawing or holstering, a Glock, XD, and M&P will discharge regardless of the trigger pull weight. Handling other firearms unsafely is not the answer. The stupidity of that is not making your point very well.

I don't have any beef with them, have owned quite a few, and am a GSSF member.

You don't see the glaring inconsistency with saying a no-safety M&P (just to change it up, and I've owned one of them too) with a 2lb trigger is safe, but a 4lb 1911 with a grip safety isn't unless you use the manual safety? You've just made my point for me, however unintentionally. Safe gun handling on the striker guns requires no manual safety and trigger weight is irrelevant, why should it with any other gun?

How about this for a thought experiment: The M&P is a great example. You can get a manual safety version. Is failure to use that safety unsafe gun handling, but using the non-safety version isn't? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

By extension, if a superlight striker trigger with all the pretravel tuned out so as to mimic a SA trigger is perfectly safe, then a SA trigger should be as well.

The point is: if you think a gun with a super light trigger is perfectly safe without any additional manual safety, then you should have no objection to SA guns being run the same way.

The reverse of that is also true.

I really take no position on it either way, but am curious how consistent folks are on their opposition/support for the new rule. Is because of views on trigger weight and safety, or because it's their plastic ox being gored for the sake of fixing something that isn't all that broken? (either way, I get it. I'd be annoyed too, if I spent a bunch building a gun to the rules only to get the rules changed on me)

Edited December 27, 2011 by Racer377

[Nik Habicht]

1. When you holster a Glock with your finger off the trigger, the safety is applied.

2. When you pull the trigger on any striker fired auto you need muck longer trigger travel prior to the gun going off....

3. Because the rules were written that way -- by folks who actually demonstrate some knowledge of how the different types of guns work mechanically....

1. If something touches the trigger and applies the requisite amount of force, its going off, 1911 or Glock. If nothing touches and doesn't applies requisite amount of force, it doesn't. No difference there.

Does the 1911 have an external safety as part of the firearm's design? Is that safety located somewhere other than the trigger? Does the 1911 have a sear spring/safety/disconnector/hammer hook interface that if improperly tuned and shot a lot can become unsafe? Can you really not see why we would want to have a requirement for SA autos to be holstered with the safety engaged?

2. The SA pull on my CZ is far longer than any plastic gun. I've shot more than few plastic guns with almost all the pre-travel tuned out, making them even shorter still.

Depending on the plastic gun, that may or not make them unsafe. Were any of the safeties deactivated as a result of tuning?

As far as length of pull goes -- I do not believe that the SA pull on a CZ is longer than that found on any plastic gun. That'll require some proof. Longer than on some plastic guns? Perhaps.....

3. The 3lb minimum is a rule written by those same people. If you're going to use that as a justification, shouldn't it be used consistently?

Nope -- pretty sure that the 3 lb. minimum rule was written by the current board. The SA autos must have safety engaged rule dates back at least to the 2000 rulebook, written by a different Board, and likely goes back further than that, possibly to 1976 and the Columbia Conference.....

[spanky]

Racer377,

If your problem is with striker fired guns and this arbitrary 3lb limit then would you suggest that Lim/L10/Open Also instill a 3lb first shot? After all, these guns compete in more than just the Production division.

[Racer377]

Racer377,

If your problem is with striker fired guns and this arbitrary 3lb limit then would you suggest that Lim/L10/Open Also instill a 3lb first shot? After all, these guns compete in more than just the Production division.

I don't really have a problem with them, as stated above. I certainly see why people are upset about the new rule. I just think that logical consistency would require allowing SA guns to play as well. If a 2lb first pull with almost all the takeup tuned out is good for the striker fired goose, it should be good for the production gander, no?

This of course comes with the caveat that logical consistency is overrated. "The life of the [rulebook] has not been logic; it has been experience" if I may borrow from Oliver Wendell Holmes. Looking at the T16 at nationals, it doesn't look like there's much need for a change. Looking at the local club level matches in my area, I get the same impression. Then again, how many of the T16 striker fired guys were using sub-3lb triggers? I honestly don't know, but if none of them did, then the argument that striker fired guns need sub-3lb triggers to compete with the CZs kinda falls flat.

The other response that comes to mind, one often brought up whenever someone complains about the 10rd limit in PRD - "If you want more than 10 rounds in the magazine a 2lb first pull, Shoot Limited!"

Again, I don't particularly care either way.

And with that, I will take off my nomex suit and withdraw to a less contentious corner of the interweb.

[moverfive]

Polls are interesting but very limited in the useful info provided simPly due to small sample size. I do find the numbers a bit surprising. I didn't think there would be that many people in favor of the limit. I do find it telling that of the 40 ish votes for only one person has posted in favor on this thread. It's about what I've seen off Enos. The ones with the minority position you really have to talk to because the don't want to get jumped.

The other interesting stat, at least right now is that less than 20% of frequent shooters support, a little over 20% of less frequent support and 33% of never shoot support. The less experience you have with the division, the more you want a trigger pull limit.

The question I have is are those votes because they know what's better for Production, or is the trigger pull now holding them away from shooting Production. If its the latter there might be some validity to the cursed thing.

A couple of things - for anyone to be surprised by these results of this poll......this is the EXACT same reaction from the first time this trigger pull requirement was proposed. For those that visit this forum, there was a major uproar at that time and thus no different from this time.

But here again is the REASONS why you are hearing such an uproar. This requirement was passed without input or the opportunity to get input from the membership. And while this lack of desire for membership input has been BAU with this BOD (meaning in today's electronic age there is plenty of opportunity to solicit easy feedback), most of the cases have been in an attempt to solve a problem. And so with this 3lb trigger pull requirement - WHAT problem exists (even if only with a few BOD members) is being corrected? All of the requirements to test this trigger pull, are we sure the ability to do so is almost fool-proof?

Those will be the questions I will be asking very specifically.

[Chuck Anderson]

2. The SA pull on my CZ is far longer than any plastic gun.

Please take your CZ, put it in a box and mail to:

Ghost Products Inc / CZ Custom

1008 South Center St

Mesa, Arizona. 85210

There is something very wrong with your CZ if the SA is anywhere near the length of the trigger pull on a Glock. My CZ's DA pull is about the same length as a Glock. Don't know whats wrong with your gun but get it fixed.

[Rob Boudrie]

Polls are interesting but very limited in the useful info provided simPly due to small sample size.

While it is counter-intuitive, statistically speaking, you don't need a large sample size to get a good result, provided that you avoid sample selection bias and ballot box stuffing.

Consider, for example, the expected outcome if everyone on the planet flips a coin heads or tails. The outcome is almost certainly going to be close to 50/50, following a classic binomial distribution of expected percentages.

Now, consider the expected percentage of you have 100 people (an extremely miniscule percentage of the planetary population) flip a coin and calculate the percentage. Chances are overwhelming that you will have a result with a few points of 50/50.

[Skydiver]

Polls are interesting but very limited in the useful info provided simPly due to small sample size. I do find the numbers a bit surprising. I didn't think there would be that many people in favor of the limit. I do find it telling that of the 40 ish votes for only one person has posted in favor on this thread. It's about what I've seen off Enos. The ones with the minority position you really have to talk to because the don't want to get jumped.

The other interesting stat, at least right now is that less than 20% of frequent shooters support, a little over 20% of less frequent support and 33% of never shoot support. The less experience you have with the division, the more you want a trigger pull limit.

The question I have is are those votes because they know what's better for Production, or is the trigger pull now holding them away from shooting Production. If its the latter there might be some validity to the cursed thing.

A couple of things - for anyone to be surprised by these results of this poll......this is the EXACT same reaction from the first time this trigger pull requirement was proposed. For those that visit this forum, there was a major uproar at that time and thus no different from this time.

But here again is the REASONS why you are hearing such an uproar. This requirement was passed without input or the opportunity to get input from the membership. And while this lack of desire for membership input has been BAU with this BOD (meaning in today's electronic age there is plenty of opportunity to solicit easy feedback), most of the cases have been in an attempt to solve a problem. And so with this 3lb trigger pull requirement - WHAT problem exists (even if only with a few BOD members) is being corrected? All of the requirements to test this trigger pull, are we sure the ability to do so is almost fool-proof?

Those will be the questions I will be asking very specifically.

From another thread, here's the problem that the BoD was trying to solve before their discussion got side tracked to trigger pull weight:

The original problem they were trying to solve so this: XD's can come from the factory with the Powder River trigger. This makes the part an OEM part if it leaves the factory that way. Now if you already have own an XD, can you legally drop in a Powder River trigger? The way the current Appendix D4 21.6 rule is written, the answer would be NO, because the part is aftermarket. I was not at the meeting and have not heard details of the meeting, but I can guess that the discussion went to how can you tell the difference between the OEM installed part and the aftermarket dropped in part? I can see how the question moved on to just defining a trigger pull weight minimum to side step the issue.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Skydiver

[spanky]

I imagine the 3lbs was a way to simplify Production trigger modification issues. They probably want to be able to say "we don't care what you do to the trigger so long as it's 3.0lbs or greater."

Edited December 27, 2011 by spanky

[bbbean]

I imagine the 3lbs was a way to simplify Production trigger modification issues. They probably want to be able to say "we don't care what you do to the trigger so long as it's 3.0lbs or greater."

My AD said his thinking on the rule was something along those lines. He thought he was simplifying Production rules, and avoiding a back and forth situation with constantly shifting rules. I can see his argument, but I don't think they accomplished that with this vote. What they did was create problems for current Production shooters, raise questions about classifier status, and create one more equipment hurdle for a shooter to jump through to compete in production.

I left another discipline in part because a gun I bought to compete in that game was made illegal a year after I bought it. I was a fairly new shooter at the time, and was pretty annoyed to learn that I'd spent $1K on a gun I only got to shoot at 3 or 4 matches. The local guys told me they weren't going to be weighing guns and didn't care, but I couldn't settle myself with the idea of using a gun I *knew* was illegal. I can imagine a Production shooter who's been shooting just long enough to work up a game gun being similarly frustrated.

I only shoot production occasionally, but this new rule is enough to discourage me from participating in the division, especially at level 2 or 3 matches. Even with a lightened trigger, it's already a jump to go from my short SS/Lim triggers to the comparatively long pull of my M&P. If I have to push the weight to 4 lbs (I'd want a buffer for TP, just like I have for PF), the jump gets that much more difficult.

And another shooter brought up the question of classifier status. While it's likely that the guys shooting the HHFs wouldn't be slowed down too much by using a 4 lb trigger instad of a 2 lb trigger, how many just-over-the-mark B/C class shooters would be a few percentage points lower using a heavier trigger? I'd certainly expect to see a lot more dropped C and D hits for the first few months after this rule was passed.

BB

[shuey134]

I imagine the 3lbs was a way to simplify Production trigger modification issues. They probably want to be able to say "we don't care what you do to the trigger so long as it's 3.0lbs or greater."

I didn't think of it like this until now. If given the option to do what I want to my trigger as long as the first pull was 3lbs. I'd be alright with this change. But, then I think that would destroy the spirit of Production.

[kevin c]

I didn't see my specific category in the choices ("I shoot Production frequently [with Glocks, AAMOF] and am indifferent to the rule change").

As my second choice, I voted not in favor, since Production works well as it stands now, and does not need anything complicating it.

I doubt, though, that my personal finishes at local/major matches would change much if I have to pull 3# per shot vs. somebody elses 3# first and less on the rest.

[Chuck Anderson]

Polls are interesting but very limited in the useful info provided simPly due to small sample size.

While it is counter-intuitive, statistically speaking, you don't need a large sample size to get a good result, provided that you avoid sample selection bias and ballot box stuffing.

Consider, for example, the expected outcome if everyone on the planet flips a coin heads or tails. The outcome is almost certainly going to be close to 50/50, following a classic binomial distribution of expected percentages.

Now, consider the expected percentage of you have 100 people (an extremely miniscule percentage of the planetary population) flip a coin and calculate the percentage. Chances are overwhelming that you will have a result with a few points of 50/50.

Without getting into Statistics 101, a class I never took. If you have a 2 choice option, and there is no outside influence, yeah it's gonna be 50/50. If you have a small sample size that doesn't reflect all of USPSA and many, many options it really isn't representative.

OK, since the next question is gonna be why doesn't the poll represent USPSA as a whole. The Enos Forum really does have the most involved, active members of USPSA here. The majority of shooters will show up, shoot and go home. They aren't going to spend hours practicing or hours looking at various threads on Enos. The folks here do, and most, I believe, are better shooters because of it. But it doesn't change the fact that thousands of USPSA competitors will never come on Enos, and of the thousands that do, obviously only a small fraction of those will participate in this poll. Other wise we'd have 20,000 votes on it. The most passionate about the rule change will take the time to come to a poll and vote. And the most passionate of those will take the time to write why they voted the way they did. There are likely thousands of members, that just couldn't care less about this issue, and many more who care a little but not enough to vote in the poll. That's why I don't think this poll is presenting a valid result.