Poll on 3lb trigger limit in Production

[steel1212]

All this is beside the point that I (and many shooters) have already invested good time and money into an existing pistol that is perfectly legal under the EXISTING ruleset (in my case an M&P 9L). A 3lb first trigger pull requirement - if I even chose to continue to shoot production (or USPSA for that matter) - would undoubtedly drive me at a minimum to a DA/SA gun, which means throwing out an investment in not only the gun itself, but also holsters, magazines, and other equipment that would all need to be replaced.

Throwing out? Really? Really?! Yes, I understand, because it would all become worthless trash...

Let me know when and where and I'll happily hold the waste pail for your convenience (and collect the contents).

I think we know what he means. There will be a lot of people that will go over to DA/SA guns to get a better second shot while sacrificing a little on the first shot.

[grapemeister]

Holy cow! I didn't know CZ's were that expensive.

You can get police trade in Berettas for $400 or less. Throw in a D spring, or take a 1911 mainspring and cut a few coils off, and you're set!

Virtually all of these rules seem to be rooted in some missplaced though that anything you do to tune up your gun is somehow violating the "spirit" of Production. Pulling springs and cutting coils runs afoul of that.

If this trend more towards the IPSC idea of production being bone stock guns continues then we likely will just end up in a situation where in order to compete you have to buy one of the most expensive pre-tuned "stock" guns there is in order to compete.

All this is beside the point that I (and many shooters) have already invested good time and money into an existing pistol that is perfectly legal under the EXISTING ruleset (in my case an M&P 9L). A 3lb first trigger pull requirement - if I even chose to continue to shoot production (or USPSA for that matter) - would undoubtedly drive me at a minimum to a DA/SA gun, which means throwing out an investment in not only the gun itself, but also holsters, magazines, and other equipment that would all need to be replaced.

Overall its a bad idea. The comparison to NASCAR has been made, and I think its an apt one: no, there's nothing "stock" about stock car racing, but WHO CARES? Its arguing a semantic. The reason why that sport has taken the route it has is that its what the public wants. In the same way, Production division has been growing incredibly rapidly with its existing ruleset. There doesn't seem to be some huge cadre of shooters who would just love to shoot production if only the rules were tweaked. Why implement a rule that is already showing to be unpopular by solving a non-existent problem?

Good point. This one is a tuffy. I'm just assuming I know why the BOD came up with the rule, but who knows maybe some arguments were made that I'm not aware of. I'm just assuming that the main idea was to keep to the spirit or true meaning of production, but I don't really know.

I have to admit that I've modified my production gun a bit, and they're modifications for the most part that would work or be safe on a carry gun, or a gun that a Joe outside of any practical shooting sport could safely handle. Personally, I wouldn't want anything under about 4 1/2 pounds but to another guy that might be considered way too light and/or unsafe for a striker fired gun with no manual safety. I recently installed a fiber optic front sight which isn't really practical for every day carry, especially in low light situations.

I wonder if there is some kind of minutes, video, or recording available of the meeting so we could maybe better understand wny the majority voted yes on this.

Well, I'm kind of back on the fence again.

[GrumpyOne]

Lets look at it this way: If these rule changes were never brought up by the BOD, and they were never voted on, and the rules stayed the same as they were right now, who that has agreed with these rules would be screaming that they want a 3lb limit or that magnets should be banned in PD and SS? I would suspect that no one would.

[ac4wordplay]

I think we know what he means. There will be a lot of people that will go over to DA/SA guns to get a better second shot while sacrificing a little on the first shot.

Corey,

Yes, I agree with you. What I don't like is this: exaggeration can turn an otherwise excellent argument into one that is easily attacked, or simply (prematurely) dismissed because of its obvious flaw. We've seen far too many similar problems in this (and the other) thread.

With all the emotion, inaccurate statements of 'fact', poor 'logic' being used, etc, ... I often am uncertain if a clever poster is putting forward a strawman, or if the poster is, uh, not very clever.

With some work, I have found enough valid points on both sides of the argument that I am now less certain of my position, or of how this would affect me (a predominantly Production competitor), my local competitors, the matches in the section, etc.

Thanks to the entire BoD - I believe that they all had what they believed to be USPSA's best interests in mind. This is a more complex issue than is obvious at first (or second, or third) glance. Additional thanks to Chuck Anderson for bringing the BoD meeting info to us (starting the other thread).

BEnos sure is great.

Best,

ac

[Gary Stevens]

Holy cow! I didn't know CZ's were that expensive.

You can get police trade in Berettas for $400 or less. Throw in a D spring, or take a 1911 mainspring and cut a few coils off, and you're set!

Virtually all of these rules seem to be rooted in some missplaced though that anything you do to tune up your gun is somehow violating the "spirit" of Production. Pulling springs and cutting coils runs afoul of that.

If this trend more towards the IPSC idea of production being bone stock guns continues then we likely will just end up in a situation where in order to compete you have to buy one of the most expensive pre-tuned "stock" guns there is in order to compete.

All this is beside the point that I (and many shooters) have already invested good time and money into an existing pistol that is perfectly legal under the EXISTING ruleset (in my case an M&P 9L). A 3lb first trigger pull requirement - if I even chose to continue to shoot production (or USPSA for that matter) - would undoubtedly drive me at a minimum to a DA/SA gun, which means throwing out an investment in not only the gun itself, but also holsters, magazines, and other equipment that would all need to be replaced.

Overall its a bad idea. The comparison to NASCAR has been made, and I think its an apt one: no, there's nothing "stock" about stock car racing, but WHO CARES? Its arguing a semantic. The reason why that sport has taken the route it has is that its what the public wants. In the same way, Production division has been growing incredibly rapidly with its existing ruleset. There doesn't seem to be some huge cadre of shooters who would just love to shoot production if only the rules were tweaked. Why implement a rule that is already showing to be unpopular by solving a non-existent problem?

Good point. This one is a tuffy. I'm just assuming I know why the BOD came up with the rule, but who knows maybe some arguments were made that I'm not aware of. I'm just assuming that the main idea was to keep to the spirit or true meaning of production, but I don't really know.

I have to admit that I've modified my production gun a bit, and they're modifications for the most part that would work or be safe on a carry gun, or a gun that a Joe outside of any practical shooting sport could safely handle. Personally, I wouldn't want anything under about 4 1/2 pounds but to another guy that might be considered way too light and/or unsafe for a striker fired gun with no manual safety. I recently installed a fiber optic front sight which isn't really practical for every day carry, especially in low light situations.

I wonder if there is some kind of minutes, video, or recording available of the meeting so we could maybe better understand wny the majority voted yes on this.

Well, I'm kind of back on the fence again.

Well I was there and I can give you my opinion for what it is worth.

Triggers have been a constant issue in Production. I would guess that 80 percent of questions to NROI involve some question about trigger work or components for triggers.

While some on the BOD have always held a view of minimum trigger weight for Production Division guns, it had been voted down.

When the question about the Powder River trigger was brought up by NROI, I believe the opportunity arose to bring the subject up again which the President did. The make up of the BOD having changed enough this time the vote passed.

I then asked "does this now mean any trigger work is OK as long as it weighs 3 lbs" and was told yes. I can't remember who said it, but it came from the President, NROI side of the table.

If this is true, as I was told, there is no more issues of "is this legal" or not. It takes all of the muss and fuss away and only requires that it pick up 3 lbs.

I personally think this was a move of convience to eliminate the "is it legal" questions, and to satisfy some feelings of "that is how it should be".

[Chills1994]

I know it's not random, but I will rationalize it this way to an extent... The people who have posted in this thread and on the other thread seem to have disproportionately more skin in the game whether they be AD's, SC's, or MD's or just long time members of this forum and USPSA or just by joining this forum they show that they have more interest or skin than just somebody who dabbles in USPSA.

True, but that doesn't make them representative of the rank-and-file membership.

IIRC, there was a "poll" several years ago about the USPSA presidential election. The benos forum membership overwhelmingly voted for a candidate who was a frequent benos poster. The USPSA membership overwhelmingly voted for... someone else.

there's a "hive" mentatlity here on benos which, no matter how loudly it claims, doesn't statistically represent "the majority" of USPSA.

I didn't come right out and say the poll here on BENOS was representative of USPSA as a whole, now did I?

when it comes to forums, I prefer the term "wolf pack mentality" to describe what happens when somebody typically a newbie raises the ire of somebody else and there is this dog pile on action by the other forum members.

Maybe I haven't been around here long enough, but at least this forum doesn't seem as clique-y as other forums I have been on, especially if it comes to Mods or Admins playing favorites. There is another gun forum absolutely ripe with adoring brown nosers, the blind leading the blind I guess.

I have seen some people leave the BENOS forums on their own for whatever reasons, that only now I have to assume there must have been some perceived slight against them by the management here.

[MrPCHead]

I voted that I dont shoot production but agree to it because I use to shoot production and will be getting back to shooting production...

I shot production with my HK USP 45 (my home defense pistol) and my HK P30LS variant 1 ( DA only with a 4lb trigger)

The first trigger pull on my HK USP made me get a P30LS DA because the first shot was 13lbs and threw my rhythm off ... there isnt any aftermarket triggers for HK's other than the factory Match trigger kit which still a 7lb trigger pull and a 4.5lb single action...

The 3lb trigger ruling only affects the pistols with extensive aftermarket support. This levels the playing field in the gear department. If the people who are upset about the 3lb rule, say its not the trigger that made them good ... Then what are we arguing about ???

If its truely "The Indian not the Arrow" analogy ... Then the GM / M / A / B class Indian can adapt to any pistol he has in his hand...

I still think that a if your finger only travels 2.5" of travel to break 10shots @ sub 3lbs vs an HK's 5" to 6" of travel to break 10shots @ 4.5lbs is an advantage...

This is my arguement, not every pistol on the approve rost has aftermarket triggers that makes movement down to an 1/8th of inch of trigger pull and another 1/8th of inch to reset...

The 3lb rulling will level the playing field in the gear department and if your more skilled than me ( which most likely you are) then thats what differs you from me... Its your skill !!! then adapt

I paid $450 for my M&P9 Pro. I then paid $99 for an Apex Tactical Systems Comp AEK. I would hardly call that "extensive aftermarket support" yet my trigger is 2.75 lbs. and is wonderful to shoot. For me the difference was immediate and dramatic. I don't have all the original parts so to change back would be expensive. Probably more for the original parts than I paid for the AEK. And, most importantly to me, my fun quotient skyrocketed with this simple, inexpensive change.

I think that the rules as they stood prior to the two recent changes were certainly arbitrary but I felt they had been in place for long enough that they were stable and workable. Apparently somebody, somewhere felt the Division was "broken". Funny that those of us shooting it missed that, right? ;-)

I don't want to insult the BoD or make inflammatory statements but I will say that one fellow posting on the other thread insisted that this forum was not representative of the total membership, that polls and online efforts to fact-find were of no value and that his personal conversations with members led him to the yes vote on the TP rule. To that gentleman I would suggest he rethink those positions. Anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind, especially if/once others determine you already have a position. Volunteer bias will attract people with a similar view, reinforcing what is likely an erroneous assumption. Along those lines, sample size is insignificant once you reach a certain number and can assure good representation. I don't know whether this forum meets either but I would bet it's better than "hallway conversation" data.

Bottom line: Production is a Tsunami. Pushing against it won't work. The best we can do is shift the flow or better yet, ride it out.

-William Daugherty

[gemcityshooter]

I am trying to see both sides of the coin here. The BOD like to add band-aids to everything in hopes that it will fix something. The only problem is there isn't a wound to cover on this issue.

I like Production for what it is - a stock gun class. I made B class on just a basic 4" XD. No trigger work, no nothing. Just lots of pulling the trigger. The reason I haven't made A class is I haven't been pulling the trigger more. I feel (as do many on this board) that if you want gun mods, go to one of the divisions that allows more gun mods. No biggie.

We will never be able to keep people from making their gun better/faster/more accurate but to keep tacking on rules to the rulebook just doesn't make sense to me. We have enough stuff to keep in our heads when going to/working/running matches.

One very basic thing to remember. Getting better in shooting involves 3 things:

1. Practice

2. Practice

3. Practice

[Flexmoney]

This poll has been running just for three days and has received 286 votes. ASSuming we have 20,000 active members in USPSA, then 1.43% havE voted in this poll.

As it costs nothing to join BE.com perhaps everyone can e-mail their shooting buddies that are USPSA members and point them toward this poll. Maybe we can get a 1000 voters on here...

That is my intent.

When I can get to a real computer and get into the "club's" mail chimp account I will send out a bulk email and provide links to this threa the other 29 page monstrosity of a thread, and give them Kyle's and Sherwyn's email addy's .

Mine?

Give them every member of the BOD's

[Flexmoney]

I was on the fence, but the more I read, and the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards being in favor of the new rule. Production guns are becoming more and more like Limited guns all the time. We all know shooters that are just as competitive in the Limited division with so called production guns as they are with the same gun in the Production division.

But, this won't change that.

[West Texas Granny]

In regards to the poll I would suggest that members here conduct this very poll at your next match. Take the results and send them to USPSA and post the club poll results here.

I know people are going to be upset as they purchased a gun to compete in the division, followed the rules and now the BOD has told them they now have to spend more $ to comply. Guess the BOD never took that into consideration just as they apparently didn't take into consideration sponsors and suppliers.

Innovation? Well forget that. Why would anyone try to develop a new product when on a whim a rule change the USPSA BOD can destroy that investment.

This rule change in regards to the mag pouch is going to leave a lot of inventory on the shelf resulting lost income and higher prices to compensate for this idiotic rule change.

Edited December 28, 2011 by West Texas Granny

[Flexmoney]

When the question about the Powder River trigger was brought up by NROI, I believe the opportunity arose to bring the subject up again which the President did. The make up of the BOD having changed enough this time the vote passed.

I then asked "does this now mean any trigger work is OK as long as it weighs 3 lbs" and was told yes. I can't remember who said it, but it came from the President, NROI side of the table.

If this is true, as I was told, there is no more issues of "is this legal" or not. It takes all of the muss and fuss away and only requires that it pick up 3 lbs.

I personally think this was a move of convience to eliminate the "is it legal" questions, and to satisfy some feelings of "that is how it should be".

JMB help us all if that is the way it goes!

What a pure mess that will make it...totally blowing up in the face of all the arguments that have been put forth to support the 3lb trigger pull fiasco.

[Chills1994]

This poll has been running just for three days and has received 286 votes. ASSuming we have 20,000 active members in USPSA, then 1.43% havE voted in this poll.

As it costs nothing to join BE.com perhaps everyone can e-mail their shooting buddies that are USPSA members and point them toward this poll. Maybe we can get a 1000 voters on here...

That is my intent.

When I can get to a real computer and get into the "club's" mail chimp account I will send out a bulk email and provide links to this threa the other 29 page monstrosity of a thread, and give them Kyle's and Sherwyn's email addy's .

Mine?

Give them every member of the BOD's

Yeah, sorry! Since you would have voted NO! on it like Gary did, it wouldn't make much sense in my opinion to have them email you....unless of course there are some of "my" shooters who want to have 3 pound plus trigger pulls on their production guns.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Chills1994

[grapemeister]

Holy cow! I didn't know CZ's were that expensive.

You can get police trade in Berettas for $400 or less. Throw in a D spring, or take a 1911 mainspring and cut a few coils off, and you're set!

Virtually all of these rules seem to be rooted in some missplaced though that anything you do to tune up your gun is somehow violating the "spirit" of Production. Pulling springs and cutting coils runs afoul of that.

If this trend more towards the IPSC idea of production being bone stock guns continues then we likely will just end up in a situation where in order to compete you have to buy one of the most expensive pre-tuned "stock" guns there is in order to compete.

All this is beside the point that I (and many shooters) have already invested good time and money into an existing pistol that is perfectly legal under the EXISTING ruleset (in my case an M&P 9L). A 3lb first trigger pull requirement - if I even chose to continue to shoot production (or USPSA for that matter) - would undoubtedly drive me at a minimum to a DA/SA gun, which means throwing out an investment in not only the gun itself, but also holsters, magazines, and other equipment that would all need to be replaced.

Overall its a bad idea. The comparison to NASCAR has been made, and I think its an apt one: no, there's nothing "stock" about stock car racing, but WHO CARES? Its arguing a semantic. The reason why that sport has taken the route it has is that its what the public wants. In the same way, Production division has been growing incredibly rapidly with its existing ruleset. There doesn't seem to be some huge cadre of shooters who would just love to shoot production if only the rules were tweaked. Why implement a rule that is already showing to be unpopular by solving a non-existent problem?

Good point. This one is a tuffy. I'm just assuming I know why the BOD came up with the rule, but who knows maybe some arguments were made that I'm not aware of. I'm just assuming that the main idea was to keep to the spirit or true meaning of production, but I don't really know.

I have to admit that I've modified my production gun a bit, and they're modifications for the most part that would work or be safe on a carry gun, or a gun that a Joe outside of any practical shooting sport could safely handle. Personally, I wouldn't want anything under about 4 1/2 pounds but to another guy that might be considered way too light and/or unsafe for a striker fired gun with no manual safety. I recently installed a fiber optic front sight which isn't really practical for every day carry, especially in low light situations.

I wonder if there is some kind of minutes, video, or recording available of the meeting so we could maybe better understand wny the majority voted yes on this.

Well, I'm kind of back on the fence again.

Well I was there and I can give you my opinion for what it is worth.

Triggers have been a constant issue in Production. I would guess that 80 percent of questions to NROI involve some question about trigger work or components for triggers.

While some on the BOD have always held a view of minimum trigger weight for Production Division guns, it had been voted down.

When the question about the Powder River trigger was brought up by NROI, I believe the opportunity arose to bring the subject up again which the President did. The make up of the BOD having changed enough this time the vote passed.

I then asked "does this now mean any trigger work is OK as long as it weighs 3 lbs" and was told yes. I can't remember who said it, but it came from the President, NROI side of the table.

If this is true, as I was told, there is no more issues of "is this legal" or not. It takes all of the muss and fuss away and only requires that it pick up 3 lbs.

I personally think this was a move of convience to eliminate the "is it legal" questions, and to satisfy some feelings of "that is how it should be".

Thanks, since last night I've done more research, and reading. I think what Bgary said back in 2007 when this same issue came up helps me understand the issue more clearly. What he said not only helps me in my decision, but helps me articulate in my mind what I pretty much felt in the 1st place. Here is part of the post pertaining to the production divion but the full post is certainly worth reading and puts the part about the production division into the broader context of the post especially when comes to choices, boundaries, etc.

Production

-- modifications TIGHTLY CONSTRAINED (has a DIFFERENT boundary around the playground than L/L10)

-- hi-cap allowed, but capacity constrained (DIFFERENT boundary than L or SS)

-- single-action NOT allowed (first shot has to be DA, DIFFERENT boundary)

-- minor scoring ONLY (DIFFERENT boundary, means .38/9/.40/.45 all compete equally)

-- holster and mag positions CONSTRAINED to "street-like" configuration (different boundary)

-- holster and mag *gear* CONSTRAINED to "street-usable" stuff (different boundary)

That's what *I* think Production division should be. We have a bunch of divisions where shooters that choose to modify their guns can play. I strongly believe that we should have a place where shooters who do NOT want to modify their guns can play, and not be at a competitive disadvantage against the other kids in that playground.

That's my belief. What it comes down to, if that is a valid belief, is "how do we police the boundaries of that playground?" If we say certain modifications are not allowed, how do we *determine* whether those modifications are present? My belief is that we have to have rules that are objective and measurable.... and if we don't want shooters to (for example) swap trigger parts out of their Glock, change pivot-points, etc... the only viable way to police it is to put up a "boundary", and make determination on whether or not that boundary has been crossed, some objective and measurable thing, rather than a test of my ability to detect whether or not your _____ is an OEM part.

That's the reason for the trigger weight, IMHO. We want to have Production *not* be a race to see who can put together the slickest combination of trigger mods... we want Production to be a playground where *stock* Glocks/XDs/whatever can play *without* having to "choose" to make a bunch of modifications to their guns in order to be competitive.

[Skydiver]

Well I was there and I can give you my opinion for what it is worth.

Triggers have been a constant issue in Production. I would guess that 80 percent of questions to NROI involve some question about trigger work or components for triggers.

While some on the BOD have always held a view of minimum trigger weight for Production Division guns, it had been voted down.

When the question about the Powder River trigger was brought up by NROI, I believe the opportunity arose to bring the subject up again which the President did. The make up of the BOD having changed enough this time the vote passed.

I then asked "does this now mean any trigger work is OK as long as it weighs 3 lbs" and was told yes. I can't remember who said it, but it came from the President, NROI side of the table.

If this is true, as I was told, there is no more issues of "is this legal" or not. It takes all of the muss and fuss away and only requires that it pick up 3 lbs.

I personally think this was a move of convience to eliminate the "is it legal" questions, and to satisfy some feelings of "that is how it should be".

With that response, I take it that the old Vaneck trigger that changed the external appearance/geometry is legal again in 2013, assuming it makes the weight requirement. Or does the "no external modifications" rule still apply with regards to triggers?

[steel1212]

That's what *I* think Production division should be. We have a bunch of divisions where shooters that choose to modify their guns can play. I strongly believe that we should have a place where shooters who do NOT want to modify their guns can play, and not be at a competitive disadvantage against the other kids in that playground.

So your saying a box stock Glock 17 is on the same competitive playing field as a box stock Shadow? What it will do is leave it up to the manufactures to tweek guns and you'll still end up with 1200$ guns being the norm, they will just come from manufactures instead of garages.

[TGO]

Wait a minute, does this mean we can spend as much time and money and change anything we want as long as the trigger weighs three pounds? It doesn't have to even be the original configuration? I'm lost again, Damn I wish I was smarter! I've been working under the mistaken thought that this was supposed to be a price limited, readily available equipment category. Now you won't have to mess around changing all those easy to replace, inexpensive springs and parts that came in your inexpensive gun and replace them with some nice shiny EXPENSIVE parts that I do not even have to make more than 1 of.

Did I miss something?

Rob

[LPatterson]

While this is a poll thread and not that other monster, there is one comment lacking or it is here and I just missed it. That is the unintended consequence this new rule presents. So if the match where there is testing also has an unloaded gun start then the trigger weight must also be checked in SA mode for DA/SA guns. Since the way I read the rule was for "first" shots to be more than 3lbs. The current rule book only says an exposed hammer must be decocked at the start signal and it must be on the approved production gun list. So those ultraexpensive DA/SA guns could be affected also.

[Nik Habicht]

Wait a minute, does this mean we can spend as much time and money and change anything we want as long as the trigger weighs three pounds? It doesn't have to even be the original configuration? I'm lost again, Damn I wish I was smarter! I've been working under the mistaken thought that this was supposed to be a price limited, readily available equipment category. Now you won't have to mess around changing all those easy to replace, inexpensive springs and parts that came in your inexpensive gun and replace them with some nice shiny EXPENSIVE parts that I do not even have to make more than 1 of.

Did I miss something?

Rob

Unfortunately, apparently you did not miss something.....

[grapemeister]

That's what *I* think Production division should be. We have a bunch of divisions where shooters that choose to modify their guns can play. I strongly believe that we should have a place where shooters who do NOT want to modify their guns can play, and not be at a competitive disadvantage against the other kids in that playground.

So your saying a box stock Glock 17 is on the same competitive playing field as a box stock Shadow? What it will do is leave it up to the manufactures to tweek guns and you'll still end up with 1200$ guns being the norm, they will just come from manufactures instead of garages.

That's not from me, it's an excerpt from Bgary's post from 2007. But, I agree with his views. When my friend invited me to my first USPSA match a couple of years ago, he told me to just bring along my (stock) XD service model. He assured me that I would have a ton of fun, and I did. My service model was probably around $450.00 when I bought it new several years ago. If he would have told me that I would 1st have to buy a $1200 gun in order to shoot a match, I would have laughed in his face, and never tried a USPSA match. I really don't think it's necesarry now to spend that kind of money in order to have fun, and/or be competitive, and it won't be any time soon, especially if in the Production division, if we set some boundaries.

Under the new rule you can still spend a ton of money on customizing your gun. It's about choices. If you feel like you're at a disadvantage, you can put some money in your gun. Maybe it will help you be more competitive, or move up in class, maybe not.

If your very competitive, and/or you just love tinkering with or modifying your gun, and the production division is too constraining, then there is place for you in the Limited or Open division.

By the way, I'm not sure what a Glock 17 is, but I out shoot guys with Shadows regulary, and my mostly stock XD Tactical was half the price. That won't change with the new rule, no more than $1200 guns becoming the norm.

Edited December 28, 2011 by grapemiester

[hiker88]

I support the minimum trigger weight. I have a pair of bone stock Glock 34's that I use in production. I like the fact that I can start competing in local matches without changing anything in the pistol.

[want2race]

I'm on the fence. On one hand I don't like it because I think 2# triggers are so easy to do in both M&P's and Glocks. On the flip side I like it because now all M&P and Glock triggers can have the pretravel and overtravel reduced as long as it breaks at 3# and all safeties remain. I don't think many shooters can physically tell the difference in a 2.25# trigger and a 3# trigger with their finger, not during a stage. But now it means one more way to shoot open if it falls under 3.

The BOD will need a testing procedure, like 2.95# hang weights (NRA style). Pistol, held vertically, must pick up weights by trigger and not fire (dryfire). That will test the trigger in the center'ish.

To reduce the perceived Shadow advantage would a 3# first and 2# for second pull help? Perhaps they should just make it 3# for ALL trigger pulls as was mentioned earlier.

I'm leaning more towards "not in favor".

Sorry if this was covered in the past 6 pages.

[ShootsinRain]

The only issue is what is it polling. It's polling Enos Forum members, which only make up a portion of USPSA. And even you have to admit the numbers responding to the poll are relatively low compared to the number of USPSA members on the forum.

The mean of a sample is fairly equivalent to the mean of a population. So this poll would actually give you a decent example of what the whole population would look like. (clinical lab scientist here and I did receive an A in statistics and quantitative analysis)

Hope that helps.

Edited December 28, 2011 by ShootsinRain

[PCC-1]

It may just be coincidence.... But STI now has a DA/SA gun aimed at Production Division.... Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will...

[Loves2Shoot]

I support the minimum trigger weight. I have a pair of bone stock Glock 34's that I use in production. I like the fact that I can start competing in local matches without changing anything in the pistol.

And why could you not do that if the rules stayed the same?