Poll on 3lb trigger limit in Production

[BMartens]

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.....

I think you got it, except, I'm not sure where we stand on "no external modification" for the part of the firing mechanism that sticks out, the application of grip tape, custom stippling, and slide milling for the installation of non-stock non-factory sights not withstanding.

[MrPCHead]

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

Rob may be onto something: Price Limit! Kind of like a salary cap. "I'm sorry Mr. Trigger but you've outlived your usefulness and Mr. Barrel is going to take more money than we expected, so..."

Wait, he said "readily available". Damn, that kills my plan, er, idea: "inexpensive" parts from my pals in Los Osos for my salary-capped M&P in exchange for an undisclosed compensatory action. Or a player to be named at a later date maybe?

This is crazy, isn't it? I'm on vacation visiting dear old mom and she is now actually interested in this discussion. She now wants to know what gun she should buy for Production! What have I done???

-William Daugherty

[Chills1994]

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.

a sample has to be drawn at random to be able to make valid and reliable inferences about the population as a whole.

people here on the Brian Enos forums =/= a random sample

[bbbean]

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.

You can do that now (and are apparently doing it). What does that have to do with the new rule?

BB

[ac4wordplay]

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.

Yes... but... if this (the quote above) is to be valid, isn't there a requirement that the sample be both

1. of the population
2. random

This sample isn't random.

Edit: Chills was quicker, and with a great pic too!

Edited December 28, 2011 by ac4wordplay

[Jim Norman]

I've said it before, I think, Is a crapy 2-1/2 lb trigger better than a really nice 3lb trigger? We are not going to change one damned thing with this rule with regards to an arms race. If my Fantastic Somewhat Plastic Shooter comes out of the box with a crappy 6 lb trigger, I am going to spend every bit as much money to make it a really sweet 3 lb trigger as I would have if I could have made it a 2 lb trigger.

The Manufacturers are going to start building to the rule, just as they always have in every sport. Soon your 'Out of the box' $475 G17 shooter will find himself shooting against an 'Out of the box' $ 1200.00 G17U, a gun with all the bells and whistles the current rule allows. It will have different sights, and a really good trigger, that becasue of litigation will STILL have the shooter going out and spending more money to have it cleaned up!

This rule is bad law. It needs to go away. It is essentially UNENFORCEABLE as is the rules against internal mods. Weigh the gun and have a minimum gun weight if you must, have a box the gun must fit into if you must. These are things that just about any club can manage. Most shooters can manage this. Trigger pull poundage? Not going to be a level playing field no matter what you do short of having a division where one manufacturer supplies all the guns and the shooters are assigned a gun by double blind random draw.

A DA/SA gun with a 5lb trigger on the first shot is going to have what for the second? 2? 1-1/2? And this is going to make the new shooter feel comfortable? not a chance. As soon as he learns that he can't make his ten shots as smooth and easy as the other guy, he will not be a happy camper.

This rule needs to go. If there are shooters out there that want to shoot their 5 lb triggers, no one is stopping you. If you want to declare this a carry gun division, I have been known to carry a 1911, a Para, a J-frame and a G-26. Which one will fit into 'YOUR' definition of a Carry Gun? And if we really want to make it a carry gun division, then we better think about how the guns would REALLY be worn, no 'I'm not wearing a gun' vests, you have to carry concealed, all your ammo and your gun and since when I carry a full capacity gun, I load it to the full capacity, I think that we need to then do away with the capacity limits. So to reiterate, a large frame person would be able to shoot a full sized gun in this division but a person of small stature would only be able to shoot a very small gun, Hey, let's go all the way and stop dancing around with the semantics.

Production is NOT a Carry Gun Division, not now and not back on day one. It was and is a place to shoot on an equal footing with respect to PF and capacity and where DAO, DA/SA and Striker fired guns can compete without having to shoot against the S*Is and all the super customizations that we have in Open, Limited and L-10.

As others have said, this division in USPSA WORKS! Why, oh why is the BOD intent on screwing it up?

Edited December 28, 2011 by Jim Norman

[Chills1994]

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.

by ultraexpensive DA/SA guns, I am guessing you mean the CZ's, right?

your point or argument takes us down a slippery slope to more rules... I can envision it now...if you have a DA/SA gun at an unloaded table start, I see a rule stating that you will have to decock it after you chamber a live round, then you can commence shooting.

[HI5-O]

Don't like the upcoming change.

Just started shooting Production (and enjoying it as is) on a regular basis. Now, all the mention of possible changes and upcoming changes in Production Division, I'll go back to shooting Open where there is less conflict

Was going to pick up parts from vendors here for my M&P but now have to rethink that.

[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.

by ultraexpensive DA/SA guns, I am guessing you mean the CZ's, right?

your point or argument takes us down a slippery slope to more rules... I can envision it now...if you have a DA/SA gun at an unloaded table start, I see a rule stating that you will have to decock it after you chamber a live round, then you can commence shooting.

The new CZ's were what I thought since you can order a Production gun with different barrel lengths and apparently different trigger weights. That slippery slope was what I had in mind, so a DA/SA shooter has an unloaded gun start and the FIRST pull trigger might not be the same as the chrono weight test unless chrono tested both trigger pulls. placing them in OPEN. I think the original rule needs to stay because it is about before the start signal and the new abortion is mostly about after the start signal. Unless of course your first stage is the chrono.

This rule is a case of someone not having their head on their shoulders but in a dark and smelly place for not thinking things through. Of course hind sight is a hole lot sharper than fore sight.

Edit to add a forgotten word.

Edited December 28, 2011 by LPatterson

[Thomas H]

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?

That is what I was going to say.

Seriously---if you have a "bone stock XXXXX" gun, it'll work just fine in Production division. On the other hand, if you want a better trigger, you can drop a whopping $100 into it and make it better. However, this makes "bone stock" firearms no less viable.

One of the arguments I keep hearing is that one of the reasons they want to put in this rule is so that Production doesn't become one of those horrible "must spend thousands of dollars to be competitive" places.

So----where is it right now that a bone stock G17 isn't competitive? Or stock M&P? And when did putting $150 (mostly less, though) into a firearm to tweak it turn into "thousands of dollars"?

Production, as it _was_, worked perfectly well. Stock guns were competitive. People who wanted to change minor things could do so, to fit their personal choices. (Hey look, that is just like what happens _outside_ the competition world, except that outside allows more choices.) And it didn't cost much to do so.

Again---let's see: Glock G17, change the sights, drop in the Challenger trigger group that USPSA sells ON ITS WEBSITE----and still have a firearm that is excellent for competition and just about everything else other than long range bullseye for under $725. Especially if you have the GSSF discount. So hey, for those who think the "bone stock" guns aren't good enough, we aren't exactly talking serious money here. Matter of fact, isn't that still cheaper than a number of other Production stock legal guns that won't be affected by this new rule?

And I'm still looking for the answer to this question: Who has any data showing that a bone stock G17 or XD or M&P is not perfectly competitive in Production division? Sherwyn said that he heard complaints about it----what exactly did they say? Was it just complaining? Or could someone actually point to any significant difference? That cost any significant money?

Several people here have pointed out that 1) they shoot Production division, 2) in their experience, stock guns work perfectly well in the division, and 3) if you want to make your gun fit you better, modifications on Production guns are cheap, simple, and straightforward.

So where was the problem again?

[TGO]

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.

You can start competing regardless of the rules. The gun is legal now right? Does this mean you are not currently a competitor in this class and if not in what category do you compete?

Rob

[Jim Norman]

I have several guns I shot in Production, only one, my XD has had ANY work done on it. My G22, G17, and my Sig are all out of the box stock. I made it to B with them.

[HS101]

It is the Indian, not the arrow....

Rules are made up for, or by, people who think there is something inherently unfair in the fact that they can not always win...

My name is Erik, and I am a C class shooter. No amount of money spent on a gun will make me a better shooter, nor will rules make Sivgny, Vogel, or any of the thounsands of shooters who are better than I am shoot down to my level...

[Neomet]

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.

a sample has to be drawn at random to be able to make valid and reliable inferences about the population as a whole.

people here on the Brian Enos forums =/= a random sample

What he said. Basically they are two different groups albeit one is a subgroup of the other. If I wanted to know what the most popular running shoe was for all people who ran I would not rely on a poll from Runners World as an accurate measure. If you change one parameter of the group you are polling (USPSA members who have read this topic on BE) you can not extrapolate the results out to the larger group with fewer parameters (all USPSA members). Bad statistics.... baaaaadddddd statistics.

Still, I think the poll is certainly informative as to this subgroup and worth consideration by the BOD.

[Gary Stevens]

It is the Indian, not the arrow....

Rules are made up for, or by, people who think there is something inherently unfair in the fact that they can not always win...

My name is Erik, and I am a C class shooter. No amount of money spent on a gun will make me a better shooter, nor will rules make Sivgny, Vogel, or any of the thounsands of shooters who are better than I am shoot down to my level...

I hear this all the time, but I don't think it always so.

If the Indidan were using a tree limb he cut himself against another with a precision made Englsh longbow then maybe not. Or if the Indians arrows were crooked and had no feathers, then maybe not.

Equipment does have a place in the equation.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Gary Stevens

[Loves2Shoot]

Make it 5 pounds, but either way, I support it. There's no difference between single stack minor and production if there's no trigger limit for production.

There should have been a minimum trigger weight for production years ago.

Have you read the rule book? Do you know you can score Major in SS and you can't shoot against only the people shooting minor?

[Nik Habicht]

It is the Indian, not the arrow....

Rules are made up for, or by, people who think there is something inherently unfair in the fact that they can not always win...

My name is Erik, and I am a C class shooter. No amount of money spent on a gun will make me a better shooter, nor will rules make Sivgny, Vogel, or any of the thounsands of shooters who are better than I am shoot down to my level...

I hear this all the time, but I don't think it always so.

If the Indidan were using a tree limb he cut himself against another with a precision made Englsh longbow then maybe not. Or if the Indians arrows were crooked and had no feathers, then maybe not.

Equipment does have a place in the equation.

In Production, under the current rules, I don't think there's a significant difference among the arrows, I think the guns are for the most part comparably good. Some shooters may have a preference for steel or plastic fantastic, but the quality's about the same....

In SS there might be a significant difference between an SVI and a $500 entry level model....

[Sin-ster]

It is the Indian, not the arrow....

I hear this all the time, but I don't think it always so.

If the Indidan were using a tree limb he cut himself against another with a precision made Englsh longbow then maybe not. Or if the Indians arrows were crooked and had no feathers, then maybe not.

Equipment does have a place in the equation.

Not to be abrasive, but... are you really gonna take that at the literal level in an effort to invalidate the point in regards to the topic-at-hand?

Shoddy, hand-carved, crooked arrows with poorly shaped heads and missing feathers aren't going to fly nearly as well out of a loosely strung short bow as precision manufactured fiberglass shafts with synthetic feathers and target-grade heads will fly out of a top grade compound or composite bow. Indeed.

How that relates to 4-8 ounces of trigger pull weight, I don't know. Okay, I'm being dramatic-- I do know, and I'm pretty sure you do as well.

If we were talking about a true "bone stock" requirement, the literal dissection of the analogy would be a bit more applicable. But even in terms of 2-3 pounds of TP, it's rather extreme to take it to such lengths.

The "Sevigny/Vogel" comparison is also a bit drastic as well, truth be told. I am however willing to bet that if I gave the local shooters who beat me in Production (A and M Class guys, to my lowly middle-B ) a pistol that met the new weight requirements and I kept my Burwell-tuned M&P, they'd still be beating me by the same margins. Putting a 3# requirement on all of us has one effect and one effect alone-- a PITA process to comply that costs us all money and unneeded frustration.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Sin-ster

[BlackSabbath]

I voted: I shoot Production frequently and DO NOT AGREE with the proposal.

I shoot a Shadow that was built by Matt Mink, so my gun isn't affected. This is clearly unfair to those shooting the striker-fired plastic guns, and CZ shooters need to say so on behalf of that crowd. You never know, there may be some bad rule pushed off on us one day, and we'll need their support.

This needs to be stopped NOW.

Edited December 29, 2011 by BlackSabbath

[Gary Stevens]

It is the Indian, not the arrow....

I hear this all the time, but I don't think it always so.

If the Indidan were using a tree limb he cut himself against another with a precision made Englsh longbow then maybe not. Or if the Indians arrows were crooked and had no feathers, then maybe not.

Equipment does have a place in the equation.

Not to be abrasive, but... are you really gonna take that at the literal level in an effort to invalidate the point in regards to the topic-at-hand?

Shoddy, hand-carved, crooked arrows with poorly shaped heads and missing feathers aren't going to fly nearly as well out of a loosely strung short bow as precision manufactured fiberglass shafts with synthetic feathers and target-grade heads will fly out of a top grade compound or composite bow. Indeed.

How that relates to 4-8 ounces of trigger pull weight, I don't know. Okay, I'm being dramatic-- I do know, and I'm pretty sure you do as well.

If we were talking about a true "bone stock" requirement, the literal dissection of the analogy would be a bit more applicable. But even in terms of 2-3 pounds of TP, it's rather extreme to take it to such lengths.

The "Sevigny/Vogel" comparison is also a bit drastic as well, truth be told. I am however willing to bet that if I gave the local shooters who beat me in Production (A and M Class guys, to my lowly middle-B ) a pistol that met the new weight requirements and I kept my Burwell-tuned M&P, they'd still be beating me by the same margins. Putting a 3# requirement on all of us has one effect and one effect alone-- a PITA process to comply that costs us all money and unneeded frustration.

No I wasn't actually talking about bows and arrows, although that is the visual image the statement leads most to view.

I was saying that equipment also plays into the equation.

As Production is currently structured and administered, all of the equipment has the ability to play on a fairly level playing field, IMO. When this happens it does become about the Indian and not the arrow. However, a rule change can tilt the playing field one way or another. I think this is an area USPSA needs to tread lightly.

[spanky]

Why don't we compromise and call it 1.5lbs and you can do what you want to the trigger.

[grapemeister]

I may be wrong, but from what I gather, and this may be obvious to the majority of the folks, the new rule is a compromise. It gives those folks that believe internal parts should be strictly OEM a little something, or is at least an attempt to appease them, but still allows the rest us to tweak, and customize our guns.

Whether you agree with the board members who voted for this, and the folks that back them, or not, I don’t think it’s fair to totally dismiss their concerns. Well, it's obvious we can't dismiss thier concerns because the issue came up, and it was voted on. I am not a mind reader, but from what I gather the concern is that we not drift too far away from the spirit of the Production division, if you want to call it that, or maybe what the production division was originally intended to be.

Personally, I could care less if you have a 10lb or 1lb trigger in your gun; I don’t really think it’s an unfair advantage one way or another. I like the idea of being able to customize and replace internal parts of my gun. Under the new rule, that capability won’t change.

I, like many XD owners, believe the stock trigger kind of sucks, or really sucks, depending on your point of view. I haven’t changed it yet, but one day I’ll send it off to Rich at Canyon Creek or maybe Springfield custom shop to have it smoothed out and tuned up to my liking. Sure, the new rule kind of restricts what I would like the trigger pull to be. I was thinking of going to a 4.5 trigger pull, but maybe, to be on the safe side with the new rule, I should only go to 5lbs. But, that’s ok; I still don’t think I’ll be any less competitive with the restriction.

[PCC-1]

This issue seems to be mirroring our current bout with Washington. They (Washington) make decisions on what they think is best for the country. They think they know whats best for us better than we do! They do not listen when the overwhelming majority of citizens pursue an issue! I think the BOD has taken a page from the Washington Playbook.... I do not really care one way or the other. Just tell me what the rule is and i will comply. However, the BOD should be responsive to the needs of the members. NOT the members to be responsive to the needs of the BOD.....

jm2c

[grapemeister]

This issue seems to be mirroring our current bout with Washington. They (Washington) make decisions on what they think is best for the country. They think they know whats best for us better than we do! They do not listen when the overwhelming majority of citizens pursue an issue! I think the BOD has taken a page from the Washington Playbook.... I do not really care one way or the other. Just tell me what the rule is and i will comply. However, the BOD should be responsive to the needs of the members. NOT the members to be responsive to the needs of the BOD.....

jm2c

If we made you tie one arm behind your back, and strapped a 20lb sledge to your trigger, you would still out shoot most of us in this state

Looking forward to shooting again in Wildwood one day, but please clean up the cow patties

[Neomet]

I voted: I shoot Production frequently and DO NOT AGREE with the proposal.

I shoot a Shadow that was built by Matt Mink, so my gun isn't affected. This is clearly unfair to those shooting the striker-fired plastic guns, and CZ shooters need to say so on behalf of that crowd. You never know, there may be some bad rule pushed off on us one day, and we'll need their support.

This needs to be stopped NOW.

I'll go one better. I also shoot a tuned Shadow and under the proposed rule change I could improve my trigger by using a Cajun Gunworks trigger kit that dramatically shortens the trigger stroke but is illegal under the current rules because it changes the external appearance of the gun. I still am strongly against this measure. It makes what I would guess are a significant number of guns in the division illegal, will not make a 10lb or 12lb trigger gun any more competitive against a 3lb trigger than the were against a 2lb trigger, and will not reduce the number of folks who believe they need to send their guns off for trigger work. They will simply get 3.25lb triggers instead of 2.5lb.

I think a better question rather than the advantages of a 2.5lb trigger compared to a 10lb trigger is to argue this on the perceived benefits of going from a a 3lb trigger to a 2lb trigger (I don't think anyone has come up with anything lighter in Production) vs because that is really what this proposed rule change is doing.