Lee G Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Okay, I've been wondering for a long time, but I still can't figure it out. Since this mod is clearly illegal for Production, are there really that many folks using Shadows in Limited? Why not just start single action with the safety on? It's legal for USPSA production. Edited January 14, 2013 by Lee G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Okay, I've been wondering for a long time, but I still can't figure it out. Since this mod is clearly illegal for Production, are there really that many folks using Shadows in Limited? Why not just start single action with the safety on? It's legal for USPSA production. Production Rules in Appendix D4, 21.1 state that, "...any "internal" modifications which result in a visible change to the external appearance of the gun when it is in battery REMAIN PROHIBITED unless specifically allowed by the plain language herein." Sure the change may be internal, but it results in a visible change to the external appearance when in battery. By the pics posted earlier and by the pics on the website, when the gun is in battery, the trigger is visibly different from stock. Based on that, I can see it being legal for Limited/L10, but how can that be legal for Production? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.roberts Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Okay, I've been wondering for a long time, but I still can't figure it out. Since this mod is clearly illegal for Production, are there really that many folks using Shadows in Limited? Why not just start single action with the safety on? It's legal for USPSA production. Production Rules in Appendix D4, 21.1 state that, "...any "internal" modifications which result in a visible change to the external appearance of the gun when it is in battery REMAIN PROHIBITED unless specifically allowed by the plain language herein." Sure the change may be internal, but it results in a visible change to the external appearance when in battery. By the pics posted earlier and by the pics on the website, when the gun is in battery, the trigger is visibly different from stock. Based on that, I can see it being legal for Limited/L10, but how can that be legal for Production? Because you start with the hammer down...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Okay, I've been wondering for a long time, but I still can't figure it out. Since this mod is clearly illegal for Production, are there really that many folks using Shadows in Limited? Why not just start single action with the safety on? It's legal for USPSA production. Production Rules in Appendix D4, 21.1 state that, "...any "internal" modifications which result in a visible change to the external appearance of the gun when it is in battery REMAIN PROHIBITED unless specifically allowed by the plain language herein." Sure the change may be internal, but it results in a visible change to the external appearance when in battery. By the pics posted earlier and by the pics on the website, when the gun is in battery, the trigger is visibly different from stock. Based on that, I can see it being legal for Limited/L10, but how can that be legal for Production? Because you start with the hammer down...? Yeah, it's an internal modification that doesn't cause a change to the external appearance of the gun with the hammer down. Yes, it does change the trigger pull in SA. However, there are loads of Production-legal trigger mods in other guns that change the trigger pull on a gun without altering the external appearance of the gun. The overtravel stop on certain Glock connectors and on certain Glock trigger housings would be one example. Another would be the APEX kits for the M&P. In any case CZCustom offers it as an option on guns that are on the approved list, so I don't know why it's a big deal. I mean, isn't the reason the comp hammer is legal is that it's listed as an option on approved guns built by CZCustom? What about all the HK trigger variants that are legal? What about Sig's version of the SRT - it's optional on their guns, but I don't see anyone mentioning that it's illegal for Production. I don't see how all of this is any different from the SRT mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underlug Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Okay, I've been wondering for a long time, but I still can't figure it out. Since this mod is clearly illegal for Production, are there really that many folks using Shadows in Limited? Why not just start single action with the safety on? It's legal for USPSA production. I will wait for an official ruling. I remember the Langdon ruling.+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Amidon says it's illegal for Production. Question: "Hello. I was hoping you could clarify a ruling on a modification. Production Rules in Appendix D4, 21.1 state that, "...any “internal” modifications which result in a visible change to the external appearance of the gun when it is in battery REMAIN PROHIBITED unless specifically allowed by the plain language herein." CZ Customs at www.czcustom.com is offering a Short Reset Trigger System (SRTS) for CZ-75s and SP01s. Guns with modification take out virtually all of the pre-travel of the trigger, such that when in battery, a modified gun's trigger has visibly much less take up than an unmodified gun. I've attached a copy of a photo from their website advertising the visible change in external appearance between a modified and unmodified version when both are in battery. Is this modification legal for Production division? You can find the website for the modification here: http://czcustom.com/...nectorshrt.aspx" Amidon's Answer: "It does seem to violated the rule you quoted as there is a visible change, I would not allow it. John" Edited January 14, 2013 by mpolans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Once again, inconsistency with Production rules the day. And thanks for (in my opinion) mischaracterizing the issue to get your way. Great job. Edited January 14, 2013 by beltjones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 And thanks for (in my opinion) mischaracterizing the issue to get your way. Great job. Agreed . I think this calls for further clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) What was the mischaracterization? Did the pictures lie? For those that choose to do it and use it in Production, I suppose there's little chance of getting caught as few people would look at the trigger when the gun is in battery for the second shot fired. Edited January 15, 2013 by mpolans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_Mink Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 It's not a modification if it is a factory offered part, which this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee G Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Who is Matt Mink and what does he know? Logic and facts are for chumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underlug Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Once again, inconsistency with Production rules the day. And thanks for (in my opinion) mischaracterizing the issue to get your way. Great job. Present it to him your way and see if you get a different answer. I, personally, will hold off on the modification until it is cleared. I can see both sides of the argument given what has happened before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Once again, inconsistency with Production rules the day. And thanks for (in my opinion) mischaracterizing the issue to get your way. Great job. Present it to him your way and see if you get a different answer. I, personally, will hold off on the modification until it is cleared. I can see both sides of the argument given what has happened before I did. I'll let you know what he says, if anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) What was the mischaracterization? Did the pictures lie?For those that choose to do it and use it in Production, I suppose there's little chance of getting caught as few people would look at the trigger when the gun is in battery for the second shot fired. Deleted. There is no difference in battery with the hammer down, which is how you start in production. You also completely failed (intentionally neglected?) to mention that this is a factory option offered on pistols that are already on the list, just like the Sig SRT. And if it is illegal, then I'm sure you will be questioning the sig SRT next or perhaps you will ask which of the HK trigger variants are legal for production since none are specifically listed? Edited January 15, 2013 by beltjones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkMcArthur Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Well this sucks. I just had it done to mine. Good thing I live just down the road from Matt Mink. That way if it is ruled illegal then it won't cost much to have it put back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 FWIW Angus's site specifically says it is legal for Production. I also doubt he would go through the expense to R&D this without knowing if it were legal. I think concerns about the legality are on very shaky ground in spite of John's off the cuff opinion. I think Matt's post is exactly on point. This point was omitted from the question to John and certainly is critical to a discussion on its legality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 What was the mischaracterization? Did the pictures lie?For those that choose to do it and use it in Production, I suppose there's little chance of getting caught as few people would look at the trigger when the gun is in battery for the second shot fired. No, you lied. Or at least you didn't tell the whole truth. There is no difference in battery with the hammer down, which is how you start in production. You also completely failed (intentionally neglected?) to mention that this is a factory option offered on pistols that are already on the list, just like the Sig SRT. And if it is illegal, then I'm sure you will be questioning the sig SRT next or perhaps you will ask which of the HK trigger variants are legal for production since none are specifically listed? So now you're calling me a liar? 1. Where in the rule does it distinguish between in battery for the first shot vs in battery for every shot after? 2. You say it's a factory option, but I see it listed as custom work on the CZ Custom page. I do not see it listed as an option on the CZ factory page. If we go by custom options from the CZ Custom shop, there's a whole bunch of things you could claim are "factory options" including adding a barrel bushing. What was originally submitted for approval to be added to the Production List? Was a gun with the SRTS submitted? 3. I'm not familiar with the Sig SRT. If a gun with the SRT was submitted for approval and was approved, I don't see a problem. If a Sig without a SRT was submitted and approved, then I'd look at whether the SRT was an internal modification that resulted in an external change. If yes, the rules indicate it shouldn't be allowed. If there's no external change, it should be okay according to the rules. 4. The combat hammer is a totally different issue as it allowed under Appendix D4, 21.6 (Exchange of minor EXTERNAL components). Where in the rules does it make an exception for a factory part from the custom shop used in an internal modification that violates Appendix D4, 21.1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 It's a factory option if the people at CZCustom say it's a factory option. It doesn't matter how you interpret the webpage. My apologies for calling you a liar. That was definitely going too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eerw Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) From SHOT show: Angus just talked to John Amidon. Good to go. John said he would post a ruling soon. Edited January 15, 2013 by eerw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofagator Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Yeah! Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huskerlrrp Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 From SHOT show: Angus just talked to John Amidon. Good to go. John said he would post a ruling soon. All it took was a couple lap dances at the "Girls of the Glitter Gulch" and "XS" and John was quite agreeable to the short reset trigger bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmanCdp Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 From SHOT show: Angus just talked to John Amidon. Good to go. John said he would post a ruling soon. All it took was a couple lap dances at the "Girls of the Glitter Gulch" and "XS" and John was quite agreeable to the short reset trigger bar. LOL...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkMcArthur Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Well good!!! Now I can just pay Mink for training!!! Got to get better before matches start up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 From SHOT show: Angus just talked to John Amidon. Good to go. John said he would post a ruling soon. ....... and the further clarification arrives. Thanks Stuart!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Thanks Stuart - you guys rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now