IPSC Production Glock17

[olp73]

Will a glock17 with the following modifications be legal for IPSC production class?

-Tungsten guiderod with a recoil spring made bye someone else than Glock.

-Triggerjob with a pull no lighter than 5 pounds, but overtravel and pretravel are shortened. (uses original parts)

-Griptaped or gritted grip. More or less permanently glued to the frame.

-Magazines with base pads. Basepads does not expand mag. capacity.

Olp73

[spook]

Only the tape would be legal at the moment.

- Tungsten guiderod is a definate no go. It's not a factory part.

- The triggerjob is allowed if it's only minor polishing and detailing. Shortening travel etc. is not minor detailing.

- The basepads will change the factory dimensions of the mags and are not allowed.

Sorry bro. IPSC Production division is more or less that...a division for Factory produced stock guns. You can fiddle with the sights, put tape on the frame, polish the internals and browse through the Glock catalogue to see which cool factory options you can add to your gun. But that's about it.

[olp73]

If some one ever had the intension of getting away from the ”gunrace” in this division I really want to know why guns like Tanfoglio stock custom and Sphinx production competition is legal!!!!

[Vince Pinto]

If some one ever had the intension of getting away from the ”gunrace” in this division I really want to know why guns like Tanfoglio stock custom and Sphinx production competition is legal!!!!

Because the subject guns satisfy the Production Division criteria. However, despite this, the IPSC Production Division World Champion still uses a Glock 17, as do many other top competitors.

[Skywalker]

I really want to know why guns like Tanfoglio stock custom and Sphinx production competition is legal!!!!

'cause they're OFM manufactured.

[dirtypool40]

I know it's a bulletin from the department of the obvious, and GLock doesn't have a real track record of responding well to input, but why don't they come out with a "game gun"?

I know someone is going to scream 34/35 without reading this, but that's not what I meant. I mean a REAL competition gun. Well thought out with the things shooters want to do to their guns

Make it in 9 & .40 so it would be the gun for production or Standard.

Put a little magwell accepting lip on the bottom, like on an S_I. Maybe get truly wild and even flair it a little.

For God's sake put something other than a 2x4 up there for a front site. Heinie's should already be an option. Somthing maybe .100 wide.

Cut the barrel back to 5" (or whatever this week's production legal flavor is).

Put some front serrations on it to set it apart.

Offer a metal guide rod of several flavors.

Hey come on, if other manufacturers can game production, Glock should get off their duff and offer a better alternative.

[Garfield]

Maybe because "gamers" are not Glock's primary market ?

Compared to Government Contracts, I think the marketplace for just gamers could be too small ?

Besides, what gun should I buy if Glock too went " the way of the gamer" ?

I like Glock just because it doesn' t offer all those possibilities.

But hey, that's just me :-)

[spook]

I know it's a bulletin from the department of the obvious, and GLock doesn't have a real track record of responding well to input, but why don't they come out with a "game gun"?

They did. They made the G34 and G35 to fit the box of both IDPA and IPSC. Plus they added some extended control levers and buttons. Unfortunately, this was before Production Division was created. The guns are not IPSC PD legal.

I noticed most main stream gun companies kind of suck when designing "competition guns". Most of the time they just make the gun as big as possible and add all sorts of extended stuff nobody uses It seems like they don't pay attention to the stuff that really matters. They always have some weird flaw, like being a 9x19 standard gun. Or a .40S&W with only 14 round capacity.

I must say that I've noticed a positive change lately, with the appearance of the Para LDA, Tanfoglio Stock, etc..

[Vince Pinto]

As Garfield correctly stated, Glock's primary market is law enforcement and, frankly, the G34/G35 are not really "competition" guns just because they have an extra 21mm of barrel length and a minus connector. Whoopee!!

To be honest, Glock only have one product, offered in a couple of sizes and calibres.

The thing I've been nagging them about for years is to improve their guns by offering an ambidextrous mag release and slide release on their pistols, and to create a carbine to challenge the global dominance of the MP5, but it seems they're more interested in making tactical flashlights.

[Flexmoney]

If some one ever had the intension of getting away from the ”gunrace” in this division I really want to know why guns like Tanfoglio stock custom and Sphinx production competition is legal!!!!

I don't think anybody in IPSC has a goal of preventing a "gun race" in Production.

I fear that USPSA Production might be headed down the same path (again).

[njrich]

I fear that USPSA Production might be headed down the same path (again). 

IMHO a gun race begins when the top shooters who look for and need a competative edge shoot in a particular division.i know i don't have the answers on how to stop it. i can only write my thoughts and opinions and maybe give you guys with alot more experience and knowledge something to think about.

from what i understand the production division was created for new shooters and shooters with ordinary factory guns who don't want to get into the very costly race game or just want to get proficient with their carry gun and have fun doing it.

ok lets think about this.

does any GM or M for that matter belong in production other than to promote their sponsor?YES IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE AND THIS IS THE DIVISION YOU WANT TO SHOOT.

i mean really do the super shooters really need to compete in this division?NO I DON'T THINK SO.MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR USPSA TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THIS AND LEAVE THIS DIVISION FOR WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO BE.

[olp73]

I see that Flex doesn’t agree with me when it comes to my assumptions about the production division and the “gun race”, and I am sure he is right. After all he is well informed.

When I was an active IPSC shooter 10 years ago the 1911/20011 hegemony irritated me maximo. I tried to shoot everything else, but in the end I caved in and bought a custom 1911. In the meantime someone has come up with this super idea to make a production division, so that everybody who has a service pistol in there closet can go to matches and really compete again. To ensure that none show up with some custom wonder they even take the trouble of making a list of approved guns. Then IPSC decide to put these super guns, like the Tanfoglio and the sphinx, on this list. All they had to do is not approve them! Like they did with the Glock 34!

This can become even worst than the situation in the Standard or open class. In these divisions, at least you can buy a 1911 and then slowly but surly build up the gun as fast as you can afford. Now some fabrics make the ideal firearm for this division, and they don’t come cheap. If they get popular, and I guess they will, at least here in Europe, you ether buy one of them, or you shoot what you got (well aver that you could have scored better in that match if it wasn’t for the gun.)

Is not that I don’t understand that they are legal because they are production guns. I just don’t think they should be on that list. Someone put them there.!!!

Why not just say that production is like standard but for DA- and DAO- minor guns only, and call the thing service division or something. And last but not leas why prohibit truly practical modifications that could even out the odds?

Olp73

[Flexmoney]

Olp73,

I don't disagree with you at all. (but, it would seem IPSC Production does)

If I were the one writing the rules for IPSC Production:

- Gun would have to be in mass Production. 2000+ units produced

- They would have to be available to the general public (not something for just the "team shooter")

- They would have to be on the market...to the general public...for a period of time. (I am thinking two years, but one year may be enough)

- You would be allowed to change to whatever standard sights you'd like.

- You would be allowed to clean-up, and lighten, your trigger pull.

- Triggers would be non-single action. (allowing the Springfield XD)

- The magwell area could be "flared" internally, but not externally. It would have to have the same external profile as the grip.

- Minor power factor

- Capacity restriction.

- Not sure about the holsters and mag pouches. The race-like "non-race" holsters are getting to be expensive, but are still carry-worthy in most cases...and still half the price of a true "race" holster.

[Chuck Anderson]

I think production does have a place with M and GM shooters. I started with a Glock 22 then 35, got my M card and then "upgraded" to a SV custom limited gun. Since then I haven't really improved. I spend most of my time shooting Glocks as a duty gun and as an LE trainer. The limited time that I have left I spent with the SV. I'm switching to production next year. Not to avoid competition but to concentrate on one gun again.

[Vince Pinto]

does any GM or M for that matter belong in production other than to promote their sponsor?

Production Division was created to exclude certain types of (SAO) guns, not to exclude particular grades of competitor.

Then IPSC decide to put these super guns, like the Tanfoglio and the sphinx, on this list. All they had to do is not approve them! Like they did with the Glock 34!

I repeat: The Tanfoglio and Sphinx comply with IPSC Production Division requirements, whereas the G34/G35 do not.

Why not just say that production is like standard but for DA- and DAO- minor guns only, and call the thing service division or something. And last but not leas why prohibit truly practical modifications that could even out the odds?

IPSC Production Division is nothing at all like a "Standard Division for DAO guns", because major modifications are prohibited. Moreover, the best way to "even out the odds" is by ensuring that factory guns available to everybody are the only ones which are approved, instead of adopting Standard Division type rules, where every gun is a protoype. If OFMs produce guns which comply with IPSC PD rules, then they are "Production" guns, so how can we possibly object?

And, frankly, I'm not terribly thrilled to see a guy return to IPSC after a 10 year hiatus, and the first thing he does is complain and tell us how we've got it all wrong ........

[njrich]

darth,

i'm not saying you have it all wrong.the way it is right now i think you guys have it all right and i would hate to see it become nothing but a race game again.one of the reasons for a 10 year hiatus is exactly that. it became nothing but a race game.my renewed interest in this SPORT is because i think it is on the right track now with the different divisions espesially production.

and frankly you should be glad someone returned because of the way it is now and have a forum like this one to voice opinions or complaints.

like i said in the post it was only my opinion and just something to think about.

if you misunderstood me i'm sorry.

[rmills]

I fear that USPSA Production might be headed down the same path (again).

Yes, what started out as a good idea in IPSC is turning into just another "gamer gun" division in USPSA. With the advent of allowing a shooter to cock their hammer to receive a SA shot on the first round and then each subsequent round was the first step. All because too many "top" shooters complained that it was too difficult to make a long range shot DA. And what about allowing a tungsten guide rod in Production? I've yet to run across a manufacturer who supplies tungsten guide rods as a standard in their mass produced pistols.

IPSC Production and IDPA SSP, the real factory gun divisions.

[Flexmoney]

And, frankly, I'm not terribly thrilled to see a guy return to IPSC after a 10 year hiatus, and the first thing he does is complain and tell us how we've got it all wrong ........

Hey Vince...relax a bit?

This is a shooting forum, and we are talking about shooting. Please don't discourge input and friendly dicussion (it might be useful).

[Flexmoney]

Moreover, the best way to "even out the odds" is by ensuring that factory guns available to everybody are the only ones which are approved...

Has that been the case? I don't know for sure, so I ask the question.

Somebody post here,on the forum, that the new CZ SP01 Tactical (is that the right moel for the gun I am thinking of?) is only available to LEO"S and/or miltary. And, that there have only been 600 units produced. Yet, I think it is already on the approved gun list?

[Flexmoney]

I fear that USPSA Production might be headed down the same path (again). 

Yes, what started out as a good idea in IPSC is turning into just another "gamer gun" division in USPSA. With the advent of allowing a shooter to cock their hammer to receive a SA shot on the first round and then each subsequent round was the first step. All because too many "top" shooters complained that it was too difficult to make a long range shot DA. And what about allowing a tungsten guide rod in Production? I've yet to run across a manufacturer who supplies tungsten guide rods as a standard in their mass produced pistols.

IPSC Production and IDPA SSP, the real factory gun divisions.

Roy, all the "top shooters" that I know take the first shot double action. Care to name names of those that you choose to call "complainers"? (perhaps we should start another thread ?)

USPSA Production is so close to IDPA's SSP that the only way I could tell which a shooter was shooting would be by the number of mags on their belt.

USPSA Production doesn't directly allow tungsten rods. The rule says that the gun can't weigh more than 2oz. over stock. (I think most of the tungsten rods, when installed, do remain under this limit.) I'm no fan of the tungsten rods...take them or leave them, it doens't matter much to me. I don't use one in my Glocks, and I don't fear any competitor that does.

[rmills]

Over the last year, one of the forum topics discussed the "cocking" rule change in USPSA. It was stated that many shooters including some top shooters wanted the rule added. Whether it was the top shooters or the Joe Average shooters who stated that a 1st round DA shot was too difficult on far away targets, I can't answer. When I get more time, I'll start searching the forum archives. The rule change was still a watering down of the rules AS is the allowance of a guiderod 2oz. over factory weight. If the guiderod is heavier than than factory produced guiderod, how is the pistol then a true Production gun?

Kyle, you may rationalize this however you feel necessary, but USPSA Production Class has deviated from it's original purpose.

As I do not shoot USPSA matches any longer, perhaps I should hold comment on these forums. However, when I see someone like Vince, who is probably one of the most experienced indivduals on the planet in regards to IPSC (and even USPSA) rules and procedures constantly get questioned and sometimes shown disrespect on this forum by relative newcomers to the sport, it makes one want to chime in.

Hey Vince, we understand at this point in time the USPSA is the governing body for IPSC here in the states, but with that said, could we ask the IPSC governing council to consider allowing IPSC clubs to form here in the states and follow the IPSC rules instead of USPSA rules? You might be suprised as to the number of shooters who would join.

Oh well...................as I'm sure the above comments will give Kyle something to do this afternoon, I'm going shooting......................

[Vince Pinto]

Somebody post here,on the forum, that the new CZ SP01 Tactical (is that the right moel for the gun I am thinking of?) is only available to LEO"S and/or miltary.  And, that there have only been 600 units produced.  Yet, I think it is already on the approved gun list?

Yes, the CZ SP-01 and the CZ SP-01 Tactical are both on the Approved Gun List, but there's no criteria that a minimum number be produced. Having said that, the Production Division Committee certainly does consider whether or not a gun is available to the general public before approving it, and we were satisfied that the subject guns fulfilled that requirement.

However if anyone has concrete information to the contrary (not just hearsay), they can lodge an objection to the subject gun(s) by email to prodlist@ipsc.org.

[Vince Pinto]

Hey Vince, we understand at this point in time the USPSA is the governing body for IPSC here in the states, but with that said, could we ask the IPSC governing council to consider allowing IPSC clubs to form here in the states and follow the IPSC rules instead of USPSA rules? You might be suprised as to the number of shooters who would join.

The short answer is "No", because IPSC will only recognise one overall organisation in each Region (which might be a Nation or a geographical area, as the case may be), and IPSC does not accept applications for membership from individuals or from shooting clubs. Moreover, in my opinion, it's highly unlikely that the General Assembly would agree to "splitting" the USA into multiple regions.

Of course if another organisation "challenged" the USPSA, the IPSC Executive Council (and, in turn, the IPSC General Assembly), would be obliged to consider the application under the provisions of Article 5.7 of the IPSC Constitution:

5.7 In the event of a further application for affiliation from a Region in which there is already a recognised affiliated Regional Directorate, the Executive Council shall seek to inform itself regarding the extent to which each organisation meets the criteria previously enumerated and may at the next ensuing Assembly, recommend a transfer of affiliation. The Executive Council shall not, itself, effect a transfer of affiliation. The Assembly may effect a transfer of affiliation by a majority of three-fourths of the votes cast.

The full text of the IPSC Constitution can be viewed at the IPSC website.

[mai]

Could this situation be happened?

Some day, the production division may end up to be a competition between gun’s company. They may create a production gun that actually not proper to use in real life, but aim only to win the game. The company who making the best racing production gun will be the winner. And the shooters will be forced to buy the very expensive gun in order to stand up front and be able to compete with other shooters. And also for the normal citizens, who want to have a gun to protect their life, end up buying guns that specially made for racing.

Probably, Glock is the only company, who wants to make only production guns for real life only (at least, for now).

Mai

[Vince Pinto]

Could this situation be happened?

No, I don't think so, and the reason is because guns must be approved by the Production Division Committee, and I know for certain that they will never permit one make or model gun to dominate the division, nor will they allow the spirit of the division to be blatantly flaunted.

However I welcome the development of the improved products I've seen over the past 18 months, and I'm delighted that manufacturers have, in my opinion, created guns specifically to comply with the criteria for Production Division without going overboard trying to "beat the system" and/or charging silly prices for them.