Why a Production trigger pull weight in IPSC???

[midvalleyshooter]

I'm curious how IPSC and USPSA ended up with different rules for Production. Why a trigger weight restriction in IPSC but none in USPSA? Why does IPSC have a barrel length restriction that prohibits the G34/35? Can you folks that were following these developments then help me understand how this came to pass?

Thanks,

Keith

[spook]

AFAIK, the trigger pull weight was put in the rules to prevent PD becoming a division dominated by 2lb. trigger Glocks (or, to put the DA auto on par with the glocks). Now you can pick a gun with a constant 5lb. pull, which some like. Or, a gun with a 5lb. first shot and light follow up shots.

AFAIK, the 5" barrel rule that excludes the HK USP Expert, the G34/35 etc. was made before these guns were produced.

I'm sure Vince will chime in on this one.

[Vince Pinto]

I'm sure Vince will chime in on this one.

You rang?

The minimum trigger pull weight is a simple mechanism to check that competitors have not been tampering with their triggers contrary to IPSC PD rules, and the standard Glock 17 trigger weight was used as our benchmark.

The 5" barrel limitation was selected to prevent IPSC PD from being dominated by the Glock 34, as most of the guns we wanted to see used in IPSC PD had barrels of 5" or less.

[Carlos]

Not wishing to kick over the "Production - cost limit??!?" can of worms again I simply point out that trigger jobs are expensive. The "hot set-up" for Glocks right now in USPSA is the Vanek at over $200 (I will state again: I have examined Charlie's work & I believe he earns every penny as there is quite a bit done; good job Charlie!). The beginner's cost starting w/ a new glock (about $500 on sale) jumps to over $700 plus 3 more mags ($60) holster ($20) and mag holders ($20). Thats an $800 admission ticket. In IPSC, you simply buy it & shoot it (at least that is supposed to be the way it works).

[Flexmoney]

Carlos...it just can't let that pass. Sorry.

While CV's triggers are very good. A shooter just doesn't need to spend that kind of money.

I am all for the shooter having the option to send their trigger to CV, but I don't feel (in any way) behind the equipment curve when I shoot against somebody with such a trigger.

But...this is about IPSC Production...so, let's not go too far into this here (we can beat it around on another thread is somebody is so inclined)

[Flexmoney]

BTW, IPSC Production guns (the percieved top guns) will be going over the $800 mark. Super-stud, Dave Sevigny withstanding, my prediction is that their will be "an equipment race" in IPSC Production.

[Gary Stevens]

The thing that always struck me funny about this rule, at least from the IPSC side, was the 5 lb trigger weight. The IPSC rule prohibits anything except "minor detailing" of the parts, so no trigger job. There are only three guns I know of in the entire universe, with the exception of the Klingon Bird of Prey model X1 which is standard issue on all Birds of Prey, that can make a 5 lb. trigger out of the box. The Glock, the Para LDA, and the Springfield XD. Now the XD has been relegated to single action status in IPSC so that one is out. Now we have the Glock and the Para LDA. How the Glock 5 lb. weight was selected is open for speculation, but it seems to me that it would have been better set at a weight almost all guns could meet such as 10-11 pound range. As it is you actually have a Glock/Para LDA Division if you want a 5 lb. trigger.

My thoughts, your mileage may vary, and I bet Vince's will

[Flexmoney]

Gary,

I think the "no tweaking" of the trigger parts (minor detailing) just came from the most recent rule book? So, there was some latitude before?

[EricW]

Can I ask a stupid question?

If the minimum pull is 5 lbs, why not make the HS2000/XD IPSC Production legal? If the point of Production is to stop the equipment race, it's a crying shame that the handgun that almost perfectly solves that issue is excluded from the race altogether.

[diehli]

Can I ask a stupid question?

If the minimum pull is 5 lbs, why not make the HS2000/XD IPSC Production legal? If the point of Production is to stop the equipment race, it's a crying shame that the handgun that almost perfectly solves that issue is excluded from the race altogether.

That's about the stupidest question I've heard!!!

You're one smart stupid guy, EW.

[Gary Stevens]

I should have noted in my previous message that I am personally against any trigger weight requirement, and fought hard to keep it out of USPSA.

My musings were strictly random thoughts, not a proposal, God forbid!!!

Flex, as to your question, I don't know, I guess so, but I don't know for sure.

[Vince Pinto]

My thoughts, your mileage may vary, and I bet Vince's will

At least now I know why my ears were burning

Despite the "standard" 5lb trigger pull, the Glock 17 does not dominate IPSC Production Division, and other makes such as CZ, Beretta, Sig, Tanfoglio, Beretta and various others are well represented, but I can't recall the last time I saw an LDA at a match.

I think the "no tweaking" of the trigger parts (minor detailing) just came from the most recent rule book?  So, there was some latitude before?

No Sir. Internal modifications were prohibited from the very outset, however we removed the word "polishing" from the original wording because we were reliably informed that "polishing" means "grinding" to a metal worker, so we adopted the milder "minor detailing" verbiage.

Can I ask a stupid question?  If the minimum pull is 5 lbs, why not make the HS2000/XD IPSC Production legal?

It's not a stupid question. The HS2000/XD Series are not denied because of the trigger pull - they're denied because they're classified as single-action pistols under IPSC's definition (see Rule 8.1.2).

The only way for us to allow the HS2000/XD Series into IPSC Production Division would be for us to either reword our definitions under Rule 8.1.2 or to specifically exempt "striker-fired" pistols from being classified as SAO. This matter has been reviewed regularly (and as recently as in Bali last week), but since there is currently little demand for the subject guns outside of North America, we're not been driven by competitor demand to change anything.

Having said all that, the IPSC Production Committee is currently considering a number of revisions to the Production Division criteria, and we're about to seek input from Regional Directors.

[EricW]

The HS2000/XD Series are not denied because of the trigger pull - they're denied because they're classified as single-action pistols under IPSC's definition (see Rule 8.1.2).

The only way for us to allow the HS2000/XD Series into IPSC Production Division would be for us to either reword our definitions under Rule 8.1.2 or to specifically exempt "striker-fired" pistols from being classified as SAO.

Vince,

I've learned something today. After dryfiring the XD for a while, I believe that the gun is indeed a double action, not a single-action striker-fired pistol as it is currently classified. Although the striker does not retract as far as the Glock while pulling the trigger, it does indeed retract when the trigger is pulled. This can be verified by placing one's finger over the cocking indicator at the rear of the slide, then actuating the trigger. (I honestly didn't realize this until aujourd'hui, so I never beat this drum before.)

Thus, I really think the XD should be classified under 8.1.5.2, not 8.1.5.1.

If the concern in IPSC is that Production is going to turn into an arms race, then one of the best candidates for a viable box-stock production gun should be allowed. Manufacturers need to be rewarded for sound engineering, so that they will continue to improve their products based on IPSC's experience. Otherwise, it's forever going to continue to be a contest for who can soup-up their quasi-suitable pistol on the sly.

I know, understand, and appreciate the philosphy behind the DA/SA/SelectMode classifications, but I'm wondering if maybe some more intangible criteria need be considered. I'm totally fine with the 5lb rule for Production. Personally, I'd be fine with it in USPSA. It just seems to me that when somebody comes up with a better mousetrap that really belongs in Production, that we could find a way to include it both in USPSA and IPSC.

FWIW.

[midvalleyshooter]

So could a traditional DA/SA type production pistol could have the DA pull set at 5 lbs and the SA pull say set at 2 1/2 lbs? If so this would appear to be a big advantage for the DA/SA type design. A DA/SA would have a sweet 2 1/2 lb trigger after the first shot while the Glock would always be at 5 lbs. Do I understand this correctly?

Thanks,

Keith

[diehli]

So could a traditional DA/SA type production pistol could have the DA pull set at 5 lbs and the SA pull say set at 2 1/2 lbs? If so this would appear to be a big advantage for the DA/SA type design. A DA/SA would have a sweet 2 1/2 lb trigger after the first shot while the Glock would always be at 5 lbs. Do I understand this correctly?

Thanks,

Keith

Yep.

Though if the DA trigger pull can be gotten to 5lbs, the SA trigger pull will probably be under a pound.

[mcoliver]

Actually, the CZ trigger can be made so that the DA pull can pass the 5# requirement. While it's SA mode can be made to be anywhere you want it to be (say from 1.5-3.5#).

Personally, trigger weight (to some extent, of course) doesn't bother me as long as it's smooth with no funky binding or multiple-click resets.

[Vince Pinto]

I've learned something today.  After dryfiring the XD for a while, I believe that the gun is indeed a double action, not a single-action striker-fired pistol as it is currently classified.

Eric, thanks for the constructive post. I don't know if you recall, but the XD was originally approved for IPSC Production Division, but we withdrew approval a month or so later after another manufacturer (don't ask!) complained that the XD was an SAO pistol. After conducting some research, I discovered that the Croatian manufacturer and the ATF and the IDPA also classified the XD as being SAO, so IPSC was certainly in good company, but we actually based our decision on our own criteria.

Anyway, I also sent two emails to Springfield (which I signed as Chairman of the IPSC Production Division Committee), asking them for more information, but I didn't receive a reply. I also mentioned this to Mike Voigt, and he told me he would ask Rob Leatham to chase Springfield for an official reply, but still nada to this day. I therefore believe I went the extra mile but, sadly, it seems that Springfield doesn't want to talk to me, hence the XD series continues not to be approved for IPSC Production Division.

Having said all that, I would have no objections to allowing the Springfield XD in IPSC Production Division but we'd need to change one of the rules quoted above or we need to change the PD criteria to make striker-fired pistols exempt from being classified as SA (but I'm a bit concerned that doing so might end up biting us on the ass at some time in the near future).

If the concern in IPSC is that Production is going to turn into an arms race, .....

I'm not concerned about that, because we only allow very minor modifications. At worst, the only concern I have is magazine capacity, but that's an easy one to fix if we think it's necessary to do so, and that's one thing which has been on the back burner for some time.

[gmshtr]

My STI has about a 5lb trigger pull. I wonder if I can shoot in production!

Honestly, what difference does it make? My STI trigger pull is exactly 4lbs. Dave Sevigny's trigger isn't bad, but it's not light either. I don't doubt that his Glock could pick up at least 3lbs.

I think the biggest factor for IPSC production will be the use of some of these "cheater guns." There's a BIG difference b/t 19 rounds and 24 rounds, between having a mag well and not having one, between using 3-dot crap sights as opposed to lo-mount Bo-Mars.

That's what will make a difference....between 3rd and 4th. I'm still confident that the top gun will still be a Glock 17! I wonder who'll be shooting it???

[EricW]

Honestly, what difference does it [a light trigger] make?

Inside of 35-40 yards on an un-hardcovered metric target, it simply doesn't. I'd like to think I've been pretty consistent on that point.

Also, I'm definitely not arguing "let's let all SA handguns into Production division." My only point for stirring the pot was that there does seem to be an omission with regards to the XD. Obviously, the fault lies squarely with Springfield and no one else.

[Flexmoney]

I think the biggest factor for IPSC production will be the use of some of these "cheater guns."

I saw one at this past weekends match (1st match under the green book). The magwell on it looked pretty "non-production" in my mind.

[shred]

You may have noticed that Springfield is pushing the XD action as the "Ultra Safe Action", probably both as a dig at Glock with their "Safe Action", and in an attempt to get it ATF reclassified.

The rumor I've mentioned before is that the 'SA' on the ATF paperwork was some sort of clerical misstep at Springfield, which they've been trying to correct unsuccessfully for a long while. So, they may have decided it's easier to lobby for a whole new classification ("USA") instead.

But, is the XD sold by Springfield outside the US? Do they have a big reason to care if it's not international-IPSC PD legal?

[EricW]

But, is the XD sold by Springfield outside the US?  Do they have a big reason to care if it's not international-IPSC PD legal?

Valid point, but what about US Production competitors who wish to travel abroad to matches? Yeah, we're talking about a handful of competitors at most, but still the XD should *technically* qualify for IPSC Production.

[Vince Pinto]

But, is the XD sold by Springfield outside the US? Do they have a big reason to care if it's not international-IPSC PD legal?

Good question, and perhaps that's why they don't send me flowers & candy!

According to my records, I've received 110 enquiries about the XD over the past 12 months, but the only non-US enquiries I received were from Canada. I also received another 10 enquiries about the HS2000, but they were mainly from Europe.

[dirtypool40]

Sorry I got onto kind of a rant here. Relax, I know I am going to get beat down by Vince, Flex and the powers that be for speaking out of turn.

BUT!!!! shouldn't our rules be based on common sense rather than whether anyone has asked this week or not? You wrote the rules to keep the G34 from being allowed? ouch I would hate to admit that. What's next a new, kinder gentler Open that excludes 1911 types? Different power factors for Open / Standard (oops, we already have that little gem).

And when you make an oversite or error, have the guts to fix it. Otherwise we end up like IDPA where it ain't legal because just cuz we didn't think of it or don't like it. Subjective criteria and a "favorites" list are bad business.

If the Glock is a DA then the XD sure as hell is, typos or not. Work on an OBJECTIVE criteria for determining if the striker moves far enough to make you happy.

If what I read on here is true, you can't even refinish a production gun if it starts to rust on you.

How does allowing a change of sites turn into an equipment race?

Newsflash; you already have an equipment race, it's just "beg the maufacturers to make it juuuust the way you want it" (CZ) and pay it all up front, instead of buy and modify.

Just one serfs lowly opinion, but I think the US rules make more sense. DA and fits in the box. Carry type holster. I would change US Prod to allow high caps, no sense encouraging the Brady bunch by adhereing to laws that don't exist. (yeah, I know you live in NJ or Kali, fine only load ten, but don't drag the rest of us down into your hell).

You want to make Prod a SHOOTING contest? Let shooters bring their guns up to the same standard reguardless of what's available in their neck of the woods. I mean, I can't get the sexy new, VERY gamey CZ, but I sure as hell don't want to shoot a box stock G17 against them.

[Nik Habicht]

I would change US Prod to allow high caps, no sense encouraging the Brady bunch by adhereing to laws that don't exist. (yeah, I know you live in NJ or Kali, fine only load ten, but don't drag the rest of us down into your hell).

DP,

I agree with every point except this one. With the ten round limitation in effect, you're not limited to shooting a 9. You can shoot a .40 or .45 on a level playing field. It allows more guns to play in the division. Remove the mag capacity, and your PD gun will need to hold 18 or 19 rounds to be competitive.....

On another note --- .40s with 180s downloaded to 130 shoot sofffft.....