Minimum trigger pull in Production?

[Southpaw]

I've let more than one of my Production div friends try shooting my STI .... didn't seem to make them a noticably better shooter ... it made their trigger control issues a liitle less noticable but they were still there if you knew what to look for ...

So if the trigger doesn't matter, or at least doesn't have a material affect on a shooter's performance, then why do we need a separate division for just DA and striker fired guns?

[Nimitz]

Every time someone proposes another rule change to Production Division to make it "better" I usually just sit back and laugh & here's why ....

IF the original purpose for creating the Production division was to allow people to shoot plain, out of the box "factory guns" and not have to compete with highly modified, competition style guns found in Open & Limited, we've moved so far away from this "intent" there is no going back. Now just because someone with 'USPSA President' after his name said that was the intent doesn't make it so .... but I digress ....

Once you allow "certain" mods to production guns but not others you've opened up Pandora's Box and there's no closing it. Why it is ok to modify sights on a Production gun but not the trigger? Aren't sights just as important as a trigger to making an accurate shot? Why is it ok to make internal mods bjut not external ones? This is not a photography contest ... internal mods can make a significant difference in how a gun operates ....

For the Production division to truly be a 'factory gun' division the rules should have been that only factory guns can participate (under a specific definition of 'factory') along with a published list of qualifying guns ... with no modifications allowed. However the gun comes from the factory, that's the way you shoot it.

All modifications should be equal but as we know some mods are more equal than others ....

[kneelingatlas]

This seems like a thinly veiled polymers can't compete against tanfo/cz thread.

According to Phil Strader's comments on the matter, the manufacturers of the polymers are conceeding that point.

[CHA-LEE]

Most of the shooting and participation of USPSA matches happens at the Level 1 club matches. There is a HUGE chunk of "Local Club Match" shooters who will never attend a Level 2 or above major match within their own state, much less travel out of state to attend on. These are well known facts that nobody can really contest. These are important facts to know because the rule set needs to be viable for the "Bulk" of the participation level that happens.

As stated before, we already have a Production Rule set that while viable and needed, is logistically unenforceable at the Level 1 club match level, especially the gun modification rules. Unless the illegal modifications are blatantly obvious, they go unchecked and unenforced. When was the last time you had a local club match where each production shooters gun was weighed, put in a measurement box, inspected for illegal external modifications, and chronoed like what happens at Level 2 or above matches? I go to 50+ club matches a year and I have NEVER seen that happen. As a match director myself, I don't have the match staff bandwidth or time on match day to support a tech inspection like this.

Since we can't even enforce the Production rules we currently have at the local club match level, what is the point of trying to add even more restrictive and unenforceable rules? As a match director I wouldn't want to be in a position of enforcing a trigger pull weight rule. I also don't want to deal with the Wrath from my existing production competitors if this rule was deployed. How many times does a local match Production shooter get bumped to Open because their trigger pull is 4.1lbs instead of 4lbs before they simply quit USPSA all together out of frustration? I would stand to lose more existing production shooters due to this rule change verses the few that it "Might" gain by deploying a rule like this.

As a Match Director and a Competitor, I think that deploying any type of trigger pull weight rule on a mature division like Production would be suicide for the division. Shouldn't the rules promote participating in the divisions? Adding a minimum trigger pull weight does the opposite of that from my perspective.

[CHA-LEE]

The whole "What the manufacturers what" argument is totally unfounded. The major gun manufactures business models require the selling and distribution of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of "units" in the overall firearms market. USPSA shooters probably don't even make up 1% of the overall customer base, so why on earth would they give a crap about making guns for competition, much less USPSA rules that would make their gun more or less competitive than their competition.

As much as the top brass at USPSA would like to think that our sport is a driving force in major gun manufactures gun sales, that couldn't be further from the truth. USPSA marketing value isn't even icing on the cake. Its more likely to be no more significant to their sales than a single speck of sugar in the batter.

Its easy for us to lose perspective of this stuff when we are eyeballs deep in the sport. But the facts are the facts and we need to take a step back and look at the big picture to see what does or does not even makes sense before making changes to existing rules.

[rvb]

So if the trigger doesn't matter, .... then why do we need a separate division for just DA and striker fired guns

ding ding.

Production came around before SS. 1911s could complete in L10, but common guns like G17s or beretta 92s really had no place to be competitive, especially since they couldn't make major. plus there was the AWB making it hard for new shooters to get 'high caps' to play in limited. they made it DA/safe-action partly because they are considered harder, partly because it wasn't intended to include 1911s, and to some degree, because that was the idpa SSP rule, imo.

then SS came along.

Recently, production guys have largely moved away from glocks and berettas to heavy steel DA/SA guns. weight/accuracy/triggers/etc are all now very comparable to 1911s, except for that DA first shot. hence why above I argue we don't need two divisions any longer.

biggest difference now in prod and ss divisions isn't the guns, it's the scoring/equipment rules which is easily solved.

2c.

-rvb

[zhunter]

I've let more than one of my Production div friends try shooting my STI .... didn't seem to make them a noticably better shooter ... it made their trigger control issues a liitle less noticable but they were still there if you knew what to look for ...

So if the trigger doesn't matter, or at least doesn't have a material affect on a shooter's performance, then why do we need a separate division for just DA and striker fired guns?

You're trolling right???

[zhunter]

This seems like a thinly veiled polymers can't compete against tanfo/cz thread.

According to Phil Strader's comments on the matter, the manufacturers of the polymers are conceeding that point.

They should stop complaining and make a better gun! But they prefer to cater to police that require NY triggers.

[Gary Stevens]

When the original minimum trigger pull rule came out Chuck and I were the only two BOD members to vote against it. My argument was that how the gun feels in the hand, how visible are the sights, and does it have a good trigger. These were what shooters were telling me they wanted, and I agreed 100 percent.

In a short while the rest of the BOD got their collective minds right and reversed course.

Shooters will migrate to whatever platform suits their needs best. The free market actually works.

[Forrest Halley]

The whole "What the manufacturers WANT" argument is totally unfounded. The major gun manufactures business models require the selling and distribution of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of "units" in the overall firearms market. USPSA shooters probably don't even make up 1% of the overall customer base, so why on earth would they give a crap about making guns for competition, much less USPSA rules that would make their gun more or less competitive than their competition.

As much as the top brass at USPSA would like to think that our sport is a driving force in major gun manufactures gun sales, that couldn't be further from the truth. USPSA marketing value isn't even icing on the cake. Its more likely to be no more significant to their sales than a single speck of sugar in the batter.

Its easy for us to lose perspective of this stuff when we are eyeballs deep in the sport. But the facts are the facts and we need to take a step back and look at the big picture to see what does or does not even makes sense before making changes to existing rules.

As I understood it from the expletive laced Ben Stoeger podcast with a fella running for USPSA prez...the manufacturers were considering removing sponsorships based on the fact that they felt their products were not as competitive. The same gentleman in the interview conceded the point that USPSA was a slim portion of their market share and they were not going to make guns specifically for us.

Now I wonder why they are making the G34, XDM 5.25, and M&P Pro if they aren't listening to the competitve shooting world? Those guns have zero concealed carry potential. They aren't really duty guns; despite whatever the gamer cop is trying to tell you at an idpa match. So they listen to us a little bit, but then they want to flex their muscles and be lazy instead of trying to come up with a more accurate design. Meanwhile the others catch up and surpass them. Glock doesn't seem to mind making odd ball stuff, just look at the G40, so why not have a movement to highly accurize their pistols while maintaining the same reliability?

[zhunter]

The whole "What the manufacturers WANT" argument is totally unfounded. The major gun manufactures business models require the selling and distribution of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of "units" in the overall firearms market. USPSA shooters probably don't even make up 1% of the overall customer base, so why on earth would they give a crap about making guns for competition, much less USPSA rules that would make their gun more or less competitive than their competition.

As much as the top brass at USPSA would like to think that our sport is a driving force in major gun manufactures gun sales, that couldn't be further from the truth. USPSA marketing value isn't even icing on the cake. Its more likely to be no more significant to their sales than a single speck of sugar in the batter.

Its easy for us to lose perspective of this stuff when we are eyeballs deep in the sport. But the facts are the facts and we need to take a step back and look at the big picture to see what does or does not even makes sense before making changes to existing rules.

As I understood it from the expletive laced Ben Stoeger podcast with a fella running for USPSA prez...the manufacturers were considering removing sponsorships based on the fact that they felt their products were not as competitive. The same gentleman in the interview conceded the point that USPSA was a slim portion of their market share and they were not going to make guns specifically for us.

Now I wonder why they are making the G34, XDM 5.25, and M&P Pro if they aren't listening to the competitve shooting world? Those guns have zero concealed carry potential. They aren't really duty guns; despite whatever the gamer cop is trying to tell you at an idpa match. So they listen to us a little bit, but then they want to flex their muscles and be lazy instead of trying to come up with a more accurate design. Meanwhile the others catch up and surpass them. Glock doesn't seem to mind making odd ball stuff, just look at the G40, so why not have a movement to highly accurize their pistols while maintaining the same reliability?

Chuck Anderson is currently testing CO style guns and dots for his dept.

Hmmm

Your premise might be WRONG

[JAFO]

I would not support it. For one, I like tinkering with my guns. Doing mods that are within the rules like swapping parts and springs, polishing here and there, etc, allow me to make the gun a little more my own while improving the trigger at the same time.

And what happens with a gun whose factory-specified pull weight is acceptable, but it falls below the limit after the trigger breaks in? I've had guns whose trigger pulls lightened considerably after a few thousand rounds, mainly because the parts mated together and became smoother. I have no desire to be forced into swapping perfectly good, broken-in parts for factory new so I can worsen the pull back within a weight limit.

And no one is forced to spend hundreds on a trigger job. When new shooters ask about trigger work on their new gun, I tell them to lubricate it and shoot the crap out of it for a while before they do anything beyond changing springs.

And FWIW, I think that the striker guns having the same pull for every shot would make them more suited to SS, rather than adding SAO guns to Production.

Edited August 5, 2015 by JAFO

[Nimitz]

The whole "What the manufacturers what" argument is totally unfounded. The major gun manufactures business models require the selling and distribution of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of "units" in the overall firearms market. USPSA shooters probably don't even make up 1% of the overall customer base, so why on earth would they give a crap about making guns for competition, much less USPSA rules that would make their gun more or less competitive than their competition.

As much as the top brass at USPSA would like to think that our sport is a driving force in major gun manufactures gun sales, that couldn't be further from the truth. USPSA marketing value isn't even icing on the cake. Its more likely to be no more significant to their sales than a single speck of sugar in the batter.

Its easy for us to lose perspective of this stuff when we are eyeballs deep in the sport. But the facts are the facts and we need to take a step back and look at the big picture to see what does or does not even makes sense before making changes to existing rules.

Cha-lee: I agree with you completely ... so what do you think our leadership is up to when they claim that the weight restriction is to appease gun manufacturers who are going to walk if their guns can't be competitive again?

Edited August 5, 2015 by Nimitz

[Southpaw]

This thread hasn't died yet? I'm totally over it, was curious everyone's thoughts on the idea...I think I got my answer

Cha-lee: I agree with you completely ... so what do you think our leadership is up to when they claim that the weight restriction is to appease gun manufacturers who are going to walk if their guns can't be competitive again?

Talk is cheap, it's easy for gun manufacturers to complain to USPSA, a lot more expensive for them to build a whole new competition oriented model. And I agree we're a very small segment of the market so not worth it for Glock et al.

[CHA-LEE]

The whole "What the manufacturers what" argument is totally unfounded. The major gun manufactures business models require the selling and distribution of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of "units" in the overall firearms market. USPSA shooters probably don't even make up 1% of the overall customer base, so why on earth would they give a crap about making guns for competition, much less USPSA rules that would make their gun more or less competitive than their competition.

As much as the top brass at USPSA would like to think that our sport is a driving force in major gun manufactures gun sales, that couldn't be further from the truth. USPSA marketing value isn't even icing on the cake. Its more likely to be no more significant to their sales than a single speck of sugar in the batter.

Its easy for us to lose perspective of this stuff when we are eyeballs deep in the sport. But the facts are the facts and we need to take a step back and look at the big picture to see what does or does not even makes sense before making changes to existing rules.

Cha-lee: I agree with you completely ... so what do you think our leadership is up to when they claim that the weight restriction is to appease gun manufacturers who are going to walk if their guns can't be competitive again?

I don't even want to speculate as to what our "Leadership" is up to with regards to this situation.

Personally I don't think that the whole "Super Tanker Heavy" production gun argument / advantage is really even valid. Especially given that all Production guns are scored Minor and thus get to use "mouse fart" power factor loads. Then there are the historical match results that show MANY Club, State, Section, Area, and National level matches being won by feather weight plastic guns. If the light weight plastic guns were at a significant disadvantage to the heavy DA/SA guns then there wouldn't be any representation of them being used for match shooting. For example, when was the last time you seen a High Point being used on a regular basis at a match? That manufacture of guns are not competitive and unreliable thus not used for competition.

More than anything, I think people simply like whining about disadvantages in their guns and gear verses looking in the mirror and fixing the real problem. Its easy to blame a poor performance on the Arrow because the Indian could never do anything wrong.

[Nimitz]

again, completely agree .... I guess I'll just chalk it up to one more indication that major changes at the top are needed .... I was kinda excited about trying this new provisional division out but there is no way I'm buying a pistol just for this and hope it sticks ....

[Forrest Halley]

The whole "What the manufacturers WANT" argument is totally unfounded. The major gun manufactures business models require the selling and distribution of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of "units" in the overall firearms market. USPSA shooters probably don't even make up 1% of the overall customer base, so why on earth would they give a crap about making guns for competition, much less USPSA rules that would make their gun more or less competitive than their competition.

As much as the top brass at USPSA would like to think that our sport is a driving force in major gun manufactures gun sales, that couldn't be further from the truth. USPSA marketing value isn't even icing on the cake. Its more likely to be no more significant to their sales than a single speck of sugar in the batter.

Its easy for us to lose perspective of this stuff when we are eyeballs deep in the sport. But the facts are the facts and we need to take a step back and look at the big picture to see what does or does not even makes sense before making changes to existing rules.

As I understood it from the expletive laced Ben Stoeger podcast with a fella running for USPSA prez...the manufacturers were considering removing sponsorships based on the fact that they felt their products were not as competitive. The same gentleman in the interview conceded the point that USPSA was a slim portion of their market share and they were not going to make guns specifically for us.

Now I wonder why they are making the G34, XDM 5.25, and M&P Pro if they aren't listening to the competitve shooting world? Those guns have zero concealed carry potential. They aren't really duty guns; despite whatever the gamer cop is trying to tell you at an idpa match. So they listen to us a little bit, but then they want to flex their muscles and be lazy instead of trying to come up with a more accurate design. Meanwhile the others catch up and surpass them. Glock doesn't seem to mind making odd ball stuff, just look at the G40, so why not have a movement to highly accurize their pistols while maintaining the same reliability?

Chuck Anderson is currently testing CO style guns and dots for his dept.

Hmmm

Your premise might be WRONG

My belief is that the long slide guns were created for competition. I said nothing about dots. I was referring to one guy who certified himself to carry a G34 for a competitive advantage in idpa and then got PO'd when we called him out on on his race duty belt. Good for ¿Chuck? and his dept, I hope it works out well for them.

[fishsticks]

again, completely agree .... I guess I'll just chalk it up to one more indication that major changes at the top are needed .... I was kinda excited about trying this new provisional division out but there is no way I'm buying a pistol just for this and hope it sticks ....

I don't think buying a new pistol is require. It looks like there are a variety of pistols that make weight. There also look to be a number of mounting systems using the rear sight dovetail. Once I get through the few remaining bigger 3gun and USPSA matches I'm going to rig something up on my g17 and try it out.

[Nimitz]

it is for me ... I don't collect guns. I have exactly 3 handguns that are for competition .... an STI SteelMaster for open Steel Challenge, a Browning Buckmark racegun for RFPO Steel Challenge & a CZ SP01 Shadow for Production. And thanks to the ridiculous weight limit rule I have no firearm that I could even remotely consider using for CO .... maybe I'm the only competition shooter who doesn't own a safe full of handguns so that all I need to do is select one that's close and go ....

Edited August 6, 2015 by Nimitz

[zhunter]

Nimitz, a P-09 can be had for $450, a P-07 for less.

Not a big investment, and you can sell it if you don't like it.

Or not.

[Nimitz]

I appreciate the info but I'm just not into buying guns because I can. I'm already only really shooting 2 of my 3 competition pistols as it is and I'm even finding that hard to do the way I want to. I know I could just go shoot in the division and not train & not worry about it but I'm not wired that way. If I get invloved in a competitive activity I get hell bent on world domination pretty quickly and since I'm still wasting 40+ hrs /week working it's hard to focus on multiple things ....

I was willing to commit to making it work when it appeared that I could shoot my Shadow in this new division since if it went permanent I would switch from Production to Production Optics & not look back ....

A buddy of mine owns 13 long guns and a couple of pistols, including the G34 I sold him when I switched to the Shadow. I've shot move rds down range in a single training session then he has literally over the last 10 years ... he likes owning guns & I like to shoot them ... .

Now if you wanted to buy a P-09 and loan it to me thru Jan 16 we may have something ....