Nroi Ruling On Vanek Trigger For Production

[Merlin Orr]

Am Not!...Am Too!...Am Not!...Am Too!...Am Not!...Am Too!...Geeezzz...

[eerw]

Can I replace the 5# connector of a 100% reliable G17 with a 3.5 # connector for the sole purpose of obtaining a lighter trigger pull?

Officially? The only place you can get an official answer is from NROI. It's easy. Send an email to nroi@uspsa.org and ask.

UNofficially? I believe that is a perfectly legal thing to do, but my opinion carries no official weight in the matter. So.... send that email and lets get it cleared up for everyone?

Bruce

The NROI has ruled that that is allowed, which adds to the confusion. See here: http://www.uspsa.org/rules/nroi_rulings.ph...on=edit&indx=19

Thanks for the link but that pertains to External Mods only such has extended mag release and extended slide stops. What about internal mods, such as the connector, to receive a lighter trigger pull?

it would be legal under that ruling..as the 3.5 connector is factory on the G34, a legal production gun..therefore legal to install and use on a G17.

just a side note...you should see the same type of thread on IPSC GV about the new CZSP01 Shadow..and whether it should be allowed on the IPSC list since it appears to be purpose built for Production..and whether CZUB or CZUSA is the OFM

it just never ends....

Edited February 11, 2006 by eerw

[sfinney]

A minimum trigger pull requirement is a good idea for this Division, IMHO.

While you're at it:

1) Enforce the no externally visible modifications to INCLUDE no milled slides for Bomars etc. - change sights, but they musty fit the factory dovetails.

2) No changing of barrels to a non-factory part.

3) As you can visibly see the end of a guide rod sticking out the slide, no changing of guiderods to a material other than factory original.

4) Change the "Approved List" rules to have a "2000 produced and readily available to the public IN THE U.S. clause" (we are talking about U.S.P.S.A., right?)

5) In short, just make it factory produced guns only, no mods other than internal polishing/detailing.

Some argue that banning any mods will cause an equipment war in that the manufacturers will all run and make Production specific pistols, with all the desired competition features built in..... is this a BAD thing? Don't we want makers to make more out of the box competitive guns?

And the arguement that there are to many guns out there right now already modded with Bomars, triggers, whatever, to make the changes that would ban them, IMHO, is baloney. So what? First of all, this was supposed to be a low cost Division, if you have so much tied up in your Production gun you can't afford to sell it and buy an off the shelf replacement, shame on you. Lets make the changes for the better of the future of the Division, and new shooters coming into the sport - not the past, and what has already been done and is quickly souring people to what should be the most basic of all Divisions.

[Flexmoney]

First, my disclaimer: I don't not shoot a Vanek or anybody else's trigger kit in my Glocks. I do polish, some times drill, stock and aftermarket trigger parts (scherer and ghost connectors are easy to get and cheap, sometimes). I am also a Section Coordinator, so I have a taste for what it's like to work for free for the organization.

1. I don't see the relevance of mentioning the milling of the slide to install sights in Production. I can see where some want to use that as an argument to support their position..."we can do that, so why can't we do this...". However, the question of installing sights...and, if you can mill to do so...has been addressed. It was decided that it was allowable. I think that was a good decision. I don't think it sets a precedent. It is what it is, nothing more or less.

2. I can (barely) see M3's position that "trigger work includes the actual trigger". But, I agree with Bruce's viewpoint, that the rules aren't saying there is an exemption, in this case, to the rule against external mods.

Seeing M3's perspective here, I can see where there might have been some question here. There isn't anymore. We have a ruling now that clears that up.

3. I disagree with Bruce on his position that the rules don't specifically mention it, so it is taboo. Our rules have NEVER went with 'intent". Our history is that of freestyle.

4. I don't think the rules read that you can only do detail work and polishing. They do in IPSC, but not in USPSA. I don't think we need to change them.

5. The ruling here, says the mod is illegal because it is an "external modification". It doesn't say anything about not being allowed to beat, grind and drill on internal trigger parts. (I do get Bruce's argument about "reliability"...if pressed i can make a good argument to support this mods on that account.)

6. M3 mentioned that he didn't know what was done to his trigger, somebody else had to point it out to him. I think that is certainly the case for Amidon and NROI too, right? They likely don't have a gun in hand to examine, even.

7. I'm not sure that I want to declare myself any type of expert on the Glock. But, I am certain that I know quite a bit about them, likely more than most chrono guys or NROI officials (sorry, not trying to sound cocky). I examined Mink's Glock...after his top finish at the Nats a few years ago. I didn't catch that it had an external modification. I was standing right there, with it in hand...with the purpose of "checking out the trigger". Had I been wanting to steal the "mojo", I would have started by tearing the gun down and looking on the inside.

8. Doing gun checks of the top competitors might be a good idea...if we needed to "catch them". I don't think we do. It would be another level of logistics. Having run a Major (Level III) match, and been involved with running some others...I don't welcome the extra burden. And, I don't know who could possibly be expert enough to take on the task.

9. I appreciate Bruce posting here. He doesn't have to. I know that I have been the lone banner bearer for competition shooting and using the sights on a few other forums. I get lots of messages telling me I am wasting my time. I guess I am saying...we have a just a few "USPSA Officials" posting here...please don't make them regret it.

10. Cullen, I am a bit bothered by you posting that you are putting the "onus" on Bruce to handle the issues that you brought up. This isn't the proper venue for that, in my opinion. Go through your Section Coordinator (no power, but can rattle cages), your Area Director, the head of NROI...and, if need be...all the Area directors and the VP and Prez of USPSA. (I think you have a good point with the 500 stuff, but I don't expect it to have legs just from being brought up here.)

11. It has always been my position that Production guns ought to be allowed better sights and better triggers. I am pretty sure the gun designers would like ti that way. We ought not to get dinged because of the bean counters (cheap sights) and law-dawgs (crappy triggers).

12. And, a problem with possibly allowing an exemption here for the Vanek is that it wouldn't be fair to others. The precedent had been set by the Beretta "Speed Bump". Allowing a mod on the Glock 9becasue it is so popular) would be bending over shooters of other platforms.

OK...I think I probably disagrreed with just about everybody. Who did I miss??

Oh...yeah...Bonedaddy. Limited-10...Glocks and single-stacks...what is the world coming too?

Edited February 11, 2006 by Flexmoney

[chp5]

Thanks to Bruce for posting his views on the Amidon ruling. Bruce's posts have been reasoned and measured. You may not agree with him, but Amidon does - and that's what matters.

I can see both sides of the argument. I took my Vanek trigger out yesterday. I'll put it into my backup Limited G22.

I'd rather shoot Production with the Vanek trigger, but it is what it is. I'm certainly not mad at Amidon, Bruce or USPSA for making a call under under the rules.

Time to go practice with my stock trigger

[.40AET]

Bruce has gratiously and politely taken a lot of heat for the decisions of the BOD. I'd like to echo the "please don't make them regret it" part from above. We have 2 area directors that frequent the forum. They both bring a lot more information with them then we would ever find out on our own.

edited for spelling

Edited February 11, 2006 by .40AET

[the duck of death]

Wouldn't you know, I bought a G17 this winter and just finished a "Zoot" trigger job on it(not a Vanak I do my own). It has min take up but enough to keep the drop and firing pin safety working. Resloted the trigger safety and it works too. Didn't move the hole in the trigger bar though so no outside mods showing--think there's any hope?

[LwE]

Found the Tungsten guide rod article in the May/June 2001 issue of Front Sight in an article by Robin Taylor which says in relevant part:

"Fighting 'Weak Wrist' Malfunctions: The Glock's lightweight frame haunts USPSA shooters when they shoot weak-hand strings. If the shooter inadvertently grips the gun too low, the entire gun will recoil backwards as a unit. This robs the slide and barrel of the recoil energy needed to cycle cleanly. In the worst case, the gun malfunctions -- failing to eject, or pinning a live round on the feed ramp.

"Gripped properly, a Glock will cycle every time, but in the rush of the moment, a poor grip on the gun can cause problems. Adding weight to the frame helps.

"Getting Heavy:

. . .

"T.H.E. Guide Rod: Talk about a quick fix! THE's tungsten guide rod for the 34/35 weighs 2.0 ounces, a net gain of 1.6 ounces over stock. For a Production competitor, this is a no-brainer. Since the guide rod is an 'internal modification to improve reliability or function,' it's legal under the latest rule set (says John Amidon). The guide rod adds enough weight to help supress muzzle climb (slightly), but leaves enough margin that you can add steel sights to the gun and not go over the maximum '2 ounces over stock'."

[Craig, I am sorry to see you stooping to profiteer from the misery of others. This is an arms race--let's leave that to the manufacturers, where it belongs [insert smiley face here].]

[PhilTerry]

I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned somewhere in the 200+ messages in this tread but I don't think the 2 ounce rule mentioned in the article appears anywhere in the current rules.

[driver8M3]

I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned somewhere in the 200+ messages in this tread but I don't think the 2 ounce rule mentioned in the article appears anywhere in the current rules.

phil...one thing this thread has done for me is to make me really learn the production rules. rule D9 16 "maximum wt: yes, 2 ounces over factory specified."

[PhilTerry]

So it is!

I doubt it has ever been enforced!

[driver8M3]

I'm *really* sorry that that is such an inconvenient position to take. But, as God is my witness, when we *wrote* the rule we thought we were closing every possible door by saying "there are only a few modifications allowed. here they are. If it isn't on the list, you can't do it in Production division."

bruce, it would be great if the rule actually said that, but it doesnt. if you had thrown the word "only" into rule 21, i'd have to agree with the above (note though, that i continue to believe that trigger work should allow one to work on the actual trigger, creating an automatic exclusion to the no-external-mods rule).

let me borrow a lesson from you bruce, and turn the tables a bit.

bmw "M" cars available in the united states are very limited and include the following:

1.M3

2.M5

that sentence in no way says the only 2 M cars available in the US are the M3 and M5. "includes," in this sentence, and in rule D9 21, means they are part of a list, not the complete list.

i've noticed a few posts about antagonistic tone in this thread. i've tried hard not to do that. i appreciate all the posts here, even those (meatheads ) with contrary opinions . its especially good to hear from a member of the BOD (thats you bruce...thank you). i think it would be great if more of them showed up here.

now, since i'm the dummy in this thread, can someone please tell me what "action" means in D9 21.4...seriously. thanks.

[glockrocker]

11. It has always been my position that Production guns ought to be allowed better sights and better triggers. I am pretty sure the gun designers would like ti that way. We ought not to get dinged because of the bean counters (cheap sights) and law-dawgs (crappy triggers).

+1

I couldn't agree more.

IMO Glocks out of the box are poor choices for competition.

The sights are horrid. Thankfully there has been a ruling which even allows us to externally modify the slide to bury decent sights so they are more advantageous to use. This mod is a bit pricey though and could be considered an advantage over someone else who simply could not afford this type of extravagant mod.

The stock Glock barrel? Well, anyone who reloads knows what one of those does to the casings. Thankfully the rules allow us to replace the barrel so that the cases are better suited for reloading. This may be considered an advantage over someone else who cant afford to buy a new barrel though and what about reloading equipment? That's expensive too. Can you imagine the disadvantage someone may have that had to shoot inconsistent factory ammo all the time because they don't have the funds or space for a reloader?

How about the trigger? Ahhhh the factory glock trigger. Piece of junk. There are no two factory glock triggers alike. Even guns of the same series. Buy one new and think it is going to perform consistently with another you already own and boy are you in for a surprise . Thankfully we are allowed to install a wonderful aftermarket trigg....wait a minute. No we are not. It is an external mod. Can't have visible evidence of an external mod except for those other two. I understand the logic though. Allowing a mod of this type could be advantageous over other shooters who just want to shoot a cheap gun. Not to mention shooters of other platforms who's guns have triggers that perform as poorly as a stock glock trigger Well wait a minute....there aren't any but that's beside the point.

I think the idea of having a limitation on trigger pull (assuming an exception was allowed for the Vanek Triggers in production just as exceptions have been made for other reasonable external mods) may not be such a bad idea. If everyone could be allowed to modify triggers to a certain pull weight then all production guns could potentially have decent triggers. Hey that would be a great idea then shooters of other platforms would not have an advantage over people with stock glock triggers.

[Chriss Grube]

Bruce,

Thanks for making my point better than I could. If as a member of the BOD YOU can't say if a mod is production legal then how the hell do you expect every other member to figure it out? There is a problem with the rules so we have 2 choices live with the rules as they are written and stop the silly decisions or change the rule to a clearly worded and understood rule. The rules should be written so that anyone can read them and understand what is legal without having to get somebody else's OPINION. You seem to like the speeding quotes, the law is pretty damn clear the maximum speed is X and posted you drive over X and get caught you get whacked. Very clear to anyone. If you drove 80 in a 30 for 3 years you were lucky and don't have a bitch when you get caught. The rule wasn't changed it was always there you just chose to ignore it. This is not the case in production. Make it simple and adopt the IPSC rules and be done.

[Clay1]

We are talking about the Vanek trigger yes, and many have mention the Sotelo drop in trigger. But for those looking for an alternative what do you know about the Dale Rhea or Tom Novak trigger jobs? Externally visable modifications or not?

By the way I had my Sotelo trigger job next to the trigger bar that came out of my G34 and I see absolutely no difference in any way.

Rick

[SRT Driver]

This might be the best thing that has happened to Production.

How about this?

- No external mods other than sights and finish.

- Grip tape allowed.

- Internal recoil system and trigger mechanism work allowed provided all factory installed

safeties function as per OFM.

- 2oz over factory specified empty weight allowed.

- Trigger pull minimum 2.5 lbs (3 - 5 - 50lb or whatever the BOD deems acceptable).

- OFM parts (ie mag releases, fire control parts inlcuding hammers/triggers) may be

installed as long as they are a regular OFM catalog item.

The trigger pull minimum is just that..no lower. This includes DA/SA, DA only, and striker fired.

[Clay1]

John, I'm not in favor of changing other rules because people don't like the outcome of this ruling. There is no need to put weight limit in production. I like stability of rules not constant change.

Someone famous said, "Let's just get to the shooting"

Rick

[SRT Driver]

Clay1,

Agreed but there is no doubt on either side of the debate in regards to the ambiguous nature of the rules, as currently written.

By definition, the Vanek mod is an external mod without question and John Amidon made the right call. Just don't ask me as an RO/CRO to enforce it. Apparently, I cannot interpret rules.

As to changing the geometry of the trigger mechanism, any time you stone/polish/file/weld on a sear and/or cruciform, you are changing the geometry of the trigger mechanism.

Allow the competitor to improve their pistols to make them more shootable, whatever that may be. If that includes drilling a hole or repositioning a pin, as long as it does not manifest itself outside of the frame/slide or disable a safety..go for it.

If adding a reasonable trigger pull weight is the answer..fine. Let's make it clear to end the bickering. A minimum pull weight for everyone. Not first shot..ALL of them.

[XRe]

9. I appreciate Bruce posting here. He doesn't have to. I know that I have been the lone banner bearer for competition shooting and using the sights on a few other forums. I get lots of messages telling me I am wasting my time. I guess I am saying...we have a just a few "USPSA Officials" posting here...please don't make them regret it.

+1 !!!

[GeorgeInNePa]

Thanks to Bruce for posting his views on the Amidon ruling. Bruce's posts have been reasoned and measured. You may not agree with him, but Amidon does - and that's what matters.

I can see both sides of the argument. I took my Vanek trigger out yesterday. I'll put it into my backup Limited G22.

I'd rather shoot Production with the Vanek trigger, but it is what it is. I'm certainly not mad at Amidon, Bruce or USPSA for making a call under under the rules.

Time to go practice with my stock trigger

I agree with the above.

I hold no ill will and blame no one fo this ruling. I mean, what's to blame. It's John's job to interpet the rules. It's Charlie's job to do trigger work. I'm sure John did what he thought was right and consistant. I'm sure Charlie didn't think he was going to have us breaking the rules in modifing the trigger. I'm glad to have Bruce here, the info he gives us is worth more than it's weight in gold.

BUT...

I don't like the way the rule is worded, I think it is unclear if a trigger job, for the sake of having a better trigger pull is allowed. Also, the way I read the NROI ruling, the ONLY thing about Charlie's trigger that is wrong is the fact that the pin is moved. In fact if you just read the words, the fact that you can see it's moved is the problem. I think if you could moved the pivot and leave no trace of it on the outside, it would be ok. Somehow move the pivot point internally, without moving the pin on the outside of the trigger. This tells me that a trigger job is ok by itself.

So I don't agree that you can't modify the internal working of the trigger just to get a better pull and lower weight. The reason I don't agree is because that's not exactly what the rules say. I think if that's the intent, that's what it should say. Also, as I said in an earlier post, people do trigger jobs for a better trigger, not to make the gun work. This is the year 2006, guns work just fine with crappy triggers.

I do not agree with nor do I believe in "the intent of the rules" or "the spirt of the division". Give me, in black and white, clear rules to follow. The fact that all of us are looking at the same rule and coming up with different interpetations tells me it's not so clear.

[diehli]

For reference, see rule 5.1.4.

[Clay1]

300, this is for those who won't look it up:

5.1.4 Unless required by a Division (see Appendices), there is no

restriction on the trigger pull weight of a handgun, however, the

trigger mechanism must, at all times, function safely and as originally

designed.

[Bob Hostetter]

This trigger ruling seems clear enough. You can modify the trigger/firing system as much as you see fit as long as the modifications are not visible from the outside of the gun. This concept or precedent was pretty much set with the ruling on the infamous "speed bump" epsiode. Before someone tells me about being able to see certain modifications by looking up the magwell, that is merely a way to see an internal modification without disassembling the gun. If you have to look inside the gun to see it then it's internal...............

I understand why people are upset over the ruling, it effectively prevents them from using an expensive trigger system that they have already paid for. On the other hand careful reading of the rules and an email to Mr. A would have solved the issue before the money was spent. I am currently interested in the STI Truebore concept for Limited as approved by IPSC. But I am not going to build one until I get a clear cut answer on it's use in USPSA matches. I hope it is not approved, but if it is, I will build one as I believe properly designed it will be a huge advantage. (by the way Bgray, I am having a tough time getting a straight answer on the Truebore question, can you help out here?)

Production Division was created to provide a place for "Production Guns" to compete. It is currently populated by extremely modified guns that cost nearly what a decent Limited gun cost's. A compete full house Production Division Glock or XD from our shop currently runs about $1500-1700.00 (including a new gun), and that's nut's. The only thing worse then having to spend that much for a Production gun, is how many people believe they have to have it to be competitive.

I don't like the trigger pull weight restriction because it is going to be tough to enforce but I believe the rules need to be tightened up a lot for Production before it get's to far out of hand................

[the duck of death]

*QUOTE*

as originally designed.

To me that means pull to the rear and the gun goes bang.

What's it mean to you folks?

[GeorgeInNePa]

300, this is for those who won't look it up:

5.1.4 Unless required by a Division (see Appendices), there is no

restriction on the trigger pull weight of a handgun, however, the

trigger mechanism must, at all times, function safely and as originally

designed.

Press the trigger, the gun goes bang. Release the trigger, the system resets. Press the trigger the gun goes bang.

ETA:

The duck beat me to it.

Edited February 12, 2006 by GeorgeInNePa