Nroi Ruling On Vanek Trigger For Production

[XRe]

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.

Bob - this is succinctly what I've been trying to say all along... Thanks for saying it in fewer words

I am currently interested in the STI Truebore concept for Limited as approved by IPSC.

Not to be pedantic - you mean TruSight, right?? The "TruBore barrel with no holes on a Limited gun"??? Franky, I've shot something similar, and I didn't feel like it made any difference in the world on that particular gun... I'll be interested in handling one once, though, to see if it really makes much difference...

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.

I think it's neat that you feel this way, since you're talking about your own work, too... Very honest I agree - $1500 on what's supposed to be a (relatively) box stock factory gun does seem pretty silly....

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................

Even though I feel it would solve things... I understand that certain current production guns may not meet a 5lb limit, like IPSC. That would rule those guns out, or require "detuning", which isn't as the division was meant to be, either, so....

[glockrocker]

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

Your post got me interested so I compared a stock trigger to a "popular" drop in kit currently on the market. I have attached two pictures of this comparison. It is not a Vanek trigger. I will not say who's it is because one thing I think has been totally unfair in this whole thing is that Charlie Vanek was singled out in the ruling. There are other people doing similar work and they were not mentioned. Maybe that is because the person/persons involved in the ruling are as of yet unaware of the similarities. Why not specify in the ruling what part of trigger mods in unacceptable without mentioning the name of a particular trigger? Was this really fair to Charlie?

The first picture shows the two side by side without pointing out the difference. See if you can tell the difference. The second picture points out the difference. It is subtle, but it is there and it is no less obvious than the external mod mentioned in the ruling on the Vanek Trigger.

What the pictures show is a shaved trigger safety. From what I know about glock triggers I can tell you that there is a reason for shaving the safety on a drop in style trigger. Some glocks will function in an acceptable manner without shaving the safety. The problem is that some won't. When a trigger is custom fit, this can be determined at the time of installation. The safety is trimmed only as much as it has to be. When selling a drop in style trigger, it is prudent to trim the safety on every trigger you sell to assure that the kit will function in any gun. That is one of the reasons why a custom fit installation is preferable to a drop in style trigger.

I guess the point is to make your own decision on whether or not this is an external modification and illegal as stated in the ruling.

Stock_vs._Popular_Drop_In_Kit_1.bmpStock_vs._Popular_Drop_In_Kit_2.bmp

[spd522]

I can understand those upset with having spent big bucks on a modification, only to have it deemed illegal at a later time. However, the as mentioned email to JA would have cleared it up before the expense had that bit of effort been taken. Had this been done, it would have been known it was illegal from day one.

I don't think screaming for everyone to bail out of Production is the answer. Unless the only way you felt you could compete was with your Vanek juiced Glock. I don't think Sevigny has a Vanek and I sure haven't heard him whining. Maybe some folks can't be happy unless their guns are modified to the max and if so, they shouldn't have started shooting Production anyway.

I have a Glock and the trigger is stock but if I had a Vanek trigger in it, I still wouldn't shoot it in Production. Why? Because it isn't the Glock trigger that is the problem for me, it's the crappy grip angle and shape. If Production allowed a grip reduction, I would take that mod way before a Vanek. I have shot a Glock with the Vanek and it's no way $300 better in my opinion.

So as it is, I shoot a stock SIG P226 that at least fits my hand and I am comfortable with. No trigger job, just thousands of rounds through it to naturally smooth it down. Still about 3.5 lbs SA but works just fine, is legal in any shooting competition, and didn't cost a dime.

[McNeil]

Okay, here's a concept.

Before becoming a chronoguy, I decided to do some research, Being that the rules state that the primary safety must be functional, (forgive my omissions, I have no rulebook nearby) I spoke to Glock and asked them to explain what the Primary safety is. Their response to me was that all the safety features, trigger safety, plunger and so on all work together and there is no "primary safety". Also, that there are some variables in the production of pistols that may make one trigger smoother and lighter than another. Therefore, they also stated to me that modifying a trigger would affect how safe the gun was.

I kind of expected this type of answer. but, A gun without a double action first shot or a thumb safety that has a 2 pound trigger may be a hazard in the hands of the "wrong shooter".

People will always want to take their modifications to te next level. I have seen competitors

who had the vanek trigger but still wanted more so they felt the need to remove the trigger safety lever. In my opinion if you need to go to those extremes, find another gun.

The spirit of the rules are merely a framework to work within If that framework is too tight, then shoot another division. Three years ago a shooter got reprimanded at the nationals for having rear sights melted into his Glock slide. Now its legal. Is it a big deal? It makes life easier, adjustable sights are great. BUT, I think allowing one external mod that gives one shooter an advantage was a bad precidant to set.

We should ask ourselves "do I really belong in production? and do I really want to shoot in a division that has so many limitations or should I shoot another division?"

I really like having to shoot with some restrictions, and added challenges.

We should leave "building" production guns to the gun companies, and encourage them to keep up with our needs.

-Neil Shubert

[GeorgeInNePa]

Okay, here's a concept.

Before becoming a chronoguy, I decided to do some research, Being that the rules state that the primary safety must be functional, (forgive my omissions, I have no rulebook nearby) I spoke to Glock and asked them to explain what the Primary safety is. Their response to me was that all the safety features, trigger safety, plunger and so on all work together and there is no "primary safety". Also, that there are some variables in the production of pistols that may make one trigger smoother and lighter than another. Therefore, they also stated to me that modifying a trigger would affect how safe the gun was.

I kind of expected this type of answer. but, A gun without a double action first shot or a thumb safety that has a 2 pound trigger may be a hazard in the hands of the "wrong shooter".

People will always want to take their modifications to te next level. I have seen competitors

who had the vanek trigger but still wanted more so they felt the need to remove the trigger safety lever. In my opinion if you need to go to those extremes, find another gun.

The spirit of the rules are merely a framework to work within If that framework is too tight, then shoot another division. Three years ago a shooter got reprimanded at the nationals for having rear sights melted into his Glock slide. Now its legal. Is it a big deal? It makes life easier, adjustable sights are great. BUT, I think allowing one external mod that gives one shooter an advantage was a bad precidant to set.

We should ask ourselves "do I really belong in production? and do I really want to shoot in a division that has so many limitations or should I shoot another division?"

I really like having to shoot with some restrictions, and added challenges.

We should leave "building" production guns to the gun companies, and encourage them to keep up with our needs.

-Neil Shubert

Neil,

A factory built "Production" Divison gun with a 2lb trigger is ok, but a (shooter)modified factory gun with a 2lb trigger is bad, that's what you're saying. Is that right?

[Chriss Grube]

There are a couple people here who keep bringing up the "an email to JA would have solved this problem" and "people are mad because they spent all this money on a trigger that can't be used" Somebody else said 1500+ on a production gun, boy somebody is getting hosed, With Dawson sights, Charlie's trigger, holster, mag pouches and extra mags I'm still well under 1k. What everybody seems to be missing is the very simple point THE RULES ARE VERY UNCLEAR. There should be absolutely no need to email anybody to see if this or that is legal. The rules should have been written better. Do you have to email JA to see if you can use a 170MM mag in open or wear a blue shirt, NO! Because the rules are clear. Black and white not "the spirit or intent BS" The rules for a division are written and if there is a mod that will give you an advantage use it.

This is a sport, we keep score and the point is having more points than the next guy. If you are one that just goes to shoot for fun that is your choice, I go to win.

We can sit hear and debate the Vaneck trigger, the CC mag release, or whatever they disallow next week and keep trying to blame the "high dollar trigger or shooters just don't get the spirit of the division or I only go to have fun" OR WE CAN FIX THE RULES so that the MEMBER can read it and understand what is legal without having to "email JA"

Bottom line the BOD needs to step up to the plate and fix the rules. JA seems to be the only one that knows what is really ok Bruce isn't sure, obviously none of us that are posting really know and it isn't like were new shooters. How would you like to be the new D class guy trying to figure this all out?

PUT THE DAMN RULES IN BLACK AND WHITE WITH PLAIN ENGLISH NO "ETC."

[SRT Driver]

1

[Bob Hostetter]

1st of all, I am a firm believer that there are a lot of areas in the rulebook that need to be cleared up. Not just in Production Division but in all the Division's. This issue has been brought up many times in the past and will be brought up many times in the future. However..........regarding this particular issue some patience must be shown.

When Production Division was 1st started there wasn't much in the way of high end modifications being done to Glock's or other Production type pistols. I certainly don't remember the Vanak trigger being around. So it would be tough to write rules to exclude something that didn't exist. As far as I know this is the 1st time the issue has come up and when it did the powers that be issued a ruling, although not a popular one with some people. And it banned it's use based on violating a preexisting rule that there was a precendent for, externally visible modication's.

Speaking from a pistolsmith's prespective, I was fully aware of, and mindful of, the external modification ruling of the "Speed Bump" and redesigned the trigger modification I do on Production Division Glocks to move everything inside to prevent the possibility of problems for our customers.

As time goes on I am sure we will continue to get more rulings on Production Division modifications (at least I hope so) and some of them are not going to be popular. In fact all of them are probably going to piss off someone, but that is the nature of competition. As the competitors, the pistolsmiths, and the factories search for ways to improve the beast, the sanctioning body is going to move to limit those improvement to keep the division in line with the original concept and intent.

[McNeil]

We should ask ourselves "do I really belong in production? and do I really want to shoot in a division that has so many limitations or should I shoot another division?"

I really like having to shoot with some restrictions, and added challenges.

We should leave "building" production guns to the gun companies, and encourage them to keep up with our needs.

-Neil Shubert

Neil,

A factory built "Production" Divison gun with a 2lb trigger is ok, but a (shooter)modified factory gun with a 2lb trigger is bad, that's what you're saying. Is that right?

Yes, I do beleive that "factory built" or "factory available parts" as stated in the appendix are key terms here.

I also that the rules need to be clearer here. However, Production differs from the other divisions in that its really the only division that sees a tremendous variety of firearms. Its easy with the other divisions because 99% of the other shooters are using a 1911 variant, or, not to leave the other guys out, a s+w 625. How do you make clear and specific rules that can apply to 10 or so very different guns. If the Vanec, or Comminoli trigger is allowed, then the speedbump has to be allowed, then the all aluminum trigger must be allowed then the Caspian slide must be allowed, and so on, and so on.

What worries me is that the competitors are turning production into a racegun division

instead of the Manufacturers. We just need to re-define the original intent of the division and clearly re-state or re-configure the rules.

-Neil

[SRT Driver]

Production division is not a "Stock" gun division. Modifications are allowed.

Production uses guns and parts that are OFM produced with the exceptions being sights, and barrels.

The external mod rule is OK as it is written..if you can see it, it's not within the rules. But regrdless of intent, internal mods are expected. The Vanek ruling is correct. The pin is visible.

If mods were against the rules, it should say "Modifications prohibited", not "External mods with exceptions".

Anyone that tells me that any stock trigger cannot stand the slightest improvement...

FWIW, changing springs is a modification.

And Production racegun! I've got less than $1k in a G34 with a Vanek (because the RS kit was not out), some sights, grip tape, AND mags. And it runs pretty good.

[Chriss Grube]

The nature of this sport is to race. Anyone that thought it wouldn't be is nuts. Others thought this was going to be a new shooters division...wrong again! It is pretty easy to write rules that cover all types of guns. They all have slides, barrels, frames, sights, mag releases, slide stops and either a striker or hammer and guide rods. You limit what can be done and it is pretty universal. IF they wanted or intended or the "spirit" was a box stock division just state NO MODS. They specfically listed trigger work in the rules which shows that they expected and allowed trigger jobs. I don't know of any gun that from a pure reliablity aspect ever NEEDED a trigger job. I've seen quite a few that became unserviceable and unsafe due to trigger jobs but not the other way around. The shooter might become more reliable or accurate with a better trigger but the gun still goes bang even if the trigger feels like 30 miles of gravel road.

I have a Vaneck and to be honest I never paid any attention to the pin being moved. Didn't know until this S%^tstorm started. If it is external then yeah it is illegal but the rest of the rules are still clear as mud.

Bob,

Just as you state we will get more rulings that piss people off and waste money in the future BECAUSE NOBODY BUT JA knows what is legal and what is not. Why go through this BS all over again in a week or a month just FIX THE RULES NOW!

Yes this will make certain guns less competitive. IPSC rules favor a DA/SA for a better trigger 98% of the time. The Vaneck and CC triggers gave an edge to Glocks and XD's under USPSA rules. When the rules are finally set (and if they ever do away with that stupid 10 round PC BS) I might get a gun and play in Production again until then I'll shoot Open, Limited or I might go Hide in L-10.... on second thought no L-10 I have a real gun with real mags!

[Bob Hostetter]

I agree with you Chris that there is probably a better way to administer Production Division but as it stand now we have to live with the system we have. Part of the problem we have now that we didn't really have in the past is how to monitor and control rules violations in Production. We don't really have a method to enforce a lot of the limitations in Production.

This trigger pin issue is a great example. If a match for whatever reason doesn't Chrono all the shooters (or any) how is anyone supposed to determine if someone has relocated the trigger bar pin on a Glock. And if they do Chrono, the chronoguy now has to been a Glock expert (and a CZ, S&W, Sig, Para, etc expert) in order to notice something like this. I am pretty sure that after filling in the old hole with a ploymer, a light bead blast on the sides of the trigger would completely hide the modification to anyone that didn't know exactly what finish comes on a Glock trigger. Yes we have problems, and as time goes on we are going to have more. Not only with trying to figure out what the rules really mean but in developing ways to enforce all of the rules we write. We could make if very interesting and make a claiming rule (Any winning gun can be bought by another competitor for a fixed price, say $700.00). Or we could require that any winning gun be completely stripped and inspected for illegal modification's prior to the final scores being posted. I think those solutions would be unpopular at best and that is where the real problems lie. Writting rules is a lot easier then enforcing them.

This has never been much of a problem with Limited and Open, but now that we have what is basicially a "Spec" division, we are just beginning to see into a very big can of worms.............

[lbritt]

I'm still fairly new at this stuff, so bare with me. Could somebody point me to a rule or other written documentation which specifically allows a production shooter to alter or replace an internal factory part for the sole purpose of gaining a lighter trigger pull. If you can replace, say a connector, does it have to be a OFM Glock connector or could you use an aftermarket (Ghost) connector?

[1911user]

I'm still fairly new at this stuff, so bare with me. Could somebody point me to a rule or other written documentation which specifically allows a production shooter to alter or replace an internal factory part for the sole purpose of gaining a lighter trigger pull. If you can replace, say a connector, does it have to be a OFM Glock connector or could you use an aftermarket (Ghost) connector?

Somehow a lighter weight trigger pull is more reliable for competitors who can't shoot with a stock trigger for some reason. Does master class performance absolutely require a 1-2 pound trigger? Adding a trigger pull limit and the ability of a competitor to buy a winning gun for less than $800 would have an interesting effect on production. At least it would drive home the point that this was intended to be a very limited mod. division.

[sfinney]

I like the idea of a "claiming fee" to keep costs down.... but you end up with alot of legal gun transfer issues, etc., in reality. But it WOULD keep people from going to crazy in their pistols $$$ wise if they knew anyone could claim it.

Maybe rather than a $100 Arbitration, a competitor can put up a non-refundable $25 "tech inspection fee" on any winner, or other competitor, to see if the gun is in specs for that Division. If the gun fails, the shooter is bumped out of Division for that match, and that gun is banned from the Division until the offending items are corrected.

But first we need CLEAR rules. I personally am really starting to fall into the "no mods, period" camp.

[lbritt]

I'm still fairly new at this stuff, so bare with me. Could somebody point me to a rule or other written documentation which specifically allows a production shooter to alter or replace an internal factory part for the sole purpose of gaining a lighter trigger pull. If you can replace, say a connector, does it have to be a OFM Glock connector or could you use an aftermarket (Ghost) connector?

Somehow a lighter weight trigger pull is more reliable for competitors who can't shoot with a stock trigger for some reason. Does master class performance absolutely require a 1-2 pound trigger? Adding a trigger pull limit and the ability of a competitor to buy a winning gun for less than $800 would have an interesting effect on production. At least it would drive home the point that this was intended to be a very limited mod. division.

So does this mean that the USPSA rule which allows "action work to the trigger to enhance reliability" is not only referring to the gun but also to the shooter???? Is that like claiming your trigger finger can't reliably squeeze 5lbs?

Still have not seen anything in writting on this.

[driver8M3]

i think chriss has said it pretty well. the production rules are not as clear as the should be (you shouldnt have to email john to get a ruling on something...you should be able to figure it out from reading the rules).

even with all the discussion on this thread, there are still many uspsa members who will never see it...and they'll probably never see the various rulings on the NROI website either. if uspsa is going to change the rules in the rulebook, which some of the rulings do, they need to inform every single member. how would you like to show up at your next major match and find out you're shooting L10 minor, or even worse, open, instead of production because you never heard about this ruling?

just to show how muddy the rules are, i'll raise a couple of other issues here. i doubt that there will be a consensus, even in this small community, about the legality of each one.

#1-did we agree that changing to an aftermarket guide rod is legal? i'll attach pics of a 17 and a 34...are they both legal? when determining internal vs. external what is the condition of the gun? slide forward? trigger to the rear?

#3-lots of us paint a stripe in the magwell for reloads. is it really legal?

i wasn't around for the speedbump trigger issue...anyone have a picture? i have to agree that allowing charlies trigger when the speedbump wasnt allowed doesnt seem like it would be consistent (though not all rulings are consistent).

i appreciate that uspsa and everyone else is looking out for my financial well being in trying to keep production from being an equipment race. but the funny thing is, nobody seems to care if the manufacturers start to fill in the holes that the production rules create by coming out with competition ready production "race" guns. if you dont care if manufacturers create an equipment race, why do you care if gunsmiths do it with individual parts (which by the way are much cheaper than buying a complete new gun) (yes, i know very well that its ability that wins matches, not modifications).

[LwE]

For the moment, under the rules as currently worded, it appears that any internal modifications under 21.4 must be justified as enhancing the reliability of the pistol.

I would be very interested in hearing from Flex and/or anyone else who has experience with the common internal trigger modifications as to the reasons these various changes contribute to the reliability of the weapon.

In making the pitch to the NROI it would be good to first have our ducks in order as to the legitimate reasons for these modifications under the current rule.

[spd522]

Notice how the guns that seem to be the controversy of Production rules all seem to be striker fired? Maybe Production should specify external hammer. But then someone would figure out a way to push the rules there too.

Initially the rules should have been written to state that all Production guns must meet factory specs and have factory parts. Stick to the only mods allowed are changing of grips, skateboard tape, and sights that fit the factory dovetail. Mods that don't void a factory warranty.

No changing to lighter strikers, firing pins, springs, match barrels, or aftermarket parts other than those mentioned above.

The so called reliability work is really nothing more than a way to lighten and smooth the trigger. I think 99.9% of today's Production class guns are reliable right out of the box. If not, back to the manufacturer to make it right.

Obviously, guns with totally stock parts can develop a lighter and smoother than normal trigger pull with use and wear so there would need to be an allowance of say one pound under factory spec for this.

Another thought, how about at major matches, randomly select Production guns for an inspection. Any found to have mods beyond those specifically allowed will be moved out of Production class to L-10. Anyone caught with an illegal Production gun more than once in a specified time frame would get a match DQ.

Just some ideas.

[Vlad]

The last few pages are now full of ideas on what restrictions to add to make production work better. People need to keep in mind that rules that can not be enforced are worse then no rules at all. If you want to dictate "factory parts" only you need to have RO's then know EVERY inside part, of EVERY gun on the market. If you want to say that trigger shouldn't more then 1lb under factory spec you going to have to work very hard to show me that factory specs actually match their triggers.

Some things can be enforced and others can't. A miniumum trigger pull is easy and doesnt requiere that people know how each gun works AND it removes %90 of the over the top mods. How about we all step back for a minute and think about it before we rush to demand that striker fired guns get kicked out of production (a bit silly I think) or that we demand "no mods" (how do you enforce it?).

[sfinney]

I think a minimum trigger weight, a box, combined with an approved list, would also fix 98% of this issue. If its on the list, fits the box, and meets trigger weight, do whatever you want to it.

Or if you went with "no mods", I think most shooters would be able to recognize the difference between a factory original gun, and one sporting externally visible modifications. If not, at major matches someone would likely catch it, and thats what really counts, isn't it? And if someone would go to the trouble to deliberately HIDE their illegal external mods as to try to pass it off as factory (or "normal wear"), well, that will catch up to you as well at some point, karma wise. At least I'd like to think.

[spd522]

The last few pages are now full of ideas on what restrictions to add to make production work better. People need to keep in mind that rules that can not be enforced are worse then no rules at all. If you want to dictate "factory parts" only you need to have RO's then know EVERY inside part, of EVERY gun on the market. If you want to say that trigger shouldn't more then 1lb under factory spec you going to have to work very hard to show me that factory specs actually match their triggers.

Some things can be enforced and others can't. A miniumum trigger pull is easy and doesnt requiere that people know how each gun works AND it removes %90 of the over the top mods. How about we all step back for a minute and think about it before we rush to demand that striker fired guns get kicked out of production (a bit silly I think) or that we demand "no mods" (how do you enforce it?).

You question how to enforce rules. Admittedly, many can't be enforced in a practical sense. Knowing this, has Production become the division for those who feel the need to circumvent the rules? Maybe to an extent.

Manufacturers do post factory trigger weights. Stock pull will vary but would not be that much different from posted. A Glock with a 3.5 lb connector will be lucky to actually be 3.5 lbs. It shouldn't take much to realize that a Glock with a 2lb trigger isn't near stock at all. Maybe the trigger pull gauge would be a partial answer but where do you perform the check? The only sure way of compliance would be random checks by the ROs at the different stages. And we all know how well that would go over not to mention adding more work to the already overworked/underpaid ROs.

There were no demands made in the post to kick any guns out, only ideas to kick around. Not any worse than many of the others posted either I might add.

I just don't understand why there is the need to make all these mods to guns in a Production class. I never felt hindered in all the years I carried my stock SIG as a duty weapon, even though my department issued Glocks. All I did was change the night sights out to a Dawson/Heinie setup when I retired and had my good-to-go Production gun. Too bad others can't be so lucky. Maybe instead of having to do all these mods to be competitive, they should find a gun that works for them as is. There are plenty of other classes to play in with your tricked out guns.

[Chuck Anderson]

Sorry if I'm covering something that has already been covered. I only got to page 6 before becoming too furious to continue. The assumption that Amidon and NROI did not know about the issue is complete BS. I emailed John asking for the answer before I sent my gun to Vanek. I waited a couple months without response and sent it in. It's now been a couple months since I got it back.

The statement that a $300 (a totally BS amount as well) trigger job is somehow incongrous with Production values is also BS. First off, if memory serves Production started as a IPSC division. I can't get a straight answer out of IPSC as to what the intent of the division was. I shoot production because it is a division where I'm happy shooting my 9mm that I love. Let's assume a fancy Glock production gun, Glock pistol $450.00, Bar-Sto Bbl $200.00, Sights, $50.00, Vanek Trigger $185.00, and of course, Tru-Grip, $25.00 (for three). $910.00 if my math is correct. Anybody price out one of the fancy Tanfoglio custom production guns? How bout the fancy Stainless Sig. Or for arguments sake a hypothetical USPSA shooter that uses a 5" S&W 5906. Don't give me a line about a couple hundred dollars of work on one of the cheapest USPSA guns making it somehow evil.

The remark about shooters knowing better. I've been an Armorer for 7-8 years, I've worked on about 1000 guns. I took a look at my Vanek trigger and without the pictures I couldn't tell what was done to the trigger. I would not expect someone new to the sport to be able to tell the difference.

Vanek triggers did not come out of nowhere. The fact that USPSA is only now making this ruling is an extremely poor choice. I'd ask my Area Director for assistance but I already know his opinion on this and it certainly appears that he's hanging shooters out to dry.

I'd say more but I need to go try and figure a way to make my gun legal before leaving for the Florida Open in two days. Glad I checked this forum after spending the last 4 days as SHOT working my ass off for a match.

[XRe]

I emailed John asking for the answer before I sent my gun to Vanek. I waited a couple months without response and sent it in. It's now been a couple months since I got it back.

If this is indeed the case - you made the effort to insure that the mod you were about to do was legal - and you got no response... well, I can't blame you at all for being totally pissed off. You've taken all the steps that I would figure to be prudent - if it were me, I would've probably followed up with John, and then Voigt, cause I'm just that kind of guy (and sometimes crap happens, and email gets lost or whatever).

Sounds like you're probably one of the few that did this, though.... shame you found out this way, instead of receiving a response to your inquiry

[eric nielsen]

Thanks for the nroi story, Lawman. I had a hunch that might've been the case with at least one shooter in 2005 or earlier but I hadn't heard it 1st-person. No big surprise.

Just to clarify my very early post, Charlie Vanek is working on a drop-in trigger because he is losing a lot of business to the people who now offer drop-in triggers, some good, some BAD. [The Sotelo unit belongs in the Good category] This was before the ruling.

Charlie's experiences with fitting up many customer's Glocks led him to conclude that he can't ensure the function & safety of a trigger-bar that's had the pivot-point moved, unless he fits the gun himself. There's too much variation in the way Glock parts are made & the way they fit together. 2nd reason was that it would take less of his time & therefore cost less to the drop-in trigger customers - they won't have to FedEx their gun twice, either.

I think he makes the best drop-safety and the best pre-travel & overtravel stops out there & his polishing is awesome. I wish him good luck.

Edited February 14, 2006 by eric nielsen