Nroi Ruling On Vanek Trigger For Production

[al503]

anybody know who the goomerhead weenie is that cried foul and got this mess started in the first place? DaG

I think you're doing more harm than good to your position, which is apparently against the ruling.

[ima45dv8]

anybody know who the goomerhead weenie is that cried foul and got this mess started in the first place? DaG

I think you're doing more harm than good to your position, which is apparently against the ruling.

And against Rules Forum guidelines:

"No antagonistic tones will be tolerated.

Please post respectfully or don't post at all."

[Flexmoney]

The ruling we are all talking about clarifies that external mods are NOT allowed (other than those specified)...and that the trigger/action parts that stick out of the gun are, indeed, external.

Where there was room for confusion on this issue before, it should now be clear where the rules stand.

---------------

Things that might be worthy of their own thread:

- recoil rod (I'd hope that a ruling would allow these)

- how come we can mill for sights (approved mod, and a seperate issue)

- if we should have a trigger pull minimum

- internal trigger work/parts swapping to increase accuracy (another I'd like to see allowed)

- etc.

[DaG]

sorry about the offensive tone,just typing out loud.

DaG

[BlackSabbath]

What I think is crazy is the fact that Charlie can't move a pin, but we could mill our slides to put on a set of Bo-Mars. Those 2 rules do not make sense with each other.

+1

I was just coming back here to post the same exact thing!

guys, what's really crazy is the rules say (and this is a direct quote from the rulebook) "trigger work...is allowed." but somehow moving a pin on the trigger itself does not fall under "trigger work." i am and !

That post says it all. John Amidon is wrong on this. From this point forward, I want all the other Production Guns to recieve as much scrutiny as the Vanek Glock. As far as Charlie Vanek, the man is as honest and hard working as they come. His new triggers will be just as awsome as before...that is, until they pencil whip him in the rules again.

[jkushner1]

Just rec'd this opinion from Mr Amidon on whether Sprinco or Recoilmaster are legal for Production:

Sprinco Recoil Reducing Guide Rods and Recoilmaster are Legal for Production !

Plese see the dialog below and response from John Amidon at the USPSA

From: John Amidon [mailto:jamidon1@twcny.rr.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:12 PM

To: Jon Kushner

Subject: Re: Question asked on USPSA Forum - Rules section, Vince Pinto recommended sending to you.

Hi Jon,

The rules do not address internal parts, just external, which have to be OFM, there is a weight restriction on the Production guns of not more than 2 oz over mfg listed weight, you are allowed action work to enhance reliability, this could include a different guide rod.

Regards,

John Amidon

[bgary]

guys, what's really crazy is the rules say (and this is a direct quote from the rulebook) "trigger work...is allowed." but somehow moving a pin on the trigger itself does not fall under "trigger work."

That post says it all. John Amidon is wrong on this.

Actually, the post you quoted does *not* contain a "direct quote from the rulebook". It contains a badly-out-of-context snippet of a rule.

The complete rule says:

21.4 Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is allowed.

If a person can argue that moving the trigger pivot-point is "action work to enhance reliability", have at it. I personally think that "action work to enhance reliability" means things like polishing and deburring parts.

But, it is clear (at least to me) that the rule in question does *not* say "hey, guys, since we mentioned the word trigger in here somewhere, you can totally ignore the context and do whatever you want to the entire trigger mechanism, including make it work differently than the way it came from the factory, if you want to".

Bruce

[TxD]

guys, what's really crazy is the rules say (and this is a direct quote from the rulebook) "trigger work...is allowed." but somehow moving a pin on the trigger itself does not fall under "trigger work."

That post says it all. John Amidon is wrong on this.

Actually, the post you quoted does *not* contain a "direct quote from the rulebook". It contains a badly-out-of-context snippet of a rule.

The complete rule says:

21.4 Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is allowed.

If a person can argue that moving the trigger pivot-point is "action work to enhance reliability", have at it. I personally think that "action work to enhance reliability" means things like polishing and deburring parts.

But, it is clear (at least to me) that the rule in question does *not* say "hey, guys, since we mentioned the word trigger in here somewhere, you can totally ignore the context and do whatever you want to the entire trigger mechanism, including make it work differently than the way it came from the factory, if you want to".

Bruce

You are right Bruce.

And all this is exposed by that pesky little rule about exterior mods.

"Where did that filled-in hole on the trigger come from?"

"How come the back of the trigger safety tab is ground off?"

Well.....I.....uhmmm.....did that while enhancing the reliability of my trigger.

"You mean it wasn't working correctly?"

Well.....no.....uhmmm .....not after I did those internal mods......uhmmm......to

enhance reliability.

"Was it reliable before you did any mods to it?"

Well...yeah....but...but....why are you picking on me?

And so it goes.

[driver8M3]

ok. bruce is still hammering me on the direct quote thing. he is correct it's not a direct quote. however, a reasonable reading of that rule is that trigger work is allowed. and it's not (or at least was not) out of the question to think that working on the trigger itself could be included in legally permitted trigger work. trigger work does not necessarily enhance reliability, and in fact, often comes at the expense of reliability. i dont think that uspsa is going to try to start interpreting this rule as "trigger jobs can only be done to enhance reliability." it would be impossible to enforce anyway.

now, working with bruce's logic here:

If a person can argue that moving the trigger pivot-point is "action work to enhance reliability", have at it.

lets say charlie changed 5 internal parts (including the trigger bar) as part of his trigger job, yet kept the actual trigger itself stock and did not move the pivot point. guess what...it wont work (i specifically asked charlie to sell me a modified trigger bar attached to an unchanged trigger). now, if you move the pivot point on that setup...it works. does that meet your definition of enhancing reliability bruce?

and one more thing bruce, since you've returned to this thread. earlier in this thread you indicated that you (as a member of the BOD) voted on this ruling (or at least had a chance to review it prior to it being released), yet you clearly did not understand what modifications were being questioned. you seem to take this sport and your position of AD seriously. however, it appears that you gave your consent to john's ruling without even knowing what changes the vanek modification included. what information on the vanek modification was given to the BOD for "vetting."

Edited March 14, 2006 by driver8M3

[bgary]

And all this is exposed by that pesky little rule about exterior mods.

Yeah. Someday when I am feeling lonely and unloved, I'll start a thread about the context for the "no external mods" rule. That will undoubtedly fill my inbox

Here's a teaser: many folks believe that rule means "hey, do whatever you want to the inside of the gun - you can completely change the way the gun functions, as long as it looks normal from the outside it is all fair game."

BZZZT.

The *context* for the rules is centered in the part that says

21. Allowed modifications are very limited and include the following:

followed by a SUBclause that says

21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed.

That rule - in context - was *supposed* to make it clear that you can't make modifications unless they are on the list, and the *only* external mod on the list is sights. Instead, that guiding context has become largely ignored, and the convenient popular sentiment is that if the rules don't specifically *prohibit* a modification, it is fair game. How people got from "no external mods except sights" to "anything is fair game if you can't see if from the outside" is beyond me... but that's what we're facing.

I don't know how we put that context back in place in people's minds, but... it is a key bit to a level playing field in Production, in my humble opinion. Production division is the only division where the only mods allowed are the ones that are listed... as inconvenient and unpopular as that fact is, it is *still* what the plain-english text in the rulebook says.

Bruce

[Chriss Grube]

Bruce,

I think you might want to read JA's reply above. He seems to make it pretty damn clear that internal is unrestricted or unaddressed and ONLY external has restrictions. As I pointed out waaaaay back in this thread NOBODY including the BOD has a clue as to what is ok and what isn't.

[bgary]

however, a reasonable reading of that rule is that trigger work is allowed.

A more reasonable reading of that rule is that trigger work is allowed IN THE CONTEXT OF ENHANCING RELIABILITY.

Put it this way. If you take out the part in the parentheses, you have the ESSENCE of that clause. It would then say

21.4 Action work to enhance reliability is allowed.

The stuff in the parentheses is to give EXAMPLES of the types of things you might do "to enhance reliability". You can do throating, to enhance reliability. You can do trigger work, to enhance reliability. Etc.

NOWHERE in the Production Division rules does it say "oh, and you can change the geometry of the factory-designed trigger parts, whether it affects reliability or not." I argue (and, yes, I know, we're all tired of it), that the GUIDING part of the rule is the part that says, paraphrased, "if it isn't on this list, you can't do it and still have a Production-legal gun.".

does that meet your definition of enhancing reliability bruce?

My opinion? It's a red herring. The process you've described has nothing to do with reliability. It would be a totally legal mod in Limited or any of the other divisions that do *not* have the constraints defined in the Production Division rules. My contention is that the modifications you've described are not on the list of "allowed modifications", and are therefore not valid in Production. I know, that's a highly unpopular and draconian stance, but... my belief is that the part that says "21. Allowed modifications are very limited and include the following:" means just that.... only the modifications on the list are allowed.

Now, granted, that view has gotten muddied with the interpretation that says "if the factory produces a part on another model of production-legal gun, you can swap that part onto your gun, even if your gun isn't offered with it." But, I contend that the *PRODUCTION* division is about shooting with guns as they were actually *PRODUCED* by a factory.

and one more thing bruce, since you've returned to this thread

Yeah, I know, I'm going to regret it. It's kinda like a car-crash, you just can't look away no matter how bad you want to. And I was doing so well at staying away for a while!

it appears that you gave your consent to john's ruling without even knowing what changes the vanek modification included.

Yeah... two things. While I have never personally handled a Vanek trigger, I have a pretty good understanding of the mod. I guess I differ from John in that I don't really consider it an "external mod" - I consider it a functional change to the operating mechanism of the gun which, since it is not included on the list of approved modifications, is not allowed whether you can see it from the outside or not. It doesn't matter to me whether or not you can "see" the filled-in hole from the outside of the gun. That isn't what makes it an illegal mod, in my opinion.

Second, I come at this thing from a very narrow view. The conversation that resulted in the creation of this division was centered around creating a place where shooters could compete, heads-up, using box-stock (or nearly stock) pistols, *without* having to join the "arms race" that exists in the other divisions. In all 4 of the other divisions, as soon as someone succeeds with a new gadget or configuration, a lot of other people seem to feel that they have to have that in order to "stay competitive", and the game gets diluted. So, the "intent" in the Production division was to have a place where the guns had to be commonly available, and modifications to those guns were strictly controlled, so people could just "shoot". Yes, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, "intent" is a really tough thing to write into a rulebook, and clearly we need to do a better job. But, for what it is worth, that "intent" is the guiding principle by which *I* determine whether I think a mod should be allowed or not. (Aren't we all glad I don't run NROI?)

what information on the vanek modification was given to the BOD for "vetting."

NROI provides us an advance summary which includes

-- the question that was asked

-- the proposed ruling

-- the rules that apply

-- the rationale behind the ruling

-- the likely implications of the ruling (eg, supported by or conflicting with past rulings, or likely to set a new precedent which may have other implications, etc)

In the case of the Vanek ruling, NROI's advice to the Board (paraphrased) was that it was important to maintain the integrity of the division by continuing to limit what modifications are allowed, as specified in the rules, and that this ruling was consistent with both that goal and earlier rulings (eg, the Speed Bump trigger was also ruled an "external mod").

We (the Board) have [generally] 7 days to raise an objection and/or spark a discussion about the ruling, before it gets published and goes into effect. I thought NROI's position about continuing to limit mods to maintain the integrity of the division was spot-on, and raised no objection.

Bruce

NOBODY including the BOD has a clue

Yup, you're right, Chriss. I admit it, I'm clueless.

(which makes it really hard to explain all the time I spent involved in *writing* those rules...)

Bruce (Off to another thread. I'm tired of this one. Again.)

[Bigbadaboom]

This complete thread is based on a bunch of people who took things into their own hands, interpreted the "Rules" on their own without gaining confirmation from the Director of the NROI and then when someone had the wherewithall to ask the question all those who didn't ask are pissed off at the person whom they didn't ask in the first place because he gave the answer that they didn't want! If they had asked "BEFORE" they dropped the bucks for the Vanek and started shooting "Production" division with it they would have received the same answer then that they have now.

I've got some news for ya, John Amidon, the Director of the NROI, cannot be "WRONG" when interpreting the rules. His decision is the final decision. You may not agree with it and it may just piss you right off but he cannot be wrong no matter how much it's bitched about.

The rules say "no external modifications" It said that before those triggers where bought with the intent of using them in "Production" guns and it will continue to say it untill John Amidon and the B.O.D. decide to change it if they wish.

I, personally, believe that anyone who got away with using the Vanek trigger in "Production" division during a match and won with it should be upstanding and return all gained gratuities and relinquish all division placements.

Just my opinion. FWIW

[driver8M3]

I, personally, believe that anyone who got away with using the Vanek trigger in "Production" division during a match and won with it should be upstanding and return all gained gratuities and relinquish all division placements.

Just my opinion. FWIW

you know what they say about opinions. before the ruling...the vanek WAS legal. the ruling that it is illegal took effect 1 week after being posted.

[Clay1]

Bruce, I want to say thank you for your contributions in this thread. I suspect that this isn't a totally pleasant experience for you, but greatly appreciate your participation.

One thing came to mind as I am reading through these series of posts. I think that many are trying to read the rule book in the same way we read a written stage briefing. Even though I don't appreciate the term "gaming" since this is a game, I feel that some are trying to "game" the rulebook. Yes, we have a long history of freestyle when it comes to stage briefings and how we shoot the COF. But the rulebook shouldn't be "freestyle". Just my opinion.

I cut and pasted the following from the rulebook:

"21.4 Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is

allowed.

21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed."

Bruce, you have said "if it isn't on this list, you can't do it and still have a Production-legal gun.". I don't see a complete list though. This list itself has an ETC. in it in 21.4. I do see your point that it is about enhancing reliability though.

[XRe]

Bruce, I want to say thank you for your contributions in this thread. I suspect that this isn't a totally pleasant experience for you, but greatly appreciate your participation.

+1!

[bgary]

before the ruling...the vanek WAS legal

driverM83, I don't know if it is just the way I read your posts, but for someone who [previously in this thread] identified himself as someone who is "new to the sport and doesn't know much about guns", you make some *very* sweeping, hyperbole-filled statements that are just not supported by *facts*.

Let's be really clear:

Before the ruling,

-- Fact: the Vanek trigger was not on the list of approved mods

-- Fact: NROI had not yet said *anything* about the Vanek trigger mod.

-- Fact: Saying "nothing" is *not* the same as saying "it is legal"

When NROI issued a ruling, it clarified which side of the line the Vanek trigger was on. NROI did not "move" the line, saying "we changed our minds, it used to be legal, now it is not", it simply said "it is not legal".

Bruce (really, I'm going away now. honest. I think I can, I think I can...)

[Jake Di Vita]

The thing about the enhancing reliablility clause is that it is totally unenforceable. Once the mod has been made, all someone has to do is say "yeah, the gun wasn't working before this...now it is" and there is absolutely no way of proving that claim true or false.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Jake Di Vita

[Bigbadaboom]

I, personally, believe that anyone who got away with using the Vanek trigger in "Production" division during a match and won with it should be upstanding and return all gained gratuities and relinquish all division placements.

Just my opinion. FWIW

you know what they say about opinions. before the ruling...the vanek WAS legal. the ruling that it is illegal took effect 1 week after being posted.

The ruling did not make the Vanek trigger illegal. The Vanek trigger was always illegal. The ruling reinforced the fact that the Vanek trigger is illegal. Just because there are some R.O.'s out there who didn't realize that it is illegal doesn't matter. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for not obeying it. The Vanek trigger always had the external mod therefore was always illegal. This whole "It was legal before the law that has always made it illegal was reinforced by a B.O.D. ruling" doesn't fly.

The Vanek trigger, much like the Speed Bump trigger, has an external modification that makes it illegal for Production division. The Speed Bump trigger has the travel screw mounted to the rear of the trigger and is visible externally, the Vanek trigger, has relocated the pivot pin about 3/16" above the factory specs, and has filled in the original hole with a black material that is still visible on inspection.

[Bigbadaboom]

"21.4 Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is

allowed.

This statement tells me that I may work on the existing "Action", i.e. trigger and parts there of, in order to make it more reliable.

Jake, if it didn't work reliably before then I would state that you must replace whatever parts are not reliable with "factory" parts that do not require external mods.

Edit: Sorry for the double post.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Bigbadaboom

[driver8M3]

All NROI rulings issued for the January 2004 rulebook are published on this page. Under rule US 11.8.3 of the January 2004 book, rulings do not become effective until 7 days after publication on this site. In general, rulings will be posted ot this site on Tuesdays, so that we do not have a new ruling take effect during middle of a major match.

that quote is from the NROI webpage. the ruling took effect 7 days after it was posted. if i used a vanek trigger in a match (in production) on the 4th day after it was posted it would have been allowed. if you protested my gun and put up the $100, you would have lost your money. now, was it legal or not?

and bruce, this is what i meant when i said you didnt know what the vanek mod was:

If you can see it from the outside, it is an external mod. There are a couple of explicitly *allowed* external mods, such as different sights and grip tape, but... a trigger mod that is done by drilling new hole(s) in the frame - which are visible from the outside - so that a trigger pin can be relocated is pretty fundamental to what the Production division is about avoiding.

this is from the beginning of this thread. you mentioned drilling a hole in the frame. this was obviously after you voted to allow john's ruling.

[eric nielsen]

I LIKE Charlie Vanek a lot, I wish this had not gone down the way it did. BUT - purely my opinion, wouldn't suggest anyone has to agree --

I'm glad that Bruce and others are doing the best they can to keep equipment from getting out of control in Production. Since there is constant innovation in all the divisions, this necessarily means that occasionally someone who's already invested a little money [or $195 even] is going to be disappointed that their nice new mod is not getting declared legal after the mod is looked at by the Board.

I think if this was done more often [with more people getting steamed, I realize this] with Limited Division in the 1990s, then we wouldn't need the 6 divisions we have now. Going off on a little tangent but if the BOD had said, "No, that long dust cover is only for Open or you can cut it short for Limited, your choice" and similar rulings for huge magwells, open-toe holsters, Recoilmasters, etc - if there had been a few more hurt feelings then, we wouldn't have [in essence] 3 mostly-wide-open divisions and 3 restricted [Production & Revolver & SingleStack] divisions. We might have a total of 3. Or even 2.

To make a point that fits this thread, I feel like if Bruce and JA don't say no, take that part back out of your gun, then it's just a short time before lotsa people want ANOTHER division which would be called Box Stock No-Bull Production or similar words. Just my opinion but I don't want to drive 2 hours to a match with 42 shooters and no one competes against more than 5 other people. That's not a sport, that's a gun show with live ammo.

[GeorgeInNePa]

I, personally, believe that anyone who got away with using the Vanek trigger in "Production" division during a match and won with it should be upstanding and return all gained gratuities and relinquish all division placements.

Just my opinion. FWIW

Wow, how tall does the ladder have to be for you to get down from that horse?

I do love it when a thread is brought back from the dead.

[BlackSabbath]

The thing about the enhancing reliablility clause is that it is totally unenforceable. Once the mod has been made, all someone has to do is say "yeah, the gun wasn't working before this...now it is" and there is absolutely no way of proving that claim true or false.

Jake is right. And, there is a grey area here. Otherwise, this thread wouldn't be so big. Besides, the way the rule is written, I could argue that the mod helps me reliably hit my target. This whole deal is subjective at best. And YES. John isn't Jesus Christ. He can be WRONG.

So, clean up the rule AND strictly enforce it on the other makes of Production guns as well.

Edited March 14, 2006 by BlackSabbath

[Bigbadaboom]

now, was it legal or not?

It was not per the existing rules made prior to the ruling. If it were legal prior to the ruling then it would be legal post-ruling.

Spin it how ever you wish. The Vanek trigger has always required an external mod and since the rules state "21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed." it has always been illegal.

Spin away.

Wow, how tall does the ladder have to be for you to get down from that horse?

Jacob once built one that would accommodate.

And YES. John isn't Jesus Christ. He can be WRONG.

How is he wrong? Does the Vanek not require an external mod? Did the rule not originally read "21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed."? What part is he wrong about?

Edited March 14, 2006 by Bigbadaboom