Nroi Ruling On Vanek Trigger For Production

[bgary]

the rules say (and this is a direct quote from the rulebook) "trigger work...is allowed."

OK... that's just a little bit disingenuous.

A "direct quote from the rulebook" would have the whole rule, which says

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

If you can make the case that the Vanek trigger is "action work to enhance reliability", I'd say that you should put that in an email to John Amidon and ask him to reconsider his interpretation. But.... I think at the same time you should be prepared to explain how changing the *function* of the trigger, by changing the *design* of the trigger, by changing the location of one of the pivot-points and adding a handful of non-factory parts, for the advertised purpose of getting a lighter trigger pull, enhances "reliability" over the stock Glock trigger.

In my own feeble brain, I end up going back to first principles. The purpose for the Production division was to provide a place to play with box-stock, "production" guns. Can you smooth things up to help them run better? Yes. Can you keep it up to date by swapping in *other* factory-produced parts that are available on production guns from the same manufacturer? Yes. Can you change the design and function of the gun's action? Nope. Not and still have it be called a "production gun".

I like the intent, but from what I understand nothing prevents any *internal* super-light trigger work, right? IOW, as long as there's nothing externally visible, it's *legal*, "right" or "wrong" not withstanding....

If it is "smoothing up and detailing the existing stuff", I think it is fine. If it is drilling holes and replacing parts and changing the physics of the original design? I think that is on the wrong side of the line. Apparently, NROI does as well.

One of the things that we have really struggled with on the Board is how to write rules that capture the "intent" of the division. Every time the rules say "you can do this but you can't do that", someone comes along and finds something that the rules don't *explicitly* allow or *explicitly* forbid, and figure it is OK. It is really a challenge, therefore, to write a simple set of "dos and don'ts" that define the boundaries of what is essentially a concept - competition with "production guns", as opposed to the never-ending equipment race in the other divisions.

Why not in that case, as Vlad suggests, have a minimum pull weight? 3.5lbs seems reasonable, as the Glocks with the 3.5lb still pull more than that

We have a general reluctance to change rules that make currently-compliant equipment non-compliant. Since there are a number of production-legal guns that can achieve light trigger pulls *without* changing the design (eg, the LDA), making a minimum trigger-pull would mean that some box-stock currently-compliant guns would be no longer allowed to compete as "production guns". Not thinking that's a really good idea.

they just said that after 3 year of being legal, my gun is now illegal

Nobody (to my knowledge) ever said your gun was legal. As far as I know, there has never been an NROI ruling that said "the Vanek trigger modification is legal", and now it has been reversed. If that was the case, I'd be joining the chorus that is saying "the rules have been changed!" But... the rules *haven't* been changed. Not a single character in appendix D10 of the rulebook has been altered. What has happened is that a modification was made that fell into a gray area, it was brought to the attention of NROI, and now NROI has clearly and decisively announced which side of the "line" that modification falls on.

Meaning no disrespect here, but.... if I drive 80 miles an hour down the street to my house and don't get caught for 3 years, and then get pulled over for it.... I don't think that a great defense argument starts with "after 3 years of being legal, now you're trying to tell me that going 80 in a 35 zone is illegal?!?!"

show me where "trigger work" has a limitation placed on it in that rule

Right there in the front of the sentence, where it sets the context in which trigger work can be done.

Action work to enhance reliability ((such as) throating, trigger work, etc.)

It doesn't say "you can do anything you want to the trigger". It is not a carte blanche.

I am going to keep shooting it until somebody actually sees it and asks

That, I think, is the kind of thing we are most concerned about as a rules-body. I *know* that someone out there could mill out the inside of their slide, put in a mercury-filled recoil reducer, fill the grip with lead, do a whole bunch of other stuff, and still have a gun that looks - from the outside - like a box-stock gun. Would it get "caught"? Probably not at the club level. Does that make it "OK to do"? Nope.

I know I'm repeating myself, but the defining concept of the Production division is to compete with "production guns" - guns that Joe Average can go to the corner gun store and buy off the shelf. We *have* divisions for tricked-out/modified/tweaked/pimped-up guns.... they are called "Limited" and "Limited-10", and there's no reason a "modified" Glock can't be competitive in those. But... IMHO, "modified" is fundamentally at odds with the concept of "production".

trigger work means trigger work

And "Action work to enhance reliability" means just that. No matter how many times you leave that inconvenient context-setting part out, it is *still* the defining context - arguably, the constraint - of that rule.

Driver, I was just wondering if trigger work is trigger work is trigger work, then shouldnt the aluminum triggers be allowed.

Following that same logic... if "trigger work is trigger work is trigger work", can I pull the whole trigger assembly out of my glock and replace it with a mechanism of *completely* different design and function? Wouldn't that be "just trigger work" too? Perhaps... but it would no longer be a "production gun", because the trigger was no longer the way the factory "produced" it.

If the intent of USPSA production class was to shoot unmodified guns, then the rules should have stated that any mods were illegal.

Gosh, we sure tried. The rules say "allowed modifications are very limited and include the following:"... followed by a very short list of things that are explicitly allowed. Notice that changing the material, construction, function or pivot-point of the factory-designed trigger is not on the list.

when the rule was written as it currently appears, they gave us very wide latitude to do almost anything to the triggers.

Wow, I sure don't see that in the rules. To the contrary, the rules say that the allowed modifications are "very limited", and they say that you can do trigger work "for the purpose of enhancing reliability". Period.

imagine the rule book as a binding contract. imagine one party to the contract trying to change the meaning of words 3 years into the contract

Or, imagine the rulebook as a binding contract, which says "allowed modifications are very limited and include the following:". And someone comes along later, with something that *isn't* on that list of allowed modifications, and says "hey, I've been using this for three years and you never said anything about it, so it must be legal".

That's not called a "rules change". That's called "learning that the rules define the boundaries, after you've crossed them."

$.02

Bruce

PS - for some reason my "quote" tags didn't work. Sorry.

Edited February 9, 2006 by bgary

[driver8M3]

Absence of a hole

did you just call me an...

just kidding. trying to lighten things up a bit.

[ima45dv8]

Let me ask you a question. If the Glock trigger was made of aluminum or steel, from the factory, and you were able to relocate the pin and weld up and refinsh the old hole, would that be ok? If you could hide all evidence of the work, would that meet the letter of the law? There would be no visible external modification, right?

I'm not Dave, but I think it would not be OK. First, someone with sufficient knowledge of the Glock trigger still might notice that the pin was in a different location even if the original hole were eliminated. And second, 'hiding all evidence' of an already-declared non-compliant (I didn't say ILLEGAL ) mod sounds like a textbook quality definition of cheating.

++++++++++++++++++++

I don't have a Vanek trigger, but was seriously considering sending my 17 to him for that wonderful magic if the Sotelo kit didn't meet my expectations (it did). Had I gone the Vanek route I'd be pretty pissed right about now.

Is being pissed off about this reason enough to toss integrity out the window? Would anyone here willfully install non-compliant modifications and say they're OK just because someone else might not notice?

[XRe]

Absence of a hole

did you just call me an...

just kidding. trying to lighten things up a bit.

I don't have a Vanek trigger, but was seriously considering sending my 17 to him for that wonderful magic if the Sotelo kit didn't meet my expectations (it did). Had I gone the Vanek route I'd be pretty pissed right about now.

It'd make me a bit pissy, too - but I'd really only have myself to be pissed at, in the end. IMO...

BTW - my understanding (as stated by another member way up in this thread) that putting the stock trigger bar in works just fine, and ends up with a way light trigger pull, still. So, not all is wasted - just you have a trigger job that's *slightly* less good... And you can still shoot the full Vanek in Limited or L-10, if you want....

Is being pissed off about this reason enough to toss integrity out the window? Would anyone here willfully install non-compliant modifications and say they're OK just because someone else might not notice?

If someone did, they'd need to be DQ'ed at every match they show up to with the non-compliant equipment purposefully installed. It's willful cheating, at that point, just like an Open or Limited shooter who have mags that they know are, say, 173mm and use the anyway cause "no one's going to check"....

[shred]

What, exactly, then, constitutes trigger work?

when the rule was written as it currently appears, they gave us very wide latitude to do almost anything to the triggers. its not my fault that some people (including charlie) ran with that latitude, and came up with products that fit within the written rule. if the rule writers wanted to limit trigger work to certain items in certain places they could very easily have inserted a few additional words.

There is a 3-year-old precedent that external modifications to a stock trigger bow are not PD-kosher-- the Beretta speedbump, which was a stock trigger with some modifications to it. At the time, it was claimed to be 'trigger work', but it was still denied by NROI.

[Flexmoney]

Wow. There is a lot of discussion on this thread. I can find things to agree with and to disagree with on both sides of the issue.

hmmmmmm......

I guess it would be good to take an actual look at the rule(s)...we all have a rule book (or the ability to see the online rule book). right?

I think it is important that we look at these rules as they are written, not as we believe they are written.

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

21.1 No weighted attachments allowed to magazine.

21.2 Front sights may be trimmed, fiber optics inserted, adjusted and/or have sight black applied. Sights must be of the notch and post type.

21.3 Replacement barrels allowed provided barrel length is same as original factory standard. Heavy barrels and/or barrel sleeves not allowed.

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

21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed.

21.6 Aftermarket grips which match the profile of the OFM standard for the approved handgun and/or the application of grip tape or rubber sleeves is permitted. Modifications to grips, other than previously mentioned, not allowed, such as grooves cut to reach mag release or size reduction.

I think that Section 21 covers most of the stuff that is being discussed here (except for the "official" ruling that allows milling for sight installs).

And, that section starts off by first says "mods are VERY limited". Then it goes on to list what is included in the allowed list.

I think I bring that up just to get on the soap box a little. Too often, I think, the common belief is that you can do anything you want on the inside. That just isn't true. You can't lighten the slide by removing material on it's inside, for example.

Looking at those rules, my belief has always been that the allowed work was disallowed once it made it's presence know on the outside of the gun. (21.5)

My usually litmus test was if there was a measurable external change or not. But, measurement wouldn't cover the vanek modified trigger, nor a guide rod.

Then again, the rules don't follow my (limited) view. They don't say measurable...they simple say "modification".

It's a tough call to have to make.

In defense of how long it took. I'd have to guess that the (proper and complete) question hadn't been put to the fire before. I don't think it is realistic to expect that NROI (Amidon) should know all the ins and outs of all the tricks that are out there.

It's probably fair to say that I know a bit about the glocks, right? Lord knows I get plenty of static for carrying the "glock banner", so to speak. I handled Mink's Vanek/Glock a few years ago at the MO Fall Classic match. I can honestly say that I never thought about it being an external mod until it was brought up here on the forum a few weeks back. I just didn't catch it.

I don't know what a good answer is. It sure does seem like an external mod. I don't think it's a case of it was approved, then disapproved. I just think the question never came up until now.

If this mod was allowed, then it wouldn't be fair to others, like the Beretta shooters...who had to pull their "speed bump" triggers.

Tough call to make.

[edit: i took so long to post, that 2 whole pages of post came in ahead of where I started...wow]

[PhilTerry]

If we adopted the IPSC Production Division Rules in USPSA including the minimum trigger pull - would that make many of these issues go away?

[Singlestack]

If we adopted the IPSC Production Division Rules in USPSA including the minimum trigger pull - would that make many of these issues go away?

If you think this ruling got some people excited, that one would really make them go nuts. It would instantly eliminate at least 2 thirds of the pistols being shot in production.

I think this thread has the record for the fastest growing thread ever on be.com.

Edited February 9, 2006 by Singlestack

[PhilTerry]

But think of the extra rounds!

[Chriss Grube]

Bruce,

What is this spirit of the rules BS. Write a rule and somebody will find a way to beat it...live with it. Innovation is what makes this sport. You write a course description and somebody will find a way to shoot it different than you intended. If the BOD wanted to limit everything then say so up front and make it the Box stock division.

[bgary]

It would get rid of the question of whether or not the Vanek trigger is an allowed modification.

It would introduce the question of whether or not the Vanek trigger is compliant with IPSC Production Division rules 19 ("original manufacture parts are permitted, modifications, other than minor detailing, are prohibited") and 20 ("aftermarket parts are prohibited")

It would also introduce a bunch of new issues, such as making all kinds of USPSA-compliant Production guns with light trigger pulls - as designed or as modified - non-compliant for Production Division.

Bruce

[ima45dv8]

It'd make me a bit pissy, too - but I'd really only have myself to be pissed at, in the end. IMO...

Agreed. I did not mean to imply I would be pissed at John, or Charlie. I've emailed John with rules questions many times and found him to be very responsive and helpful. For the sake of those now feeling pain over this ruling I wish someone had emailed him much sooner. Hindsight, and all that....

He made a tough call, but I think it was the correct one.

[XRe]

I think this thread has the record for the fastest growing thread ever on be.com.

Yeah, I see, like, 10 or so people reading this thread, and 3 of them are typing responses!!!

Hey, Tightloop - this spicy enough, yet???

[bgary]

What is this spirit of the rules BS.

Never said "spirit of the rules". Not my words. What I *said* is that the Division was *created* - from the outset - with the goal of creating a "non-arms-race" place to play with "production" guns.

If the BOD wanted to limit everything then say so up front

We did. Right there where it says "allowed modifications are very limited and include ..." followed by a *very* short list of explicitly-allowed mods.

Bruce

[LwE]

USPSA is very fortunate to have a John Amidon, who will make a call based on the rule as written and will let the chips fall where they may, even if it has taken a while in this case. I doubt anyone wants to wake up a few years further down the road to see an Enhanced Production and a Stock Producion class in USPSA.

I was going to ask an innocuous question about the status of the tungsten guide rods, given that an article was published in Front Sight a few years ago in which the author (not Amidon) stated that the THE rod made legal weight (<2 oz. added) for Production class in the G34/35 length. I, and I think many others, took this as USPSA approval. It was obviously not an NROI ruling, but has NROI ever ruled on this? If so, and if the long rod is illegal because it can be seen through the sight installation hole at the bottom of the slide, does installing the shorter version for the G17 in the G34 solve the problem?

No big deal, a ruling will resolve the issue one way or the other.

Then Bruce lobbed this grenade into the discussion:

trigger work means trigger work

And "Action work to enhance reliability" means just that. No matter how many times you leave that inconvenient context-setting part out, it is *still* the defining context - arguably, the constraint - of that rule.

I have been operating under the apparent legal fiction that trigger work by definition enhances reliability, but only because the idea seems almost universally accepted as unremarkable. However, with the Glock pistols (with very few exceptions comprising only those few weapons which leave the factory in defective condition) no trigger work is needed to enhance reliability. Does anyone seriously contest this proposition?

Thus, trigger work which lightens the trigger pull--which is the actual reason why we all do the .25 cent or the Sotelo or the Vanek trigger jobs--is apparently verboten under the written rule.

Note in this connection that the Glock safety plunger is reshaped to a rounded profile in many of the trigger jobs done on the Glock. The only purpose of reshaping this part is to improve the trigger pull--the stock plunger, unless it has an out of spec burr, is 100% reliable.

The bell has tolled for the current Vanek trigger. But hasn't it also tolled for the Sotelo trigger? Lance

[diehli]

There is a 3-year-old precedent that externally visible modifications to a stock trigger bow are not PD-kosher-- the Beretta speedbump, which was a stock trigger with some modifications to it.

An overtravel stop, right? That mod is disallowed for the Glock shooters, too.

Bruce and Dave (Re), I think you're ASSuming a whole lot about the people that bought this trigger. First, it's only after getting the trigger job done that most anyone can tell the difference. Had it not been made public knowledge that relocating where the trigger bar meets the trigger is one of the mods that Charlie does to the trigger, I doubt anyone would know it. This whole "you should have known better" line is tired... stop it, alright?

As far as what's done in Charlie's triggers, here's what I can see:

-1-Trigger bar/trigger interaction point moved higher (this is the relocated pin in the trigger)

-2-Trigger safety is sanded shorter on the pad where it meets the frame

-3-Striker/drop safety is rounded and/or "polished" (I really don't want to turn this into a "what's the meaning of 'polished'" discussion, like IPSC did)

-4-Striker/drop safety interaction point on the trigger bar is rounder and/or "polished"

-5-Striker/drop safety spring is replaced with a modified aftermarket part

-6-Connector is "polished"

-7-Trigger spring/trigger bar connection point moved higher

-8-Trigger spring is replaced with an aftermarket part

-9-Set screws installed in trigger housing to limit pretravel and overtravel.

-10-Striker polished

-11-Striker spring replaced with an aftermarket unit

WRT -1-, it isn't "changing the way the gun operates" or "changing the physics" or whatever other sky-is-falling verbiage you want to give it, it's optimizing part interaction. It isn't something that's hard to do, either. It is a modification that makes a noticeable difference in the way the trigger feels, but it doesn't change how the gun works.

Here's the thing: the rules interpretations are inconsistent. Heavy/aftermarket guide rods have been allowed, as long as the total weight of the gun doesn't go two ounces over factory. However, there is clearly a visible modification to the gun. Is deemed non-compliance of aftermarket guide rods something we can expect next (it should be, but if it isn't, there needs to be a logical reasoning given for why)? Further, you say the modification was never deemed compliant by the NROI, but there's an awful lot of "case law" that says otherwise, i.e. the high-level placement at the Nationals of Matt Mink and the winning of Area championships, etc., in Production Division. So, what're we to do with that? Ignore it because there was no edict at that time?

As far as your whole "intent of the Division" thing goes, Bruce... seriously, stop it. If that's the criterion of how a gun should be deemed acceptable, then we need to amend the list so that the guns on it are listed because they can be bought at a local store and not for some other reason. To make the point more clear: the custom shop specials and those guns only available from one importer should be removed from the list, if that's the criterion.

Honestly, here's how I see a lot of the rule "interpretations" that have been coming out of the NROI in the last few years: they seem to be directed specifically at curtailing the distribution of products of some manufacturers while allowing other manufacturers greater leeway in the same area. Whether it be Limited (L10) or Production, the rules interpretations are inconsistent and favor some manufacturers while condemning others. Further, many of those interpretations don't follow what the rule itself says.

People complain about rules stability. The rules are stable for the next few years. What we can't count on, however, is how the rules "interpretations" will be handed down. They're all over the map.

[Barrettone]

Barrettone: man, i'm not sure that one little winky you included is enough to cover the nastiness of your post. i've used this trigger for 2 years now...lots of practice, lots of matches. i'm not gaming anything. the rules allowed it (and in my mind still do, amidon's ruling aside). trigger work...is allowed

and to set the record straight, charlie's trigger cost me $185 (the rest is shipping). no more than an aftermarket barrel, no more than having bomar sights installed (in fact, probably less) and only about $60 more than a set of dawson sights.

Hey Bud...How's this???

I just like jerkin' yer chain a little!!! I'm only nasty to the ones I looooove!!!

[driver8M3]

And "Action work to enhance reliability" means just that. No matter how many times you leave that inconvenient context-setting part out, it is *still* the defining context - arguably, the constraint - of that rule.

bruce,

i was not leaving that part out to deceive. i'm sort of a gun novice...i dont know much about guns at all. the only guns i've ever shot more than a couple of rounds with are glocks. i only know a bare minimum even about how they work. honestly, i dont even know what "action work" means.

you've said that the writers tried to be narrow in the writing of the rules...can you explain why the word "etc." was included? if i was trying to be ultra specific about something, etc. is not a word i would consider using.

Edited February 9, 2006 by driver8M3

[XRe]

Bruce and Dave (Re), I think you're ASSuming a whole lot about the people that bought this trigger.

Sigh... and now we devolve into name calling....

First, it's only after getting the trigger job done that most anyone can tell the difference. Had it not been made public knowledge that relocating where the trigger bar meets the trigger is one of the mods that Charlie does to the trigger, I doubt anyone would know it. This whole "you should have known better" line is tired... stop it, alright?

1 - it's made "public knowledge" when the product is released. One can clearly see the difference, as presented in the photos in this thread. It's not as if it's entirely invisible, and one had to be told that it'd been done.

2 - Duh. Obviously, you can't tell what's been done if you can't look at one. Duh.

3 - Caveat Emptor.

4 - What I said was:

In some ways, I'm sure that lots of folks felt that, since it hadn't already been rejected, it must be rules compliant - ie, they figured USPSA had already had a look and blessed it. In other ways, it's easier to use something and not ask questions, than to risk spending money on something that might not fly later on. Common sense would dictate that someone should have done the asking, somewhere along the way - but... an arms race isn't really a common sense thing, is it???

How does that make me an "ASS" ??? Is it not true??? Am I an "ASS" for pointing out that ignorance of the rule, and the interpretation of it, and ASSumption of how it will be interpreted is actually the responsibility of the inDUHvidual competitor??? BTW - see point 3 above.

Heavy/aftermarket guide rods have been allowed, as long as the total weight of the gun doesn't go two ounces over factory.

My opinion would be that those should not be allowed either, but.... no one asked me...

[chuckbradley]

I see the point on both sides. Bottom line when production was started it should have been limited to production guns and only production parts installed. If a spring got worn or broke then you could only replace it with a factory production spring. And yes I did jump up & down and stomp my feet but it went ignored.

If you want to start playing with new parts then you have limited & open to do that with. Production should have always been and remained a strictly factory production gun. The door was opened and it wasnt defined as to how open it could be, as the trigger work wasnt defined as to what could and couldnt be done. Now all we have is a production race gun division.

We wont even get into where the rules claim its supposed to be double action only but we allow non double action guns to compete in production.

[XRe]

Production should have always been and remained a strictly factory production gun.

+1 on that sentiment, personally....

Woohoo!!! Page 4!!!

Edited February 9, 2006 by XRe

[GeorgeInNePa]

the rules say (and this is a direct quote from the rulebook) "trigger work...is allowed."

OK... that's just a little bit disingenuous.

A "direct quote from the rulebook" would have the whole rule, which says

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

If you can make the case that the Vanek trigger is "action work to enhance reliability", I'd say that you should put that in an email to John Amidon and ask him to reconsider his interpretation. But.... I think at the same time you should be prepared to explain how changing the *function* of the trigger, by changing the *design* of the trigger, by changing the location of one of the pivot-points and adding a handful of non-factory parts, for the advertised purpose of getting a lighter trigger pull, enhances "reliability" over the stock Glock trigger.

In my own feeble brain, I end up going back to first principles. The purpose for the Production division was to provide a place to play with box-stock, "production" guns. Can you smooth things up to help them run better? Yes. Can you keep it up to date by swapping in *other* factory-produced parts that are available on production guns from the same manufacturer? Yes. Can you change the design and function of the gun's action? Nope. Not and still have it be called a "production gun".

~SNIP~

Bruce, I respectfully submit that fully 100% of the trigger jobs done to guns used in Production Division are done to enhance tigger pull and not enhance reliability. This is the year 2006, guns work right out of the box.

Edited for spelling, because i'm dumb.

Edited February 9, 2006 by GeorgeInNePa

[diehli]

Bruce and Dave (Re), I think you're ASSuming a whole lot about the people that bought this trigger.

Sigh... and now we devolve into name calling....

I think Dave got offline before he read the PM I sent him. That wasn't my intent. Bruce, didn't mean to call you an ass, either. I think the assumption that those people should have known that they were contravening the rule, and, thus, the "caveat emptor" attitude towards those who can't use their modified guns is unwarranted. As Flex said, it never occured to most of us that it was an issue. Now we know, but other, similar contraventions, haven't been singled out in interpretations.

Heavy/aftermarket guide rods have been allowed, as long as the total weight of the gun doesn't go two ounces over factory.

My opinion would be that those should not be allowed either, but.... no one asked me...

I agree that if this is the direction that the rule interpretations are going to go, then they need to be disallowed also.

[GeorgeInNePa]

Let me ask you a question. If the Glock trigger was made of aluminum or steel, from the factory, and you were able to relocate the pin and weld up and refinsh the old hole, would that be ok? If you could hide all evidence of the work, would that meet the letter of the law? There would be no visible external modification, right?

I'm not Dave, but I think it would not be OK. First, someone with sufficient knowledge of the Glock trigger still might notice that the pin was in a different location even if the original hole were eliminated. And second, 'hiding all evidence' of an already-declared non-compliant (I didn't say ILLEGAL ) mod sounds like a textbook quality definition of cheating.

Never played around with race cars, have you?

++++++++++++++++++++

I don't have a Vanek trigger, but was seriously considering sending my 17 to him for that wonderful magic if the Sotelo kit didn't meet my expectations (it did). Had I gone the Vanek route I'd be pretty pissed right about now.

Is being pissed off about this reason enough to toss integrity out the window? Would anyone here willfully install non-compliant modifications and say they're OK just because someone else might not notice?

[bgary]

Sorry, had to go to a meeting and actually work for an hour or two. I'm back now (be very scared ;-)

Had it not been made public knowledge that relocating where the trigger bar meets the trigger is one of the mods that Charlie does to the trigger, I doubt anyone would know it. This whole "you should have known better" line is tired... stop it, alright?

I'll make you a deal: I'll stop suggesting that shooters "should have known better", as soon as others stop suggesting "Amidon must have known about this years ago, and the fact he never said anything about it represents a precedent". In light of your above comments ("I doubt anyone would know about it"), that seems like a fair trade.

WRT -1-, it isn't "changing the way the gun operates" or "changing the physics" or whatever other sky-is-falling verbiage you want to give it, it's optimizing part interaction. It isn't something that's hard to do, either. It is a modification that makes a noticeable difference in the way the trigger feels, but it doesn't change how the gun works.

Sorry if I wandered into hyperbole-land, but.... in my opinion, there are *differences* between

-- I detailed a part to remove burrs, and

-- I changed the profile or shape of a part to change the "feel" of the operation, and

-- I changed the *pivot-point* of a part to alter the way the part operates.

If you take the pivot-pin and move it to a different spot on the part, that's not "detailing" or "deburring" or "polishing" - that's changing the way the part works. You may call it "optimizing parts interaction". I call that "creative obfuscation"... what it *really* is, is *modifying* a part away from the way the manufacturer designed and produced it. Which, as has been noted, is perfectly fine in Limited or Limited-10, but is *not* one of the allowed modifications listed in the Production Division rules.

/aftermarket guide rods have been allowed, as long as the total weight of the gun doesn't go two ounces over factory.

Has anyone asked that question of NROI? I don't know, I'm honestly asking. Because, if it were asked of me, I would argue that A: adding a heavy guide-rod is *not* one of the explicitly-allowed modifications, and B: the rule does *not* say "you can do whatever you want, as long as you don't go more than 2 ounces over factory weight."

(Aren't we all glad *I* am not head of NROI?)

Perhaps we should clear it up. It would be very easy to write an email to John, saying "I want to put in an aftermarket guide-rod that is heavier than the factory one, but my pistol is still less than 2 ounces over listed weight when it is in. Is that legal in Production division?" Do you want to write that email, or do you want me to? Because... *that* is how these things are supposed to work... we submit a question about a gray-area, and NROI decides - like it or not - which side of the line the thing falls on.

we need to amend the list so that the guns on it are listed because they can be bought at a local store and not for some other reason.

That's precisely how guns get on the list. They have to be "generally available" for a year, and at least 2000 units made in that configuration, before they make it onto the US list. Note that that is *very* different from the IPSC list, where (arguably) the manufacturer can make pretty much anything in their custom shop, and as long as it came from "the factory" that way, it is legal for Production.

Honestly, here's how I see a lot of the rule "interpretations" that have been coming out of the NROI in the last few years: they seem to be directed specifically at curtailing the distribution of products of some manufacturers while allowing other manufacturers greater leeway in the same area.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but... with all due respect, the accusation you are flirting with is completely bogus. I have worked with John for coming up on 6 years now, including two years spent working on the international handgun rules committee. I have *never* seen him exhibit anything that *remotely* resembles a bias towards or away from a particular product or vendor. He is, rather, a die-hard champion of the vision that the rules should be black and white, blind to politics, and enforceable on the range. That's a hard path to find... people tend to disagree with interpretations that affect them... but his one goal is to make things clearer, not to favor a particular [whatever].

As I mentioned in a prior post, whether anyone wants to hear it or not, Production Division was specifically formed to *not* be an arms-race division, but rather to have a place to play with an off-the-shelf gun. We knew, going in, that there was no way to write rules that would be comprehensive and enforceable, and would cover all the things that people would come up with. Hence the statement that "only certain modifications are allowed". We may need to do a better job of clarifying the language of what "trigger work" means, but... the concept is and always has been clear: "only certain modifications are allowed".

If you don't see it on the list, my opinion is that it is not allowed, for Production division.

Bruce

Bruce

Edited February 9, 2006 by bgary