Nroi Ruling On Vanek Trigger For Production

[ima45dv8]

Never played around with race cars, have you?

Yes, I have. Once I even helped a man melt lead into cigar boxes that when cooled could be stealthily stashed around the car and have that weight exactly where he thought it would do the most good. Since I was 10 years old I didn't know he was cheating. I do now.

I feel sorry for people in any sport who think hiding illegal mods is not only acceptable, but as much a part of thier fun as the driving/shooting/whatever.

Let's stick to this sport and the people on this forum, who generally show integrity in the way they compete.

As far as I've read no one has said that people who bought one of Charlie's kits were or are deliberately trying to cheat. They were simply looking for a better mousetrap just like when I bought my kit from Ralph.

The point I was trying to make is that a mod previously thought to within specs has been declared as out of spec. No matter how easy it would be to conceal something like that, doing so deliberately would be the worst kind of wrong. It would sadden me, but I wouldn't hesitate to invoke 10.6.1 if I found someone doing so.

[XRe]

I think Dave got offline before he read the PM I sent him. That wasn't my intent.

Work got in the way.... I appreciate the clarification and PM, Cullen. Thanks!

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.

I think where the disconnect is, here, is in the intent (and I think your PM made this more clear for me). I'm not saying "people using Vanek triggers are/were knowingly cheating the rules" - not at all. What I'm saying is "nobody really knew for sure, and didn't make efforts to be sure". There's a big (if semantic) difference, there, to me - cause one of those interpretations makes all Vanek users willful cheaters, which I certainly don't feel is the case.

I feel like, in a case with a division that's so obviously restricted, and with parts so heavily modified, it would have been very prudent for someone to make sure that those modifications didn't somehow violate the rules - and I don't think anyone did, until recently. I may be alone in feeling like that - which is fine by me...

Now we know, but other, similar contraventions, haven't been singled out in interpretations.

Perhaps this will spark a bunch of emails to John A. requesting official rulings on a bunch of things - and then clarifications can be requested, based on those rulings, etc. I'd start requesting rulings on, say, guiderods made of materials other than those offered by the manufacturer, for instance....

[Vlad]

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.

Wait .. What? I thought we just took the IPSC list and added our mods. Otherwise how do you explain some of the guns on it? In fact it was stated here a few times that thats how it works, specially around the whole SP-01 "now its on the list, now it isnt" issue last year.

[XRe]

The point I was trying to make is that a mod previously thought to within specs has been declared as out of spec. No matter how easy it would be to conceal something like that, doing so deliberately would be the worst kind of wrong. It would sadden me, but I wouldn't hesitate to invoke 10.6.1 if I found someone doing so.

+1

[SRT Driver]

For the record: I shoot a Vanek in Production AND I agree with the ruling. It is an externally visible mod but...

I do not:

1. Subscribe to the ilk that "intent" is enforcable.

2. Agree that (work to enhance reliability ETC is defined. What is ETC?

Minor detailing of stock parts including polishing, no changing of geometry or modifying

stock parts I understand...ETC I do not.

3. Guide rods. It does not say they are illegal. It violates the rules if over 2 oz. are added

to the overall factory specified weight only. Guide rods enhance reliability. And my

gun has never been weighed at a match.

[Flexmoney]

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.

Wait .. What? I thought we just took the IPSC list and added our mods. Otherwise how do you explain some of the guns on it? In fact it was stated here a few times that thats how it works, specially around the whole SP-01 "now its on the list, now it isnt" issue last year.

I agree with Vlad here. That is not the reality we have, it seems. But...that is another issue entirely. We have enough going on in this thread with the current topic.

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

Bruce,

I am with you up until here:

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.

Our rules in USPSA, don't say anything about polishing and deburring. Ipsc rules do, USPSA rules do not.

The only issue here, from my view on the USPSA rules, is found in 21.5...the "not external mods other than sights" rule.

We don't have rules on polishing or rules on trigger weight limits. I don't think we really want (or need) to go in that direction.

BTW, if I had to, I could make a fairly good argument for some of these mods to be to "enhance reliability". I won't, but I think I could. I won't, because I think this is a "external mod" issue.

Anyway...I support you position (except on the little bit ^ ) and appreciate you taking the time to share and give some in-depth coverage.

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

[eta]

The guide rod thing...

I think it could be argued that a guide rod is part of the "action" of the gun. The guide rod assembly certainly is "in action" when the gun is working.

And, many feel that, with the Glock for example, replacing the guide rod enhances the reliability of the gun.

(I use the stock plastic, but I buy the argument.)

So, the issue, perhaps, is how much weight is OK. And, I think that is covered well enough with the 2oz over stock thing.

?

[diehli]

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

I think Lance made the point beautifully, much more logically and eloquently than I (or anyone else, on either side of the issue) did. This (and the XD mag release) interpretation are leading us in a new direction in terms of what should be considered allowable in Production. Unfortunately you can't go halfway with these things.

"Action work to enhance reliability" should be read as "modifications necessary to make the gun work correctly" but, until now, has been read as "modifications that make the gun more 'user-friendly'" (definition 2 here). If reliable is read as "giving the same result on successive trials" then barrel replacement, trigger modification, mag release modification/OE part swap, spring replacement, recoil rod replacement, and sight replacement should be allowed (don't confuse part modification with part replacement) as it's much easier to place a shot in the same location with an accurate, easy-to-see sighted, light-triggered gun than its opposite, easier to return a gun that's "sprung correctly" for a follow-up shot, easier to do a mag change well on a gun with an extended mag release, etc.

So, we have these rules:

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.

21.1 is quite clear. Anything other than a factory basepad is a no go.

21.2 isn't nearly as clear. The way the rule is written, it reads like a factory front sight may be modified with no mention made of a rear sight (i.e. no modification to it allowed), and that all aftermarket sights are not allowed and neither are factory sights that are not of the notch and post type. However, aftermarket notch and post sights are allowed and an interpretation has allowed for significant external modification of the firearms as long as the sights installed are notch and post. This would, presumably, include a sight rib, but I seem to recall that there was an interpretation about that that nixed that idea.

21.3 is clear enough. It also sets a precedent: there are certain externally visible "internal" modifications that are allowed.

21.6 is also pretty clear (though perhaps "grip tape" should be changed to something that more explicitly includes A-Grip-type products)

21.4 and 21.5 is where we get our issue. How do we read "reliability"? We have been reading it to include something that makes a shooter more able to operate his gun consistently/well (not merely make the gun work properly). With 21.5 we've been reading "modifications" as both "aftermarket part installation" (remember, switching between factory offered parts is legal) and "permanent external alteration" (i.e. grinding, filing, sanding, milling, epoxying, welding, etc.) of the frame, slide, or any other visible part that enhances the usability of the gun for the shooter", with the exception of allowing both of these with respect to sights. So, for Berettas, SiGs, S&Ws, CZs, Para LDAs, etc., this means that you can't "permanently externally alter" the slide lock, mag release, trigger, decocker/safety, slide, frame, grips (and mainspring housing for the LDA); for Glocks and XDs you can't "permanently externally alter" the slide lock, mag release, trigger, frame, or slide (and grip safety for the XD).

It seems that some modifications have been allowed so that there's parity between what is and isn't allowed for guns that have different characteristics. You can't install a overtravel screw in a trigger face and you also can't add visible material to the trigger to mimic the operation of an overtravel screw. You can "sensitize" a grip safety so that it's easier to deactivate and you can (or can you?) "sensitize" a trigger safety (ala Glock and XD) so that it's easier to deactivate. But here's a question: are match officials going to start checking Glocks to see if the serrations on the mag release are sharp enough for the overall condition of the gun (i.e. to see if someone swiped the edges with sandpaper so that it was less painful to operate)? Are they going to check if LDA owners have polished the safety side of the plunger assembly to allow for smoother safety operation? These are both external mods. Granted, modifying the Glock trigger safety is, too, but it seems to be allowed so that the safety is operational when other (allowed, both currently and in the past) internal modifications have been made that would otherwise make the safety inoperable and, thus, in contravention of rule 5.1.4.

Now let's consider springs. Some guns might require the use of an aftermarket spring (recoil, striker, etc.) in order to work correctly (i.e. as intended from the factory) with standard ammunition. We've allowed aftermarket springs for all guns, however, so that people can make their guns work with the ammo that they've chosen to run (i.e. handloads) and so that the gun can be made to "feel" better. It seems that a consequence of allowing recoil springs to be aftermarket or modified OE was the allowance of aftermarket rods to accommodate those springs. I'll come back to recoil rods.

Both the Vanek trigger and the CC XD mag release utilize modified factory parts that have been altered internally with evidence of that modification externally. As such, they have been deemed "external modifications" and, thus, disallowed per 21.5. The logical extension of this interpretation is that any internal modification that has any discernable external evidence is also disallowed under 21.5 (except for barrels). So, back to our recoil rods.

Glock and (4") XD shooters are going to have a tough time. The Glock spring retainer pretty much has to be destroyed in order to get the recoil spring off, however, buy rule (with the way that it's being interpreted), it would have to be reinstalled. I don't know of a way to change the springs on the XD dual-spring assembly. Further, no aftermarket rods could be used. If a Beretta or SiG shooter were to replace their rod with an aftermarket one, how could anyone tell?

As an aside, if I'm not mistaken a modification similar to what Vanek does on the trigger bar/trigger interface on most any other gun wouldn't be visible.

So, there's all that. I think the issue here is two fold. First, disallowing something by fiat that had been allowed in practice for a (very long) time just sucks—kinda like the IPSC XD and, to a lesser extent, Tanfoglio fiascos. The bigger issue, however, is that there're inconsistencies in interpretations themselves. If something hasn't been specifically addressed to the NROI as something to consider, but is clearly something that needs consideration (i.e. aftermarket recoil rods), then the NROI needs to get an interpretation out there. If it is inconsistent (i.e. aftermarket rods are allowed), then we need the BOD to step in and do the NROI's job for it (like they did with the Glock grip plug thing).

A separate instance of this is condition 16 of Limited/L10, which states: "Any complete handgun or components produced by a factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced. Prototypes specifically not allowed." Since the NROI interpretations of this are inconsistent (TGO's 6-inch .40 widebody vs. the SV 5-inch .40 non-ported hybrid gun), the BOD needs to step up and determine what is meant by this rule. Can it be read as it's written or are there special conditions that must be met? What are those special conditions.

So, I guess my take on the Vanek trigger is this: it's an internal mod that has an "external manifestation", which, in practice, have been allowed. If the NROI's interpretation is that internal modifications that can be exhibit some sort of external change are external modifications, then that needs to be applied to ALL internal modifications that exhibit themselves externally in anyway. If we get to the point where we're saying that 21.4 is now to be read to exclude any sort of modification that isn't necessary to put the gun in working order, well, good luck with the fallout from that.

BTW, this took me a while to put together… and then my Internet crapped out. I’ve been working on it since my last post in this thread and finished it at about 1pm PT, so I haven’t had a change to read any of the other posts.

[bgary]

Wait .. What? I thought we just took the IPSC list and added our mods. Otherwise how do you explain some of the guns on it? In fact it was stated here a few times that thats how it works

Acck, you're right. I was thinking red-book, where there was a hard 2000-unit available-to-the-general-public-for-a-year standard. Under the green book, the Board authorized NROI to adopt and extend the IPSC list, with qualification criteria for how a gun qualifies for *our* list, which *may* include production quantities and other factors.

Bruce

[XRe]

First - very well stated - I think you've captured the essence of the complexity of the issue...

I disagree with the following, though:

"Action work to enhance reliability" should be read as "modifications necessary to make the gun work correctly" but, until now, has been read as "modifications that make the gun more 'user-friendly'" (definition 2 here). If reliable is read as "giving the same result on successive trials" then barrel replacement, trigger modification, mag release modification/OE part swap, spring replacement, recoil rod replacement, and sight replacement should be allowed (don't confuse part modification with part replacement) as it's much easier to place a shot in the same location with an accurate, easy-to-see sighted, light-triggered gun than its opposite, easier to return a gun that's "sprung correctly" for a follow-up shot, easier to do a mag change well on a gun with an extended mag release, etc.

I don't think that's what the defnition is getting at. "reliable", in no way equals "makes it easier for the shooter to be reliable", even in the context of the second definition. The intention of that defnition means that the system or experiment or whatever yields the same result each time it is tested - ie, the gun functions the same way every time (in other words, it shoots accurately, and functions without jammin). If you check a thesaurus for synonyms, you'll find things like "durable", "trustable", "unerring"

This differs from the definitions of words like "suitable", "compatible", "expedient", etc - these words refer to something more "user friendly", and differ quite a bit from the meaning above.

I think, taken in context ("Action work to enhance reliability" - where "action" refers to the operating system of the pistol, as opposed to sights, grips, etc), and with a different analysis on the meaning of "reliability", the rule is clearly referring to the mechanical operation of the pistol, not the abillity of the shooter to operate the pistol.

This also matches the common use of the term in reference to firearms - "reliability" is generally assumed to refer to the capacity of a pistol to *not* jam (in fact, you usually hear reliability and accuracy (the ability of the pistol to consistently hit on or near the same spot) referred to as *competing* goals). In common firearms lingo, it does not refer to the ease with which it allows the shooter to employ it accurately....

I think you're kinda stretching terms, here....

If something hasn't been specifically addressed to the NROI as something to consider, but is clearly something that needs consideration (i.e. aftermarket recoil rods), then the NROI needs to get an interpretation out there.

I think that part of Bruce's point is that it's partially up to the membership to send questions to NROI, as well (much like how our Supreme Court works...). I hearby nominate you to start the s**t storm!

If the NROI's interpretation is that internal modifications that can be exhibit some sort of external change are external modifications, then that needs to be applied to ALL internal modifications that exhibit themselves externally in anyway. If we get to the point where we're saying that 21.4 is now to be read to exclude any sort of modification that isn't necessary to put the gun in working order, well, good luck with the fallout from that.

+1 and +1 !!!!

[diehli]

First - very well stated - I think you've captured the essence of the complexity of the issue...

I disagree with the following, though:

"Action work to enhance reliability" should be read as "modifications necessary to make the gun work correctly" but, until now, has been read as "modifications that make the gun more 'user-friendly'" (definition 2 here). If reliable is read as "giving the same result on successive trials" then barrel replacement, trigger modification, mag release modification/OE part swap, spring replacement, recoil rod replacement, and sight replacement should be allowed (don't confuse part modification with part replacement) as it's much easier to place a shot in the same location with an accurate, easy-to-see sighted, light-triggered gun than its opposite, easier to return a gun that's "sprung correctly" for a follow-up shot, easier to do a mag change well on a gun with an extended mag release, etc.

I don't think that's what the defnition is getting at. "reliable", in no way equals "makes it easier for the shooter to be reliable", even in the context of the second definition. The intention of that defnition means that the system or experiment or whatever yields the same result each time it is tested - ie, the gun functions the same way every time (in other words, it shoots accurately, and functions without jammin). If you check a thesaurus for synonyms, you'll find things like "durable", "trustable", "unerring"

This differs from the definitions of words like "suitable", "compatible", "expedient", etc - these words refer to something more "user friendly", and differ quite a bit from the meaning above.

I think, taken in context ("Action work to enhance reliability" - where "action" refers to the operating system of the pistol, as opposed to sights, grips, etc), and with a different analysis on the meaning of "reliability", the rule is clearly referring to the mechanical operation of the pistol, not the abillity of the shooter to operate the pistol.

This also matches the common use of the term in reference to firearms - "reliability" is generally assumed to refer to the capacity of a pistol to *not* jam (in fact, you usually hear reliability and accuracy (the ability of the pistol to consistently hit on or near the same spot) referred to as *competing* goals). In common firearms lingo, it does not refer to the ease with which it allows the shooter to employ it accurately....

I think you're kinda stretching terms, here....

Actually, what I was trying to do was put it in terms of how it has actually been applied. What I'm saying is, "how can this be read so that shooters can have trigger jobs?" and answering it in terms of the rule's verbiage.

If something hasn't been specifically addressed to the NROI as something to consider, but is clearly something that needs consideration (i.e. aftermarket recoil rods), then the NROI needs to get an interpretation out there.

I think that part of Bruce's point is that it's partially up to the membership to send questions to NROI, as well (much like how our Supreme Court works...). I hearby nominate you to start the s**t storm!

Honest to god, I think I did:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...ndpost&p=350554

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...ndpost&p=351070

If the NROI's interpretation is that internal modifications that can be exhibit some sort of external change are external modifications, then that needs to be applied to ALL internal modifications that exhibit themselves externally in anyway. If we get to the point where we're saying that 21.4 is now to be read to exclude any sort of modification that isn't necessary to put the gun in working order, well, good luck with the fallout from that.

+1 and +1 !!!!

Ruh roh, Raggy....

[SRT Driver]

Many well thought out responses but...

The only reason that the ruling was posted is that the mod to the pivot pin is visible..it says nothing else.

If the pin were moved 1/4" instread of 3/16" (which, BTW, it can't) the point would have been moot..it would have been externally invisible.

Edit -

FWIW - the old pivot pin hole is filled with what looks like part of the old pivot pin. The two look exactly the same. In that case it would not be an external change since it looks exactly the same.

Edited February 9, 2006 by SRT Driver

[diehli]

If the pin were moved 1/4" instread of 3/16" (which, BTW, it can't) the point would have been moot..it would have been externally invisible.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. As there'd be a hole (that Charlie would have filled), it would have been externally modified.

Many well thought out responses but...

The only reason that the ruling was posted is that the mod to the pivot pin is visible..it says nothing else.

Unfortunately you can't just stop there.

[SRT Driver]

QUOTE

If the pin were moved 1/4" instread of 3/16" (which, BTW, it can't) the point would have been moot..it would have been externally invisible.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. As there'd be a hole (that Charlie would have filled), it would have been externally modified.

Edited my post. The two are exactly the same. There is no visible difference.

QUOTE(SRT Driver @ Feb 9 2006, 02:37 PM)

Many well thought out responses but...

The only reason that the ruling was posted is that the mod to the pivot pin is visible..it says nothing else.

Unfortunately you can't just stop there.

300lb, you should be in Congress. It says what it says..nothing else. The reason the mod is illegal is that it is visible. It does not say it is illegal otherwise.

Read it again!!

[Single Stack]

As someone had mentioned earlier in the forum the Sotelo triggers. Not being familiar

with the Sotelo drop in Glock triggers are there any external modifications with them

that would disallow there use in Production. Just curious that if by default with the Vanek

ruling are the Sotelo triggers no longer going to be allowed in Production. Since we are addressing the Vanek ruling it would be nice to get it out on the table to prevent any of our fellow shooters from spending money on trigger work that is no longer legal for the Production division.

I have a Glock 34 with a Vanek trigger that I was using for Production and was not intending to be a "gamer". I had just grown up shooting single stacks and was not a big fan of the Glock stock trigger. When I was first exposed to a Vanek trigger it was like I had found heaven. The Glock reliability coupled with a decent trigger. What a concept. Since others where using it in Production I like many others just assumed that the Vanek trigger was an approved Production modification especially where the Vanek trigger had been used at the Nationals level and not questioned up until now. I have no problem taking my Glock 34 over to the Limited division and shooting minor I'm just a little disheartened by the tardiness of this decision. This is something that should have been addressed much earlier in my opinion at an Area or National match level when it first appeared.

[GeorgeInNePa]

QUOTE

If the pin were moved 1/4" instread of 3/16" (which, BTW, it can't) the point would have been moot..it would have been externally invisible.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. As there'd be a hole (that Charlie would have filled), it would have been externally modified.

Edited my post. The two are exactly the same. There is no visible difference.

QUOTE(SRT Driver @ Feb 9 2006, 02:37 PM)

Many well thought out responses but...

The only reason that the ruling was posted is that the mod to the pivot pin is visible..it says nothing else.

Unfortunately you can't just stop there.

300lb, you should be in Congress. It says what it says..nothing else. The reason the mod is illegal is that it is visible. It does not say it is illegal otherwise.

Read it again!!

That was my point earlier when I asked if you had a metal trigger and welded and refinished it so as not to be able to tell. I was told that would be cheating, but the way I read Amidons ruling, it seems he is saying that the visible evidence is what is wrong. Almost like if you couldn't see it, there'd be no problem.

Then again, maybe it's just me.

Ruling

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.

[thelbig]

Although I'll take my medicine like a man, I will say that this isn't the same as melting a BoMar into the slide. I see that mod regularly in production.How about a rear sight hanging off the rear of the slide. I have 3 of Charlies' triggers right now and when I'm pulling the trigger, this gun looks stock. It utilizes stock components externally. As an RO, how am I supposed to enforce this? I am locked on a shooters finger when reloading.When the shooter draws, I won't be measuring. Maybe we should have Glock and XD shooters line up for inspection like an IDPA match.

[LwE]

Staying with 21.5 for the moment, is the Vanek necessarily out of the woods just by reverting back to the stock trigger bar?

The rounded plunger safety of the Vanek/Soleto/Homebrew trigger jobs is "externally visible" to the knowledable through the empty mag well under the right lighting conditions when the pistol is holstered during a match. ["No, young lady, I'm checking your trigger job for compliance with the new rule interpretations."]

I have a Vanek on one match gun and a stock trigger w/Wolf 4lb spring on the other, and was thinking about resolving the problem by adding the Solteto kit to the stock trigger and going with that. As of the moment it looks like I will need to get an NROI ruling to know whether this solution clears both 21.5 and 21.4.

While I'm at it maybe I should ask them what the meaning of the word "is" is; I'm sure that would go over well.

[Flexmoney]

That was my point earlier when I asked if you had a metal trigger and welded and refinished it so as not to be able to tell. I was told that would be cheating, but the way I read Amidons ruling, it seems he is saying that the visible evidence is what is wrong. Almost like if you couldn't see it, there'd be no problem.

Then again, maybe it's just me.

Being "visible" isn't the key, it's a clue. The rule is against external modifications, right?

LwE, I think the safety plunger is internal. I don't see that as an issue. Again, it's not so much the visibility...it's the "moification to an external part".

As an RO, how am I supposed to enforce this? I am locked on a shooters finger when reloading.When the shooter draws, I won't be measuring.

I know of 3 Master class Beretta shooters. I know them well enough that they have all stayed at my house. They are all aware of the "speed bump" trigger being illegal for Production. I have never, as an RO, had to think about "catching them".

Our shooters are pretty honest in this game.

[diehli]

QUOTE

If the pin were moved 1/4" instread of 3/16" (which, BTW, it can't) the point would have been moot..it would have been externally invisible.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. As there'd be a hole (that Charlie would have filled), it would have been externally modified.

Edited my post. The two are exactly the same. There is no visible difference.

As far as the interpretation goes, Amidon mentioned the overtravel screw of the Speed Bump (or, at least, the hole for the screw) as reason for it's being disallowed and likens it to the Vanek mod. The pivot pin, he says, is in a new location, and this can be seen from the exterior in the form of the filler used in the old location.

As far as what's visible, GeorgeInNePa's post doesn't illustrate what's visible when the trigger's in the gun. On my Vanek-equipped G34, when the trigger is at the rear, nothing is visible on the left, and when it's at the front, about 1/3 to 1/2 millimeter of the new trigger/trigger bar pivot pin is visible (if you stick your nose on the gun). Honestly, I could dial in some more pre-travel reduction and it wouldn't be visible.

What is most visible is on the right side of the gun/trigger where you can see where the previous pivot pin was removed/pushed out from (the pins are only visible on the left on the stock trigger) and then filled with some material. It's this material that Amidon says is the reason for the Vanek trigger being disallowed.

QUOTE(SRT Driver @ Feb 9 2006, 02:37 PM)

Many well thought out responses but...

The only reason that the ruling was posted is that the mod to the pivot pin is visible..it says nothing else.

Unfortunately you can't just stop there.

300lb, you should be in Congress. It says what it says..nothing else. The reason the mod is illegal is that it is visible. It does not say it is illegal otherwise.

Read it again!!

Actually, I should be recognized as exactly what I am: a rational animal. Rationality requires me to ask the question "why?".

So, I ask "why was the Vanek banned?" with a further question of "why was the CC XD mag release mod banned?" and ask these questions within the context of the rules. It wasn't because of the position of the trigger nor of the modification to the trigger safety (to make it compliant with 5.1.4) as these were put forth in the question and not cited as the reason for the ban. Now, I think there's a side-stepping of the issue in the XD mag release interpretation. Deeming the part external and saying it was changed from factory specs was the way it was handled. The part is both external and internal and the internal specs are changed which is reflected in an external change (which is the desired result, but nonetheless, the actual modification is internal).

Now, with the Vanek trigger, you go through the reasoning I went through earlier and you see that because there's work done that's visible, you're SOL, based on what's been "interpreted". Both of these interpretations can be put in a logical form that subsumes their specific instances, i.e. "any internal modification, other than the installation of a barrel (specifically allowed by 21.3), that has any sort of external evidence is not allowed per 21.5." You then have to go on and apply this to all other things (like guide rods) because that's what rules are: standards by which to judge.

So, here's a question: say a shooter's pivot pin breaks and he replaces it with drill rod, giving him the tell-tale sign on the right hand side of the trigger... is he SOL, too? Why? 21.4 seems to allow it as it was done to "enhance reliability" (i.e. allow the gun to fire).

That was my point earlier when I asked if you had a metal trigger and welded and refinished it so as not to be able to tell. I was told that would be cheating, but the way I read Amidons ruling, it seems he is saying that the visible evidence is what is wrong. Almost like if you couldn't see it, there'd be no problem.

Then again, maybe it's just me.

Being "visible" isn't the key, it's a clue. The rule is against external modifications, right?

LwE, I think the safety plunger is internal. I don't see that as an issue. Again, it's not so much the visibility...it's the "moification to an external part".

Yeah, Flex, but how do you decide what's external and what's internal? If parts are both external and internal (mag releases, triggers, guide rods, slide stops, grip safeties, etc.) it seems that you'd need to declare the visible part external and disallow mods to that area, thereby, disallowing visible mods. And there's your can of worms.

[LwE]

Flex,

I think you are right, but under that view there'd be little (G34 length) or no (G17 length in G34) question about the legality of the Tungsten guide rods, and that issue still seems to be lingering unresolved. Now that we're going down this road, let's have definitive answers to a host of grey area question so that everyone is on the same page.

I was thinking about getting a tuned SP-01 after this season, but I won't be parting with my money until NROI formally blesses the CZ competition hammer as a factory part. Lance

Edited February 9, 2006 by LwE

[oct_97]

Holy Crap!!!

The Vanek trigger is IDPA legal and not Production legal!!!!!

The sky is falling!!!

Oh no! You've alerted them, LOL.

John

[ima45dv8]

Not being familiar with the Sotelo drop in Glock triggers are there any external modifications with them that would disallow there use in Production.

Nothing I can see on mine.

[smokshwn]

No worries Lance,

My Cz is supposed to be here soon you can shoot it until it becomes illegal

Craig

[shred]

I know of 3 Master class Beretta shooters. I know them well enough that they have all stayed at my house. They are all aware of the "speed bump" trigger being illegal for Production. I have never, as an RO, had to think about "catching them".

Our shooters are pretty honest in this game.

Absolutely. Very recently I saw a shooter trying to take his scoresheet to arbitration to get the D written on it, which he signed without inspecting it closely enough, replaced by the mike he actually shot.

[eerw]

No worries Lance,

My Cz is supposed to be here soon you can shoot it until it becomes illegal

Craig

Here you go...

CZSP01 thread controversey

http://ipsc.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=2969&hl=