Nroi Ruling On Vanek Trigger For Production

[LwE]

Craig,

You are a generous man!

What do you say we shoot Limited Minor for a year until they get this all sorted out?

Could be fun, Lance

[Nik Habicht]

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."]

The rule says nothing about "externally visible" modifications, rather it talks about "external modifications." I can look through a window into your house at an interior wall ---- the fact that I can see it, doesn't all of a sudden make it an exterior wall, does it?

[Chriss Grube]

Damn peeping Nik's....son we gots laws against that there type of stuff!

[JD45]

I think you've got them there, Nik. Good point.

[LwE]

Then I guess we're agreed that the Tungsten guide rods, though visible, are okay.

I seem to recall reading that Sevigny once had a Limited Glock with the rear of the magazine channel hogged out for better reloads. He didn't have that on his Production guns.

Pretty clearly illegal for Production, but why? Both are internal modifications, both are visible through the mag well when holstered, and both contribute to the reliability of the gun to the same extent, that is, imperceptibly.

I don't care what the ultimate answers are so much, just so that the playing field is level. This is interesting, thanks to all for the contributions to this thread. Lance

Edited February 10, 2006 by LwE

[Flexmoney]

LwE,

The rules don't say internal mods are Ok and external aren't.

They say, external aren't...and, internal are few.

Right?

[LwE]

From the beginning, the history of Production under both U.S. and International rules has been that reasonable well-intentioned people read the same sets of rules differently. And several years down the road now, nobody appears to agree on what significant portions of the equipment rules really mean.

Now the Vanek trigger has been taken out on the grounds of the written language of 21.5 as an external modification. I don't share their interpretation of the language, but some people--reasonable well-intentioned shooters--have expressed surprise that the Vanek trigger violates the external modification rule under 21.5. Others have further argued that the Vanek should be saved by reference to 21.4 which specifically allows "action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.)." That's a pretty decent argument, which I think a lot of Production shooters believed, but it hasn't persuaded the NROI.

I don't think anyone here has made the argument that the open-ended rule statement that permitted modifications are few but "include . . . [the listed categories]" should be read to mean that there are also unlisted categories of additional permitted modifications. This is where I thought the Vanek had come to rest as a sort of unofficial, but commonly known and accepted modification. This argument is pretty obvious and it didn't persuade the NROI either. The Vanek is out under the language of 21.5 alone.

(I made a weak argument that 21.5 might also be read to exclude an additional aspect of the common trigger jobs. I don't think it is reasonable conclusion, but I have been surprised before by just how much other shooters, whom I like and admire, can read a rule differently than do I. Note that effectively the same argument has been advanced against the Tungsten guide rods by reasonable well-intentioned shooters.)

What interests me most here are the implications of Bruce's argument that the language of 21.4--which is what the NROI is evidently going to go by given the recent Vanek rule--allows trigger jobs only to enhance reliability. I think it is a very weak argument to claim that the trigger work we are doing is for the purpose of enhancing reliability. Many of the posts on the Glock Forum are focused on how to modify parts in order to get the lightest and/or smoothest possible trigger action just this side of inducing malfunctions or burst fire. Anyone disagree about the purpose of the trigger work?

I took Bruce's posts, coupled with the Vanek ruling, to suggest that the powers that be in USPSA might be preparing to take a pretty good swipe at Production trigger jobs. That would be a real change in the game as we know it, and that possibility is the only thing that could tempt me to put a toe in the water here and risk getting swept away in a current of statutory construction. How does that go again, Expresio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius?

[R Dub]

The only dog I have in this race is being an RO, and as such interpreting and applying the rulings correctly. After reading the two rulings individually, I thought it was cut and dry and I was ready to move on. Then I went and compared the two as they pertain to the Production Division as a whole… and came out with a raised eyebrow.

Part of the “Internal VS External” (mag release) ruling brings a question to mind as to if it would also apply to trigger work.

So if Springfield offered this part in the altered state, on one of the models or in their catalog, so it could be ordered by itself, it would be OK to exchange the mag release, it cannot be modified internally to get an external enhancement.

Does this imply that if trigger work caused the trigger position to be altered, such as if removing the pre-travel distance would displace the trigger from its original factory position, it would not be allowed since it creates an external enhancement?

I’m pretty much unfamiliar with the drop-in Glock trigger kits or what parts are involved. Would this ruling also imply that unless the replacement (or altered factory) parts are offered by Glock (as with the altered mag release being offered by Springfield) they also would not be allowed?

Is the difference here that its OK to mount a set screw in the frame to limit travel, but modifying a factory trigger bar with a set screw to get the same result would not be OK? Or is it not OK to do either mod if it results in an external enhancement?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to limit the cranial confusion prior to giving the shooters briefing on Sunday.

[glockrocker]

What interests me most here are the implications of Bruce's argument that the language of 21.4--which is what the NROI is evidently going to go by given the recent Vanek rule--allows trigger jobs only to enhance reliability. I think it is a very weak argument to claim that the trigger work we are doing is for the purpose of enhancing reliability. Many of the posts on the Glock Forum are focused on how to modify parts in order to get the lightest and/or smoothest possible trigger action just this side of inducing malfunctions or burst fire. Anyone disagree about the purpose of the trigger work?

If you had a target you had to hit.....one shot one kill.....and you had two weapons to choose from.....both good weapons with the only difference being one had a trigger job that allowed you shoot a tighter group.....which would you choose? Would the choice be made because you could rely more on the weapon with the trigger job? Would that make it more reliable to you? Does reliability only refer to the ability of the weapon to go "bang" or does the end result factor in? I understand that this line of thought may be contradictory to the spirit of the rule, but it may demonstrate how written text can be interpreted differently than the author intended.

What really sucks about this whole thing is that there are a lot of well intentioned people who are taking it in the shorts on this one. The rules can be interpreted and argued on both sides of the issue without coming to an agreeable conclusion. What if the ruling had come down in favor of Vanek Triggers? Would there be as many upset shooters? Would this thread have had as many posts? I doubt it. It would have been business as usual for most and there would have been fewer pissed production shooters. I may be wrong, but I don't recall an outcry from production shooters when the Vanek Trigger was put on the market. I didn't hear protests when production shooters won championships with the product. I DO recall production champions praising the product. Who does this ruling benefit? Do the beneficiaries as a whole really care? Again, I doubt it.

[driver8M3]

Does this imply that if trigger work caused the trigger position to be altered, such as if removing the pre-travel distance would displace the trigger from its original factory position, it would not be allowed since it creates an external enhancement?

thats a pretty good question.

the vanek ruling says that it is illegal because of the pin. since no other part of the vanek trigger is mentioned, i must assume that all other parts of it (or other similar kits) are legal. since the ruling shows that they are finally aware of the vanek kit, its difficult (though i agree not impossible) to believe that they didnt look at the all of the vanek changes. they certainly should have. now, if they've blessed trigger mods, it seems they must also be NOT reading the 21.4 the way bruce is in this thread (that is, you can only do it to enhance reliability)

a couple of other points i'd like to make:

its been said that the mistake in this fiasco was that nobody ever directly asked if the vanek setup was OK, placing the onus on shooters or charlie. what is uspsa's responsibility in this? shouldnt they be policing things at least a little...people have been very openly using the vanek kit for 3 years? these rules are so murky its easy to see how a reasonable person could read them and think a particular mod is legal and start using it in matches. theres no way i consider that cheating. yet, if he just does his thing and never asks (why would he, he thinks its legal) he gains an advantage over others. are we saying that uspsa has no responsibility to investigate such things on their own, absent a direct inquiry from someone? the uspsa policy seems to be "dont ask, and we wont tell," in which case i'm very upset at the person that asked the question about the vanek trigger!

21.5 ("external modifications other than sights not allowed") is an interesting rule. it stipulates that sights are an external item that can be changed. but 21.2 already did that. notably, 21.5 does not mention replacement barrels or aftermarket grips, which also have other rules that permit them (21.3 for barrels and 21.6 for grips). why doesnt 21.5 say "external mods other than sights, barrels and grips not allowed?" if it did, it certainly would hurt my arguement that 21.4 creates an exclusion (to the external mod rule) for work on the trigger. also, if you go out of your way to say external modifications are not allowed, what does it say that you don't include a similar statement about internal mods?

its been mentioned previously about hacking up the slide to put bomars on. initially, i didnt realize the importance of that ruling (too busy being dumbfounded that trigger work doesnt include work on the trigger). but now i do. we all know that you can add sights. but how can adding sights be interpreted as also meaning you can chop off part of the slide to do it, while "trigger work" doesnt include working on the TRIGGER. youre right matt, those two rulings are absolutely not consistent.

[Kimberkid]

I think Bruce prolly has the idea closest to the intention of the ruling... It is ok to modify factory parts as long as you dont change thier operation. By this theory I can see how the Vanek is illegal and the others arent. I dont want this, it isnt my personal ideal situation, and not how I would write it, but I can see some logic in it.

I am semi certain that the Sotelo kit doesnt do any real part alteration, just polish. I am going to suggest to Ralph that he contacts NROI and get a ruling on his personal kit, so that this same thing doesnt happen down the line. And no, there isnt any externally visible evidence of the Sotelo kit.

this is all my opinion, and i dont wanna hear anyone tell me to "stop it"

[SRT Driver]

A possible reason for the ruling, other than the "question" cited in the ruling may have occurred at the '05 Prod Nats.

A member of the Prod Super Squad was advised that his Vanek equipped Glock could not continue. Not due to the additional pin but because he had the pretravel set as to disable the trigger safety (5.1.4). He has short fingers and this mod made trigger manipulation easier.

He was allowed to replaced the ejector housing and continue. He changed it.

Did this put the Vanek trigger under the microscope?

5.1.4 says trigger mechanism "must function..as originally designed."

[XRe]

My original post got munged somehow... let me see if I can recover what I said...

its been said that the mistake in this fiasco was that nobody ever directly asked if the vanek setup was OK, placing the onus on shooters or charlie. what is uspsa's responsibility in this?

I'm probably going to diverge from Bruce, here...

I believe that USPSA/NROI should be seeking to provide timely rulings on these things, as well, and that the responsibility also partially falls on USPSA. I still feel that, ultimately, it's up to the shooter to insure that they're compliant (I'm a big proponent for personal responsibility, see...), and up to the manufacturer to insure that they've got a viable product.

No doubt, Bruce will now pipe up and explain all the difficulties - let me try to shortcut him a little bit

We can't reasonably expect USPSA/NROI or John Amidon to go out and buy a copy of every possible gun and aftermarket product in order to render rulings on them. Well... we could, but that would be poor usage of our membership dues. We also can't expect John to go galavanting off across the countryside seeking out products to inspect - that would also get quite expensive to USPSA, and seems like rather a waste of John's personal time.

I also suspect that having John wander the Nationals, glaring at pistols, and grabbing people to go to the Safe Area for a teardown and inspection might be considered a bit much by most folks. Further, how many competitors are going to offer up "Yeah, John, I have such and such product in my gun...", when there's the knowledge that they might suddenly be out of the match?

We can't expect John, or the mighty Chrono duo, to be expert armorers in each platform used - nor would it be practical to have a rep from each manufacturer onhand at the chrono station for inspections. They may be able to spot some things, due to their own knowledge, but to expect them to catch everything is a bit silly.

Possible solutions?? I can only think of a couple...

First, maybe this event will prod manufacturers into being a little bit more proactive about having their stuff inspected. It demonstrates that, even if you *think* the product is compliant based on your interpretation of the rules, you're not certain it will be until John says so, or the rules explicitly allow it (sights, grip tape, etc).

What if there was an "open inspection" at the Nationals, where John would be available for official inspections of products? Presumably, you'd have to offer a grace period for the duration of the match - as no manufacturer in their right mind is going to offer up something that might get their customers removed from the match. Do you think manufacturers would participate, or would they continue to fly under the radar? Do you think a competitor, knowing that they spent X number of dollars on a product, would be willing to find out that it's no longer rules compliant and they're out the money, or would they continue to fly under the radar, too??

The only other solution that I can come up with, that might have a chance at working, is pretty draconian. The rules could be modified such that anything that's not a stock factory part would have to be explicitly approved by NROI before it could be used in Production. This would insure that all products have a timely ruling on them, and there's no doubt as to the status of a given product. But, how many people would be happy with that?

Personally, I'd like to perceive a more proactice effort on the part of USPSA/NROI to get these sorts of things handled - even if it's just an article, followed up by ads in Front Sight making sure that everyone knows what options are available for these sorts of things. This may already happen, and we on this forum just aren't aware of it. I'm sure one of the resident ADs will let us know, if that's the case....

but now i do. we all know that you can add sights. but how can adding sights be interpreted as also meaning you can chop off part of the slide to do it,

Personally, I don't think machining of the slide should be allowed. For most viable production guns, there are plenty of factory and aftermarket sights that fit the stock mounting systems. Just my opinion...

Edited February 10, 2006 by XRe

[Chriss Grube]

Well I guess the only fair thing to do is have everybody that has won with the vaneck for the last 3 years return the prizes and trophies. We should all call HQ and have our classifiers DQ'ed since they were shot with an illegal mod. I mean fair is fair right?

I'm sure it will make some extra work for the staff but the rules are the rules. Just because it was legal for 3 years and they "have just discovered it" I guess we have to live with it and they need to contact every shooter in Production that has won or shot a classifier and make sure it was with legal mods.

While they are at it they better look at the mods on SIG's which shorten the over travel. You can look at it and tell that is is visibly different than the stock trigger which makes it an external mod and it should be illegal. Fair is fair. I guess USPSA had better get on the ball and start checking all the gun mods so we all have a level playing field.

I guess any classifiers I shot after April of 05 is out the window! Hello B class!

[bgary]

I know I'm not supposed to take an antagonistic tone, so I'll say this as non-judgmentally as I can....

There's a lot of talk on this thread about "USPSA should have known" and "USPSA has allowed this for 3 years" and so on....

Aside from the obvious question (if USPSA "allows" something because it didn't know about it, does that make it "legal?), I have a broader question:

What ever happened to "personal responsibility"?

If a person does something to their gun, that is *not* on the list of approved mods in the most clamped-down equipment rules in the book, doesn't that shooter have *some* degree of responsibility for making sure they are competing with legal equipment?

And... if you *don't* ask, and it turns out you were wrong, does that somehow grant you status as a "victim"?

Maybe it's just me... but, I figure it is *my* job to ask about *my* equipment, and *I* own the consequences if I don't

Bruce

[Matthew_Mink]

Bruce, you asked a very good question, but under the current rulebook and rulings, we the shooters are confused.

1. Glock shooters cannot use a Vanek trigger with the relocated pin because that would constitute an external modification even though the rulebook says trigger work is legal.

2. Production shooters can mill in a set of Bo-Mars because even though milling the slide is an external modification, because the rulebook says changing sights is legal.

See the paradox? I know of no other way to state it simpler. It is no wonder Glock shooters thought they were in the right for 3 years then suddenly found out they weren't when there are 2 rules with 2 different interpretations.

edited to make that a little easier to read...

Edited February 10, 2006 by Matthew Mink

[bgary]

Bruce, you asked a very good question, but under the current rulebook and rulings, we the shooters are confused.

I don't disagree, but I'd note that adding aftermarket sights is explicitly allowed in the rules, and the rule was *clarified* with an interpretation that says it is OK to mill the slide in order to change sights.

Conversely, there *isn't* a rule in the rulebook that says changing the geometry of the trigger assembly by drilling a new hole and changing the pivot-point is explicitly allowed. It is, in hindsight, a "gray area"... which means that, until someone actually *asks* for that clarification, doing the mod is a "risk" which (it seems to me) carries some responsibility.

I'm not trying to place any blame. I guess what gets my back up is when people say (in effect) "I got hosed by USPSA changing its mind", when, in fact, USPSA never actually said it was OK, and in fact that is often because USPSA doesn't *know* about things like this until someone brings it to our attention. IMHO, anyone who A: modified their gun in a not-on-the-list way and B: didn't bring it to USPSA's attention before plunking down their cash, carries at least *some* of the responsibility for the interpretation being a "surprise".

[/soapbox]

Bruce

[SRT Driver]

Conversely, there *isn't* a rule in the rulebook that says changing the geometry of the trigger assembly by drilling a new hole and changing the pivot-point is explicitly allowed.

Bruce,

The rules do not say this mod is explicitly disallowed either.

Extenal modifications are not allowed other than sights - clear.

Trigger work to enhance reliabilty ETC - not specific.

Let's be realistic about this. If the rules do not specifically state that a mod is illegal, and we all know that the "intent" and or "spirit" is not enforcable, the mod is legal until NROIO says otherwise.

Likewise, you see a way to knock 10 seconds off of your time on a particular COF, and it is not specifically stated on the walkthrough that you cannot do whatever it is, are you going to do it?

Somebody missed something and you exploit it error, is that wrong?

[bgary]

First, maybe this event will prod manufacturers into being a little bit more proactive about having their stuff inspected. It demonstrates that, even if you *think* the product is compliant based on your interpretation of the rules, you're not certain it will be until John says so, or the rules explicitly allow it (sights, grip tape, etc).

When that happens, it works like it is supposed to.

Some of you may recall that the concept of an unported hybrid rib came up several years ago. Someone (with an interest in selling that configuration) brought it to the USPSA Board and asked for a ruling. They didn't get the ruling they wanted (it was ruled as a "prototype", which is not allowed in Limited, and they were told it would be considered a prototype until a manufacturer certified that the production requirements had been met.) But... the main point is, they got a clear, unequivocal - and official - answer about whether or not it was legal.

Flash to a couple of years later, a manufacturer popped up and said that they had made the requisite quantity in that configuration. NROI looked at it, found that they according to the rules the configuration met the Limited Division rules, and approved it. Again, a clear, unequivocal - and official - answer.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but... bottom line is that, if the rules don't *explicitly* allow an equipment configuration or modification, a good course of action is to actually *ask* for a ruling from NROI.

(and... if the reason you *don't* want to ask is because you're afraid they'll say no? That, more than anything, should set off a big blinking red warning light in your head that indicates maybe the legality of the mod is in that "gray area")

Bruce

The rules do not say this mod is explicitly disallowed either

True. But the rules *do* say that "allowed modifications are very limited", followed by a *very* short list of explicitly-allowed modifications.

B

[bgary]

Let's be realistic about this. If the rules do not specifically state that a mod is illegal, and we all know that the "intent" and or "spirit" is not enforcable, the mod is legal until NROIO says otherwise.

Come on, let's *both* be realistic here.

First of all, let's draw a "language" baseline: the fact that NROI never *said* anything about a modification is *NOT* the same as NROI saying the modification is "legal". That's just bogus.

But second, Production division is unique in that it specifically says that only a very limited number of modifications are allowed, and then IT GOES ON TO LIST THEM. There's no way in the world we could list every *prohibited* modification in the rules - the rulebook would be a foot thick, and it would be out-of-date the day it was printed. So, we wrote "here's the list of modifications that *are* permitted." Either approach draws a boundary. The problem is not that "intent is not enforceable", it is that *you* are interpreting that boundary in a different way than NROI is. Unfortunately for that argument, NROI is the "official" last word on whether or not something is inside the boundary.

So... at *least* in the case of Production division, where it says "only limited modifications are allowed", it would seem prudent for a person to *ask* whether or not a non-listed mod is allowed, rather than say "hey, it doesn't specifically say I can't do "this thing", so it must mean I can."

Bruce

[driver8M3]

bruce,

the one problem i have with your approach (that is, your approach to assigning blame...i also have a problem with your interpretation of the rule, obviously ) is that it's the approach of a veteran, seemlingly oblivious to the fact that lots of new people join every year. how long have you been a member of uspsa? i've been a member for 2 years. prior to joining i heard great things from matt mink about charlies trigger. he finished 3rd at the national championships using this trigger. he won other regional matches using this trigger. he advertised and endorsed charlies product pretty often. i heard over and over again that it was production legal. now, for a new guy that is just joining uspsa, why in the world would i ask a question about its legality? generally guys that are cheating using illegal parts dont advertise that fact. you know as well as i do that new people do not know the rules. the best way they learn them is shooting matches and talking to other shooters...and maybe even reading the rulebook. there is absolutely NO WAY you can expect a new shooter to interpret "trigger work" as meaning internal trigger work only. not only that, but when i first got charlies trigger i had NO idea even what he did. i said before i dont know much about guns, and i'm not kidding. even 2 years later, while i eventually figured out (meaning my friend told me) exactly what charlie did, i still had no inkling that it could even possibly be illegal. if you polled uspsa members last week, i'd wager that close to 100% would have said it's a legal mod.

this is where a little help from uspsa could come in handy. how about checking the equipment of the winners occasionally. isnt that what nascar does? dont the olympics generally do blood testing on winners? i know we're just a little organization, but uspsa certainly shares a large portion of the responsibility for making sure the rules are both enforced and known. if you want to put the entire burden on the participants, not only will you have some people unknowingly violating the rules, you will have just as many violating the rules on purpose. if uspsa routinely checked the equipment of some number of the top shooters, this would have been decided 3 years ago...and a bunch of shooters wouldnt be rightfully pissed off right now. if some D class shooter has a fancy new mod on his gun, not many people are going to hear about it. but i guarantee you that if a guy that finishes 3rd at nationals has a fancy new trigger, half of the shooting world will know about pretty darn fast, and a half them will be buying it a couple of weeks later.

you want to lay all of this on personal resposibility? based on the vagueness of the rule, that's a joke. even after being a member for 2 years, and after all of this discussion, i still read the rule as allowing work on the actual trigger (the external portion) (obviously i understand that johns ruling is currently law, though subject to an appeal). and you expect a new shooter to understand it? thats completely unrealistic.

[diehli]

Some of you may recall that the concept of an unported hybrid rib came up several years ago. Someone (with an interest in selling that configuration) brought it to the USPSA Board and asked for a ruling. They didn't get the ruling they wanted (it was ruled as a "prototype", which is not allowed in Limited, and they were told it would be considered a prototype until a manufacturer certified that the production requirements had been met.) But... the main point is, they got a clear, unequivocal - and official - answer about whether or not it was legal.

Flash to a couple of years later, a manufacturer popped up and said that they had made the requisite quantity in that configuration. NROI looked at it, found that they according to the rules the configuration met the Limited Division rules, and approved it. Again, a clear, unequivocal - and official - answer.

This is a horrible example. The rule says:

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.

If 500 barrels were produced, then it's legal. That's how the rule is written (if you disagree, maybe we should look at the 2nd Amendment and see how you read that). Also, the limitations placed on this barrel are inconsistent with the rules. It's only allowed in widebody guns 'cause "that's how it the gun was produced". WTF? Seriously... read the rule. Further, where is there any mention of manufacturer certification being required?

Now, here's another question: why is something that has not been produced as a complete handgun or as a component and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced allowed? Specifically, show me a widebody Springfield in .40. Or a 6-inch .40 Springfield slide. "The frame is the same as a Para" doesn't work as reasoning. Read the rule. If a factory has produced 500 guns or components then those components, from that factory, are legal for use in Lim/L10. It says nothing of similar products from a different factory.

The problem isn't with the rules. Blaming competitors for not checking up on something that, by a reasonable reading of the rules and inspection of the product as well as by comparing to upper-level competitor's equipment, doesn't appear in contravention, doesn't make the issue go away, either. The problem is that rule interpretations are inconsistent and this needs to be resolved.

Bruce, I'm placing the onus on you, as a representative of USPSA, to bring these issues up. Specifically, I want you to broach the issue of guide rods in PD, the wide inconsistencies of interpretations with rule 16 (quoted above) of Limited/L10 equipment appendices, and how, exactly, we are to interpret 21.4 with respect to trigger jobs. If you don't want to do it 'cause I'm not from your Area, fine, but say that.

[driver8M3]

I don't disagree, but I'd note that adding aftermarket sights is explicitly allowed in the rules, and the rule was *clarified* with an interpretation that says it is OK to mill the slide in order to change sights.

lets forget for a second that i believe "trigger work" means youre allowed to actually work on the trigger (i'll try hard ).

i see theres this ruling that says "external modifications except sights not allowed" has been interpreted as meaning "if you want to hack a large piece of metal off of your slide to install bomar sights, that's cool." now, with that kind of logic in mind, you honestly expect me to not think that "trigger work" means "i can move a pin on the external portion of a trigger?"

[lbritt]

I have a G17 that came from the factory with a 5# connector. This gun ran perfectly and was very reliable. Later, I replaced the 5# connector with an after market 3.5# connector for no other reason but a lighter trigger pull. Am I still legal? As mentioned previously, rule 21.4 states "Action work to enhance reliability is allowed." I changed the action of the trigger for the sole purpose of a lighter trigger pull. It had absolutely nothing to do with reliability. Is this gun still legal for production?

[Chriss Grube]

Well maybe it is time for USPSA to change the way rules are decided? We have one person who reads it and decides. I shoot with John regularly and he is a good guy, but where the hell else besides dictatorships and USPSA does one guy decide these things? Look at the thread and read the rules, plain english is trigger work is trigger work but one person doesn't read it that way. If the Supreme Court was one person's decisions then the whole country would sure be a lot different. We had a whole "rules committee" to come up with the book and then just one guy to say yes or no on the rules afterwards? Bottom line is somebody screwed the pooch when they wrote the section in the first place. "trigger work, etc." is just asking for trouble. You leave a loop hole like that in this sport and we're going to drive a semi through it! We talk about rules stability great but then we get rulings like this? Sure the rules are stable until next week. Oh well I'm going back to Open because 10 rounds in a 17 round mag is just plain F'ing stupid anyway! Any plans on outlawing comps and Dots?