Nroi Ruling On Vanek Trigger For Production

[XRe]

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, I think you and I are alone in our belief that this would be prudent

how about checking the equipment of the winners occasionally. isnt that what nascar does?

In fact, many sports that have a heavy "equipment rules" components impound the competitors' equipment for inspection immediately after competition. It's slightly tougher with our sport, because we don't always know exactly who's won right away, like they do in racing. But... the concern about a close inspection would certainly also encourage the shooter to insure that his stuff is approved. Wouldn't it suck to win, and then get chucked out of the match on some equipment technicality? yuck... I wouldn't be opposed to this, personally, if it could be done in a realistic way.

[bgary]

Blaming competitors for not checking up on something

Please re-read my posts. I'm trying very hard to word things very cautiously and *not* be a "blamer". I *am* bristling at the comments that are blaming USPSA, and - as gently as I can - suggesting that USPSA is not the party that pushed the envelope here.

There are two things that really don't make sense to *me*,

1) most of the people who are upset about this interpretation, DID SOMETHING TO THEIR GUN without knowing whether or not it was legal to do, in the Production Division rules.

2) when NROI says it is NOT legal, the reaction - almost across the board - is to say some flavor of "USPSA screwed me."

I'm having a hard time with those two things. I firmly believe - whether it is in USPSA competition or driving down the street or working for a living - that *I* bear the responsibility for my choices. If I get pulled over for doing 50 in a 35, it isn't because the cop is a bad guy, or the legislature passed a bad law, or because nobody told me I had to pay attention to the speed-limit signs. If I get a ticket is either because *I* chose to do something, or I didn't do my homework and got "surprised" by something I could easily have avoided.

I have a hard enough time with "victimhood" out in "the real world"... I'm *especially* struggling with it here in *this* community. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but jeez.... NROI did *not* put a Vanek trigger in your gun, nor did they ever tell you it was OK to. The plain black-and-white of the rules say "there's only a few things that you're allowed to do to modify your Production gun - here they are." And changing the way the trigger works is simply not on the list.

I notice that the people who are screaming the loudest about this being unfair, are the same ones who conveniently leave out the part of the rule *before* the parentheses.

Lets do an exercise. Lets say I want to discuss animals, and want to give some examples. So I say, "mammals give live birth to their young (dogs, cats, cows, sheep, etc)"

It is quite safe, from the structure of the sentence, to infer that the things *in* the parentheses are *examples* of the statement being made *outside* the parentheses. A dog is an example of a mammal... and a dog gives live birth to its young. A cow is a mammal, and a cow gives live birth to its young. The inside stuff is consistent with and clarifies the main stuff.

It would *not* be reasonable to assume that the "etc" can be replaced with... oh, lets say fish. Fish are not mammals, fish do not give live birth to their young. So, you can't just put whatever you want in there and claim that it is covered by "etc". If it isn't consistent with the outside stuff, it is not a valid example that clarifies the main statement.

Now, let's try that with the Production Division rules.

The rule says (here's a complete, word-for-word quote of the relevant section):

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

"action work to enhance reliability" is the defining context - it is what you are allowed to do. The stuff *inside* the parentheses is a couple of examples of types of action work you might do, while you're doing action work to enhance reliability.

That means: throating is an example of something you can do to enhance reliability. Trigger work is an example of something you can do to enhance reliability. The "etc." means there may be other stuff that fits within the realm of things that you can do to enhance reliability.

What the rule does *not* say is "you can re-shape parts change pivot-points and re-engineer the entire internal mechanism of your gun and do a bunch of other stuff to the trigger function that has nothing to do with reliability, in order to lighten the trigger pull" The fact that the phrase "trigger work" is used as an example, does *not* mean you can do anything you want to your trigger. The "etc" in the list of examples does *not* mean that you have carte blanche to do whatever else you want to the internals. Like the fish above, you can't just have the "etc" mean whatever you want ... it has to be an example of the main statement, or it isn't a valid example. So, if you decide the "etc" means changing the pivot point of the trigger, but it has nothing to do with enhancing reliability... it's probably a bogus example.

I'm *really* sorry that that is such an inconvenient position to take. But, as God is my witness, when we *wrote* the rule we thought we were closing every possible door by saying "there are only a few modifications allowed. here they are. If it isn't on the list, you can't do it in Production division." We - or at least *I* - never imagined that someone could take a rule that says - at face value - "if it isn't on this list, you can't do it", and then interpret a *sub-section* of that same rule, quoted out of context, to mean "if USPSA doesn't say I can't do it, it must be legal." That just doesn't compute.

Perhaps the right thing to do *is* to do some sort of "equipment inspection". We've avoided it.... in part, because of the damper we think it would have on the competitive aspects of a match. I know *none* of us wants to tell someone at a Nationals that they are no longer in the running for their chosen division because their equipment is non-compliant. I also know it would be a non-trivial exercise to *do* the inspection - where do we find people who will know the detailed internal workings of every possible kind of modification to every possible kind of Production gun, and be able to make an objective ruling on the spot about whether something complies or not. But, more fundamentally, we thought we didn't *need* to do that, because we *thought* the rules were quite clear ("if it isn't on this list, you can't do it"), and we have faith in the integrity of our members to police their own actions. Clearly, the "if it isn't on the list, don't do it" is not clear enough to close every possible loophole. Not sure what to do about that.

Bruce (There. I managed to say it without using the word "intent" once.)

Edited February 11, 2006 by bgary

[XRe]

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.

Can anyone state for certainty what SA's numbers are/were?? I suspect you'll find that they've produced over 500 frames and over 500 6" slides. By your interpretation of the rule, Cullen, that'd make it legal to build a 6" widebody SA framed .40....

[bgary]

This is a horrible example.

In context, it is a *perfect* example

1) Someone was not sure whether (whatever) was legal or not.

2) They asked NROI to make a ruling

3) NROI issued an official, public, binding ruling, that not only clarified whether it was allowed or not, it said *why* it was not allowed

4) When the reasons were resolved, someone came *back* to NROI to have the issue re-evaluated

5) NROI determined that (whatever) now met the requirements in the rules, and

6) A new official, public and binding ruling was made, allowing it for competition.

Putting that in context of the current discussion, the reason I think it is a valid example is because *if* someone - anyone - had gone to NROI and *asked* whether the Vanek trigger was legal or not, we could have had a ruling a long time ago, and we'd be doing something else beside arguing about whether or not rules mean what they say.

Bruce

[lbritt]

What the rule does *not* say is "you can re-shape parts change pivot-points and re-engineer the entire internal mechanism of your gun and do a bunch of other stuff to the trigger function that has nothing to do with reliability, in order to lighten the trigger pull"

Can I replace the 5# connector of a 100% reliable G17 with a 3.5 # connector for the sole purpose of obtaining a lighter trigger pull?

[bgary]

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?

Just a note. When the director of NROI gets a question, he drafts a ruling. That ruling then gets put in front of the full Board, and we have (generally) a week to review, comment or object before it gets announced. In the case of the Vanek trigger ruling, it was vetted by the Board, and the consensus of the Board was that the ruling was consistent with and clarified the Production Division rules.

So.... there are checks and balances in the system, and.... while we may not all agree on every issue, the full board *owns* the responsibility for the rules, not just one guy. So... if you're going to blame USPSA, blame all of us. We - collectively - carry the weight of responsibility for what we agree as a Board to do.

Bruce

[Chriss Grube]

Bruce,

If you guys closed the door on the rules thank god you boys never worked on a farm, be lots of cows roaming free. (of course then all the gay cowboys would have something to chase besides each other)

If you wanted to limit the mods then list the damn things."there are only a few modifications allowed" A few is pretty wide open especially when followed by "Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is allowed." I changed the sights and Charlie did trigger work which is specifically mentioned right in your oft quoted rule! It doesn't say "only this type of trigger work". The rule is about as clear as mud.

[bgary]

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.

OK. What the hell, I already have a bullseye on my forehead.

But, I just want to *attempt* to make one thing clear. I don't have a bone to pick in the Production division. My goal is to make rules that are as clear and unambiguous as we (humanly) can. That necessarily means that a line has to be drawn, and some things that are *assumed* to be on one side, may fall on the other. I have no problem with that... what I *do* have a problem with, is when someone's assumption goes south, and they turn around and say "USPSA screwed me".

At the end of the day, please try to remember that *people* are behind these rules... people who make mistakes? Sure. But people who put hundreds and hundred of hours into trying to make it better, when it would really be a lot more fun to be out on the range or something.

"I don't agree with USPSA" is a perfectly fine viewpoint.

"USPSA is a dictatorship" or "USPSA keeps changing the rules" are... different. Besides the fact that they just aren't accurate, they tend to imply evil intent and drag the conversation into an "us vs. them" mode, which.... well, it badly misses the point.

I'm part of "us" every bit as much as you are.

Bruce

[bgary]

Can I replace the 5# connector of a 100% reliable G17 with a 3.5 # connector for the sole purpose of obtaining a lighter trigger pull?

Officially? The only place you can get an official answer is from NROI. It's easy. Send an email to nroi@uspsa.org and ask.

UNofficially? I believe that is a perfectly legal thing to do, but my opinion carries no official weight in the matter. So.... send that email and lets get it cleared up for everyone?

Bruce

If you wanted to limit the mods then list the damn things."there are only a few modifications allowed"

Dang. I thought that's exactly what we did. In section 21, it says "only a few modifications are allowed."

The subsections of section 21 (21.1 thru 21.6) *are* those few things. The full list. Period.

A few is pretty wide open especially when followed by "Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is allowed."

Would it make the rule clearer if we got rid of the examples in the parentheses?

Section 21.4 would then read simply:

Action work to enhance reliability is allowed.

Would that be clear enough to remove ambiguity? Or would we then have to list every possible permutation of what "action work" means, and every possible thing that you're *not* allowed to do inside the gun because it has nothing to do with enhancing reliability?

Where does it end?

Bruce (heck, being out in the field with the cows doesn't sound all that bad right about now)

Edited February 11, 2006 by bgary

[LwE]

Holy Hand Grenades!

Craig, I'm going to need that tuned CZ of yours THIS SEASON! What do you want for it?

Bruce has nailed it with his elucidation of the meaning of 21.4 as it is written. That argument is over, it's not unclear. He took a further step onto ground that is a bit soggy when he characterized the heading of 21 as effectively stating: "there are only a few modifications allowed. here they are. If it isn't on the list, you can't do it in Production division." The heading does not say "The very few modifications allowed are [followed by a finite list]." The rule says "Allowed modifications are very limited and INCLUDE the following

• ," giving the impression that the writer(s) had in mind a possible class of additional very limited unspecified modifications which might also be okay but were not being listed at the outset. This is easily fixed by changing "include" to read "consist of" but it is a change.

As a practical matter, I read the $0.25 trigger job with lightened springs as defensible to tune the mechanism to the recoil impulse, and the guide rod as an arguable mod to enhance reliability, but going further to round the plunger is probably out. I think I can shoot a good CZ better than a Glock with an unsophisticated trigger, so the equipment race may well be significantly accelerated for me. These next series of NROI rulings would likely make Sam Alito feel right at home were he to peruse them.

[SteveZ]

Where does it end?

Bruce (heck, being out in the field with the cows doesn't sound all that bad right about now)

...only one week until next weeks match at M'ville!

[diehli]

Warning! This is an absurdly long post! Also, I don't intend to be combative, but I might come off that way. So, that being said, I apologize to anyone I may offend.

Blaming competitors for not checking up on something

Please re-read my posts. I'm trying very hard to word things very cautiously and *not* be a "blamer". I *am* bristling at the comments that are blaming USPSA, and - as gently as I can - suggesting that USPSA is not the party that pushed the envelope here.

There are two things that really don't make sense to *me*,

1) most of the people who are upset about this interpretation, DID SOMETHING TO THEIR GUN without knowing whether or not it was legal to do, in the Production Division rules.

2) when NROI says it is NOT legal, the reaction - almost across the board - is to say some flavor of "USPSA screwed me."

I'm having a hard time with those two things. I firmly believe - whether it is in USPSA competition or driving down the street or working for a living - that *I* bear the responsibility for my choices. If I get pulled over for doing 50 in a 35, it isn't because the cop is a bad guy, or the legislature passed a bad law, or because nobody told me I had to pay attention to the speed-limit signs. If I get a ticket is either because *I* chose to do something, or I didn't do my homework and got "surprised" by something I could easily have avoided.

I have a hard enough time with "victimhood" out in "the real world"... I'm *especially* struggling with it here in *this* community. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but jeez.... NROI did *not* put a Vanek trigger in your gun, nor did they ever tell you it was OK to. The plain black-and-white of the rules say "there's only a few things that you're allowed to do to modify your Production gun - here they are." And changing the way the trigger works is simply not on the list.

I notice that the people who are screaming the loudest about this being unfair, are the same ones who conveniently leave out the part of the rule *before* the parentheses.

Lets do an exercise. Lets say I want to discuss animals, and want to give some examples. So I say, "mammals give live birth to their young (dogs, cats, cows, sheep, etc)"

It is quite safe, from the structure of the sentence, to infer that the things *in* the parentheses are *examples* of the statement being made *outside* the parentheses. A dog is an example of a mammal... and a dog gives live birth to its young. A cow is a mammal, and a cow gives live birth to its young. The inside stuff is consistent with and clarifies the main stuff.

It would *not* be reasonable to assume that the "etc" can be replaced with... oh, lets say fish. Fish are not mammals, fish do not give live birth to their young. So, you can't just put whatever you want in there and claim that it is covered by "etc". If it isn't consistent with the outside stuff, it is not a valid example that clarifies the main statement.

Now, let's try that with the Production Division rules.

The rule says (here's a complete, word-for-word quote of the relevant section):

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

"action work to enhance reliability" is the defining context - it is what you are allowed to do. The stuff *inside* the parentheses is a couple of examples of types of action work you might do, while you're doing action work to enhance reliability.

That means: throating is an example of something you can do to enhance reliability. Trigger work is an example of something you can do to enhance reliability. The "etc." means there may be other stuff that fits within the realm of things that you can do to enhance reliability.

What the rule does *not* say is "you can re-shape parts change pivot-points and re-engineer the entire internal mechanism of your gun and do a bunch of other stuff to the trigger function that has nothing to do with reliability, in order to lighten the trigger pull" The fact that the phrase "trigger work" is used as an example, does *not* mean you can do anything you want to your trigger. The "etc" in the list of examples does *not* mean that you have carte blanche to do whatever else you want to the internals. Like the fish above, you can't just have the "etc" mean whatever you want ... it has to be an example of the main statement, or it isn't a valid example. So, if you decide the "etc" means changing the pivot point of the trigger, but it has nothing to do with enhancing reliability... it's probably a bogus example.

I'm *really* sorry that that is such an inconvenient position to take. But, as God is my witness, when we *wrote* the rule we thought we were closing every possible door by saying "there are only a few modifications allowed. here they are. If it isn't on the list, you can't do it in Production division." We - or at least *I* - never imagined that someone could take a rule that says - at face value - "if it isn't on this list, you can't do it", and then interpret a *sub-section* of that same rule, quoted out of context, to mean "if USPSA doesn't say I can't do it, it must be legal." That just doesn't compute.

Perhaps the right thing to do *is* to do some sort of "equipment inspection". We've avoided it.... in part, because of the damper we think it would have on the competitive aspects of a match. I know *none* of us wants to tell someone at a Nationals that they are no longer in the running for their chosen division because their equipment is non-compliant. I also know it would be a non-trivial exercise to *do* the inspection - where do we find people who will know the detailed internal workings of every possible kind of modification to every possible kind of Production gun, and be able to make an objective ruling on the spot about whether something complies or not. But, more fundamentally, we thought we didn't *need* to do that, because we *thought* the rules were quite clear ("if it isn't on this list, you can't do it"), and we have faith in the integrity of our members to police their own actions. Clearly, the "if it isn't on the list, don't do it" is not clear enough to close every possible loophole. Not sure what to do about that.

Bruce (There. I managed to say it without using the word "intent" once.)

Bruce, this whole, USPSA vs. Competitor thing doesn't matter to me. USPSA is the body that creates and governs the rules, it is the body that enforces the rules, and, unfortunately, it is the body that needs to make the rules clear and make sure that they are interpreted and applied consistently. Period. If you disagree with me on this point, then I don't know if there's anything constructive that can come of this.

Let me make this absolutely clear: all I want are rules that are logical and consistently enforced. I have no dog in the Production or Limited/L10 hunts. All I want is to be able to say is that the organization I choose to associate with has logical rules that are clear and unambiguous and that there aren't going to be any arbitrary decisions made on equipment acceptability after precedent has been set.

Also, let me make this clear: I use Rob (TGO) as an example because he and his equipment are highly visible ('cause everyone wants to be like him). Further, there are questions, based on the rules and interpretations of them exactly how his equipment complies with those rules and interpretations. I have nothing but respect for him and don't intend to poo-poo anything he's done.

Further, I have nothing against John Amidon, despite how it may appear. I understand he has a thankless job, but it's a responsibility that he has chosen to take on and, as such, he should be expected to do his best. I'm not saying he hasn't, but by looking at the NROI rulings here, comparing those rulings to what's written in the rulebook, and comparing them to other instances of similar equipment "questions" that could and should be addressed, there is a certain lack of attention to detail, and, hence, a lack of consistency, which makes things hard to deal with.

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.

Can anyone state for certainty what SA's numbers are/were?? I suspect you'll find that they've produced over 500 frames and over 500 6" slides. By your interpretation of the rule, Cullen, that'd make it legal to build a 6" widebody SA framed .40....

Find me a longslide .40 widebody on their site, in the Custom Shop PDF, or in their catalog. Find me a longslide .40. Find me a longslide widebody. I can't find them. How are we supposed to get this setup? "available to the public" is a requirement of the rule. Now, see this ruling: http://www.uspsa.org/rules/nroi_rulings.ph...on=edit&indx=10

Why was certification required for the "raised rib" barrel (and, by inference, not for anything else)? Where is the process laid out It was called a prototype. But what exactly is a prototype? Dictionary definition here. With (4) as the most applicable definition, it sure seems that a 6-inch .40 widebody Springfield is "a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction" for that particular "factory". Why does Springfield have to put them together as guns? Because SV had to do it with the unported hybrid barrels. The ruling on the Schuemann barrel, and what was required in order to certify it is inconsistent with the rule, however, which only requires that a factory produce the component for one year, have produced 500, and have them available to the general public.

This is a horrible example.

In context, it is a *perfect* example

1) Someone was not sure whether (whatever) was legal or not.

2) They asked NROI to make a ruling

3) NROI issued an official, public, binding ruling, that not only clarified whether it was allowed or not, it said *why* it was not allowed

4) When the reasons were resolved, someone came *back* to NROI to have the issue re-evaluated

5) NROI determined that (whatever) now met the requirements in the rules, and

6) A new official, public and binding ruling was made, allowing it for competition.

Putting that in context of the current discussion, the reason I think it is a valid example is because *if* someone - anyone - had gone to NROI and *asked* whether the Vanek trigger was legal or not, we could have had a ruling a long time ago, and we'd be doing something else beside arguing about whether or not rules mean what they say.

Bruce

I'm not taking it out of context, I'm taking it within a wider context of the entire body of rules and actual practice of how those rules were applied. The thing is, one doesn't have to go very far in this situation. All one has to do is read what condition 16 actually says. The ruling is not consistent with what is written in the condition, plain and simple. If 500 Schuemann "raised rib" barrels in any length and caliber were produced, they're legal for Limited or L10 by rule. That's how the rule is written and how it should be understood to apply to specific instances. There is no requirement that they be built into guns. There is no requirement that a submission in writing of how many produced are made.

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?

Just a note. When the director of NROI gets a question, he drafts a ruling. That ruling then gets put in front of the full Board, and we have (generally) a week to review, comment or object before it gets announced. In the case of the Vanek trigger ruling, it was vetted by the Board, and the consensus of the Board was that the ruling was consistent with and clarified the Production Division rules.

So.... there are checks and balances in the system, and.... while we may not all agree on every issue, the full board *owns* the responsibility for the rules, not just one guy. So... if you're going to blame USPSA, blame all of us. We - collectively - carry the weight of responsibility for what we agree as a Board to do.

Bruce

I'll be the bad guy and blame all of you, Bruce. However, if you'll let me, I'll try to make it up to you all and help you fix it, whatever direction it ends up taking both Production and Limited/L10 (and by necessary extension Revolver and SS).

Whether the rules are more constrained—clearly define as non-compliant what's currently out there in use by some shooters and considered compliant due to the fact that it hasn't been specifically disallowed but should be given what the rules say—or allow what's currently in use—and, therefore, more specifically defines what is allowed and disallowed (in other words, addendums are made to the rules)—makes no difference to me. As I stated earlier, I only want the rules unambiguous and clear, which is what you state you want as well, in the following passage. I think, however, that allowing what's in use would be preferable as there is the potential for alienating some of the membership due to more strict enforcement.

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.

OK. What the hell, I already have a bullseye on my forehead.

But, I just want to *attempt* to make one thing clear. I don't have a bone to pick in the Production division. My goal is to make rules that are as clear and unambiguous as we (humanly) can. That necessarily means that a line has to be drawn, and some things that are *assumed* to be on one side, may fall on the other. I have no problem with that... what I *do* have a problem with, is when someone's assumption goes south, and they turn around and say "USPSA screwed me".

At the end of the day, please try to remember that *people* are behind these rules... people who make mistakes? Sure. But people who put hundreds and hundred of hours into trying to make it better, when it would really be a lot more fun to be out on the range or something.

"I don't agree with USPSA" is a perfectly fine viewpoint.

"USPSA is a dictatorship" or "USPSA keeps changing the rules" are... different. Besides the fact that they just aren't accurate, they tend to imply evil intent and drag the conversation into an "us vs. them" mode, which.... well, it badly misses the point.

I'm part of "us" every bit as much as you are.

Bruce

We want the same thing, so we need to work towards it. My understanding is that you're damn good at that (I'm taking the Multi-Gun Rules as evidence). I'm going to send you a PM (don't know if you get the mail from the A1 email addy) shortly after completing this to tell you exactly what I think needs working on. If we can work on it together, beautiful. If you want me to put something together, just as beautiful (emails checking in would be helpful).

I agree, a lot of this stuff just isn't constructive. Express your frustration, but not in such a way that might cut off rational exchange and what could result (i.e. improvement). I recognize that I might be guilty of being non-constructive. No more.

Can I replace the 5# connector of a 100% reliable G17 with a 3.5 # connector for the sole purpose of obtaining a lighter trigger pull?

Officially? The only place you can get an official answer is from NROI. It's easy. Send an email to nroi@uspsa.org and ask.

UNofficially? I believe that is a perfectly legal thing to do, but my opinion carries no official weight in the matter. So.... send that email and lets get it cleared up for everyone?

Bruce

The NROI has ruled that that is allowed, which adds to the confusion. See here: http://www.uspsa.org/rules/nroi_rulings.ph...on=edit&indx=19

If you wanted to limit the mods then list the damn things."there are only a few modifications allowed"

Dang. I thought that's exactly what we did. In section 21, it says "only a few modifications are allowed."

The subsections of section 21 (21.1 thru 21.6) *are* those few things. The full list. Period.

Except there are rulings that were made that allow modifications that are logically opposed to that list.

A few is pretty wide open especially when followed by "Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is allowed."

Would it make the rule clearer if we got rid of the examples in the parentheses?

Section 21.4 would then read simply:

Action work to enhance reliability is allowed.

Would that be clear enough to remove ambiguity? Or would we then have to list every possible permutation of what "action work" means, and every possible thing that you're *not* allowed to do inside the gun because it has nothing to do with enhancing reliability?

Where does it end?

Bruce (heck, being out in the field with the cows doesn't sound all that bad right about now)

I think that, along with the reversal of some rulings, would make things clear, but wouldn't make a segment of the membership happy, which is, after all, the USPSA's sole purpose.

Anyhoo, PM on the way shortly.

*Edited because the f@#$ing board isn't working right.*

Edited February 11, 2006 by 300lbGorilla

[smokshwn]

Lance,

I'm not sure on the price but at this rate I know it will be more than I paid for it

Craig

[ihatepickles]

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

21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed.

Perhaps, it would be in the best interests of the sport to request a NROI ruling on which of these rules trumps the other. In this case, that seems to be a huge problem as no one is sure which rule to apply to a trigger job that modifies the appearance of the pistol.

I personally feel that visible mods trump the trigger work and shouldn't be allowed, but hey I also think milled sight installs and guiderods shouldn't be allowed in production.

[driver8M3]

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?

Just a note. When the director of NROI gets a question, he drafts a ruling. That ruling then gets put in front of the full Board, and we have (generally) a week to review, comment or object before it gets announced. In the case of the Vanek trigger ruling, it was vetted by the Board, and the consensus of the Board was that the ruling was consistent with and clarified the Production Division rules.

bruce, i'm assuming the "we" you added in there to mean that you are on the BOD and were one of those that reviewed this decision. is that correct? for this post i'll assume it is. you can correct me if i'm wrong.

i've got a huge problem with this because as your first post in this thread indicates, you initially had no idea even what the external change on the vanek setup is. heres a quote from your first post:

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

2) The gun is supposed to *function* the way it came from the manufacturer. It is supposed to be a "production" gun. So, again, a trigger mod that changes the way the trigger operates seems to pretty clearly be against the idea of what the Production division is about. Just as changing a gun internally from a blow-back to a gas-operated design, or whatever... even if you can't see the mods from the outside, if it has been changed from the way the factory made it, it is probably not kosher in Production. Note that there are some explicitly allowed mods, such as smoothing up triggers and detailing the action for reliability... but those don't change the *design* of the gun.

on #1 you are just plain wrong...nobody drilled any holes in the frame (unless you're now telling me that "trigger" equals "frame"). on #2, my vanek glock works the same way as an unchanged glock, just with a smoother, lighter trigger.

now, the question i have here is, how much thinking/reviewing/commenting on john's decision did you do before you rubber stamped it? shouldn't you really have had a chance to look at an actual gun with the mod...or at least a few pictures...or at least fully understand what was changed?

by the way, who are the other members of the BOD? is there an official way for a member to appeal a decision?

[Singlestack]

Fish are not mammals, fish do not give live birth to their young.

Guppies are fish and they give live birth to their young.

Just kidding.....

(but they do)

[XRe]

Guppies are fish and they give live birth to their young.

And duck-billed platypi are mammals, and yet lay eggs.... :lol:

Boy, aren't we pedantic bastards???

[Nik Habicht]

by the way, who are the other members of the BOD? is there an official way for a member to appeal a decision?

The members of the BOD, to the best of my knowledge are the President of USPSA, Michael Voigt; the VP, John Amidon; the Area Directors as follows:

Area 1: Bruce Gary

Area 2: Chris Endersby

Area 3: Emanual Bragg

Area 4: Ken Hicks

Area 5: Gary Stevens

Area 6: Charles Bond

Area 7: Rob Boudrie

Area 8: George Jones

You should probably consider sending your area director an e-mail. If you don't have his address, try Ax@USPSA.org, replacing the x with the appropriate number from the list above.....

[XRe]

Find me a longslide .40 widebody on their site, in the Custom Shop PDF, or in their catalog. Find me a longslide .40. Find me a longslide widebody. I can't find them.

...

Why was certification required for the "raised rib" barrel (and, by inference, not for anything else)?

I'll comment on this, for now... IIRC, back when the ruling was originally made on the "rib with no ports" pistol, the rule didn't have the "or components" verbiage in it? And also, at the time, IIRC, Schuemann hadn't actually made 500 .40 5" Hybrid barrels with no ports, and didn't want to unless it'd be considered legal and he'd have a market (or, unless someone bought a total of 500 barrels...). Eventually, SV decided to give it a go, and started building the pistols, and finally produced 500 of them - but it took doing that to actually get the 500 barrel lot made and out the door. So... my understanding of the situation still matches the current rules, either way...

If I'm wrong about the situation, and a manufacturer really *does* need to turn out 500 completed pistols in that configuration (as it used to be, a long time ago), then there's a different issue....

[Sam]

The question in my mind is this: Is it Production Division or is it Glock Division?

Ostensibly, Production Division was created so that pistols in a factory configuration, that were not significantly tricked-out for competition, could compete without getting waxed by shooters with tricked-out guns in the 1911 configuration. Thanks to Mr. Vanek, with a 1.5 lb trigger, a Glock is at no disadvantage, at all, to any 1911. And they have begun to dominate Production Division. These Glocks with the very excellent Vanek triggers should be shot in Limited or L-10 division, where they are both very competitive and clearly legal.

As I have stated before, I think L10 is a rockin' division where most any gun can play. I'm sending in my L10 Nationals slot this morning, I hope to run my single-stack 1911 against some great shooters with great Glocks at Barry in September. Isn't it ironic that I, who have been accused of "hiding from the competition" in L10, am asking a bunch of hot rod Glock shooters to join me?

What's amatter??? Skeered???

[SRT Driver]

The bottom line here is that the IPSC version of the Production rules are more defined than the USPSA set.

If you want to talk about language and diction, campare the two:

19. Original parts and components offerd by the OFM as standard equipment or as an option, for the specific model.., subject to the following:

19.1 Modifications to them other than minor detailing , are prohibited.

That is clear as is the external modification clause. However, "action work to enhance reliablity etc." leaves the door wide open.

Rewrite the rules, add a trigger pull limitation, add the IPSC language "modifications to OFM parts are prohibited" and finish it. Then there is no room for debate. If a hole is redrilled or a part is modified is is not within the scope of the rules.

[Flexmoney]

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

21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed.

Perhaps, it would be in the best interests of the sport to request a NROI ruling on which of these rules trumps the other. In this case, that seems to be a huge problem as no one is sure which rule to apply to a trigger job that modifies the appearance of the pistol.

I personally feel that visible mods trump the trigger work and shouldn't be allowed, but hey I also think milled sight installs and guiderods shouldn't be allowed in production.

I believe that is exactly what we just had...and what we are talking about.

The was a grey area, no there is an "official ruling".

[Vlad]

All these problem would go away if we adopted a minimum trigger weight rule. As it is right now any trigger job can be done because how can anyone say for a fact that THAT PARTICULAR gun wasnt having terrible problems and the trigger job wasn't the only way to fix it.

Clearly the great majority of trigger jobs are done to reduce trigger pull, with some help in the "clean" feel and reset, but the weight is the main part. If you introduce a limit on trigger weight life gets a lot easier because testing it is trivial. The ROs/Chronodude/MD do not need to know how each gun works and what parts are factory and which ones arent. All they need is a trigger pull scale.

I think it is silly for ANYONE to complain about having their constant 2lb single action trigger disqualified from the Production Division. And I don't care what the mechanics are internaly, a trigger that light and that short is not different then a single action trigger, and a well tuned one at that.

I'm going to write to my area director and ask him to introduce a minimum trigger pull requierment.

[eric nielsen]

Wow.

This thread grew a bit longer since I posted on it back when it filled one web-page.

What strikes me is the number of posters - some of them repeat posters - who seem to read harmful intent on the part of other people when in fact there may be none.

Short version: The appearance of a conspiracy is usually in fact just an understandable error based on ignorance of all the facts. As in: no conspiracy, no malice involved.

I have one of the first Vanek triggers, I think a #41 or similar is engraved on the part, and have spoken with Charlie many times. He spent a lot of time & effort with the intent of providing Glock shooters with a better-functioning trigger. I personally don't believe he had any intent to skirt a uspsa or ipsc ruling. I think he read the rules and interpretted it similar to the thought expressed here by the majority of posters.

Very possible that Charlie has not heard of the Fred Craig Phantom 40 incident or the debate over unvented Hybrid ribs or anything like that. He just really likes Glocks and that's what he pays attention to. Probably didn't have the thought of clearing a modification he's done thru uspsa although I think we can all see [now] this is a really good way to go.

I haven't agreed with [anywhere near] all the rulings to come out of NROI in the last decade or so but I feel obliged to point out that very likely John Amidon did not know of the visible modification of the Vanek trigger pin until very recently. As in, somebody pointed it out to him because that somebody didn't think it met the rules. Fair enough. We elect the parties who decide these things and it's their job to look into these things. Sure, would've been nice to have all this happen in 2001 or 2002 but this is what we have.

If anyone has skipped over the admonishment at the top of every page of the Rules threads, I'd ask that you take the time to read it, I think it's a good thing.

Just a personal opinion here, I think the Quote feature is a nice way to pick one QUESTION out of, say, ten posts, and answer that QUESTION - to help, to be informative. But to use this same Quote feature to pick out one [or more] person's heartfelt opinion and then verbally stomp all over it... well I don't care for that too much. I think we are better than that.

[lbritt]

Can I replace the 5# connector of a 100% reliable G17 with a 3.5 # connector for the sole purpose of obtaining a lighter trigger pull?

Officially? The only place you can get an official answer is from NROI. It's easy. Send an email to nroi@uspsa.org and ask.

UNofficially? I believe that is a perfectly legal thing to do, but my opinion carries no official weight in the matter. So.... send that email and lets get it cleared up for everyone?

Bruce

The NROI has ruled that that is allowed, which adds to the confusion. See here: http://www.uspsa.org/rules/nroi_rulings.ph...on=edit&indx=19

Thanks for the link but that pertains to External Mods only such has extended mag release and extended slide stops. What about internal mods, such as the connector, to receive a lighter trigger pull?