more USPSA Production debate

[GeorgeInNePa]

I'm confused. Am I to understand that making every division a racegun division is just the way it is? I understand people pushing the envelope, both in the tech direction and rule direction. What I dont get is people milling off chunks of their slide and replacing their entire trigger group and being proud that they shoot "production". I get that someone is always going to want to try different sights or change the length of their mag button between a couple of factory versions, but removing chunks of slide? And when someone figure out that they might be able to do that, why doesn't the BOD and NROI step in and either deny such a request or fix the friking rules not to allow for it? Just because someone might loose some of their "investment"?

Just because it's called "Production" doesn't mean the guns have to be stock.

Look at it this way, my old man runs NHRA "Stock". The only thing really stock is the body.

[shred]

... and how many new drivers does NHRA "Stock" get every year?

[Loves2Shoot]

What I dont get is people milling off chunks of their slide and replacing their entire trigger group and being proud that they shoot "production."

Mako mozo!

[Vlad]

Just because it's called "Production" doesn't mean the guns have to be stock.

Soo .. what does it mean? A Trubore is a "production" gun. So is a Springfield Mil-Spec. Yet neither are "Production Division" guns. What does production division mean? Double action first shot? Not really, given the XD and Glock trigger jobs. Limited with holster location requierments? What does it mean?

[GeorgeInNePa]

... and how many new drivers does NHRA "Stock" get every year?

Honestly, I haven't a clue. It's been years since I really paid attention to anything racing related.

Just because it's called "Production" doesn't mean the guns have to be stock.

Soo .. what does it mean? A Trubore is a "production" gun. So is a Springfield Mil-Spec. Yet neither are "Production Division" guns. What does production division mean? Double action first shot? Not really, given the XD and Glock trigger jobs. Limited with holster location requierments? What does it mean?

Ok, I'll give this a try.

Production is a division where stock appearing guns are used. Any customizing is generally limited to internal or "unseen" changes, with a few exceptions (sights, grip tape, etc.). The guns are to be DA/SA, DAO, or "safe-action style". Holsters are non-race type and along with mag pouches are to be worn behind the hip bone.

How's that?

[MikeFoley]

Production is starting to look a lot like a race gun division. Not saying that is good, bad, or otherwise, but it is certainly no longer a box stock factory division as it is often represented. If the objective is to keep equipment level in stock configuration, then the challenge is in rules changes and their enforcement.

Glock 34, factory parts, no trigger travel modification, only polishing and spring replacement allowed, that is a stock gun. A one pound, short travel trigger, milled slide gun is not. There is a clear difference in the performance characteristics of the two guns. It is easy to tell with the naked eye if these guns have been modified. If these modifications continue, then there becomes little difference in production division and divisions with single action 1911/2011 guns. What is the point of having production as it stands today? Holster requirements and minor PF are all that separate it.

I am not stating an opinion here, at least I hope not, because I can play either way. I have no preference. The real underlying issue in Production, as any other division (read L10, SS, and Revolver) is that there are so many different views of what it is, and what it should be, there is no way to satisfy anyone, let alone everyone. The issues that are discussed here, and obviously at the BOD level always find conflict. Everytime a new rulebook comes out, we think we finally have stabilized the sport, then something else comes up. The sport is getting difficult to explain to new shooters. What to shoot, what gear to buy, where to wear it, what can be done to the gun, all way too complicated.

That said, I love this sport, but I play mostly in Limited, where it seems the stabilization has occurred and been accepted, just like in Open. All the other divisions have pages upon pages of arguments and questions.

[sfinney]

That said, I love this sport, but I play mostly in Limited, where it seems the stabilization has occurred and been accepted, just like in Open. All the other divisions have pages upon pages of arguments and questions.

Check out this current Limited debate over STI TruSight and SV Sighttracker...... there will always be debate and rules rangling...... heck even in Open we had to argue about 9 Major for a while

But Production should be just that, Production, IMHO.

[MikeFoley]

It is also worth adding that these mods probably have little effect on the outcome, as lots of $200 Glock trigger jobs get beat by stock guns at every match. There is no replacement for fundamentals and footwork.

But Production should be just that, Production, IMHO.

I agree.

Edited April 14, 2006 by fomeister

[Flexmoney]

I don't think so Flex. Those who want to always do, those who don't will find a way to quit regardless of what shooting sport...Gary

I'm not talking about quiting. I am talking about going and playing somewhere else. We aren't the only game in town.

Are we smart enough to do what it takes to keep from getting our game tagged (again) as "being an equipment race"?

[MikeFoley]

I don't think so Flex. Those who want to always do, those who don't will find a way to quit regardless of what shooting sport...Gary

I'm not talking about quiting. I am talking about going and playing somewhere else. We aren't the only game in town.

Are we smart enough to do what it takes to keep from getting our game tagged (again) as "being an equipment race"?

I don't think we have truly escaped that impression, whether it has any basis or not. I know that some don't care if we keep that label, while others want to get away from it. I suppose we will always attract the people with the desire to shoot enough to figure out where they want to be in this sport, but it is the new shooters, and shooters from other games (and the people they influence) that concern me. For every time we tell someone we have a division for them, the opposition tells them we are an equipment race. Sometimes it is easy to believe that, even when we know it isn't true. I can see how people would believe it that were new to our world.

Getting them to shoot the match generally illustrates how much fun it is, and if they return, we usually keep them. Even among those who should know better, equipment gets far more credit than it deserves, but that is reality.

Edited April 14, 2006 by fomeister

[Flexmoney]

Very well said.

I think I am a pretty good salesman for our sport...and, we have many great salesmen all over the country. From the questions I get, the "equipment race" question doesn't come up as often as it used to...but, it still comes up. It's nice to be able to look them in the eye and tell them that "equipment race" talk is just a lot of hot air. (And, chances are, those that told them about "the equipment race" probably said some other stuff that didn't make our game look good either.)

[RIIID]

To those who want the guns to be used in Production to be in factory condition, with no mods. What is your answer if the manufacturer makes a gun with all of the wanted mods. Do we say no you're making the gun too good for the division.

The biggest problem is the lack of equipment checks at major matches and the inconsistancy of rulings of the rules. Take a look at the aproved gun list the M&P is legal for Production in 9mm, 357sig and .40. The 9mm and 357 haven't even been released to the public. The CZ "Shadow" is still being evalulated. The XD .45 acp hasn't been added to the list.

John A. needs to be at every one of the Area matches and the Nationals and do equipment checks. If someone is found to have an illegal gun or equipment shake their hand and welcome them to Open. Most of the talk of equipment will go away.

Rich

[dirtypool40]

how about just moving them to L10?

[Kevin Kline]

If it doesnt prohibit them from doing it, let them. The only loss is their money b/c I dont think shaving an ounce or two is going to make any difference. As far as other mods, we'll have to look at each of them separately, but I personally dont think shaving a couple ounces is making any difference, unless it makes the gun more reliable, like Daniel's case.

I dont think Dave S does much of anything (besides sights and few lightened springs) to his gun and you cant argue with his results, he shoots like a scalded dog!!

My opinion, just goes to show that practice/trigger time and mastering the fundamentals is what counts. Even if they allow it, I wouldnt do anything to my 34 other than what Ive done, sights, lightened springs.

[Chuck Anderson]

Part of the problem is no one from the Board has said what Produciton is supposed to be. I've heard everything from a division for box stock guns, DA/SA guns, 9mm guns, low cost entry, practical, carry, to having a division to force the gun makers to make better production guns. The problem is some of those things are mutually exclusive. For manufacturers making the "better" production guns, they're going to be more expensive than a cheap entry level Glock. I think that's one of the main reasons they can't come out with rules that make a bit of sense. If you're trying for an entry level division then a price cap is about the only think that will protect that. If you want a level playing field allowing modifications will allow the lower cost guns to be more comparable to the guns at the expensive side. But until USPSA and IPSC come out and say, "this is what we want production to be", no one is going to be happy. If USPSA decides that they want it to be an entry division, fine, I'll play by those rules. But the way the rules stand, that is not what production is. It is simply a place for DA and 9mm guns to compete.

[bgary]

We're *trying* to reach consensus on a clear statement about what the division "should be". We recognize that it won't be commonly-understandable until we can clearly state it.

But, in candor, there are every bit as many different opinions on the board, and they are every bit as vehemently defended, as there are here....

Bruce

[Bigbadaboom]

We're *trying* to reach consensus on a clear statement about what the division "should be". We recognize that it won't be commonly-understandable until we can clearly state it.

But, in candor, there are every bit as many different opinions on the board, and they are every bit as vehemently defended, as there are here....

Bruce

It's good to know that the Board holds a good representation of the members as a whole, no matter what side of the tracks you stand on.

[Gary Stevens]

Bruce is exactly right in that the discussion of "What Produciton should be" is difficult because of the variety of viewpoints. My big problem with this concept though is the time line. If this were to be done, it should have been done when the Division was created. To wait about 5 years and then define what the Division should be is to me beyond reason. It once again devalues the investments that our members have put into their equipment. Investments I might add, that were within the rules, with the exceptions of external modification rulings from NROI. To jerk the rug out from under our members at this late date is unjustified, IMO. It should be noted that Production is our fastest growing Division. That would make me think that it is not broken, and does not need fixing.

I agree that we have an opportunity to do this with Single Stack, if it is approved in the future, because at this point it is provisional and subject to modifications.

Gary

[JFD]

DougC

No offense taken at all.

However I'm neither stupid nor deaf, and when the folks who work for me tell me they simply can't afford to gear up for the game, I investigate where they got their info.

The last two guys who balked specifically referred to this site, talk from IDPA shooters, and watching Shooting USA (I'm guessing the Open or Limited Nats) where they said they never saw anything that looked close to stock. Both of them were referred to this site through Glocktalk and have given IDPA a try. Too soon to tell if they will stay with it or not. All they were concerned with was cost and both immediately had the perception that they couldn't hope to be competitive in THIS sport without dropping $1K or more on the gun alone.

I've got a three more who will give it a go as long as I keep them away from certain IDPAers and the internet.

We need an entry level divison that current shooters can't screw up if we want the sport to grow. The only thing even close is the 1911 division, and I know of nobody around here who drops that kind of cash on a "first gun" to give shooting a try. We need a "Really & Absolutely Production" divison along the lines of IPSC rules, but our own BOD making sure no factory "raceguns" ever get on the approved list. The question is do we want the sport to grow or not. Right now nothing is being done besides a minor effort to attract women shooters (should be a major effort). I wish I had at least a hint of marketing skills so I could at least try to help our BOD.

The feeling I get from these Production equipment discussions is we have a bunch of folks who should be shooting Limited. At the same time, due to the rules of the division, these folks are just playing the game like everyone else for their own reasons and I have no right to say much of anything about it. It just gets frustrating because I believe in looking ahead in terms of the sport instead of only being concerned with the present.

[Vlad]

If this were to be done, it should have been done when the Division was created. To wait about 5 years and then define what the Division should be is to me beyond reason. It once again devalues the investments that our members have put into their equipment.

I disagree. If that is our main concern we might just well throw out the division. It took 5 years to notice that we screwed up. That sucks, and someone is going to get bit if we make any changes but I maintain that the folks who will get the shaft are those who should have stoped and given some thought to where their were they pushing the division. It seems that the BOD knows the Production is broken. FIX IT, dont just let it get worse and worse until it becomes L10 minor with equipment location rules.

The truth is that even people that made "large" investments into their production guns proabably didnt put all that much money into them, compared with a Limited gun.

Edited April 14, 2006 by Vlad

[Gary Stevens]

Well I use my option to disagree also. You indicate we screwed up, an opinion. I point to the fact that Production is our fastest growing Division. This indicates to me that there is no screw up, an opinion. Shooters are participating in Production at rates that are in excess of any other Division, a fact. To me that indicates a level of success, an opinion.

Gary

[Flexmoney]

To those who want the guns to be used in Production to be in factory condition, with no mods. What is your answer if the manufacturer makes a gun with all of the wanted mods. Do we say no you're making the gun too good for the division.

I can answer that, pretty easily. But, first I want to be clear. I don't support zero modifications. I think most Production guns come with crappy sights and crappy triggers. I would attribute that to the lawyers and the accountants (no offense to either, they are just doing their jobs). So, sights, (internal) trigger work, and springs are good to go, IMO.

To answer the question, you limit what the manufacturer is willing to do in this regard by only allowing in guns that meet a certain "production" and sales numbers in the United States. If S&W wants to push that PC5906 through their custom shop, then they need to do so to the tune of 2,000 units (if we use the old rule book's numbers), not 12 units. Heck, they can probably sell 12 units of anything they stick their name on. They can probably sell 200 units of anything they stick their name on...at any price. But, to sell 2,000 units, they have to offer the gun in such a way that it is economically feasible.

The same thing needs to apply to parts...like extended mag release and jet funnels. Sell 2,000 of them and they are legal.

That simple thing takes us away from the "custom shop" and "equipment race" dogma and puts us right back into "Production" thinking...which happens to the the title of the division.

Take a look at the approved gun list the M&P is legal for Production in 9mm, 357sig and .40. The 9mm and 357 haven't even been released to the public. The CZ "Shadow" is still being evaluated. The XD .45 acp hasn't been added to the list.

Yep. Weird. I don't know the answers here, but when I ask myself the questions, here is what I get...

Our list (USPSA Production) is tied to the IPSC list...still. So, whenever IPSC does an update to their list (under IPSC criteria), the USPSA list gets automatically changed. Now, I believe that their are US IPSC members on the group of IPSC members that decides what goes on the IPSC list, but I haven't seen anything that makes me believe that USPSA has any type of review process for what guns go on the USPSA list. In fact, from what I have seen, it is an unmanned ship.

how about just moving them to L10?

The rule book says they go to Open. Vince has stated, if I am not mistaken, that the rule was written like that on purpose...as a punitive measure to make sure you have your gear properly squared away. That is some tough love, but I probably agree with it.

Note: two weeks ago I had to bump myself to Open from Production after firing one too many rounds out of two mags. I pulled the trigger just for follow though on a DT that I has planned to take a no penalty mike on...and my gun went boom instead of click...nice Alpha though.

For manufacturers making the "better" production guns, they're going to be more expensive than a cheap entry level Glock. I think that's one of the main reasons they can't come out with rules that make a bit of sense. If you're trying for an entry level division then a price cap is about the only think that will protect that.

Good points, for sure. Again...I think having substantial units produced and sold numbers would go a long way to covering the cost base. With a units produced number, you can avoid the price cap issue. The market will decide what is "production".

If USPSA decides that they want it to be an entry division, fine, I'll play by those rules. But the way the rules stand, that is not what production is. It is simply a place for DA and 9mm guns to compete.

Right. In fact, Production is less restrictive than Limited in some ways (limited still has the 500 produced clause).

It should be noted that Production is our fastest growing Division. That would make me think that it is not broken, and does not need fixing.

Might be some faulty logic here? It is probably our fastest growing division because it is 9mm friendly and everybody has, or can afford to have, a gun that fits in the basic parameters of the division (9mm Beretta,s Glocks, CZ, Rugers and such are pretty easy to understand). If production continues as an equipment race, then I see these entry level shooters going to another game that might allow service pistols to compete in more of a stock configuration.

[Vlad]

Well I use my option to disagree also. You indicate we screwed up, an opinion. I point to the fact that Production is our fastest growing Division. This indicates to me that there is no screw up, an opinion. Shooters are participating in Production at rates that are in excess of any other Division, a fact. To me that indicates a level of success, an opinion.

Production is the fastest growing because the entry price in the other divisions is $2K and the guns look like nothing a new shooter might own. Around here, production IS the biggest class, but for the most part the shooters do not stay in production. Most end up buying a limited or open gun and change divisions or stop shooting. We also end up with experienced shooters moving to production as an alternative to whatever they were shooting before and got boring. The people who shoot production all the time are a lot fewer then the shooters who might be shooting production at any one time.

I've only been shooting these games for about 4 years but I can state that when I started everyone though of production as the place for "stock" DA/striker guns. Now there is more debate about which mods are "important" for your production gun then there are for Limited or Open, or at least it seems that way. I do agree with Flex that changing sights and some amount trigger cleanup should be allowed. Grip tape is a safety measure as far as I'm concerned. Lets face it, even IPSC allows trigger jobs with a nod and a wink with that 5lb trigger pull limit. But lightening the slide .. Jeez .. I used to pick on high power shooters about their "issue" AR with hidden float tubes.

[Gary Stevens]

Just as a matter of curiosity, did you or anyone else voice this opinion when Glock hogged out a big part of their slide and produced the G34 and G35? If any individual wasn't shooting this sport when they were introduced, but thinks lightened slides are bad, has there been a move to remove these guns from the approved gun list because of the slide lightening? To the best of my knowledge the answer is no.

As long as we hold the external modification rule in check, there is only so much that you can do internally. I think most, if not all, of those modifications have already been explored. The internal modifications such as trigger jobs and spring changes have been going on for several years now, probably since the division was created. Yet the overall numbers continue to grow. Looking at any individual club, section or area is only a snapshot in time and does not give a total view of the division as a whole.

Gary

[Flexmoney]

Just as a matter of curiosity, did you or anyone else voice this opinion when Glock hogged out a big part of their slide and produced the G34 and G35? If any individual wasn't shooting this sport when they were introduced, but thinks lightened slides are bad, has there been a move to remove these guns from the approved gun list because of the slide lightening? To the best of my knowledge the answer is no.

Those gun were "produced" in mass...as complete and seperate models. I believe the idea there was to get them to run with the same components as used in the G17...something along the lines of "mass production" and interchangable parts?

(FWIW, I put a G17 slide and a G35 slide on the scales today. The G35 slide is 2oz heavier.)

If a 5in XD has too much mass in the slide to run a mousfart power levels, then Springfield needs to address that in their Production of those guns, I'd think?