Production Rules Proposal

[driver8M3]

nik- great post. i agree with all of it...but this was my favorite part:

As far as the Amidon ruling on the trigger goes ---- I consider the trigger to be an internal part of the gun. Yes, part of it proceeds outside the frame, but within the confines of the triggerguard. I just don't get how modifying a trigger can be illegal when trigger work is specifically allowed. But hey, I could be missing the boat here.....

you might be hearing from bruce gary soon though...

here's something else you guys might have forgotten. a new guy off the street with his box stock G34 might not like the fact that the ammo of some current production shooters seems to recoil quite a bit less than his factory stuff. in order to make him more comfortable joining uspsa and shooting production while shooting factory loads, should we maybe ban reloads from production? i mean, a new dillon costs about $700...you can't expect an aspiring production shooter to spend that kind of money to compete. you can always move to limited or L10 if you still want to shoot those reloads.

[Flexmoney]

Since I started this thread, I'm going to try to address as much of the stuff that has been brought up as possible.

I am curious as to what you would tell the members who have already installed Bo-Mars, in full compliance with the rules when the work was done. Tough??

Some things can fairly easily be undone. Changing a spring or some small item is one thing, undoing a set of milled in sights is something else.

Gary

I wanted to cover this first. I agree with Gary on the allowing of the milling of the slide for the express purpose of installing sights. This isn't a slide lightening modification with a goal of changing the shooting characteristics of the gun. Guys just want there preferred sights on their guns. I don't feel right telling a guy that he can't have his Bomars (properly installed) when I am free to have Heinie, Dawson, Novak, or Warren sights on my gun.

This is one of the modifications that has been allowed since the get go. Reversing this one would put a major hurt on a lot of shooters. I am for keeping the established standard here. (BTW, I shoot with a top shooter that has buried Bomars...I don't feel one bit of competitive disadvantage. And, I don't think this is something that new shooter would feel either, as there are so many options for sights.)

...if the first batch of guns is 2000, why should the gun not be legal to use? I think once it hits 2000 it is pretty much good to go.

We might have some wording issues to work out there. The idea isn't 2,000 each year. The idea is to get 2,000 unit out there. That 2,000 unit mark, once meet, is good from then on.

Drop 17.1.2 or change its wording or you just banned guns out of production no matter how popular it was or how many were made. Lets say that Glock drops the 17 from their lineup for next year (absurd I know). Does that mean that next year no one can use any of the 4 gajilion glock 17s?

If there are 4 gajillion guns out there then they are still "readily available". (That is another reason the keep the "units produced" number fairly high (2,000), as that helps to ensure that there are guns to be found on the used market.)

Maybe a box for production should be considered. The box dimensions may constrain absurd magwells. I personally think that IPSC production needs one too to constrain gigantic factory mags, but that is a different story.

I've never been a fan of 'the box', but I like the box idea better than a "list". Either way, it is something (extra) that the Match director needs to bring to the match. I'd think match directors are more likely to bring a box than they are to print off the Production Gun List before every match.

And I don't like your clause allowing .40 caliber barrels in a 10mm either; that would get G20s (and others) into Production as .40s, and think how soft that setup would shoot, if people are already raving over the G20 as Limited gun in .40 in other threads.

The G20 is a legal gun. It is already as soft as it is...whether it shoots it's .400 bullet out of 40 brass or 10mm brass. The G20 with a 10mm barrel can (and does, it seems) shoot 40 brass just fine. And, the rules certain allow that now (same as shooting 38Special out of a 357Magnum Revolver). So, the results are the same...

Edited March 26, 2013 by Flexmoney

[Flexmoney]

17.1.3 2,000 specific model units initially produced and sold.

That looks like a good wording change and covers the point mentioned earlier.

17.2 Factory custom/performance guns, race parts, and special order items (extended control, magwells, etc) are prohibited unless they come (standard) on guns that meet the criteria listed in 17.1.1 – 17.1.3 (In other words, you can’t put an extended mag release on a Para LDA unless that Para extended mag release also comes on another Production approved/legal gun from Para, for example.)

The wording I am going for here is to allow a shooter to put an extended mag release (for example) into a gun...if there is a model gun that is similar, and production approve, that has that feature. If you bought or owned a police turn in Beretta...call that a $350 gun...you ought to be able to put an extended mag release in it from another (similar model) Beretta...IF, that gun has meet all the Production criteria.

I'd hate to see a guy have to sell his $350 gun and buy a $700 gun just to get the mag release.

(I don't know if I said that right...do you get where I am trying to go there?)

I would also advise a minimum trigger weight.

There are a lot of thoughts on the minimum trigger weight. I don't see it as very workable idea. I don't like it in IPSC and I don't want to see it here. It's tough enough to get a chrono run at a match (and for shooters to chrono before the match)

Is part of the intent to have USPSA develop and maintain their own Production Gun List?

Yeah, it sure is the intent. If we are going to have a list...and our own unique criteria, then we need to be the ones running our list.

One question is whether or not the time, money, and effort spent for the USPSA to manage their own entire list would make one damn bit of difference in what we see at the range.

That is a VERY good point. I'm not in love with the list at all (we didn't have it with the red book, we went "IPSC" on that with the green book).

[Flexmoney]

I'll spend this post sharing my thoughts on RIIID's reply. He is as deep into the Production division as anybody and has good insight.

I know of 2 gun companies that will not tell how many units have been produced. That info is for them and them alone, they don't want the competition to know what they are doing or have done.

If they aren't willing to certify that they have sold the require number of units for the division then I wouldn't be willing to approve them for "the list".

They wouldn't need to say that they sold X number of units, just be willing to certify that they have meet the minimum requirements for number of units produced.

I'm for any internal work be it milling or replacement of factory parts with aftermarket. Prime example some guns have inferior sears from the factory and after market ones are much better.

I am OK with aftermarket parts on the inside of the gun (as long as they stay completely on the inside )

That may be a safety issue at some point. I've looked at a sear on one popular Production gun...it sure looks like it could wear to the point of doubling.

As for internal milling. I don't think there is anyway to allow that and not open the door for extreme abuse. I can see somebody skeletonizing the inside of a slide (like a steel challenge gun) to reduce reciprocating mass. If the slide wears out faster, they just buy a new one. That is NOT what a Production gun is in my mind. That is truly "custom".

How does one define Custom shops/Performance centers/factories I've been in a couple of gun manufacturing facilities. The above is in the middle of the building a step to right your in the "factory" and a step to the left is your in the Custom shops/ Performance centers. I don't think gun companies will abide by someone else telling them their product won't be recognized because of what room in the factory it was built.

Does it matter what room it is produced in? I think the test needs to be...are there 2,000 units...can I go down to the local gun shop and pick one up? I think that, if the company can answer those questions honestly, they won't have any problem. ???

2000 units sounds good but if they fall short of say 2-6-10-20 units, see you later or you are close enough you're good to go if they will even tell you the numbers to begin with.

Falling short is falling short, right? If you draw a line, you can't keep moving it?

As to the buried Bo-mars, as a gunsmith I might think twice about being a stage sponsor for a match if you cut me out of the loop or any other work a gunsmith can do to a Production gun.

I am OK with (internal) trigger work and sights. Past that...it starts looking more and more custom...and, less and less production

One last thing with sweeping new rules...

I don't think that anything I've brought up here is sweeping and new. It is all pretty much from the red book. There would be damage. But, at this point, it can be minimalized. If we keep letting this stuff go, then the division will become a free-for-all...we'll likely end up having to throw out the baby and the bath-water.

At one point you note that there can be no modifications for the purpose of adding or subtracting weght. Would this include the addition of a solid guide rod?

Tungsten guide rods don't bother me one way of the other. The idea I am hoping to get communicated (might needs some custom wordsmithing ) is that we shouldn't allow the carving up of the gun.

Flex, as Sundance said to Butch, "You just keep thinkin' Butch thats what you're good at".

Ouch. At least I can swim.

I don't want to see a "box stock" division, but I also don't want to see a "Non Single Action Limited" division. I would be happy with; you can change springs, guide rod, trigger work as mentioned previously, change sights, and add grip tape. I think that's enough for the more competitive of us to play with, while keeping it simple enough for a new shooter with his box stock Glock or Sig to not feel "threatened".

My opinion only.

That is exactly my opinion as well, Ray. I don't know if my wording gets that message communicated or not? (it' just a "draft")

[Flexmoney]

17.1.3 2,000 specific model units produced and sold. Sold? So if the performance builds and makes available for sale 5000 units within a year, not only do we have to wait a year of them being on the market, but if they only sell 500 units/annum, we’d have to wait four years? Is that what you intend?

Yep, that is the intent. The guns need to be out there in numbers. By "out there", I mean to the public. If Sig make 5,000 units and sells them to the Russian Special Police, they can't just then release 100 units for our market. And, to reach the higher number of units sold, they need to be guns that are marketable (cheap, great value).

Now, I am not sure that 2,000 is the magic number. It is the number from the red book. The higher that number, the less like it is that somebody will come out with the Nik & Kyle Production Special for $1550 per gun. The maker would need to make a gun that sells to the public, not a special "game gun".

17.1.4 Manufacturer or competitor must submit a Production Handgun Approval form with information that allows the verification of 17.1.1 – 17.1.3 Who’s job will it be to verify the information?

I have always been against a list...as somebody has to maintain it. But, another organization shouldn't be maintaining our list for us.

I took a look through our by-laws, but I couldn't figure out how the paychecks went out. Our head of NROI is also our VP...we are paying for something there, I'm just not sure which job is getting the paycheck (or, if the position of head of NROI means you are automatically VP?).

17.2 Factory custom/performance guns, race parts, and special order items (extended control, magwells, etc) are prohibited unless they come (standard) on guns that meet the criteria listed in 17.1.1 – 17.1.3 (In other words, you can’t put an extended mag release on a Para LDA unless that Para extended mag release also comes on another Production approved/legal gun from Para, for example.) Do we really want to open this door to magwells?

Good question. I don't know that that door is closed now, is it???

21.1 No weighted attachments allowed to magazine. Grip tape may be applied to the basepad.

Sound like a good addition.

21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed. (This includes visible, measurable, and apparent modification on the exterior of the gun. The entire trigger is considered an internal part of the gun, for trigger work only.)

I think that would open a huge door. We'd get all kinds of aftermarket configurations...all of which would clearly be "custom".

As far as the Amidon ruling on the trigger goes...

That topic has been beat to death already. The BOD ruled on that...I hope we don't drift the thread in that direction.

[RIIID]

The rules should be very clear and easy to determine if what you have is legal without asking John. Black and white so to speak.

On a rule for numbers produced it should be, "If a gun is produced by a manufacture and is availible to the public and is with in the boudries of the division it is legal." No time limit, no number limit and no price cap.

One example: If the Acme gun Co. builds a gun in .38 super and is making and selling them in huge numbers they don't want the competition to know that have already sold 2,000. They have the market cornered, they don't want someone else cashing in on their little secret. Eventually the competition will figure it out, but it might take them a couple of years to get them to production. By that time Acme has the market flooded and the competition wouldn't make money. Simple capitalism.

To be perfectly honest the ruling John made on a legal part on one can go on another was wrong. If you let one gun to have an extended mag release all guns in the Division can have one. If they let one gun that comes with a factory mag well then all should be able to have one. If you want to level the playing field.

Mag wells should be strictly prohibited in the division.

Rich

[shred]

Perhaps my concern about the money our members have already spent on legal modifications is unwarranted. It seems I am operating in the minority. Strange that part of this conversation was about members having to spend money on modifications and that was considered bad, but once they have spent the money it is considered OK to simply trash that investment for, at least to me, no obvious good reason.

I wonder if those who are so eager to devalue members investments will still feel the same when the push comes to elminiate L-10.

Gary

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but the whole 'shooters will lose their investments' thing bugs me. Competition guns aren't investments, despite what the guy at the gun show with the ten year old Briley Open gun and $3200 price tag thinks

To preserve, say 100 shooters' "investments", requiring (as-in "you need this to be competitive", regardless of the truth to it) everybody else to continue to pay is short-sighted.

5000 rounds of ammo costs more than any trigger job or sights or 9x19 Open barrels, let alone match fees, gas, lodging, etc, etc, etc... Make changes take effect in 2 years and anybody complaining about the cost is merely bitching for the sake of it.

IPSC pistols aren't investments, they're expenses.

[EricW]

[iPSC pistols aren't investments, they're expenses.

And thank you for saying it!

[eerw]

IPSC pistols aren't investments, they're expenses.

AAAHHHHH..you're kidding me... ..

Now what do I tell my wife.....

[Chuck Anderson]

Part of this conversation has been about drawing new shooters to the sport. What message does that send about our sport if we arbitrarily change the rules. "Hey new shooter, IPSC isn't an equipment race, come play. Oh that guy moping over there? He just had to buy another Production gun because he had a set of adjustable sights and now they aren't allowed. Glock won't sell him another slide so he's screwed. That'll be $40.00 bucks for your USPSA membership." I doubt that is going to be attracting any new shooters. And for the guys that are saying shot Limited and L-10. Is that a serious comment or are you just joking. Guys that spend $200.00 to have a set of sights put on aren't the kind that are going to compete in Limited-10 with a minor 9mm gun. Sure it's great for that huge majority (what 12-13 guys...I know it's more, but not by a lot) shooting .40 in Production.

Leave the sights alone, leave the aftermarket barrels alone, leave the dang division alone. It's growing fast now. Start messing with it and you're going to tick people off. And if you do plan on changing the rules you better make it known ahead of time and not put it in place for 2-3 years. Give people a change to get their equipment sorted out.

As far as the available for a year, I don't really agree with this. I also don't think 2000 made is a good number. 3-6 months maybe, 500 maybe. But telling a manufacturer that they need to have a gun out for a year before we'll even allow it is kind of stifling to them. Why make a gun for a market that won't even accept it till you've already sold it to a market that you didn't make it for. Alot of this goes back to what the intent of the Division is. I still haven't heard an answer from the board, and to be honest I don't expect to because they can't decide. It's surprising to me that they can't come up with a decision. Even if it's a split vote, formalize something and then make the rules fit if you have to change them.

[RIIID]

Had some drive time and to help out the rules with have right now section 21 needs simple one sentence clarification with a yes or no answer. As in;

Weighted attachments to mags. -NO

Base pads that increase capacity. -No

Grip enhancement on base pads. -No

Grip enhancement on frame must be removable. -Yes

Grip enhancement on slide. -No

Replacement of sights of notch and post and not of factory profile. -Yes

Modification of slide for replacement sights. -Yes

Replacement of barrels of factory profile and caliber. -Yes

Replacement of slide of factory profile. -Yes

Throating of barrel. -Yes

Trigger job. -Yes

Replacement of springs.-Yes

External modifictions. -No

Aftermarket grips which match factory profile. -Yes

Internal slide lightening.-Yes

Aftermarket guide rods. -Yes

Refinish of gun.-Yes

Replacement of firing pin/striker. -Yes

Extended mag release of factory profile. -Yes

Replacement of hammer of factory profile. Yes

Replacement of trigger of factory profile. -Yes

Magwells of aftermarket or factory supplied.-No

Proto-type handguns. -No

#17 would read "Any handgun with actions of DA, DA/SA, Safe action/Double action like produced and for sale to the public in current and past production."

( no list, no box, no cost cap, and no units produced.)

A shooter should be able to read the rules and know if their gun is legal or illegal without having to ask the NROI for a ruling.

Rich

[Flexmoney]

Why make a gun for a market that won't even accept it till you've already sold it to a market that you didn't make it for.

Bingo!

Production shouldn't be about special made guns for our games.

Production should be for the off the shelf service guns in stock configuration.

The "special made" guns are what causes people to push the idea of an equipment race.

[EricW]

The "special made" guns are what causes people to push the idea of an equipment race.

This is a double-edged sword. On one hand, we've rejected manufacturers' stock products because we believe that there is a better way to configure those products to put points on target faster. Then....when the manufacturer follows our lead and delivers a product that follows the principle of putting more points on target faster....we throw a hissy and tell them they're selling "cheater" guns.

So basically, a manufacturer now needs to sell a crappy gun to make us happy?

=========================================================

I really hate this debate, and not for the obvious reason that I personally benefit from one of the allowed modifications. This whole debate is driven by some pretty unrealistic ideals and expectations by just about all of the "complaintants" involved. Unless someone's out there selling a pistol that drills alphas automatically, most of this stuff is pure perception.

I wish people in the sport would spend as much time slaying the myth of "The Magic Gun" as they did mucking with Production rules. We'd all be a lot better off for it.

[Chuck Anderson]

Except, members of the IPSC Board have specifically said that one of the goals of Production was to get manufacturers to step up and start making better guns. How about getting Glock to finally come out with a "Special" USPSA model, ala the Jarret Para. Something like a 34 with a slightly tweaked trigger, Sevigny sights and well that's about all Dave does.

Manufacturers trying to make better guns are not a bad thing. Specifically telling them what they can have on the gun, probably a good thing. Like saying to Tanfoglio and H&K no magwells. If it was a little more up front we wouldn't be pissing manufacturers off.

What happens when those off the shelf service guns start having features that USPSA doesn't want in Production. I know cops who carry off the shelf STI Tacticals duty. We have guys at my dept. that carry guns with magwells. Just defining as off the shelf means squat. The H&K Expert with Jet Funnel is an off the shelf service gun that I would be happy to carry.

And dude, the special made guns are not what push people to the idea of an equipment race. The fact that we're competetive does. If the special guns did the 5906 and H&K's would have a market share in Production and they really don't.

[Bob Hostetter]

Wow, this is still going on.............

If a production gun is something that is mass produced, and the factories decide to mass produce a better gun, then why should we prohibit it from being used in Production Division? As long as it is mass produced, and available to the general public, it would seem to meet the general idea or concept of a "Production" gun. And I always thought the idea behind "Production Division" was to provide a relatively inexpensive division for people to compete in. And the way the expensive was going to be kept down was by severely limiting modifications, keeping the guns, well, production stock.

We lost that concept as soon as we allowed $200-300 trigger jobs, not to mention buried BoMars. So what we really had was a division that allows just about anything you want to do, as long as the gun 'looks' like a Production gun, except for sights. And actually we can modify the outside of a gun as long as we don't make it a permanent modification ala grip tape but not checkering. Whats the difference, don't they both accomplish the same thing?

We need to either change the rules to "do anything you want as long as it looks completely stock from the outside", or we need to say "No mod's period" and let the factories build better guns directly from the factory as some of them are trying to do now...............

[Nik Habicht]

If a production gun is something that is mass produced, and the factories decide to mass produce a better gun, then why should we prohibit it from being used in Production Division?

Because then it becomes a question of whether or not a shooter can afford a $1500 stock gun (and in light of what we've seen in IPSC, an essentially "Light Limited" gun) to effectively compete in the division. We've traded the "heavily modified" problem for one of your "stock Ruger or Sig or Glock" can't compete with our "factory developed production racegun."

21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed. (This includes visible, measurable, and apparent modification on the exterior of the gun. The entire trigger is considered an internal part of the gun, for trigger work only.)

I think that would open a huge door. We'd get all kinds of aftermarket configurations...all of which would clearly be "custom".

As far as the Amidon ruling on the trigger goes...

That topic has been beat to death already. The BOD ruled on that...I hope we don't drift the thread in that direction.

What door would that really open? I see a certain schizophrenia in the approach of "A trigger job is o.k., just so long as you don't modify the trigger in a way that can be seen from outside the gun." And I'm the guy who just made his trigger pull heavier to get more reliable ignition ---- without noticing any other difference. Gun feels the same, shoots the same, and works better than before. Gee, maybe it's driving the same gun for going on five years now ----- Anderson was right when he suggested "Pick one and practice." Go figure.....

As far as the Amidon ruling on the Vanek goes --- my apologies. That's a dog I don't want to wake up in this thread.....

[bufit323]

We lost that concept as soon as we allowed $200-300 trigger jobs

I think I have misunderstood this type of comment since I started shooting USPSA. If indeed, there were "no trigger jobs" as many have stated that the intent of production is., what do you tell the guy that has shot his SIG 5,000 round and gotten that DA pull nice and smooth (no trigger job, just naturally polishing items inside). His hammer breaks (don't laugh, mine is broken right now). Now under the no trigger job rule, would this guy have to throw a basic, stock, new part into his gun?

Would he be allowed to fit it to his worn-in seer?

Would he be allowed to "polish" it to match the rest of his bbroken in pieces?

What if this stock replacement part does not function reliably?

Sorry, buy a new gun, because we are not alloing trigger work on production guns?

My problem is that the "no trigger job" folks aren't considering these possibilities.

[Vlad]

"No trigger jobs" is also unenforceble. What are yo going to tell a shooter "Your trigger is too nice, you must have had a trigger job"? "Sorry sir, my gun is just broken in, or maybe the factory got one right".

I have no problem with trigger jobs, real people get real trigger jobs for their real world carry guns. I do have a concern with the 2lb or less trigger jobs on guns with no safeties. This is why I think minimum trigger pulls are a good idea. But I do understand that lots of people get upset by that. I would be fine with leaving that one alone if we drop the current list, add 2000 limits, and don't let people remove chunks of their slides to make them lighter. I'm ok with the sight cuts, just so we don't make people buy new slides, plus I dont think it makes that much of a difference.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Vlad

[Bigbadaboom]

21.4 Internal action work to enhance accuracy and reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is allowed.

21.1.1 Action work includes throating, extractor/ejector tuning, internal trigger work, springs, the recoil assembly, etc.

21.4.2 Action work does NOT include other internal work, such as adding or removing weight

I totally disagree with this entire line of thinking. It only allows modifications for "Performance enhancement" and deletes ability for "Reliable Function" modifications. A factory 8 lb. trigger that always functions IS reliable. Those who get trigger work done do so for "performance enhacement" issues. They wish to lighten the trigger weight in order to get it to "Perform" better. The rule states: "Action work to enhance reliability (not performance) (throating, trigger work (Not replacement), etc.) allowed."

re·li·a·ble

adj.

1. Capable of being relied on; dependable:
   

per·for·mance

n.

1. The way in which someone or something functions:
   

en·hance

tr.v. en·hanced, en·hanc·ing, en·hanc·es

1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
   

In my case my XD is completely factory except for the Hard chrome (Durability) because the original finish sucked. I deactivated my "Loaded Chamber" indicator so that it would feed reliably due to it causing feed malfunctions when carbon would build up behind it. I lightened my slide internally so that it would function reliably with minor loads, as I am required to be scored minor per production division rules, because it would not feed/function reliably with the legal minor load I wish to use. My trigger is factory because it works every time I pull it. My recoil/striker springs are factory. I'm thinking about installing a heavier guide rod in order to get the gun back closer to factory weight. My sights are factory because the gun hits where the sights are aimed.

If we're going to start modifying the rules of production then let's allow modifications only for reliability and do away with all the allowances for "Performance enhancing" modifications. Allow polishing and working factory trigger componants so that it will work every time it's pulled, working of other factory firearm components for reliability and that's it. If you can lighten it by doing this then it's a bonus, but allowing all these after market trigger set-ups for "Perfomance enhancement" purposes is a joke.

Action and trigger work does not change the accuracy of the firearm. If you put the gun in a rest and shoot it with a 8lb. trigger and the a 3 lb. trigger is the "Guns" accuracy going to be different? The gun is as accurate as it's going to get through barrel, chamber and lock-up.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Bigbadaboom

[Wakal]

My vote, if I get one, is a hearty "YES!" for the trigger pull minimum weights proposed in this thread.

No external mods, factory gun (although I don't mind following the Limited/L10 "500" vice 2000), 3.5 lb minimum trigger.

And...no bloody "-II" engraved on the slides getting a free pass from the Arb Committee, either

Alex

[bufit323]

Allow polishing and working factory trigger componants so that it will work every time it's pulled.

This is completely not enforceable. Not only that, it presents us with the case where a crappy gun can have a bunch more work done to it (to make it reliable).

In the process of doing much more work, said crappy gun gets much nicer trigger (that's soe bonus)? Just because it wouldn't work from the factory?

I think I should explain my feelings on this issue, I do not care if I need a 5lb trigger or an 8 lb trigger, if I need factory sights or not, if I can shoot stock parts or not. The only problem I have is that none of this stuff is clear enough to follow (let alone enforce).

I want to make sure I am legal (now) and don't think that anyone (other than the Board of Directors) could take the gun from my hand and give me an answer that is 100% (with no room for a good arguement).

Right now, I don't know whether I have a legal gun or not. How can the rules be so unclear that a person that shoots his gun every week at club matches does not know if he is legal or not? I want to follow the rules, the problem is, I do not know what (precisely) they are.

Now consider the kind of guy who asks what he can get away with within the confines of the rules. He is the guy we need to plan for here.

[GeorgeInNePa]

Allow polishing and working factory trigger componants so that it will work every time it's pulled.

-snip-

Now consider the kind of guy who asks what he can get away with within the confines of the rules. He is the guy we need to plan for here.

I resemble that remark!

That's me and a LOT of others. You might as well get used to it. That's how we see rules, shades of gray, man, shades of gray.

Edited April 17, 2006 by GeorgeInNePa

[bufit323]

Allow polishing and working factory trigger componants so that it will work every time it's pulled.

-snip-

Now consider the kind of guy who asks what he can get away with within the confines of the rules. He is the guy we need to plan for here.

I resemble that remark!

That's me and a LOT of others. You might as well get used to it. That's how we see rules, shades of gray, man, shades of gray.

I got no problem with that, that is what the rules are for (in my opinion) to be challenged (and followed) to their letter (not their spirit).

I want to follow them exactly, I just find them too vague to do so.

[GeorgeInNePa]

Allow polishing and working factory trigger componants so that it will work every time it's pulled.

-snip-

Now consider the kind of guy who asks what he can get away with within the confines of the rules. He is the guy we need to plan for here.

I resemble that remark!

That's me and a LOT of others. You might as well get used to it. That's how we see rules, shades of gray, man, shades of gray.

I got no problem with that, that is what the rules are for (in my opinion) to be challenged (and followed) to their letter (not their spirit).

I want to follow them exactly, I just find them too vague to do so.

Ok, we're on the same page.

[GENE S]

How about letting them start Cocked & Locked if the gun

is capable. Trying to let the hammer down on a live round

can be a DQ in the making.....

Gene