Possibility Of Modification Tightening In Uspsa Production

[GeorgeInNePa]

I'm also opposed to telling shooters that parts that they've used to tune their guns need to come out now ---- even though they may need 13lb. recoil springs to make the guns run with their 130 power factor 147 or 180gr. load. (I'm sitting on about 13,000 heads right now --- it would suck to have to switch back to 115s just to make my gun run.

I chose to shoot a .40 for several reasons. I can use the same heads, brass and powder in both my Limited and Production Guns. If the capacity is raised to the maximum that can fit loaded flush, then my production gun is useless.

Jim

Oh good god, please, they are BULLETS, not heads.

[vluc]

No aftermarket parts? So Glock stops importing 3.5 connectors, but I can get Scherer or Ghost or LW but I'm not allowed to use them?

First, stop referring to it as an intro division. it is a bona fide division just like the rest. L10 can be called entry level as well then. You can take that same Glock in production and shoot it there. Possibly this is where some confusion enters the picture.

10 rd limit, fine and doable. I like it, find it fun and challenging.

buried bomars, go ahead, do it

grip tape - Eric is the man

slide lightening...nope

holster and mag locations - no big deal

min trigger pull - ridiculous. Does it mean I have to change parts to increase my trigger pull after so many rounds just through normal wear that polishes the parts naturally? Penalized for normal wear and tear, that's a hoot. Do we get DQ'd or moved to major? If a light trigger was all you needed to make GM, there would be a darn sight more GM's in production - almost as many as have light triggers.

Many of the issues seem to revolve around the internal modifications that show externally. Clean that up if you have to, but leave us alone.

Edited August 21, 2006 by vluc

[Vlad]

There is a bid difference between wear and a 2lb trigger. I don't think a 7lb factory trigger ever wears in enough to turn in 2lb. BTW, note that my proposal doesn't mean you can't do trigger jobs, it just means you can only go so far.

I think if I started with 7/8lb Glock trigger and it became 2/3lb by itself I would want new parts simply because I would worry about their safety.

[vluc]

Is a 3 lb trigger "less safe" in a Glock production pistol as opposed to a Glock limited or open gun?

IIRC, Glock had indicated that a 3.5 connector is really a 4.5/5 pound pull. So put a few thousand through the gun, springs change, surfaces change, and you have a reduced pull regardless. Whether it is one pound or two, still has a reduction. If safety is the true purpose, set your minimum to three pounds, then. But like prunes, is 3 enough, is 6 too many?

[Vlad]

I'm not saying that a well done trigger job would be unsafe. I'm saying that if a trigger lightens to half of its original weight by itself, I would replace parts. Breaking in is one thing, that kinda of a change would worry me. But now we are wondering off topic.

[RIIID]

One more chance to beat a dead horse.

If the BOD wants to play with the rules it means nothing if they DON'T enforce them. They haven't enforced the rules we have now. So why would a new set of rules be any different. If you think I'm encouraging people to go out and cheat I'm not, USPSA has been doing it for the last 6 years.

All I have to say to the BOD if they declare existing equipment illegal, it is only going to hurt the organization. If one looks back, it is the "USPSA Way" to cost its membership money for their (USPSA's) own mistakes. Define what Production is first, then and only then can a set of rules can be effective. This needs to be in black and white printed in the rule book.

Rich

[MarkS_A18138]

+++++1 for Rich. They are about to destroy a class that is working. Damn and I just got my XD! I knew I should have stayed in SS class!

Edited August 21, 2006 by MarkS_A18138

[Ron Rodgers]

All I have to say to the BOD if they declare existing equipment illegal, it is only going to hurt the organization.

Rich

Amen!!!

[vluc]

I'm not saying that a well done trigger job would be unsafe. I'm saying that if a trigger lightens to half of its original weight by itself, I would replace parts. Breaking in is one thing, that kinda of a change would worry me. But now we are wondering off topic.

True, but back on track now.

[boo radley]

If you scroll down in this forum, a few weeks ago I was interested in something else, and typed up the Area Match attendance figures, broken down by division, for the last 6 years (2001->present).

The growth of the Production Division is simply amazing. Why mess with it? If it simply can't be left alone, why not change something benign, like ban milling of the slide, as others have suggested....

Edited -- here's a quick chart showing 2001-2005 division breakdowns for 5 Area Matches:

Edited August 21, 2006 by boo radley

[Chuck Anderson]

There are still a lot of people that don't think milling the slide is a benign change. Those folks who would have to sell their whole Glock because they have a, now, legal modification. Glock won't sell slides, Caspian won't sell slides. So if you've got a Bo-Mar now, you're f'ed. Just about any change in the rules is going to affect someone. If it's not done with a specific purpose in mind it's just pointless and arbitrary.

[Bob Hostetter]

Regarding my suggestion to eliminate aftermarket parts, I stand corrected. I would allow aftermarket springs.

But I still am against the buried BoMars unless they come from the factory. "No external modification's" seems pretty clear to me, and should include not allowing machining of the slides to accept BoMars (or any other sight combination). Also if you are going to allow grip tape you should allow checkering. Either both or neither, since both accomplish the same thing with the only difference being cost.

Mandating a min trigger pull weight is going to cause more problems then it is worth. How are you going to enforce it? Who is going to enforce it?

[j2fast]

All I have to say to the BOD if they declare existing equipment illegal, it is only going to hurt the organization.

Rich

Amen!!!

Exactly, mark me down as someone who bailed out of Production. Even though I really like it; I didn't want to wait around until my 2.5lb trigger and bomars were declared illegal after being legal when I had the mods added. I picked up a limited gun this year and so far haven't looked back. I really enjoyed shooting Production and would like to jump back in at some point if things become more cut and dry.

My thoughts on rules:

I like the 10 round limit for the same reasons other have stated but mostly because more guns in more calibers can play.

Drop the holster and pouch placement restrictions.

Minimum trigger pull, don't really like it. As many here have said "it's the person pulling the trigger not the gun making the shots." I don't see the point to changing and if it does change refer to Rich's quote above.

[glock_40_caliber]

Drop the holster and pouch placement restrictions.

I say keep the holster and mag restrictions as they are. If they are removed, all we have is a double action only, minor scoring, Limited 10 division.

[peashooter]

Ditto that Production is not an entry level division. It may be where a large number of shooters have started, but many have to start where the gear they currently own fits.

I personally hate the 10 round limit but it's a rule and I live with it.

Rather than change rules that have been used since Production Division was created, define the parameters and be specific as to what is allowed as an internal mod and what is allowed as an external mod.

Why the fuss over milling the slide for a Bowmar cut? It's not going to lighten the slide enough to be a competitive advantage, and the Bowmar is still a notch and post.

I shoot a Beretta 92 Elite and have done a fair amount of work on it. At this point nothing that would come close to causing me any heartburn if rules were tightend.

So far I have;

Changed sights front and rear ( LPA adjustable)

Grip tape on front strap.

Totally resprung.

Polished every moving part internally.

LTT solid guide rod.

Internal trigger overtravel stop.

All of the above has resulted in a trigger pull of 6lb in DA and 3lb in SA. If I were so inclined I could go further and knock off another lb from each but I would rather have a gun that is reliable rather than a race gun.

[BritinUSA]

I predict that any changes in US Production rules would be to move them close to the original IPSC version.

[RIIID]

If you don't like melted in Bo-mars you should have voiced that opinion back in 2000. The rule states 21.5 External modifications OTHER THAN SIGHTS not allowed. This is a done deal from the start.

This how Production should be handle from now on. At any Area Match or the Nationals the Match Director will have the Range Master/s afford the shooter a pre match equipment check. This will give a shooter time to get legal equipment before the match start.

At the start of the match the first stage the shooter will turn in to the CRO an equipment card which will have on it the Make,Model, and serial number of their equipment. With todays tech a digital or cam cord picture of the shooters gun and rig. At any point during the match accept for the time after the walk thru and the completion of the stage the shooter cannot be equipment checked. (We don't want to throw a shooter off their game by an equipment check.) The ideal time for an equipment check would be right after a shooter completes a stage. The shooter can be ECed multiple times during a match.

If the shooter is found to have illegal equipment, the shooter will be issued a Unsportsman like conduct DQ.

Leave the rules alone, with this system all of the rule offenders will get the message.

There is room for the rules to be cleaned up, in Flex's thread awhile back I gave what I thought the rules should be. Very simply put a shooter can read them and determine if their equipment is legal. Simple yes- no answers. Like, Are magwells permitted? -NO etc.........

Rich

[bgary]

I'll chime in with my two cents' worth.

There *is* a fair amount of discussion on the Board about Production division, and long before we sit down to look at any rules, the much harder question we've got to solve is, what should the division *be*?

The original premise of the division was an entry-level place where someone with a box-stock Glock or Sig or whatever could compete and *not* be at a competitive disadvantage, because all the significant equipment differences were washed out (DA first shot, all minor, capacity-neutered, etc)

What it *became*, due to a relatively (IMHO) tortured belief that the word "includes" implies a loophole, is a division in which you can (theoretically) do anything you want to the gun, as long as it "looks" stock on the outside. Which means, as others have noted, a situation where it might take $1000 worth on a $500 gun to make sure it has all the competitive tweaks.

We gotta sort that out.

There are two obvious choices:

-- leave the rules alone, and have Production be one more equipment race, with the additional subtlety that you can't do "visible external mods", or

-- clamp down the rules to bring them back more to the original premise.

Within those choices, IMHO there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed:

-- minimum trigger pull? If we adopt one, what happens to all the curently-legal Production guns that all-of-a-sudden become illegal. I am *not* going to vote in favor of a rule-change that negates equipment investments unless there is a *really* good reason for it.

-- 10-round? yes, getting rid of the limit in the US would get us closer to the international rules, but it would also change the game in the US.... it would bias the equipment towards 9mm pretty strongly, and in particular to 9mms whose manufacturers provide the highest capacity in stock mags. Not sure that is a beneficial effect.

-- enforceability is *critical*. Trigger-pull can reasonably be measured at a match. overall (empty) weight can be reasonably measured at a match. But we can't expect that a match official (probably chrono) can reasonably detect internal modifications such as trigger-work, slide hogging, etc. So, any rules that we write have to be objective enough that legality can be *measured*, rather than subjectively evaluated.

-- manufacturer interest? Yes, we want it. Not selling our soul to get it, but, at the same time we've gotta consider whether or not rule changes would unnecessarily piss off manufacturers who have noticed the growth in USPSA production division and tailored products to meet the growing demand.

-- and, related to that, we've gotta sort out just what the semantics are between "competition enhancements" and "factory produced". For example, if a factory produces a gun with all kinds of mods that are not currently allowed, but built that way from the factory, is it a legal gun? If it is legal, are owners of past models allowed to do those mods to their guns now? Not a clear, easy answer there.

So.... all of this boils down to, lots of discussion going on right now, but no currently-active effort to change the rules.

Bruce

Edited August 21, 2006 by bgary

[JFD]

I think it would be better for the sport if they leave the rules alone in terms of major changes. The time to decide the direction of any division is before it's voted into the rulebook, not after (minor tweaks only).

I see the 10 round limit as allowing more types of guns to play. It also highlights reloading as a shooting skill. Something I always enjoyed the benefits of in L-10.

I wish the rules had never allowed machining the slide for sights, but the world won't stop spinning because of it and I don't see it as a real advantage.

Personally I hate the Production/SS holster and mag pouch rules, but I think I'm in a minority.

Internal mods HAVE to be allowed IMHO as it would be very difficult to enforce anything else.

In the end, what we have now is much better than IPSC rules, so in the interest of not screwing up a division that is steadily growing, it would be nice if it was left alone.

[clown]

All I shoot is production and I say leave the rules as they are. Yes, the division has become an equipment race but its too late to change it now. I beat and get beat by custom worked production guns and when i get beat i don't blame their expensive mods. Leave the mag limit alone. I don't think we need a limited minor division. Plus all the mag changes are fun.

[EricW]

We have what, six years of history with Production now?

Can someone name a major match (state/area/nationals) where the winner was differentiated from 2nd through say 5th because of internal equipment modifications? Who is out there in USPSA-land with a B-card in their pocket, and jumping on their "DA Limited" to kick the crap out of a Dave Sevigny, a Chuck Anderson, etc.?

If it's an equipment race, prove it. Name a solitary instance of where the gun won.

[Loves2Shoot]

I guess I was thinking that the non 9mm guns (.40+) would play in L10 not production.

[bgary]

If it's an equipment race, prove it. Name a solitary instance of where the gun won.

Rather than suggesting that your herring has red paint all over it <g>, let me suggest a contra argument.

Let's say you have two shooters of identical skill. One has all the bells and whistles done to the inside of his Glock (or whatever). The other has a box-stock Glock, which means the factory trigger pull, the plastic guide-rod, the standard striker and reset, etc, etc, etc.

Would you argue that the second shooter is *not* at a competitive disadvantage?

And, would you similarly argue that the equipment differences do *not* represent a [perceived] compelling "need" to spend money to bring his equipment up to the "competitive standard" for the division? Said another way, if the second shooter does not spend the money, isn't he at a discernable competitive disadvantage against someone of identical skill who *has* done the mods?

That's what we're trying to wrestle with. We're faced with a division where we *thought* we said "allowed modifications are very few, here they are", but has become "anything goes, as long as it looks stock". Those are *very* different premises, and we're trying to figure out which is the better one to go with for the long run... as well as figuring out what the transition issues are for whichever we choose (and, there *will* be issues, even if we do *nothing* to the rules).

B

[vluc]

If they are at identical skill, then there is no difference should they have achieved that skill level with the guns you mentioned.

Too many things factor in...heck, isn't a mantra on this forum it's the indian, not the arrow?

I don't envy the BOD, but please get some major feedback from the production shooters out there. I'm sure the non-Prod folks have an opinion, but we live in the prod world and should have a strong say in what happens. I know I'll continue to pass on my .02 worth.

Edited August 21, 2006 by vluc

[EricW]

If it's an equipment race, prove it. Name a solitary instance of where the gun won.

Rather than suggesting that your herring has red paint all over it <g>, let me suggest a contra argument.

Let's say you have two shooters of identical skill. One has all the bells and whistles done to the inside of his Glock (or whatever). The other has a box-stock Glock, which means the factory trigger pull, the plastic guide-rod, the standard striker and reset, etc, etc, etc.

Would you argue that the second shooter is *not* at a competitive disadvantage?

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not so sure that the advantage is as much as people would like to believe in a USPSA match.

Actually, I don't think I'm posing a red-herring at all. Everyone's on here debating how to solve "The Problem." If we're going to solve "The Problem," I guess my challenge to the solvers is to first demonstrate that "The Problem" actually exists.

If we're unable to demonstrate the matches are being won or lost by these mods, then maybe some testing is in order. Maybe we have 10 GM's shoot a typical match with stock guns, then again with modded pistols that have all the "trick" stuff done to them. I'm willing bet a pitcher that if you can tell the statistical difference from noise, that it's in the single digits percentage-wise.

I still think the correct path is to allow IPSC Production and USPSA Production to coexist for a year or two and see what the market gravitates to. I'd rather see any changes be made as a result of market acceptance rather than as an imposition upon it...if ya knowwhatImean.

[/Don't have a horse in this race, but am here blabbing about it anyway MODE]