Possibility Of Modification Tightening In Uspsa Production

[bgary]

If we're going to solve "The Problem," I guess my challenge to the solvers is to first demonstrate that "The Problem" actually exists.

IMHO, the "The Problem" is that the current rules can apparently be interpreted in a number of wildly divergent ways. As with everything else, what we *want* to do is tighten up the language so that there is one clear, objectively defensible interpretation of the rules which can be reasonably gleaned by reading the words on the page. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details, and "cleaning up that language" will involve considerable effort to decide what that interpretation should be. Hence the current discussion.

I don't think any of us would be comfortable with ambiguous language in, say, the section of the rulebook about what constitutes a DQ-able offense - people would scream at us to clean it up and say what we mean. My belief is that ambiguous language in the section of the rulebook about what constitutes a division-legal Production firearm is every bit as bad, and needs to be given some clarity.

I'd be surprised if anyone would argue against that belief. Rather, the more difficult question to argue is whether we should clean it up so that it matches what we originally thought we wrote, or clean it up to match what people seem to believe it means.

Bruce

Edited August 21, 2006 by bgary

[EricW]

What's odd, is that I thought the rules for Production were fairly unambiguous - which is why no one should ever vote for me to be on the BOD.

[bgary]

Yeah, *I* thought so too. The rules basically said "very few modifications are allowed, here they are:" followed by a list. The "intent" was that if it was not on that list, it was not allowed.

Some, though, have a more liberal interpretation of things. For example, where it says you are allowed to do "action work to enhance reliability (eg, trigger work)", they take that to mean "you are allowed to modify, replace or completely re-engineer the trigger mechanism of your gun, whether it has anything to do with reliability or not".

One way or another, I believe we have to clarify the rule so that it has a little less room for... um... creative interpretations.

B

[EricW]

Well...if that's the objective...hello trigger pull gauge! Because that's going to be the only enforceable requirement short of having a team of gunsmiths on staff.

[bgary]

Ah, yes, and welcome to the nightmare.

If we do a minimum trigger pull...

--- what number do we pick? If we pick 5 pounds, we piss off manufacturers (eg, Para LDA), and a whole lot of shooters (eg, anyone who paid to have a trigger job done)

--- one number or two? As someone else has noted, a 5-pound-on-every-pull glock is very different from a 5-pound-first-shot-and-2-pounds-after-that CZ.

-- what is the "right" consequence for failing the test? Move to Open? Shoot for no-score?

-- etc.

Isn't this fun?

B

[EricW]

You only have one choice: 3.14159 lbs

[Kevin Kline]

You know Bruce, I agree with you on certain points, most of them. But, the Board should look at the fact that Dave Sevigny is kicking the crap out of everybody when shooting Production, and his gun (referring to the trigger) is right off the shelf, not triggers jobs for Dave.

Ive felt Dave's trigger and my response was, "Holy Cr_p!!! You shoot those unbelieveable runs/scores with that???" Also, Chuck is another one. These guys are winning and in the top 3-4 of every match they enter shooting Production and there are no trigger jobs or fancy work there. So really, is the extra modifications and trigger jobs that important? I dont think so, its the extra HARD WORK, PRACTICE, MOTIVATION, to shoot your butt off and make yourself better, not the equipment that does it.

Its always the shooter, not the gun. We have a local guy with the trickest friggin work you can imagine, and he gets his clock cleaned every match, because when it comes down to it, its not the equipment or amount of mechanical work, its the shooter and what work he has put into his shooting.

I say leave the 10 rd because you allow 9, 40 and 45 guns to play as well. Production seems to be booming off the chart in attendance, leave it alone for now. All the little equipment stuff doesnt make any difference in my mind, the shooter and the amount of work he put in does.

[shred]

Well, it's not directly comparable, but Sevigny shot the Steel Challenge with his Limited Glock and and Open Glock. He was close to 20 seconds (20%) faster over the course with Open gun. Equipment can make a huge difference with the same shooter, and capacity isn't even an issue here.

Now a tweaked-to-the-nines-PD gun and a stock PD gun won't have as large a difference, but it's pretty obvious there's something there.

[Flexmoney]

Well...if that's the objective...hello trigger pull gauge! Because that's going to be the only enforceable requirement short of having a team of gunsmiths on staff.

Even that is questionable. I've always said that if you had ten guys measuring Glock trigger pulls, you'd get ten different result.

You only have one choice: 3.14159 lbs

LOL.

[glock_40_caliber]

I can only guess that someone really got beat by a "tricked out" production division gun, and now wants everyone to shoot basically the same thing. That's the only thing I can think of the recent interest in changing the game for production. My fiance' shoots a darn near stock Glock 17, save for the $35 I put into a 3.5 connector, hogue grip, and striker spring. Everything else is stock: Guide rod, and more importantly, those dreaded Glock factory sights. She may not place very high at matches, but that is not because she cannot shoot, but she is still nervous about moving with a loaded firearm. She walks, not runs, though most courses of fire. Heck, if I'm not careful, she actually gets more points than I do, with my fiber optic sights.

Long story short, it's not the gun itself that is going to be competitive, but the nut jerking, er, pressing, the trigger.

[Derwoodski]

Ah, yes, and welcome to the nightmare.

If we do a minimum trigger pull...

--- what number do we pick? If we pick 5 pounds, we piss off manufacturers (eg, Para LDA), and a whole lot of shooters (eg, anyone who paid to have a trigger job done)

--- one number or two? As someone else has noted, a 5-pound-on-every-pull glock is very different from a 5-pound-first-shot-and-2-pounds-after-that CZ.

-- what is the "right" consequence for failing the test? Move to Open? Shoot for no-score?

-- etc.

Isn't this fun?

B

And I just bought a cz for production.....(please leave the rules alone) newbie shooter 2 cts

[D.Hayden]

Leave everything alone, just throw the glocks out

[TxD]

My vote is for stability of the rules.

Leave us alone and clarify what is written.

How about the "Approved list" for example?

We have our own USPSA "Approved list" for a while.

We use the IPSC "Approved list" for a while.

We go back to the USPSA "Approved list".

The CZ SP01 was approved before you could even buy one.

The S&W M&P which is available everywhere including

Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, and Cut and Shoot, Tx. has to wait a year.

O that's right, we were under a different rule.

Edited August 21, 2006 by TxD

[DaG]

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

bgary,

I'm sorry if I sound antagonistic,but you seem to answer a question with a question..........

DaG

[No.343]

I don't shoot a lot of production. However, I shoot a lot of National Guard matches here in Oklahoma where everyone uses a rack grade Beretta M9. People try all kinds of silly things to gain an advantage, but it's pretty obvious that the people at the top are the ones who put in their time for practice. I vote for leaving the rules the way they are now.

[bgary]

bgary,

I'm sorry if I sound antagonistic,but you seem to answer a question with a question

heck no, I don't take that as antagonistic, it is dead-on. I *totally* answered a question with a question....

....because, in my humble opinion, Eric was asking the wrong question.

He's asking "show me the Problem if the rules allow people to make mods to their gun?" and I'm saying, that may or may not be "The Problem". In my opinion, "The Problem" is that the rules can be interpreted in a number of different ways. I think we should fix that... independent of whether or not any given modifications are allowed, I think the rules should be *clear*.

Bruce

[Chuck D]

P.D. rules could use a bit of "tightning up" actually.

Triggers: good luck...I honestly have no idea what to do there.

The rest of the gun seems quite simple....stock FACTORY parts only except sights.

I always thought that allowing "replacement, aftermarket" barrels went a little overboard.

10 round limit is a must unless you want to limit participation to 17 plus round 9mm caliber guns only.

Edited August 21, 2006 by Chuck D

[Nik Habicht]

Leave everything alone, just throw the glocks out

Dave! Don't make me hop a plane to CA......

[shred]

I'd like to see a trigger pull limit. I know some people can make a 1.5lb Glock or XD trigger safe. I know other people will try and fail. Some will create a dangerous situation. That's not good.

It also creates the have/have-not mentality, no matter what the reality may be.

Put a 1 or 2-years down-the-road effective date on a rule change and complaints about "losing investments" is plain kvetching. $200 likely won't get you through half a dozen local matches or the first day of an Area match after you pop for the entry, ammo, gas, food and half a motel room.

Newsflash: competition pistols aren't 'investments', they're expenses.

(note that I have several PD guns that may well need new springs and parts, should a trigger limit be implemented)

[vluc]

The rest of the gun seems quite simple....stock FACTORY parts only except sights.

So no Wolff springs, no Scherer connectors, no ISMI recoil springs or guide rods...etc.?

[Chuck D]

"So no Wolff springs, no Scherer connectors, no ISMI recoil springs or guide rods...etc.?"

Nope.....

To muddle up a simplified answer...if the gun came with a plastic factory guiderod, it needs to retain the factory plastic guiderod. No "it's o.k. to replace if it doesn't add more than 2 ounces to the gun's overall weight" rule.

If you want to eliminate the "arms race" be it real or perceived...you make rules that keep the gun as "factory stock" as possible. Sights, grip tape, and FACTORY parts that are offered from the FACTORY as options on the particular model in question should the criteria for U.S Prod.Division.

My PD set-up is a bone stock G21 with a factory 3.5lbs. conector, factory extended mag release, and a factory extended slide release. Heinie Slant-Pro sights are the ONLY aftermarket parts on the entire gun. Gun shoots 2.5 to 3 inch groups at 25 yards and the trigger is decent. All in all the gun and the parts would have cost me 550 bucks if I paid retail for it all. The gun shoots extremely well in practice sessions and will make its match debut next month.

Keeping PD costs down and simplifying the rules will require the elimination of a large majority of "USPSA approved" aftermarket parts and modifications and the adoption of some of the IPSC PD criteria while keeping the 10 round limit in effect.

Edited August 21, 2006 by Chuck D

[vluc]

I'm not giving up Eric's grip tape.....

[Two Mikes]

My 2 cents .... Production should be a box-stock division with the only mods being polishing, grip tape and post and notch sights. No custom triggers, no grinding or redesigning the mechanism, nor any non-manufacturer made parts. Just box stock that you could buy at the gun store.

I'd add an additional requirement that the ammo be new off-the-shelf factory ammo. That would complete the box-stock philosophy.

The 10 round limit and holster/pouch locations add a nice challenge and differentiation to the division and should be retained.

[EricW]

I'm not giving up Eric's grip tape.....

Production should be a box-stock division with the only mods being polishing, grip tape and post and notch sights. No custom triggers, no grinding or redesigning the mechanism, nor any non-manufacturer made parts. Just box stock that you could buy at the gun store.

Thanks for the kind words.

But....devil's advocate here.....what makes grip tape so special? Why give it a pass, but not all the other stuff that's getting used in Production? The reason I ask is that I don't want my product banned, but holy cow, it's not like other manufacturers don't have a lot more invested in this gig than I do. I'm not sure I like treating manufacturers and gunsmiths like they're part of some conspiracy to ruin production. They're just giving the market what it wants: performance.

I wish we could come up with maybe 7 to 10 externally observable/measurable criteria that defined whether a gun was legal or not for use in Production. The minute we try to define what internal parts are legal or not, we've lost. I don't think anyone in the industry would be able to examine a competitor's gun and determine whether every component was factory or not for every possible permutation of pistol that could show up at a match. Not unless we have factory armorers from every company at every match - and then we're having the fox guarding the henhouse.

If someone has a two pound SA trigger on their CZ, then ask them to put in a heavier spring or change the sear angle slightly to get it over 3 lbs. Is it possible to engineer a spec where everyone can meet in the middle? I'm talking technically, not emotionally, here.

I'm not so sure that "The Problem" isn't more of a perception, but these discussions are rapidly taking on the tone of my college philosophy classes - and I royally bombed every one of those.

Edited August 22, 2006 by EricW

[vluc]

Can you tell the difference between a Wolff striker spring and a factory one? Can you when it is new, when it is used, clean, dirty...this is what we get into when we do this stuff.

Mandating the use of factory ammo...wtf! Heck, stop all reloads so you have just one power factor for all to shoot, regardless as to how well or poorly their gun runs. Glocks supposedly run better with hotter loads, do we then allow that for them but not for another mfg? Is that a competitive advantage for them to use 135 or 140 over a 125 or 130?

Hopefully those folks that want the IPSC production rules here can find their playground when the two are run side by side. I like what we have now. Are there prod shooters who have done more to their pistols than I have? Absolutely. Do I want to pay what they did? Nope. My choice, just as it is for all those folks who kvetch about equipment race. If you want to pay it, pay it. If you don't, don't. Sevigny chose to put time and energy into his efforts, others want to buy a wizbang part or a trigger job to do it for them.

I need to check out of this conversation for a bit.