Possibility Of Modification Tightening In Uspsa Production

[glock_40_caliber]

My vote? Production = stock. Very few mod's. Use it to attract new shooters (everyone else can play, but it's not set up to cater to the experienced shooter). . As such, keep mod's to a minimum, as viewed by the checkbook. Trigger job = relative expense, so require all guns to be within an ounce of stock trigger. Same with weight. Same with sights (keep them stock).

IMO, it has NOTHING to do with the argument that shooters win matches, not guns (we all know that), and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that new shooters will shy from a division with any equipment race in it.

I like the idea of factory ammo. Keeps folks from tweaking springs/ammo to hit bare minimum threshholds. Not that these win matches (it's the shooter stupid ), but reloading can be seen as part of the equipment race. Allow reloaders to match a specific factory ammo so that they save their money? Well OK, but how much does it really cost to buy factory ammo for major matches? At the match, have that factory load, and test factory vs handload.

But what it really will come down to? Is it worth "rocking the boat"? I think so. All who complain that their mods are now wasted are also the ones who would be driving newbies away from an equipment race, or "encouraging" newbies to spend money to keep up. What gives them the right?

Is it worth the "administration"/gun checks? Well, I cave a little here. If you can agree to gun weight checks, trigger pull, chrono checks, not that big of a deal. Don't like the trigger check? Allow the competitor to perform one (with a calibrated guage) himself.

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally take offense to being labeled someone who would drive away new competitors. I also don't encourage anyone to spend money on anything other than ammo for training. I've only been in this sport for a short period of time ( just over a year), but in that time, I have also brought new shooters in, and am working on more.

If the division is not set up for the experianced shooter, why, like someone posted earlier, are there M's and GM's in the division? Just because you can spend less money on a gun that is competitive than most people pay a month for rent or a house payment a month, doesn't just mean "entry-level."

Your statement "how much does it really cost to buy ammo for a major match?" They way you want the rules to read, it doesn't matter if it's a major or local match. You HAVE to use factory ammo. If it becomes that way for PD, I say make it that way across the board, and see how many .38 super shooters stick with things.

The rules may not be perfect as they are written, but to tighten them down after about 5 years of having them in place is just not right. If you do not agree with the rules, pick another division to shoot. It's that simple. Or, if you are that much of a puritan about things being "box-stock" create your own organization, and run it your way there.

Again, how many members that are whining and complaining about the "PD Equipment Race" actually shoot in the division?

[Jim Norman]

kdmoore says:

I like the idea of factory ammo. Keeps folks from tweaking springs/ammo to hit bare minimum threshholds. Not that these win matches (it's the shooter stupid ), but reloading can be seen as part of the equipment race. Allow reloaders to match a specific factory ammo so that they save their money? Well OK, but how much does it really cost to buy factory ammo for major matches? At the match, have that factory load, and test factory vs handload.

I say:

This sport is not about the Majors, it is about the local matches. We have about 60-70 shooters each month at our match, many will never shoot anywhere but a local match. You sak what does ammo cost for a major match? The 1200 or so rounds one shoots at major matches are not that costly, true, but what about the thousands of round fired at local matches and in practice? We have a Power Factor, we have caliber minimums. So long as we chrono, why advocate for this change. We aren't likely to do away with the chrono. And keep in mind a lot of people load a heavier caliber down for this division, would you have them switch to major power, factory ammo?

Jim

[vluc]

edit

Edited August 25, 2006 by vluc

[Loves2Shoot]

I like the idea of factory ammo.

Noooooooo.

Please god noooooooo.

I run hot ammo, I don't want factory stuff for minor. I want my poppers to fall.

[shred]

An ammo manufacturer FFL (type 6) isn't that hard to get, for most people. Now we'll be telling shooters "Want to shoot PD? Go plunk down $30 on a type 6 FFL and sign a ton of legal papers over at BATFE.."

Ok, so restrict it to the big 3 (or 4 or whatever)? Then it's a 9mm-only division like international IPSC. I'd rather keep the diversity, thanks.

[ima45dv8]

I'd rather keep the diversity, thanks.

Me, too.

Again, how many members that are whining and complaining about the "PD Equipment Race" actually shoot in the division?

Probably a similar percentage as those who wail and moan about doing away with Lim10 (and SingleStack).

[BritinUSA]

According to the latest edition of Front Sight, there will be a new USPSA rulebook for January 2008. A draft set of rules will be published around December of this year and open to the membership to suggest changes/updates etc.

So it looks like we may get an opportunity to direct the er, direction of the sport in USA. This is a good thing, but it may move us further from IPSC, which may be a bad thing or a good thing depending on perspective.

Either way, I'm sure the fur will fly in December.

[GeorgeInNePa]

According to the latest edition of Front Sight, there will be a new USPSA rulebook for January 2008. A draft set of rules will be published around December of this year and open to the membership to suggest changes/updates etc.

So it looks like we may get an opportunity to direct the er, direction of the sport in USA. This is a good thing, but it may move us further from IPSC, which may be a bad thing or a good thing depending on perspective.

Either way, I'm sure the fur will fly in December.

It will do whatever we (the members of USPSA) want it to do. The impression I get is that USPSA will be run completely separate from IPSC. That is why we will have USPSA matches and IPSC matches.

Similar, yet distinctly different.

[revchuck]

My perception is that a large part of the reason for Production's creation was to win/win back market share from IDPA. Until that time, if you weren't willing to come up with the money for a Limited gun and the hi-cap mags to feed it during the AWB, USPSA didn't give a rodent's rectum about you. IDPA grew...USPSA didn't.

Apparently this was the 2x4 upside the head that the powers-that-be needed. Production came about, with rules that pretty much mimicked IDPA's SSP rules. USPSA started growing again about the same time. How much, if any, correlation there is, I don't know, but I'm guessing that IDPA crossover shooters were a good part of it.

That long preface leads up to this: If Production rules change, I recommend that they remain IDPA-friendly. Excluding IDPA-legal changes - I'm thinking sights here - could cause problems among those of us (like me) who "swing both ways". Folks who shoot USPSA Production exclusively may now be numerous enough to exclude IDPA guns, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Jim Norman]

I like the idea of factory ammo.

Noooooooo.

Please god noooooooo.

I run hot ammo, I don't want factory stuff for minor. I want my poppers to fall.

A clarification is needed here. I, Jim Norman, am NOT, repeat NOT, in favor of requiring Factory Ammo in ANY division. The quote above fails to point out that it was a cut & paste atributed to kdmoore.

I think that in the end analysis that requiring factory ammo would not solve anything since just as in Shotgun, we'd have multiple power factor ammo available from multiple manufacturers and we'd have a cost increase that would cripple the sport here.

Jim

[Chuck Anderson]

There's another problem with restricting the price of modifications. Trigger Job expensive? There's a whole thread on the Glock section on trigger jobs for pennies. Most folks can do a Glock trigger for about $10.00 including the reduced power springs. And I don't think that Springer charges all that much for his XD triggers.

As far as factory ammo. That's just not a great idea. There are all sorts of varieties of factory ammo out there. Some make minor, some make major. Some won't even make minor though. If you do that though, you change Production to a 9mm only Division. What about the guys who want to shoot a Glock 21? Try finding 45 ammo that is not major let alone somewhere in the ballpark of minor.

[Smokey]

According to the latest edition of Front Sight, there will be a new USPSA rulebook for January 2008. A draft set of rules will be published around December of this year and open to the membership to suggest changes/updates etc.

So it looks like we may get an opportunity to direct the er, direction of the sport in USA.

This is one of the wonderful things about this organization! The BOD is accountable to all of us shooters and WE ALL have the opportunity to shape things before they are set in stone, if you have an opinion when the draft comes out then be sure to contact your Area Director and let them know what you think!

[SA Friday]

Production isn't broken, but the rules are vague and can be difficult to understand to a shooter (new or not new). So, you read "to improve realibility" and I believe this to mean one thing and then Joker22 comes along and believes it to mean another. This may not be as big an issue as some are freaking out over. Rewrite the rules to allow what the mass majority of production shooters are doing as it stands TODAY. 6 years ago the intent was bla bla bla. Done and over with. Let it die.

Manufacturers ARE currently producing guns based on the rules as they are TODAY. That's simple fact. Liability in the manufacture of those firearms are the ONLY thing stopping them from marketing 1 1/2 pound triggers in Glocks, SP-01's, XD's, M&P's, etc. These guns are in cops holsters and in nightstands too. Manufacturers are getting the best of both worlds by NOT making guns with 1 1/2 lb triggers in these guns. This kinda kills the out-of-the-box debate.

The trigger issue is an easy fix once you logically look at it. Allow trigger modification. The genie is out of her bottle, and trigger pull weight measuring is too inconsistant. So, make it a non-issue by allowing it and thereby removing the ambiguity.

Reloading ammo is a must in this sport. Without it, EVERYONE loses out. This is also simple fact. BUT... Because of this, you will have to allow people to tune their firearms, or they won't function properly at the already designated minor PF of 125. So, guide-rods and springs have to remain acceptible modifications. This is also easy to rewrite.

So, what's really left to do to the internal working that's not addressed above? Polishing? OK, prove it didn't come from the factory like that..... So, what do we have left now? Does it really matter?

Hears the simple solution that won't kill everyone's production guns, and will solidify the rule into something easily written and understood. All internal modifications are OK, but cannot be viewed externally after completed while viewing the firearm from both the right and left side. Vanek trigger is still illegal, and extended tungestun guiderods are still OK. Change anything you want internally, and Sevigney will still kick your a$$ with a stock trigger. You want to tune the gun to shoot for a beginning 12 year old girl so it doesn't weak-wrist jam every round, you can.

External modifications is pretty easy to rewrite in the new rule book too. Who cares is someone milled their slide for a bo-mar. There is no distinct advantage, and the poor bastard payed more for it. So leave the sights rule alone. Grip-tape vs. checkering... Not really a distinct advantage there either, but checkering opens a can of worms for grip modification. So, leave that one alone too. Not allowing for grip-tape would be foolish just from a safety issue (and I'll give up Eric's grips over my dead body).

The issue of having to change things in the gun to be competitive is foolish when the best GM is shooting a stock firearm, but to then use that same fact of justify NOT allowing changes does nothing for the sport or for the manufacuturers. Classification of a shooter is what controls competitiveness. I have yet to lose Class C production to a GM (think about it).

Lastly, this string is a discussion about the rules for the production division of USPSA. NOTHING about the above sentence or the title of this string infers that IPSC and their rules have anything to do with this discussion. Lets leave it that way.

[richardschennberg]

You should allow trigger modifications for USPSA because for some guns you may have to INCREASE the trigger pull rate to make the gun eligible for IPSC Production category.

[Jim Norman]

+1 to SA Friday! in so many respects.

Jim

[j2fast]

+1 to SA Friday! in so many respects.

Jim

Agreed

[Singlestack Wonder]

USPSA should consider using IDPA's SSP criteria. Its simple and to the point.

[raz-0]

Ok, the below suggestion is the product of an evil thought that I'm not necessarily endorsing, but i'd like to see people's raction to it.

External mods: Finish, tape, sights that fit in the factory cuts.

Internal mods: There will be an official USPSA file and stones. Whatever you can mamage to do internallywith them, knock yourself out. All parts must begin life as factory parts. No milling, no welding, no aftermarket bits.

So go ahead, shoot it full of holes.

(really i figured it was a different idea and might as well throw it into the gamer/rules lawyer feeding frenzy now rather than later).

[Kevin Kline]

I'd rather keep all parts and pieces of IDPA out of our sport. Production isn't the fastest growing division for nothing.

[Chuck Anderson]

Looking at the IDPA rules they seem pretty similar to what we have now. The only differences I noted was no steel or tungsten guide rods unless it came with one and that you can do trigger jobs (specifically listed instead of inferred from USPSA). There are still problems with clarity and it wouldn't solve anything by switching over to those rules.

[Flexmoney]

I don't think we need to switch to IDPA SSP rules...but, we don't really want to get far away from them either.

I think it's much more important for us to be close to IDPA SSP than it is to be close to IPSC Prod.

[txaggie]

I don't think we need to switch to IDPA SSP rules...but, we don't really want to get far away from them either.

I think it's much more important for us to be close to IDPA SSP than it is to be close to IPSC Prod.

I agree with your statement. I started shooting Production this spring and the thing that attracted me to it was the fact that I could shoot my IDPA SSP gear without any changes. I only had to add two mag carriers to my belt to have a total of four, and I was ready to go in either discipline.

Edited August 28, 2006 by txaggie

[EricBudd]

Internal mods: There will be an official USPSA file and stones. Whatever you can mamage to do internallywith them, knock yourself out. All parts must begin life as factory parts. No milling, no welding, no aftermarket bits.

I actually like this idea, other than the 'approved' file and stones. Do whatever you want with - FACTORY parts. The gun is then still 'stock' and it does place some limits on what can be done. We all know it is only a matter of time till some enterprising smith finds a way to fit 1 1911 trigger into a Glock, and we all know someone will claim it is internal work to improve reliability.

[Kevin Kline]

I dont mind keeping the guns somewhat simple and mods at a few like it is now, but as far as USPSA Prod and changing rules, no I would not want to see what happens in IDPA. Then again, I dont think I would want IPSC Prod rules either. I think we are fine right where we are and dont want to have to pick one way or the other.

I dont want to be that close to IDPA SSP (with changing what holsters are allowed from year to year and changing rules on a whim, yearly), but I dont think we should have race holsters and hi cap mags like IPSC Prod either.

I think we could clarify a few things and be done, but lets not tighten things to the point of IDPA. At our local club, we've had lots of new Prod shooters in the last 1-2 years come from IDPA b/c of the way that sport is conducted. Lets not drift that way and drive them back to IDPA.

[revchuck]

I dont want to be that close to IDPA SSP (with changing what holsters are allowed from year to year and changing rules on a whim, yearly), but I dont think we should have race holsters and hi cap mags like IPSC Prod either.

I think we could clarify a few things and be done, but lets not tighten things to the point of IDPA. At our local club, we've had lots of new Prod shooters in the last 1-2 years come from IDPA b/c of the way that sport is conducted. Lets not drift that way and drive them back to IDPA.

Kevin - The point some of us are trying to make is that some of us don't want to have the rules so sport-specific that they would prevent shooters in one sport from using the same equipment in both sports. Current rules in the two sports permit shooters to use the same equipment, with a few exceptions, in Production/SSP and SS/CDP or ESP (depending on caliber). This ability to shoot both sports ends up with alot of shooters being like me - IDPA #A01966 and USPSA # A-51222. Both/and is way better than either/or. Both sports benefit from the cross-fertilization.

FWIW, the holster rules have changed ONCE since IDPA began in '96. They went from a huge list of holsters (to which new ones were added, not subtracted) to criteria...kinda like you see in the USPSA rulebook.