Sight Cuts For Production Division.

[Flexmoney]

Since we have so many different lines of thought going on in the other threads, I thought I'd make this one about a specific item. Please stay on topic as best as possible.

A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that milling the slide for replacement sights in Production shouldn't be allowed.

I've never understood the resistance to that.

I'm sure somebody will mention that it is an "external modification"...thus, it shouldn't be allowed. But, I have trouble with that logic, as the rules specifically stipulate that milling for sights is allowable.

- Do people thing the sight, itself, offers some competitive advantage?

- Does it look like there is a competitive advantage?

- Is it felt that the removal of material is "slide lightening"? Significantly so?

- Other?

[LPatterson]

- Other

People are milling slides because it is allowable. The prime question I hear is SHOULD it have been allowed in the first place. IMHO NO.

Lots of people shoot this division because it is cheap. Buy Blazer ammo & leave it lay. 4 magazines in Uncle Mikes pouches & sometimes a spare in the pocket.

Is it a competitive advantage: probably if the Bomar I saw on a Glock 35 is any example. I know the Dawson sights I had put on a XD9 made a big difference & then there was the 2# trigger job.

The problem is that the horse is out of the barn & unless USPSA wants to lose members, it is impossible to correct what has been allowed. Maybe the BOD wants to see what another 6 rounds before reload fiasco after allowing 8 round guns does.

Perhaps the division should have been called Stock DA 10 since it was started during the 10 round ban.

MY hindsight is 20/20 but foresight is bad enough that I use trifocals.

[lcs]

Do people thing the sight, itself, offers some competitive advantage?

Yes--but not enough to significantly enhance one\'s shooting ability over another shooter who may be shooting with bone stock sights. Does removing the stock iron sights and replaceing them with a FO, move me from D to M? Nope, a hell-of-lot of practice and then I still may not get out of D.

- Does it look like there is a competitive advantage?

What sites does Sevigny use--no FO or slide cut Bomars gave him 2005 Production win. In other words \"skill and practice\", may be?

- Is it felt that the removal of material is \"slide lightening\"? Significantly so?

I never weighed the \"before and after\" slide which had some metal removed to mount the Bomars, but common sense would dictate that the amount of metal removed is not going to give any competitor an advantage.

- Other?

IMHO. The choice of sights or how they are installed should be a \"non-issue\" barring optics of course.

[Flexmoney]

Is it a competitive advantage: probably if the Bomar I saw on a Glock 35 is any example. I know the Dawson sights I had put on a XD9 made a big difference ...

I don't rate the Bomar over a Dawson, Heinie or Warren/Sevigny sight. In fact, I'd just as soon have the fixed sights on a Production gun...one less thing to break.

Maybe that is where I am disconnecting...I just don't see that advantage?

Regardless of sight though...we still have a lot of people that have a beef with how they are mounted (milled).

?

[j2fast]

When I had RIIID put Bomars on my XD I remember him stating how much got removed and that no one could feel the difference as far as weight goes. The real reason I did it right or wrong was so I could zero the gun while experimenting with different loads. That's really the only "advantage" I see but that would apply to any adj sight.

That said we all know that perception is reality and it seems like a lot of people perceive the milling of a slide to melt in Bomars as an advantage or don't consider it to be in the "spirt" of the division.

[Matthew_Mink]

21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed.

Thats what the rulebook says. Meaning, you cannot have any external modifications, but you can change your sights, even if you are using an aftermarket set. I believe that little caveat was put in place to tell people it would not be considered an external modification if you had aftermarket sights put on.

The ruling however, says this:

Sights may be replaced to the original handgun, if milling the slide is required to replace them, it is allowed providing that the sights being installed, remain of the Post and Notch type as required in item 21.2 of Appendix US D9. This ruling applies to US Production division only, as IPSC does not allow this for International competition.

Nowhere in the rulebook is it stated that you can mill the slide.

In my opinion, USPSA got this one wrong.

[clown]

matthew and i spoke about this at space city and i agree with his point. to me, this has never been about the competitive edge that milling may bring but clarifying how this is not considered an external mod.

[Flexmoney]

Nowhere in the rulebook is it stated that you can mill the slide.

OK...lets say that is true. Which means the rule wasn't written clearly to start with. But, anybody that asked or stayed current with the rules (as far back as I can remember) knew...thru asking Amidon/NROI...that milling the slide for sights was OK.

Now, we have a ruling that so it is OK...officially.

However, regardless of the wordplay...does anybody really care one way or the other? It seems that quite a few do. I am just trying to figure out why ??

[Matthew_Mink]

The only reason I care is I like the rules to make sense, and to make sense with each other.

So we have the milling in the sight rule clarification. Ok, so milling the slide is obviously not an external modification, at least to USPSA. But thats not what the rule says. Can we put in a non stock guide rod and the tip hangs out and is clearly external? Apparently we can, in clear contradiction of this rule:

21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed.

But then we have this rule:

21.4 Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is

allowed.

So that means aftermarket guide rods are ok now?

We also have this rule:

18. Single-action-only handguns are prohibited.

And yet XD's are allowed to compete in Production division, despite clearly being a single action only pistol. I don't care what the intent was here, the rule states no single action only guns.

In the end, none of these rules or rulings affect me directly. I don't shoot an XD, I don't use milled in sights, I don't use aftermarket guide rods where you can see the non stock tip, and I don't have external mods pertaining to trigger jobs.

I just think it looks lousy having a rulebook that isn't as clear as it should be. And yet, the solution is so simple, my changes in red:

Production Division

1 Minimum power factor for Major Not applicable

2 Minimum power factor for Minor 125

3 Minimum bullet weight No

4 Minimum bullet caliber / cartridge case length 9mm (0.354”) /

19mm (0.748”)

5 Minimum bullet caliber for Major Not applicable

6 Minimum trigger pull 5.0# First shot

7 Maximum barrel length Yes, Production guns

5.5” Revolvers 8.5”

8 Maximum magazine length Supplied factory mags only

9 Maximum ammunition capacity Yes, 10 rounds

loaded maximum in

any magazine after

the start signal.

10 Max. distance of handgun and mags/speed loaders

from torso

50mm

11 Rule 5.2.3.1 applies No

12 Restriction on position of holster and other equipment

Yes, see item 19

below.

13 Optical/electronic sights permitted No

14 Compensators permitted No

15 Ports permitted No

16 Maximum weight Yes, 2 ounces over or under

factory specified

Special conditions:

17. Handguns must be in production for at least a year with at least 1000 units sold in a year. A different variation of the handgun does not count toward the 1000 units sold. Each variation must have had at least 1000 units sold to be able to use that variation. Variations include Custom Shop models, revision changes, or any other change to the handgun.

18. Single-action-only handguns are prohibited unless striker fired.

19. Handgun may not be in single action mode at start signal.

20. Neither the handgun, nor any of its attachments, nor any allied equipment

(e.g. magazines or other loading devices), can extend forward of the line

illustrated in Appendix F3. Any such items a Range Officer deems not to

be in compliance must be safely and promptly adjusted, failing which Rule

6.2.5.1 will apply.

21. Allowed modifications are very limited and include the following:

21.1 No weighted attachments allowed to magazine.

21.2 Front sights may be trimmed, fiber optics inserted, adjusted and/or

have sight black applied. Sights must be of the notch and post type, aftermarket sights are permitted.

21.3 Replacement barrels allowed provided barrel length is same as

original factory standard. Heavy barrels and/or barrel sleeves not

allowed.

21.4 Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is

allowed as long as the modification is not external.

21.5 External modifications not allowed. Any modification that is visible on the outside of the handgun is considered an external modification, except for sights and grips which are detailed in 21.2 and 21.6 respectively.

21.6 Aftermarket grips which match the profile of the OFM standard for

the approved handgun and/or the application of grip tape or rubber

sleeves is permitted. Modifications to grips, other than previously

mentioned, not allowed, such as grooves cut to reach mag release

or size reduction.

22. A competitor who fails to comply with any of the requirements above will

be subject to Rule 6.2.5.1

23. Competition holsters of the race gun type specifically not allowed. For clarification:

ALL retention features of the holster MUST be used. All holsters must fully

cover the trigger when the pistol is holstered. The front of holsters for autos

may be cut no lower than ¼-inch below the ejection port. Revolver holsters

may be cut no lower than half way down the cylinder.

[Flexmoney]

Matt,

So, for you, it's just a matter of the weird wording of the rules. I'd assume you'd be in favor of that wording being cleared up?

As far as the actual milling for Bomars...physically...you don't care one way or the other, right? It's just the wording that bugs you?

That is what I am trying to figure out here...what the objections are in this particular case (milling for sights).

[SRT Driver]

<thread drift on >It's amazing how everyone tries to stack the deck in their favor while attempting to sound neutral. <thread drift off>

Back on topic, milling of slides should continue to be allowed, IMHO. (I do not shoot Bomars on my Production gun, however.) If someone wants to spend the $$$...so be it and it's already in stone for now.

At the time the rules were written, the number of GOOD adjustable sights was very limited or non-existent for many pistols. The only option was to mill the slide and install Bomars etc.

That has changed but if someone uses Bomar sights on their Limited gun, why not let them pay the $$$ if they feel it is really necessary to have the same sight picture or adjustable sights.

[Bob Hostetter]

I have to agree with Matt, if the rules say no external modification then milling the slide to bury a BoMar (or any other sight) should not be legal. Please realize that I have both Glock's and XD's that I use in Production Division and all of them have buried BoMars. I prefer the sight picture to match my other iron sighted guns and I do a lot of load testing and like the adjustability. But I don't think they they should have been allowed in Production, and would have no problems if they were disallowed.

The rules are supposed to be clear, easy to understand, and stable.

[Chuck Anderson]

The rule says, no external mods except sights. Sounds like sights are exempt, which would explain the ruling. Here's the question I have. Is it any different if Glock manufactures the Glock 34 CM. A Glock with a set of buried Bo-Mars from the factory. Maybe a little bit of action work from the factory, a steel guide rod. Nothing that would make it so that it wouldn't be approved by USPSA. There's nothing about the gun that wouldn't be allowed, as long as it come from the manufacturer, even in IPSC. What we would have would be a factory that develped a gun for the shooter to compete with, listening to customer ( I know there's no way Glock would actually do this). This would be similar to the CZ 85 Combat II or SP-01, or the Tanfoglio Custom Stock.

Why shouldn't we allow a shooter to mill in a set of Bo-Mars to make the gun equipped similar to a...let's go with a Sig or a Beretta that come with Adj. sights on the high end fancy guns. Again, like Matt I really couldn't care because it doesn't affect me. I shoot a Glock but you won't get me switching to a Bo-Mar over a Warren/Sevigny sight.

[Flexmoney]

Bob...so it's a rule wording thing for you too?

(I don't have a dog in this fight...I just never understood why anybody cared. And, I have heard quite a few that seem to feel pretty strongly about it.)

[vincent]

I don't have an issue with allowing a slide milling for alternative notch/post sights.

It would be interesting to hear from someone who is against allowing the slide to be modified to install some non-factory version of a notch/post sight.

[TxD]

The rules are supposed to be clear, easy to understand, and stable.

+1

This is the #1 problem with the present rules.

---------------------------------------------------

<on topic>

I don't think buried Bomars offer any competitive edge, other than

load development and switching between minor and major loads.

I do agree that the rule against external mods was stretched to allow them.

The problem as I see it, is not allowing the shooter with "abc" gun to match

the "xyz' gun that came from the factory with an extra "bell" or "whistle".

Edited August 22, 2006 by TxD

[Nik Habicht]

The problem as I see it, is not allowing the shooter with "abc" gun to match

the "xyz' gun that came from the factory with an extra "bell" or "whistle".

I was thinking of this the other day ---- I recently sold my S&W 910. (think the econo version of the 5906) The 910 comes with a plastic guiderod; the 5906 with a steel one. That and some metal work are I think the salient differences ---- the 5906 may be a steel framed gun, but one of its siblings (5904,5905) used an alloy frame lie the 910. Why wouldn't I be allowed to add a steel guiderod? Why this incessant need to force shooters to pick a different gun if they want a different feature?

If steel guiderods are legal on brand x, they ought to be legal on brand Y. If melted Bo-mars are legal on a Z, they should be legal for A and B also......

Getting back to the topic at hand: When I saw my first melted in Bo-mars at the 2003 Nats, I was sure they had to be illegal. Now, I don't even know why I ever cared ---- and I'm still shooting overhanging Bo-Mars on at least one gun.....

[RIIID]

The group that developed the Division rules must have thought about what shooters would want to do to their guns. The best example is the part "other than sights" or no minimum pull weight and etc.... in reliability.

No matter what happens some guns will have advantages and others disadvantages.

It's a no win all around.

Rich

Edited August 24, 2006 by RIIID

[EricW]

So we prohibit sight cuts and those dirty rotten gamers go buy $200 sight pushers with a screw on one side and a depth mike on the other.

What will have effectively changed?

[Bob Hostetter]

I honestly don't care how the rules are written, I will build guns to fit the rules, all the way out to the outer edges of the rules if that's what the customer wants. I can easily turn a Glock or XD into a $1600.00 gun, and have fun doing it. And as the rules are written most of that is labor and that's a good thing, it's what I pay the bills with.

However I had hoped that Production Division was going to be a stock gun division and that is not what is has become. I was hoping the rules were going to be written to clearly define and limit what could be done and that's not the way it turned out.

So I guess I am really hoping that the rules become more unclear allowing more borderline modifications that can be cosmeticially disguised that I can charge them out at an hourly rate instead of a flat rate. Now that I think about it, I really like the arms race in all divisions.........

[mscott]

As far as sights go, I say use whatever you want within the rules. If Production was a new division starting up I would say no milling for them, but since the rules have been in place for a while let it go.

[Chuck D]

"However I had hoped that Production Division was going to be a stock gun division and that is not what is has become. I was hoping the rules were going to be written to clearly define and limit what could be done and that's not the way it turned out."

Me Too......

It seems simple to me....no external modifications. Once you take the milling machine to the outside (i.e. external portion of the gun) it's an external mod. Now, if you want to change and/or clarify that rule...my opposition to it could "melt away" like an Alaskan glacier in July.

I can't quite understand why someone would want to spend 150 bucks to low mount a Bo-Mar sight into a G17 (or whatever manufacturer you wish) slide when a 60 dollar set of Heinie or Warren/Sevigny sights will do the trick.

[Nik Habicht]

I can't quite understand why someone would want to spend 150 bucks to low mount a Bo-Mar sight into a G17 (or whatever manufacturer you wish) slide when a 60 dollar set of Heinie or Warren/Sevigny sights will do the trick.

Chuck,

that's because you've been shooting for longer than there's been gunpowder. I came along in 2001, started reloading that year, and started shooting production in 2002 --- at virtually the same time I started experimenting with different sight combinations on my Glocks. I picked Bo-Mars in part because I wanted adjustables to tune in for different bullet weights --- and I ws starting to experiment in reloading then......

However, my Bo-Mars hung over the rear of the slide ---- because I wasn't sure I'd want them permanently. Wise move --- I like Sevigny's sights better now.....

[sfinney]

A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that milling the slide for replacement sights in Production shouldn't be allowed.

I've never understood the resistance to that.

I'm sure somebody will mention that it is an "external modification"...thus, it shouldn't be allowed. But, I have trouble with that logic, as the rules specifically stipulate that milling for sights is allowable.

- Do people thing the sight, itself, offers some competitive advantage?

- Does it look like there is a competitive advantage?

- Is it felt that the removal of material is "slide lightening"? Significantly so?

- Other?

Milling should never have been allowed (if I remember correctly, it was originally an Amidon opinion, that became rule).

Why not? It opened Pandora's box..... if milling a slide is ok to make the gun more to you're liking (for sights), why not redrill a trigger pivot hole? Why not bevel sharp edges? Why not undercut a grip? Why not 'smith a mag release to be extended? Where do you draw the line? What ratrionale was used to allow milled bomars, that won't allow other external mods?

At the time the slide milling was allowed , there weren't any other lo-pofile adjustable sight options for a Glock that made sense; so milled Bomars were a competitive advantage, of a non factory part, with external modifactions required to make them fit, at an expensive price (for the milling). All against the spirit of the Divison, if not actual rules.

But, now its a question of how do you put the genie back in the bottle. And the consensus seems to be you can't, now, so just leave it alone. But if we were starting over, I'd say no mods period. Factory stock. If you wanted to mod your Production gun shoot in Lim-10.

My humble opinion.

[driver8M3]

production is all i ever shoot. i dont care if someone mills their slide for sights.

and i agree with others that the production rules are not as clear as they should be.

you can have all the rules you want, but in the US, production is primarily defined by 2 rules: the 10 round limit, and minor scoring. even if limited guns were allowed (still keeping 10 round limit and minor scoring), i dont think the results would change much at all. the same people would still kick my @ss!