Chuck D Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 "...that's because you've been shooting for longer than there's been gunpowder." There's that "old man" thing again... I never trusted fixed sights until I bought my first set of Heinie sights. Now...you couldn't give me another set of Bo-Mar sights. In all honesty...I believe that "mill work" is in the same category of aftermarket barrel replacement...an unnecessary expense that goes against the "spirit" of the Division. Having said that...I don't believe in shafting those that shoot PD by making them buy new slides, barrels or complete guns. Tighten up the rules a bit to make them clearer (well defined) and have at it. At least you didn't call me cheap.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 Well...I am glad to see that we aren't getting a lot of responses saying "its slide lightening". I don't see the competitive advantage of adjustable sights. After all, if you are adjusting them on match day...you are kinda screwed already. And, that assumes we are talking about adjustables (yeah, Bomars come to mind), but this isn't about adjustables, nor Bomars, it is about milling the slide to fit aftermarket sights. It seems like the nerve that gets hit the most is that it's an external modification. I don't know what to say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce282 Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I am 100% against it because its slide lightening. Sorry Flex I couldn't resist it. I shoot Production and I really don't care if someone mills their slide for Bomars. It's not the sights that beat me in a match, it's the shooter. I do agree with Matt and others, it would be nice to have a clear set of rules to work from however. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_Mink Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Hi Matt,You forgot a few other SA guns in Production the LDA ( it has a firing pin too) M&P, and Glock. If a gun doesn't have restrike capability it's SA if you want defination games. Besides there was a ruling allowing safe action like guns after the rule book was printed. Rich Actually I will play the definition game with you since you have it wrong. SA = Single action. Pulling the trigger results in one action, ie, dropping the sear to release the hammer or striker. DA = Double action. Pulling the trigger results in more than one action, ie, cocking and releasing the hammer or striker. Repeat strike capability, or second strike capability, or restrike capability = The ability of the firearm to hit the primer again after the first attempt with nothing more than a pull of the trigger. As far as I know those definitions have been around for over 100 years. By definition, no SA guns can have restrike capability. They are SA, they need to have the hammer or striker recocked by the action for another strike, like the XD's you shoot. Some DA guns have restrike, some don't. Remember the literal definition of a DA gun is the hammer or striker is cocked with the trigger and doesn't refer to restrike capability. The Glock and LDA are DA guns because the hammer or striker is cocked with the trigger, then released, but they do not have restrike capabilty. Its just part of their design. Traditional DA guns like Sigs, CZ's, etc... cock the hammer and release it with the trigger, and can also do it again and again, as long as you pull the trigger. For some reason you are confusing action types with restrike capability, I seem to remember we had this discussion last year at Nats, hope this clears it up. Back on topic: Flex, my heartburn on the milled slide issue is strictly a rules issue. USPSA doesn't have the rules right, the Production divison is the most confusing division to shoot and it shouldn't be. All it would take is just a slight tweaking of the rules and it becomes clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricBudd Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 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. +1 The horse has left the barn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 (edited) To the thread topic at hand As to the wording " other than sights" is about as clear as it can be. You can modify the exterior to put sights on. As with Flex I too want to know why so many don't like the use of adjustables or fixed sights that require a different sight application. Got to go, the finish has cured on two slides with melted in sights. Rich Edited August 24, 2006 by RIIID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFD Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 WARNING: I'm sitting at home bored to death while recovering from a pulled back muscle, so I have way too much time to think....Blame the drugs for any thread drift.... On the first step of my soapbox.... IMHO, allowing the slide to be milled for sights while there's a rule against external modifications seems really stupid. The folks who don't live and breath shooting think milling the slide is a MAJOR modification, thus once again showing USPSA has no clue about non-USPSAers and reinforces the perception that this is no sport for people on a budget. I've heard several times "you need $500 worth of aftermarket barrel, tungsten guide rod, and trigger job to be competitive in production" from IDPAers when someone with a G17 asks about USPSA. So we get the "gotta have a racegun" idea for every division in our sport from outsiders. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, our own BOD has made sure it exists. So basically I think allowing the slide to be milled (along with aftermarket barrels, tungsten guide rods, and 2 lb triggers) waters down the division's perceived "spirit" enough to keep Joe Average away. Finally standing on my soapbox...... Joe/Jane Average WANTS to shoot USPSA, but he/she is afraid of it. Can't the BOD grasp that we just need some kind of division that features the guns most folks have, but in stock form, just to get Joe and Jane in the door? That's what me, myself, and I thought Production was going to be. The guns and rules freedom in L-10, Limited, and Open are like super magnets and will suck Joe/Jane's wallets dry in a heartbeat if they want to go that route, but not everyone does. At any rate, it's too late now. Production isn't for Joe and Jane, it's for established Limited/Open shooters looking for something different. IDPAers looking for more challenge is another tiny market it can cater to. We'll continue to ignore the largest market since that is always a surefire ticket to success Obviously the division attracts some new shooters, but I think we've only scratched the surface. Decent rules and an actual plan for Production would have attracted more members and kept current members from spending money that will be wasted unless they switch to L-10. My opinion anyway.... Enough of the damn soapbox...... After a quick measurement, I may have to rethink the "competitive advantage" idea about sights though. While not milled, my Bomars that hang off the rear of the slide give me a roughly 7/8" longer sight radius over stock sights on my G35. While minor, that is certainly a competitive advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_Mink Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Sorry Flex,Matt I remember the conversation and I disagree with the defination as you use it. If the mainspring or striker isn't in tension you can have a 100 parts move and the XD, LDA, Glock and M&P are SA guns. The movement of the slide puts the tension on the striker/mainspring. The Glock and the XD when the trigger is pulled adds more tension to the already tensioned striker. The XD when fired the trigger moves to the rear engaging the trigger safety arm. The safety arm engages the the sear , as the sear is moved it moves the striker/firing pin rearward and then the striker is released. So using your definition the XD is DA. Huh? Tension has nothing to do with action type. Either the hammer or striker is cocked with the trigger pull or it isn't. 100 parts moving has nothing to do with action type. Only is the hammer or striker cocked when the trigger is pulled, thats it. And its not my definition, its the general definition of firearm types that have been in existance for oh, about 150 years. And using your definition, our CZ pistols are DA/DA, since when the hammer is back pulling the trigger cams the hammer slightly. So this year at Nats, I am going to leave the hammer cocked back, safety off and start that way since you say that is DA. We both know it is not, and yet the CZ hammer moves back more in SA than the XD moves the striker in SA. The XD is a single action gun. Pulling the trigger moves the sear which releases the striker. There is no cocking action of any kind going on. The fact the sear moves the striker at all, is simple geometry. Flat surface against flat surface, when one tilts the other is moved. That is not DA, and even when Springfield Armory tried to push it as DA, everyone knew that it was BS, even the ATF. Original Croation literature on the HS2000 listed it as a single action striker fired gun. Don't get me wrong, I think the XD has a place in Production, its just a single action gun and by the rules can't be shot in Production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Don't get me wrong, I think the XD has a place in Production, its just a single action gun and by the rules can't be shot in Production. So how did it make the IPSC and USPSA list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Don't get me wrong, I think the XD has a place in Production, its just a single action gun and by the rules can't be shot in Production. So how did it make the IPSC and USPSA list? Probably because everyone decided it fit "the spirit of the division......" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_Mink Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I'll agree with that, the XD does fit in Production by the spirit of the division. Its just the rulebook says otherwise yet it gets a pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I've heard several times "you need $500 worth of aftermarket barrel, tungsten guide rod, and trigger job to be competitive in production" from IDPAers when someone with a G17 asks about USPSA. So we get the "gotta have a racegun" idea for every division in our sport from outsiders. Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, our own BOD has made sure it exists. So that box stock G17 would end up costing about $1000? Lets look at other things in that ball park..... 10,000 rounds of 9mm 147 gr. reloads --- About $1000. 50 club matches locally ------- About $1000. 7 major match entry fees + 3 local rifle/shotgun match entry fees ---- About $1000. 10 hotel room nights for majors ---- About $1000. Food for local matches (on the range and after with friends) ---- About $1000. 6900 miles driven for matches at 15mpg and $3 per gallon ----- About $1400 (And we haven't even talked about wear and tear or maintenance) Joe and Jane Average aren't kept from shooting USPSA because they think a $1000 gun is too expensive --- that's just the excuse they use. The people I know who came, shot for a while and left, all cited the total expense ($) and the total time commitment (away from family) as major in their decision to quit. $1000 for the gun is cheap --- it'll last 5-10 years at 10,000 rounds a year. The rest of it, and the time is the expensive part --- because you'll fork that over every year, if you stay....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 PLEASE... I started this thread...especially...to talk about one, and only one, specific issue. We have about a zillion threads on all the other stuff. The trouble with those is that they always get side-tracked and we never get the issue(s) boiled down to their essence. (I think it would be a great idea to have a specific thread about "gun actions" and their definitions and how they pertain to Production division...please start one.) Can we keep this one about cutting a slide to fit a sight? Pros and cons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 OK, back on topic: I don't care if people mill their slides to accept Bo-Mars or similar sights. I don't think there's any competitive advantage to the minor increase in sight radius (if gained). I also doubt there is any advantage gained under the guise of slide lightening. **It just came to me that I don't really know how much the material removed for new sights weighs. Anybody ever weigh a slide before and after cutting for a set of Bo-Mars? It can't be very much. Which of course now has me wondering just how much more a set of Bo-Mars weighs, when compared to the almost useless plastic lumps that come standard on a Glock? Could it be that the effect of milling for a steel set of Bo-Mars to replace a set of plastic bits would actually net an increase in slide weight? If it does, I'm sure someone will find some competitive advantage in the new HSG*-version and will petition USPSA for an immediate ruling to outlaw such a shameless Gamer Gun. *HSG = the new, "HeavySlide Glock", a slam-dunk 1st-place finish. Get yours now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squishy Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I shoot with buried Bomars in all my guns. XD ,SV, 1911, STI, PARA. It is the sight picture that I like. Why can't I put Bomars on an XD or Glock, or what ever in production. So what if they have to be milled in. The added weight of the Bomars is about what you have to remove from the slide. The rules say you can put on what ever sight you want to as long as they are post and notch. Correct. Who cares if it is milled in or not . I am the one paying for it. If you don't want to put on Bomars then don't. I don't see a problem with doing this in Production class. Just my 2 cents worth. Darryl Dougherty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I think it's funny that people think a $500 gun is the problem that needs machining when trying to get a $50 set of sights fitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Flex, I edited out off topic parts. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robomanusa Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Whats the big deal with milling a sight cut.....how did the factory put a dovetail in the top of that slide? Sure wasn't some dude with a block of wood and a piece of sandpaper wrapped around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squishy Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 It is not about a $500.00 gun. Its about what I like in a sight picture. I like the Bomars. It is within the rules. If I want to spend the money so be it . Is it an advantage? Does it gain an advantage to the average shooter? Pro shooter? It is my choice within the rules to replace the sights , barrel, finish, grip tape, trigger job. The only thing that is an advantage on the list is the trigger job and grip tape. Everthing else is is just icing on the cake. Again just my 2 cents worth. Darryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 Flex,I edited out off topic parts. Sorry No biggie, Rich. I didn't mean to come off that heavy. Just wanted to get us back on track so we don't end up with another one of "those" threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hostetter Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I like "THOSE" threads............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 You have plenty to choose from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Just out of curiousity, who is the top ranked shooter using Adjustable sights in Production? I know none of the top 5 last year used them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 It is not about a $500.00 gun. Its about what I like in a sight picture. I like the Bomars. It is within the rules. If I want to spend the money so be it . Is it an advantage? Does it gain an advantage to the average shooter? I'm just saying it can't be that freeking hard for somebody to make a sight with the right sight picture that fits the existing mount points. I bet it would happen a lot sooner if milling wasn't allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1911user Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 A milled slide is just an externally visible sign that someone spent lots of money on their pistol for a "stock" division. It violates the spirit of the division somewhat, but this horse has long left the barn. Even if the internals of a production class pistol are all custom, it is a PR advantage to having them look stock on the outside. It's the best rationale I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now