Sight Cuts For Production Division.

[LwE]

Mostly "other." The only competitive advantage I can imagine is that a shooter who really knows his POIs and routinely uses light or medium bullet weight competition loads might decide to load up with some duty 147s or Nato ball on a stage with an activating popper or two to speed up the array(s). With good adjustables, a couple of clicks might make a difference if there are some tight long shots also on the stage. As others have noted, the racecut Heinies offer as good or better a sight picture as the Bomars, but the drift-in Dawson adjustables have a very shallow notch and are to my eyes inferior to the Bomars.

This is stretching it pretty far. The real issue is that milling in the buried Bomars necessarily involves that pistol with a gunsmith or a pretty close approximation thereof. Unlike most of the stuff we do under USPSA rules, you can't order the parts by mail and plug them in yourself as you go along. Everyone--particularly the carefully-cultivated new Production shooter--can see that the gun in that holster over there has been to a gunsmith. Human nature is hard to fight and one finds it difficult to avoid wondering what other magic has been done to the gun. Allowing obvious gunsmith modifications suggests that more experienced shooters see an advantage to incurring gunsmithing costs to compete at their level.

From the outset Production class has been concerned with appearances. Let's not abandon that any more than has been done already. Lance

[RIIID]

Shred,

A few years back at the SHOT Show I asked one of the largest sight manufacturers if they had any plans on making fixed or adj. sights for the XD. I told them competition shooter are looking for them. Response " There is no market for competition sights, we don't make competition sights. Make them yourself and make a pile of money." Needless to say I will not buy his sights anymore. He has been the rudest person I've run into at the Shot Show, a place where they are trying to sell their products. Many competition shooters use their sights, I guess if he knew they had them he'd take them back with the attitude he had. The Bo-mar gives a better sight picture than some of the factory or after market sights, in my opinion as well as others.

Rich

[boo radley]

The real issue is that milling in the buried Bomars necessarily involves that pistol with a gunsmith or a pretty close approximation thereof. Unlike most of the stuff we do under USPSA rules, you can't order the parts by mail and plug them in yourself as you go along. Everyone--particularly the carefully-cultivated new Production shooter--can see that the gun in that holster over there has been to a gunsmith....

'zactly, IMO.

There's a world of conceptual difference beween the end-user replacing the stock sights with XYZ brand, and sending off the slide to be milled, if not a whole lot of practical difference.

[SA Friday]

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.

And there ladies and gentlmen is your answer as to why this anomoly started. Bomars were once the cats meow. It was either Bomars or carry sights, two very different sight pictures. Then competition in this area grew. Now we have a nice selection by after-market manufacturers of all types. Anyone stop and think that this ruling might have helped progression along to the selection we have today?

I think the majority of people DON'T have a problem with changing the sights, but DO with the milling part, because it smacks in the face of an external modification (thereby rendering the impression you have to spend money to be competitive). You DO have to spend money to be competitive. Spend it where ever you feel will make you better in my opinion.

What if there was a sight that you just had to have; it was the new and improved cats meow. But, this new sight was only made for a dovetail slightly larger than the one cut into your slide. No melting into the slide was required, but the dovetail had to be recut. The sight is solid steel, so the weight difference was at the very least equal. Should this new sight be illegal? What if this new sight just needed a little filing and stoning in the slide's dovetail? Should that also still be considered an external mod? I'm thinking these were some of the underlying questions that Amadon was mulling over when he made the ruling. Another was obviously if it gave a clear and distinct advantage. I think the ruling was a much more "grey" decision for Amadon at the time than people are judging it to be.

At the time the ruling was made and even today, there is no clear and distinct advantage to the shooter to milling the slide for Bomars.

Lastly, what is more "in the spirit" than allowing modifications to ones firearms. How many people do you know in USPSA that DON'T tinker with their firearm, in any division? Allowing customizing your sights on your gun (no distinct advantage) couldn't be any more "in the spirit" of a sport populated by American gun inthusiests.

Edited September 6, 2006 by SA Friday

[Nemo]

Without having read the entire thread...

I guess it's the nature of our sport to always look for that edge, real or artificial, that leads us to turn the iron sighted divisions into a version of limited. (Let's follow single stack div...) Hey, I'm guilty too.

My simplistic mind tells me that if you have to mill the slide to install your sights, your pistola is no longer a production gun. It is now a custom pistol that cannot be brought back to it's original shape, unless you replace the slide. No, it's not the same as changing a connector or a mag release.

Competitive advantage? Don't think so.

Slide Lightening? Don't think is enough to be significant.

Other? YES. The unwritten "spirit" of the division.

Here we go again...

[ysued]

Unlike Nemo, I actually read the whole thread

Here's my thoughts on the topic:

1- There's no "REAL" Advantage to milled Bomars, it's all "perceived".

2- Bomars is just one more think to break.

3- Milling a Slide for a Bomar will not make it that much lighter, when you put the Bomar in, you will add more weight than what you took out.

4- The USPSA Production Rules need clarification!! URGENTLY!!

5- Milling Bomars, IMHO go against the "Spirit" of Production, and against the External Modification Rule.

6- If we keep the way we are going now, Production will turn into another version of "LIMITED"

Let's go back and clarify the Rules, close "ALL" Loopholes, and let's not create any more. production is the fastest growing Division in USPSA, it has sucked countless shooters from IDPA and it will keep growing, let's have at least one division in our sport that does not reequire thousands of Dollars in work to make it competitive!! that's what Open, Limited, Limited 10 and Revolver are for!!

I am guilty of some of these issues, I was the one that contacted John Amidon and requested a decision on the ISMI SS Guide Rod, and I have an E-mail from him on the matter.

BTW, I shoot a G17 with:

Factory 3.5lb Connector

Heinie Sights

Eric's Grip Tape

ISMI Guide Rod

ISMI Recoil Spring

ISMI Magazine Springs

KyTac Holster

Will soon change that to an M&P 9mm, as soon as the Fedex guy delivers it:D

Edited September 6, 2006 by ysued

[Chuck Anderson]

5- Milling Bomars, IMHO go against the "Spirit" of Production, and against the External Modification Rule.

Great, someone has figured out what the "Spirit" of Production is. Because the last issue of Front Sight that I got seemed to indicate that the BOD hasn't even figured that one out. I do find it ever so amusing that you keep throwing the external modification rule out there as justification that Bo-Mars are inherently evil. Even though there is a ruling from Amidon saying expressly that they are allowed. The same type of ruling that you use to support the argument that guide rods are okay. No problem with the guide rod, there is an official ruling that allows it. But guess what, the same is true on the sights. If you don't want them to be legal in the future, cool. But they are legal right now.

[ysued]

5- Milling Bomars, IMHO go against the "Spirit" of Production, and against the External Modification Rule.

Great, someone has figured out what the "Spirit" of Production is. Because the last issue of Front Sight that I got seemed to indicate that the BOD hasn't even figured that one out. I do find it ever so amusing that you keep throwing the external modification rule out there as justification that Bo-Mars are inherently evil. Even though there is a ruling from Amidon saying expressly that they are allowed. The same type of ruling that you use to support the argument that guide rods are okay. No problem with the guide rod, there is an official ruling that allows it. But guess what, the same is true on the sights. If you don't want them to be legal in the future, cool. But they are legal right now.

Hey, I don't like the Ruling, I won't Mill My Slide!!

My Choice!!

IT's too late right now to turn back time about Bomars, Amidon has approved them!!

One more thing though...

If today, the BOD would tell John Amidon that his ruling on the ISMI Guide Rod was wrong, I would just swap out Guide Rods, nor harm done!!

OTOH, If today the BOD Reversed John Amidons Ruling on the Melted Bomars, then what??

The shooter would have a "Limited" gun or try to find a factory Slide.

It's funny though, when Amidon's rulings are popular, everybody stands behind them and quotes them, when he rules against a midification (Vanek ) or Pro a Midification (ISMI Rods) he's raked through the coals!!

IMHO, the ruling is bad, it will remain bad!!

BTW, I'm not the first one on this thread stating that the Bomar Slide External Modification (Let's call it what it really is) goes against the "SPIRIT" of the division, Nemo said the same exact thing.

If we keep going the way we are going, Production will be no more and the guns will look just like Limited guns, only in 9mm and DS/Striker fired.

What next, Single Stack??

Edited September 8, 2006 by ysued

[Bear1142]

Flex and all,

I'll offer my take on the milling the slide issue, but the reasoning goes much deeper and is a symptom of the larger problem and as such must be touched upon. Okay, here is the real problem...and I'm going to use his name because all of the issues in Production today are a result of Amidon's inconsistent rule interpretations. I agree with most others that milling the slide for sights is mostly a preference and not a real competitive advantage, but I am completely against it, based on his previous rulings.

Here's my real issue. Sight work is expressly allowed and Amidon has interpreted that rule to include milling the slide. So under the precedent he has now set, Sight work (including milling the slide) does not violate the External modification clause. This means that the Sight work clause supercedes the External modification clause in the rule book. Okay, no problem. But now we move to trigger work, which is also expressly allowed in the rule book, but Amidon now makes the rule interpretation that a overtravel screw or speed bump on a trigger is considered an external modification and prohibited, even though trigger work is clearly allowed. So how does this work? What logic did he use to interpret this rule? Limiting overtravel on a trigger has always been a very important part of trigger action work. Okay, so now Amidon has established (incorrectly, I might add) a rule interpretation precedent where the Sight work clause supercedes the External modification clause, but the External modification clause, supercedes the Action work clause, even though the same logic applies to both modifications and I could make the argument that it applies more to trigger work than to sight modification.

Okay, stay with me. Now comes the whole bevelling the mag well issue. Amidon has ruled that if you bevel the inside edge of a magazine well to remove burrs and sharp edges, which eventually happens if you practice your reloads, even just a little bit, you have now violated the external modification clause. HUH?! but breaking the edges off the inside of the magazine well is, by statement, inside the pistol! It's not an external modification. Amidon stated that when you look inside the pistol you can see the modification, so it's an external modification. So now, we have a situation whereby if you can see into the internals of a pistol and visually observe a modification, the External modification clause applies and the rule has been violated. But wait, if you look into some pistol models with the slide locked to the rear, you can see the trigger overtravel set screw internally, so that should be illegal based on the visual observation clause of the External modification rule, and because the as we've previously established, the External modificatin rule superceded the Trigger work rule, but yet Amidon has ruled this is legal! The whole situation completely boggles the mind! How is one internal modification legal but the other one isn't? These are just a few of the problems, I could cite several other issues.

The real problem with Production is the myriad of rule interpretations by Amidon and his lack of consistency in the application of the rules. The Production rules need to be scrapped and completely re-written to remove inconsistent interpretations and the whole "Spirit" of Production issues. Anytime you have "Spirit" guiding your interpretation of a rule, it was a poorly written rule.

For the record, do not read into my remarks as my support for the examples I've used. They are used to make a point, not as an example of my position on any particular issue.

My recommendation for fixing Production is to establish a 3 or 5 person committe of people who ACTUALLY compete in Production to draft a completely new set of rules for presentation to the BOD.

Anybody interested?

Erik

Edited September 8, 2006 by Bear1142

[Nik Habicht]

My recommendation for fixing Production is to establish a 3 or 5 person committe of people who ACTUALLY compete in Production to draft a completely new set of rules for presentation to the BOD.

Anybody interested?

Erik

Yes! I'd be interested.....

[Vlad]

My recommendation for fixing Production is to establish a 3 or 5 person committe of people who ACTUALLY compete in Production to draft a completely new set of rules for presentation to the BOD.

Anybody interested?

Erik

Yes! I'd be interested.....

And as much as I like the idea, and as much as I like Nik, I don't want him on that comittee because then I'll have more work to do at our matches. Just kidding.. Nik would be a great choice.

[vluc]

...or instead of just 3 or 5 people, production shooters can contact their section coordinators and area directors to voice their opinions....just a thought....

[Ara]

Erik,

You are right on the money with you're points. But the real problem lies with our lack of true mission statement; a ratified mission statement agreed upon by its members. In other words, what IS the "spirit" of our sport and Production in particular and where does it state it? If it doesn't, we will never agree on anything because we have no basis, just our opinions on what it SHOULD be. This debate runs parallel to the debate of what our sport should be. Is it a "game", is it "bubblegum", is it "defensive", etc. No one really knows now because we have MPD. (Multiple Personality Disorder). Most will say "its just a game". Then why not allow modifications? Ironically, one of Col. Cooper's stated purposes of IPSC was to..."determine the best equipment and technique...of the combat pistol". IF we were to honor that, then we should continue that research especially in Production since this is a whole new area of technology that has come full circle to new and improved guns. We should harness the research as we have in the past because it intentionaly or unintentionaly becomes a testing ground.

As an example, my department issued G35's a few years ago. The hardline cowboy in charge of firearms, who is a diehard 1911 man, determined by god, that you cannot put a plug on the mag well on the issued guns because you might need to "rip" the mag out (even tho they normally drop free and you can pull from the sides). After four years of carrying it, and now competing with a Glock, I've learned that the plug is really handy. Far more important to reliably reload than be able to get my thumb behind the mag. So I ditched the issued gun and now carry the G22 with a plug. This is all a result of learning from competing with a Glock. But rules (a ruling actually) say I can't plug in production, even if its flat on the bottom, which mine is. This is an example of something that makes sense in "combat" if you choose to use it. Interestingly, this cowboy, who used to be addamently against plastic guns, short barrel AR's and electronic sights, now allows them, even RE-issuing our SWAT with them. This is a direct result from IPSC allowing the dot, which became the testing ground, which was then adapted by the military, which was then a "must have" by law enforcement.

For the record, I am in favor of certain restrictions such as trigger weight. I shoot a 3# trigger but I'd give it up if I had to. Other than trimmed down Heinie sights, everything else in my Production gun is stock Glock. I could care less if a guy wants Bomar sights or a plug. Or if a guy wants to bevel the inside of his old generation Beretta mag well (the new ones COME beveled). After all, what is the standard? If you were to carry a gun exposed, either in law enforcement or not, who cares if you have a mag funnel? Now if you were carrying concealed, maybe it would stick out ("print") but does that make it bad? Besides, we (USPSA) do not have a concealed requirement. For that matter, USPSA shooters "stand in the kitchen with hands naturally at sides" carrying probably 5 mags and a gun. See where I'm going?

I think it's possible to allow modifications within limitations and still be clear. But first we have to determine what we are and where we are going. That is our guide, without it we are lost.

Put me on the list of names for the committee.

Ara

[Bear1142]

Ara,

Yep, I'm with you. I don't have a problem with defining a good mission statement for Production, regardless of the emphasis (Traditional factory gun vs. Exploring real world technology.) As you well know, "intent" makes poor law. I would like to see the "Spirit" spelled out as well as possible to clarify rulings, and some consistency in the interpretations of questionable rules, regardless of how the mission statement is defined.

Erik

[Flexmoney]

(Not to further drift this thread...and I may split the posts from the last day or so out as they are good ones..from those with good insight...but....]

...or instead of just 3 or 5 people, production shooters can contact their section coordinators and area directors to voice their opinions....just a thought....

I'm a fairly pro-active Section Coordinator, in this regard. Section Coordinators don't have a lot of juice. And, really, Area Directors..who do have some juice...don't have a ton of incentive. They have full plates already, it seems. They have good intentions, and work really hard for the sport, but they are really volunteers too. We have two paid positions (Prez and VP) plus the staff at HQ.

We likely do need to send in solutions...and make sure we just aren't sending in concerns.

I'd be willing to put in the crazy hours that it would take to work on the Production rules and get them hammered out. But, I wouldn't want to enter into something like that without some type of go-ahead from the Board. I know I'd be bitter if a group of us got together and crunched this stuff down...just to get the report/recommendations trash canned after a quick glance.

And, it would take a solid and directed bit of focus. Take this thread, for instance. I started this particular thread with the idea on covering one...and only one...particular issue. As, I have seen so many of these discussions get too broad...and nothing gets addressed.

As I see it:

1. basic fundamental foundation is needed, from that...

2. shine the light on a specific issue and put the magnifying glass right on it.

I've done some of this in the past...and posted it, as well as sending it on to my AD. But, that is likely not enough, and not as deep as it needs to go.

[vincent]

If you want to see where writing rules based on spirit and intent get you just head over to the IDPA forum. I agree with Eric, clarity in the actual rules trumps a mission statement any day.

[Singlestack Wonder]

Adopt IDPA's SSP rules. All the rules fit on one page and are very explicit and to the point regarding what's allowed and not allowed in SSP division. The rules are also stable. One new rule book every 9 years or so................

[ysued]

Adopt IDPA's SSP rules. All the rules fit on one page and are very explicit and to the point regarding what's allowed and not allowed in SSP division. The rules are also stable. One new rule book every 9 years or so................

+1 on that

Back on the original Topic...

The fact that I see not "REAL" Competitive advantage to the External Modifiction to the Slide to allow Melted Bomars does not outweigh the fact that this External Modification is a direct contradiction to the Original Spirit of this Division. Too late now..

Now a question for Flex....

Do you think that the BOD will reverse Amidon's Ruling on the Bomars, or will they let it stand?? Has the USPSA BOD ever reversed themselves or a ruling by the Director of NROI?

A reversal is sure to Pi$$ off a segment of the membership, but at the same time it will make other quite happy. Like i said, if John reversed himself on the ISMI Guide Rod, I would be happy to remove it and go back to the Stock part!! But OTOH, this would be an economical Hit to the members that Permanently altered their Slides to accomodate melted Bomars.

Flex, what's on your mind on this issue?

Thanks for starting this thread!!

Y

[glock_40_caliber]

Adopt IDPA's SSP rules. All the rules fit on one page and are very explicit and to the point regarding what's allowed and not allowed in SSP division. The rules are also stable. One new rule book every 9 years or so................

With the risk of drifting the thread more off the sight issue, why do we need to "copy" another organizations rules when it comes to the equipment used? If we do that, are we also going to start requiring concealment garments, and reloads with retention? After all, SSP is SSP. I feel the same way about a lot of the IPSC rules. Just because they want things one way, it doesn't mean it has to be the same here. We do have our own rule book, after all.

[shred]

I still say that it's not too late to reverse any equipment rulings.. but, if they're not easy or cheap to reverse, put a grace period in so the shooters can amortize their costs out a little more.

[ysued]

I still say that it's not too late to reverse any equipment rulings.. but, if they're not easy or cheap to reverse, put a grace period in so the shooters can amortize their costs out a little more.

You see, we can come out with good ideas and solutions here

Y

[SA Friday]

I've been hesitant to suggest this, but it might be a solution to the sight ruling. Grandfather in all the guns that already have melted-in sights, and forbid it for the future rules.

The only way I could see this working is those that want to continue to shoot their melted-in sighted guns would have to register them under the grandfather clause. Make a 6 month registration period to register. After that, no-go.

I never said this would be a paletable solution (yes, registering guns will raise some hackles), but it resolves both sides of this issue. None of the older shooters get screwed, and it prevents any further milling in the future. The majority of production shooters don't have this mod anyway. I think it would be a fairly short list, maybe a couple of hundred. I think we all agree it isn't really a competetive advantage , so it doesn't give the older guns an advantage over the newer ones.

[ysued]

Well, I just got back from Barry/Quincy.

I have a brand new perspective on this issue!!

IMHO, the rules still need to be clarified, but the sights must stay!!

Making folks loose money on their investment is just plain wrong!!

There's no "REAL" Advantage in the Bomars, Melted or otherwise!!

Whether or not they should have been allowed in the first place is one thing, now that they are, leave them as is!!

Make the rules easy to undestand, apply and enforce!!

Make sure that everyone reads and understand the rules the same way, and that there's no loopholes for anyone to slip through!!

What's so bad about that??

I'll still shoot an M&P with minimum modifications(what do you call filling up the White Dots on the Sights with Black Epoxy??)

Y

I've been hesitant to suggest this, but it might be a solution to the sight ruling. Grandfather in all the guns that already have melted-in sights, and forbid it for the future rules.

The only way I could see this working is those that want to continue to shoot their melted-in sighted guns would have to register them under the grandfather clause. Make a 6 month registration period to register. After that, no-go.

I never said this would be a paletable solution (yes, registering guns will raise some hackles), but it resolves both sides of this issue. None of the older shooters get screwed, and it prevents any further milling in the future. The majority of production shooters don't have this mod anyway. I think it would be a fairly short list, maybe a couple of hundred. I think we all agree it isn't really a competetive advantage , so it doesn't give the older guns an advantage over the newer ones.

[shred]

Competition guns aren't investments, nuff said. We can mitigate expenses if we so desire.. of course that worked so well for the single stackers when STIs became legal, right?

[ysued]

No gun is an investment, well unless you bought an HK94 in 1984 for $500, saved it in the box and sold it in 2002 for $4K, but then again, if you want to make money, invest it!!

back to our ocal programing!!

Guns were made to be shit, and used a lot!!

It would still suck to make rules that make folks guns illegal on a division after they spent money on them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro Melted Bomars, I think the ruling to allow them was not right, but they are here now, so....

Let's see how they place in Tulsa in Oct!!

Y

Competition guns aren't investments, nuff said. We can mitigate expenses if we so desire.. of course that worked so well for the single stackers when STIs became legal, right?