Intent Of Production

[Nemo]

I DON'T believe the original intent of PD included milling of slides to install adjustable sights, but due to faulty-written rules this became an acceptable modification. What's done is done! Let's leave it and move on. Now some manufacturers are offering adjustable sight versions of their production guns and still it's cheaper to have Rich install the sights than to get the SA Custom Shop XD (one example).

The other rules:

- 10 round limit: GREAT! The equalizer for all calibers and brands.

- Hoslters and pouches: KEEP tthe SAME

- Minor PF: Of course...

- External Mods: We have to get them listed in plain and clear Spanish (or English for the non-immigrant )

Milling of Slide for installation of adj. sights: Yes?

Custom Finish: Yes

Grip Tape: Yes

FO and Night Sights: Yes

Grip Plugs: No

Magwells: No

Comps or porting: No

Lightning cuts: No

Pin Relocation: No

Visible Trigger Stops: No

Stippling, Checkering, or other permanent grip texturing: No

Grip reduction or augmentation: No

-Internal Mods: This is all about ease of enforcement. We shouldn't have to have a factory rep on site to determine if the gun is legal or not.

Trigger jobs: Whatever floats your boat. The $0.25 or the $200 version, as long as it doesn't require externally visible changes.

Springs: Yes

Guide Rods: I don't know what to do here. Should we keep the 2oz rule? I don't see why we should prohibit the replacement of factory guide rods if the replacements provide the conveniences of durability, flexibility to change springs, among others.

Internal Lightning of Slides: I'd say NO, but we have trust the integrity of our competitors.

After-market barrels: Yes, no longer than factory.

What else?

This is basically what we have now, I think. It works now. If we change it, the new shooter won't know the difference but the current shooter may be affected by the changes. The BoMars sight picture isn't better than Heinies'. Again, was the original intent of the division to have slides milled for sight install? No, but this is where the rules brought us and we shouldn't change the rules knowing that the changes may impact the equipment of the shooter that went through significant financial effort to have his gear up to par with what's been used. That's the member that we may loose... the guy/gal that only shoots locals but saved his pennies to buy that .40 super production gun from the guy at the club that has MUCHO money and decided he wanted to change to the latest and greatest offering on the gunzines.

I'm really glad that our debates about rules could trascend and influence the decisions by the BOD or the rules committee. I wouldn't appreciate rule changes made "a la Cuban", by one guy, owner of the organization, without regard to what the membership may want or think.

Edited to add: With clearly-written, well-defined rules we wouldn't have to worry about PD going down the apocalyptical DA-9mm-Ltd10 path that so much worries my good friend the photographer. But I agree that we'don't have to copy anything from IDPA, with what we have they can come play.

$0.02

Edited September 11, 2006 by Nemo

[Nik Habicht]

FWIW, I don't see anything wrong with the production rules we have now.

The only thing I woud change is to do away with the 10 round limitation.

Tls

Think it through first.

No capacity limit and only 9mm need apply. Para 18 rounds in 9mm vs Sig with 12 in 40, what are you shooting? Glaock probably still in the race with 17 in the G17 and the G34, but G22/35 in 40? no longer competitive, any .45, forget about it unless your name is Robbie.

Jim

I hear you Jim, but it seems to me that the minor power factor restriction has already made production a 9mm only division.

Granted there are a few who shoot 40's in minor and they would be at a disadvantage.

Is there really anybody out there shooting a 45 in production?

Don't see much difference in a Glock with 17 vs a Para with 18.

IPSC has no 10 round limit, I see no reason why we should.

Just my humble opinion.

Ignore it if you wish.

I don't shoot production so I have no dog in this fight.

Tony

I had twenty people shooting production (out of 56 total shooters) at the August 2006 Central Jersey Rifle & Pistol Club match --- more than any other division. About one quarter of that group was shooting a .40. I don't want to lose those folks, or anyone else who wants to shoot a club match with us ----- and setting rules that exclude certain guns or make them uncompetitive, will hurt club matches......

[Chuck D]

"Is there really anybody out there shooting a 45 in production?"

Ah....yup. Me for example.

"IPSC has no 10 round limit, I see no reason why we should."

IPSC P.D. rules are NOT the way we should go for a variety of damn good reasons.

"I don't shoot production so I have no dog in this fight."

Ah....o.k.

"A claiming race is a nice idea ----- that would totally screw competitors from states like N.J., where they'd then need to apply for another permit to purchase a handgun, and possibly enduire a ninety day wait until they could replace their blaster......

Other states have set-up similar roadblocks....."

Yup...we sure do. Not to worry though...that idea was DOA anyway.

"I had twenty people shooting production (out of 56 total shooters) at the August 2006 Central Jersey Rifle & Pistol Club match --- more than any other division. About one quarter of that group was shooting a .40. I don't want to lose those folks, or anyone else who wants to shoot a club match with us ----- and setting rules that exclude certain guns or make them uncompetitive, will hurt club matches......"

Excellent point, the 10 round limit not only encourages accuracy and/or allows those w/o the ability to obtain hi-caps legally play but it levels the playing field for ALL platforms of PD legal guns.

"Those running .40's or .45 could run in L10 just fine. "

I will NEVER be able to "wrap my mind around" this idea. It's offensive. I pretty much says, "we changed the rules so where you once were able to play here...now you can't. Pack up you crap and go play over there." It's the single most divisive issue/action/thought process in our sport. If you really want to kill off participation and membership in this organization...continue to champion the above cause.

[EricBudd]

I DON'T believe the original intent of PD included milling of slides to install adjustable sights, but due to faulty-written rules this became an acceptable modification. What's done is done! Let's leave it and move on. Now some manufacturers are offering adjustable sight versions of their production guns and still it's cheaper to have Rich install the sights than to get the SA Custom Shop XD (one example).

The other rules:

- 10 round limit: GREAT! The equalizer for all calibers and brands.

- Hoslters and pouches: KEEP tthe SAME

- Minor PF: Of course...

- External Mods: We have to get them listed in plain and clear Spanish (or English for the non-immigrant )

Milling of Slide for installation of adj. sights: Yes?

Custom Finish: Yes

Grip Tape: Yes

FO and Night Sights: Yes

Grip Plugs: No

Magwells: No

Comps or porting: No

Lightning cuts: No

Pin Relocation: No

Visible Trigger Stops: No

Stippling, Checkering, or other permanent grip texturing: No

Grip reduction or augmentation: No

-Internal Mods: This is all about ease of enforcement. We shouldn't have to have a factory rep on site to determine if the gun is legal or not.

Trigger jobs: Whatever floats your boat. The $0.25 or the $200 version, as long as it doesn't require externally visible changes.

Springs: Yes

Guide Rods: I don't know what to do here. Should we keep the 2oz rule? I don't see why we should prohibit the replacement of factory guide rods if the replacements provide the conveniences of durability, flexibility to change springs, among others.

Internal Lightning of Slides: I'd say NO, but we have trust the integrity of our competitors.

After-market barrels: Yes, no longer than factory.

What else?

This is basically what we have now, I think. It works now. If we change it, the new shooter won't know the difference but the current shooter may be affected by the changes. The BoMars sight picture isn't better than Heinies'. Again, was the original intent of the division to have slides milled for sight install? No, but this is where the rules brought us and we shouldn't change the rules knowing that the changes may impact the equipment of the shooter that went through significant financial effort to have his gear up to par with what's been used. That's the member that we may loose... the guy/gal that only shoots locals but saved his pennies to buy that .40 super production gun from the guy at the club that has MUCHO money and decided he wanted to change to the latest and greatest offering on the gunzines.

I'm really glad that our debates about rules could trascend and influence the decisions by the BOD or the rules committee. I wouldn't appreciate rule changes made "a la Cuban", by one guy, owner of the organization, without regard to what the membership may want or think.

Edited to add: With clearly-written, well-defined rules we wouldn't have to worry about PD going down the apocalyptical DA-9mm-Ltd10 path that so much worries my good friend the photographer. But I agree that we'don't have to copy anything from IDPA, with what we have they can come play.

$0.02

+1 Leave the division alone and just make the rules clear and unambigious. Oh yeah, don't screw with shooters who have been shooting the division acording to the current rules.

[richardschennberg]

I think we are diagnosing the problem backwards. We're just a game, albeit the one most responsible for firearm inovations. The real policemen and soldiers need high quality handguns, effective against real criminals and real enemy soldiers. Gun manufacterers, police procurement, and military procurement need to focus on combat effective parameters. There needs to be some effort to make guns that are safe and even lawsuit-proof, but the prime consideration should be: how effective is the gun in a shootout?

There is no reason a policeman or a soldier should be issued a handgun that would not be competitve in USPSA Production or IDPA SSP competitions.

[wide45]

A new Glock 17 here goes for $525 + 10 tranfer.

A KKM barrel to shoot lead $200

Warren Sights installed $90

Trigger Kit $5-$200

Guide rods $10-40

Grip Tape $5-$10

Extended release $5

Probably one of the more common production setups around. If you try to take that setup away how many folks are you going to upset?

Nobody I know is putting that much into a production gun. The few guys that are, are ruining it for everybody. This whole thread is for the hundred or so people who don't get that Production should be as produced. Not about how much of a race gun you can sneak by.

[Z-man]

As a new shooter to USPSA who loves Production (its all I've shot) I guess I'm not sure what the major problem is here. I understand that there is some ambiguity in the rules, but I think that with most games that is, to a certain extent, unavoidable. I really haven't seen anyone in all the matches I've attended shooting a production gun that was an over the top "race-gun" in production disguise. I have seen some guns that have had a lot of money put into them, but that isn't the same as having a race gun with accessories that make the gun more competive. For instance, suppose someone purchases a Sig (an already pretty costly gun) and has new grips put on, puts adjustable sights, replaces the barrel, gets a trigger job... while that person has put a lot more money into his or her gun than most would expect out of production, what has been done that makes the gun a "race-gun"? I guess I just haven't seen these people that we seem so concerned with destroying the division. That isn't to say they don't exist, but I don't see anyone stomping the competition in the division with such guns. As I said, it is a mistake to assume that money spent on a gun either makes it a race gun or enhances your ability to win with it. The restrictions currently in place make sure that any changes that offer a significant advantage are illegal (magwells, comps, round count, slide lightening, etc.). I really would, however, like to know how often everyone has encountered such offenders.

Edited September 11, 2006 by Z-man

[wlktheduk]

Amen, Brother Nemo!!!!

As a wheelgunner, who also likes, and shoots in Production, you've covered most of my thoughts on this debate.

I would add that Minor Caliber scoring, and 10 round limits, IMHO make this division interesting. Accuracy becomes very important, as does strategy in planning out the reloads. (kind of like wheelgunning does, but that's a different thread)

[j2fast]

Nobody I know is putting that much into a production gun. The few guys that are, are ruining it for everybody. This whole thread is for the hundred or so people who don't get that Production should be as produced. Not about how much of a race gun you can sneak by.

I kind of see your point here but when I shot production I used an XD with Bo-mars and a trigger job. I wasn't trying to sneak anything by anyone; right or wrong there's a JA ruling expressly allowing the milled in Bo-mars and agree or disagree whether it's in the 'spirit of PD' many folks have trigger jobs. That said (as others have said) I think we need clarity in the rules but not drive away the people that aren't hardcore. An arms race in PD would flat out suck and definitely drive folks away.

I left PD for Limited this year just for some more clarity.... ...at least I don't think I have to worry about my limited gun or its mods being deemed illegal.

[Loves2Shoot]

A new Glock 17 here goes for $525 + 10 tranfer.

A KKM barrel to shoot lead $200

Warren Sights installed $90

Trigger Kit $5-$200

Guide rods $10-40

Grip Tape $5-$10

Extended release $5

Probably one of the more common production setups around. If you try to take that setup away how many folks are you going to upset?

Nobody I know is putting that much into a production gun. The few guys that are, are ruining it for everybody. This whole thread is for the hundred or so people who don't get that Production should be as produced. Not about how much of a race gun you can sneak by.

I've seen lots of them, for many years. Swapping barrel to shoot lead and have a supported chamber is very common. I know all the other mods are on tons of guns all over the country.

[driver8M3]

Nobody I know is putting that much into a production gun. The few guys that are, are ruining it for everybody. This whole thread is for the hundred or so people who don't get that Production should be as produced. Not about how much of a race gun you can sneak by.

so you think that a bunch of people that are following the rules are somehow ruining the division? nowhere in the rules does it say that "production should be as produced." i would venture to guess that more than a hundred people shooting production have modified their guns...in fact, i'd bet that close to 100% of production shooters have modified their guns in some way.

[EricW]

I also think that people are ignoring the field-levelling power of the currently permitted modifications. If your biggest fear is the $1500 Production-specific racegun, turning Production into a "box stock" division will make that fear a reality in no time at all.

I'll ask again: Is Production really broken, or do we merely *think* it's broken?

[vluc]

I'll ask again: Is Production really broken, or do we merely *think* it's broken?

Or does a vocal minority think it is broken.....

[ysued]

so you think that a bunch of people that are following the rules are somehow ruining the division?

Personally, I wouldn't say that

nowhere in the rules does it say that "production should be as produced."

AHA!!!!

One of the problems!!!

Clarification is needed on the PD Rules, leave nothing to interpretation!!

i would venture to guess that more than a hundred people shooting production have modified their guns...in fact, i'd bet that close to 100% of production shooters have modified their guns in some way.

Yes!!

I have!!

I just covered them nasty little White dots on my M&P9 with Black Epoxy!!

I hate White Dots!!

I also think that people are ignoring the field-levelling power of the currently permitted modifications. If your biggest fear is the $1500 Production-specific racegun, turning Production into a "box stock" division will make that fear a reality in no time at all.

I'll ask again: Is Production really broken, or do we merely *think* it's broken?

Not broken at all.

Just that Rule Clarification is needed before it breaks.

Y

[glock_40_caliber]

I think we are diagnosing the problem backwards. We're just a game, albeit the one most responsible for firearm inovations. The real policemen and soldiers need high quality handguns, effective against real criminals and real enemy soldiers. Gun manufacterers, police procurement, and military procurement need to focus on combat effective parameters. There needs to be some effort to make guns that are safe and even lawsuit-proof, but the prime consideration should be: how effective is the gun in a shootout?

There is no reason a policeman or a soldier should be issued a handgun that would not be competitve in USPSA Production or IDPA SSP competitions.

I am issued a stock Glock 22, stock sights, and even the 8# connector. With the way the rules are now, I could even be competitive with my duty gear. If my draw is too slow out of the issued holster, well, maybe I should work on that, then, to get it down to ~1 sec. About the only thing I would not be competive with is the limited number of magazines I carry on duty. Any more than a 28-30 round COF and I would be getting penalties for FTE and mikes. That is not the gun's fault, though.

Do I choose to run this setup in matches? No. Instead I use a 9mm Glock, kydex holster, and kydex mag pouches. Do those same gun handling skills I have to master to be competitve in a match cross over to my issued gun? Absolutely.

Again, if we want to change the rules, simply clarify them, but other than that leave them the heck alone.

[GeorgeInNePa]

I'll ask again: Is Production really broken, or do we merely *think* it's broken?

Or does a vocal minority think it is broken.....

I think that's the whole problem, right there.

ETA:

I'm getting in the car to drive to Quincy. Enjoy the discussion, I'll see what it looks like, when I get back next week.

Edited September 11, 2006 by GeorgeInNePa

[ysued]

Again, if we want to change the rules, simply clarify them, but other than that leave them the heck alone.

Yes!!

I don't want sweeping changes!!

Just clarifictions and closing of the the many loopholes that are left to the interpretations of many, that have caused past confusions (Vanek Triggers and ISMI Guide Rods).

I bet if the rules are clarified and all loopholes closed there will be less problems due to personal interpretations of the rules that in the past have caused several to make chages and buy parts for their guns that later have been declared illegal for PD.

Forget about the Sights from now on, that issue is past and can not be undone!!

Let's go about our Business and Shoot PD, I'll still be shooting my new S&W M&P, pretty much box stock.

I think that's the whole problem, right there.

ETA:

I'm getting in the car to drive to Quincy. Enjoy the discussion, I'll see what it looks like, when I get back next week.

I'll buy you dinner and we can get this hammered out over a Blue Margarita or two at the Ruby Tuesdays!!

I'll be shooting with the RO's, I hope on Wed AM, then i'll be following the S&W Pro shooters the rest of the week.

Y

[ipscbob]

I'll ask again: Is Production really broken, or do we merely *think* it's broken?

Or does a vocal minority think it is broken.....

I think that's the whole problem, right there.

Seems to be a general S&^T disturber trend in the sport this year by a vocal minority. Just read the last 3-4 issues of front sight.

[ysued]

Seems to be a general S&^T disturber trend in the sport this year by a vocal minority. Just read the last 3-4 issues of front sight.

Funny that you call it a vocal Minority, with these results as of now:

What should the Intent of Production Division be?

Entry Level/Low Cost [ 15 ] [12.30%]

Stock with no modifications [ 12 ] [9.84%]

Mostly stock with limited modification, similar to IPSC [ 57 ] [46.72%]

Internal Mods allowed (if it can't be seen it's legal) [ 28 ] [22.95%]

DA Minor Scoring Limited [ 2 ] [1.64%]

Other [ 8 ] [6.56%]

This means that most shooters would want some kind of change, not sweeping, not a revamp, but some sort of Change/Clarification/Difinition/Closing of Loopholes.

What is so bad about that?

If you see the above 46.72% as of right now want something similar to IPSC and 1.64% wants a Limited, Minor, D/A.

I could call this a Vocal Majority.

Y

[vluc]

122 responses on this board does not a vocal majority make.

822 pages at 10 members per page gives us 8,220 members. 122 voted....response rate 1.4841849%. Yep, Vocal Majority......

Edited September 12, 2006 by vluc

[Nik Habicht]

And another problem with internet polls ---- we have no clue who the people are that voted, whether they shoot the sport or division. Almost everyone at my local match has an opinion on what production should be ---- from the people who spend most of their time playing that game, to the people who haven't ever shot anything other than Open or Limited.....

[ysued]

122 responses on this board does not a vocal majority make.

822 pages at 10 members per page gives us 8,220 members. 122 voted....response rate 1.4841849%. Yep, Vocal Majority......

OK, you tell me,

If USPSA did Sweepenig Changes to PD(which I know they will never do, nor do I advocate them) What would you do??

Stop shooting PD, and leave USPSA??

And go where?? IDPA is even worse with their rules!!

I said a Vocal majority here, this is how "ALL" polls are done, they take a sample of the Voting population, in tose that took the time to vote, 46+% want to do Something like IPSC and only under 1.5% want the Limited, DA, Minor.

Using your good math above, only 1.46% of 1.4841849% of the board membership wants PD to turn into Limited,DA. Minor...

Math is math!!

eally, please tell me...

Do you really think that PD's Rules are "PERFECT" and "DO NOT" need even a minor tweaking and Clarification??

Do you agree with all the Rulings tha have come down from the Mountain??

Do you think that all the Rulings are consitent with each other and reflect a complete following of the rules??

Do you think that there are absolutely no loopholes int he Rules??

If so, please explain, I have heard you and others say that only a vocal minority think the rules are not completely clear, defined and not a sigle loophole. I think not, or why would the BOD be looking at the rules for review??

Just a thought.

And another problem with internet polls ---- we have no clue who the people are that voted, whether they shoot the sport or division. Almost everyone at my local match has an opinion on what production should be ---- from the people who spend most of their time playing that game, to the people who haven't ever shot anything other than Open or Limited.....

You are completely right, they why have them at all??

Same thing happens with Politics, but if the questions are wll asked and the samples are good, the answers really reflect the population

Edited September 12, 2006 by ysued

[vluc]

If so, please explain, I have heard you and others say that only a vocal minority think the rules are not completely clear, defined and not a sigle loophole. I think not, or why would the BOD be looking at the rules for review??

Just a thought.

The BOD just might be doing what a BOD is supposed to do, review, evaluate and consider if changes are needed or not. Just because some people see a problem does not mean there is a problem. Might be a problem to you, may not be to me.

And another problem with internet polls ---- we have no clue who the people are that voted, whether they shoot the sport or division. Almost everyone at my local match has an opinion on what production should be ---- from the people who spend most of their time playing that game, to the people who haven't ever shot anything other than Open or Limited.....

You are completely right, they why have them at all??

Same thing happens with Politics, but if the questions are wll asked and the samples are good, the answers really reflect the population Ah, there is the rub! Much like this poll, if the questions are well asked, they then may be reflective. If they are not, well....

[Singlestack Wonder]

And go where?? IDPA is even worse with their rules!!

This is an interesting comment in contrast to the posts in this topic. In looking over replies in various topics in the IDPA forum, many posters comment on their perception of the intangibles in trying to enforce "intent" into SO calls. Yet, the word "intent" is used here freely with no negative regard.

I shoot both sports and enjoy both! BUT, I truly feel that IDPA's division rules in regards to pistols is much more clear and specific than the USPSA production rules. Look at all of the air time given to the subject of installing a Bomar on a Production pistol and someone bringing up the possibility that the removal of metal to make the BMCS cut could also be akin to slide lightening, requiring a ruling from Mr. Amidon. If one does install Bomars on a Glock, do they need to carry a "letter of intent" from Mr. Amidon, and if so, how is this situation any different from the negative comments in the IDPA forum when people have stated that they have received rule clarifications or "rulings" from IDPA HQ.

In closing, simplify the Production rules to the utmost. Eliminate things such as "minimal trigger pull" and other hard to police items.

I too fear that one day Production will become just another equipment race.

[ysued]

And go where?? IDPA is even worse with their rules!!

This is an interesting comment in contrast to the posts in this topic. In looking over replies in various topics in the IDPA forum, many posters comment on their perception of the intangibles in trying to enforce "intent" into SO calls. Yet, the word "intent" is used here freely with no negative regard.

I shoot both sports and enjoy both! BUT, I truly feel that IDPA's division rules in regards to pistols is much more clear and specific than the USPSA production rules. Look at all of the air time given to the subject of installing a Bomar on a Production pistol and someone bringing up the possibility that the removal of metal to make the BMCS cut could also be akin to slide lightening, requiring a ruling from Mr. Amidon. If one does install Bomars on a Glock, do they need to carry a "letter of intent" from Mr. Amidon, and if so, how is this situation any different from the negative comments in the IDPA forum when people have stated that they have received rule clarifications or "rulings" from IDPA HQ.

In closing, simplify the Production rules to the utmost. Eliminate things such as "minimal trigger pull" and other hard to police items.

I too fear that one day Production will become just another equipment race.

It wasn't my intenton to say anything bad about IDPA SSP Rules.

You must admit that the Holster rules are waay to subjective!!

You can be kicking somoeons a$$ in a match and suddenly they can see daylight between your holster and your belt... YOu are now out of the match!! The other fella wins!!

SEE DAYLIGHT??

Back to USPSA...

I agree, rules need to get clarified.

If so, please explain, I have heard you and others say that only a vocal minority think the rules are not completely clear, defined and not a sigle loophole. I think not, or why would the BOD be looking at the rules for review??

Just a thought.

The BOD just might be doing what a BOD is supposed to do, review, evaluate and consider if changes are needed or not. Just because some people see a problem does not mean there is a problem. Might be a problem to you, may not be to me.

And another problem with internet polls ---- we have no clue who the people are that voted, whether they shoot the sport or division. Almost everyone at my local match has an opinion on what production should be ---- from the people who spend most of their time playing that game, to the people who haven't ever shot anything other than Open or Limited.....

You are completely right, they why have them at all??

Same thing happens with Politics, but if the questions are wll asked and the samples are good, the answers really reflect the population Ah, there is the rub! Much like this poll, if the questions are well asked, they then may be reflective. If they are not, well....

Thanks for your replies...

But you didn't answer my questions!!

You seem to be in disagreement with everything I say, I proposed some questions to hit the subject directly, I would like to know your point of view due to the fact that you disagree with me on almost every post I make, so I want to know where do we disagree!

I really want to know how you view PD.

I would really like to know your answers to my questions.

Thanks