POLL: Should a gun that's Production Legal be illegal...

[arrowrod]

What are you trying to accomplish? This is a sport run by volunteers. Don't you think that local match directors are aware of the "anomalies"? If you push this far enough, all you are going to do is get the rules for production changed.

Are you seeing the XDs and M&Ps having an advantage over the Glocks?

Last year the rage was XDs replacing Glocks. This year M&Ps are replacing XDs.

If Glock offers a new design, then next year the rage will be Glocks replacing M&Ps. Shooters are always looking for a way to spend money. Me included.

[Nik Habicht]

I'm not trying to get anything banned or permanently included. Personally, I'm quite happy with my Glock 35. I just noticed this past weekend while I was disassembling my father's M&P 9 how the sear/striker mechanism worked and it made me wonder about the legality of modifying a Double-Action gun to Single-Action-Only. Responses to the poll thus far have been interesting. Perhaps this topic might be an introduction to discussing do rules really matter, or do they matter only when it is convenient? I know I took some grief a while ago in another post where I suggested the banning of conversion barrels (supposedly because of the miniscule added weight would be an advantage ) was illogical and not well thought-out; folks repeatedly stated, "but dem's da rules!" Yet I sense that in this case, many folks are saying, "ignore the rules, it's more convenient." Perhaps its a little late, but I added that as another choice...is there any way for folks to switch their vote? Either way, I'm hoping that a full discussion of the different possible interpretations (I came up with five, but maybe there are other possibilities) might help decrease the chances of an illogical and not well though-out ruling.

I'm curious --- have you taken an RO class recently? Specifically the CRO course? I ask because one of the things Amidon emphasized when I took it from him a couple of years ago was to read the totality of rules on a given subject, before deciding legality/illegality. Yup there's a ban on SAO and proto-type handguns in the Production Division rules. That however is only a small component of those rules --- and it's mentioned only in the section on Specifically Prohibited Features and Modifications. Additionally, in order for a handgun to be placed on the list of approved Production Division firearms, 2000 must be built and available to the general public, and NROI must inspect the handgun for compliance.

I'm not saying "ignore the rules, it's more convenient." I've read them in their entirety, I've had conversations with my area director and other members of the Board of Directors about this division every time USPSA has been working on a new version of the rulebook since 2001, as well as on other occasions over the years. Most of the rulebook misconceptions that lead to discussions on this board come from a myopic reading of some of the rules, rather than from a comprehensive study of the rulebook in its entirety....

[Loves2Shoot]

A well tuned striker fired Glock is better than most any of the shelf single action pistol, so what is your REAL point? There is no practical difference between SA and striker fired these days, so wouldn't a better question be, why shouldn't classic SA's be allowed in Production?

That you can make a XD with a 2# trigger that moves the striker rearward makes the whole question of this thread pointless, since no one would benefit from the change suggested.

[Skywalker]

The sear pivots in an arc and it does slighty push the the striker back.

Ding Ding Ding; we have a winner!

I've been wondering for quite a bit about this.

What's the purpose of such a trigger mechanism?

I can understand the reasoning behind the safe action of a Glock: the striker is partially cocked to easen a true DA pull, but not enough cocked to hit a primer with enough force to set it off, should this happen incidentally.

It seems to me that the concept of partially loading the striker has gone a bit out of control in M&P and XD, where the cocking is almost at its full, and the last bit of it still performed by the trigger pull is there just for telling everybody this is not a true SA, but really serving no other purpose than this.

[mpolans]

I'm not trying to get anything banned or permanently included. Personally, I'm quite happy with my Glock 35. I just noticed this past weekend while I was disassembling my father's M&P 9 how the sear/striker mechanism worked and it made me wonder about the legality of modifying a Double-Action gun to Single-Action-Only. Responses to the poll thus far have been interesting. Perhaps this topic might be an introduction to discussing do rules really matter, or do they matter only when it is convenient? I know I took some grief a while ago in another post where I suggested the banning of conversion barrels (supposedly because of the miniscule added weight would be an advantage ) was illogical and not well thought-out; folks repeatedly stated, "but dem's da rules!" Yet I sense that in this case, many folks are saying, "ignore the rules, it's more convenient." Perhaps its a little late, but I added that as another choice...is there any way for folks to switch their vote? Either way, I'm hoping that a full discussion of the different possible interpretations (I came up with five, but maybe there are other possibilities) might help decrease the chances of an illogical and not well though-out ruling.

I'm curious --- have you taken an RO class recently? Specifically the CRO course? I ask because one of the things Amidon emphasized when I took it from him a couple of years ago was to read the totality of rules on a given subject, before deciding legality/illegality. Yup there's a ban on SAO and proto-type handguns in the Production Division rules. That however is only a small component of those rules --- and it's mentioned only in the section on Specifically Prohibited Features and Modifications. Additionally, in order for a handgun to be placed on the list of approved Production Division firearms, 2000 must be built and available to the general public, and NROI must inspect the handgun for compliance.

I'm not saying "ignore the rules, it's more convenient." I've read them in their entirety, I've had conversations with my area director and other members of the Board of Directors about this division every time USPSA has been working on a new version of the rulebook since 2001, as well as on other occasions over the years. Most of the rulebook misconceptions that lead to discussions on this board come from a myopic reading of some of the rules, rather than from a comprehensive study of the rulebook in its entirety....

Nope; the last course I took was an IROA course a little over 15 years ago. However, I have read the totality of the rules and don't see any other rules that would have bearing on the legality of the design of the action or its modification, unless you're suggesting that a trigger job would render the gun a "prototype" which I wouldn't agree with. IIRC, the M&P may not be approved (yet?), but I think a discussion regarding it isn't premature, and the discussion might have bearing on future designs that might be considered for Production Division.

[mpolans]

A well tuned striker fired Glock is better than most any of the shelf single action pistol, so what is your REAL point? There is no practical difference between SA and striker fired these days, so wouldn't a better question be, why shouldn't classic SA's be allowed in Production?

That you can make a XD with a 2# trigger that moves the striker rearward makes the whole question of this thread pointless, since no one would benefit from the change suggested.

Well, if rules DO matter and we should follow them, then there is a difference in the design of Double-Action and Single-Action-Only guns, and some striker-fired guns appear to designed or capable of being modified to be in the latter (non-Production legal) category.

If we don't care about following the rules (perhaps because its inconvenient), and we're okay with allowing some Single-Action-Only (SAO) guns in Production, then I would think the next logical question would be: "If we don't mind ignoring the rules for some guns that are SAOs or could be modified to be SAOs, why don't we allow all guns that are SAOs or capable of being modified to be SAOs?

Even if the issue is decided in respect to the M&P and XD, perhaps the rule book could use a definition as to what Single-Action-Only is (and is not) and a ruling on whether internal modifications (via "internal polishing") like trigger jobs can be extensive enough to alter the design of the action.

Does anyone know how the Para-Ordnance LDA works? Does pulling the trigger partially compress the mainspring and/or cock back the hammer? It's been a while since I've handled one and I don't recall.

[Singlestack]

The sear pivots in an arc and it does slighty push the the striker back. Now a good trigger job can reduce it, but it is still not a true single-action pistol like the 1911 design where the hammer-sear interface travels in parallel direction.

You can verify this for yourself if you don't believe it. Just put your thumb on the rear slide cover where the striker hole is and dry fire it. You will feel the striker move back. If it did not move back, why is the hole there?

[RIIID]

Let's face it most of the guns being used in Production aren't true DA guns. The XD, M&P, LDA, and yes the Glock aren't true DA guns, they fall in between SA and DA. A lot of the confusion comes from what definition one uses to qualify what is a DA.

My definition is, "With a single pull of the trigger the gun will cock and fire(that is the traditional definition from S&W), the gun has restrike capability, and being able to decock without firing the gun". None of the above mentioned guns can resrike or decock without firing the gun. Production would be pretty sparse with the available guns that would fit into my definition. I believe USPSA realize this and allowed "safe action/striker fired guns to be included in Production.

What's done is done, you can't back up after 8 years, if you do Production is dead.

Rich

[racerba]

The sear pivots in an arc and it does slighty push the the striker back. Now a good trigger job can reduce it, but it is still not a true single-action pistol like the 1911 design where the hammer-sear interface travels in parallel direction.

Isn't the sear on the 1911 on a pivot pin also?

[racerba]

...was illogical and not well thought-out; folks repeatedly stated, "but dem's da rules!" Yet I sense that in this case, many folks are saying, "ignore the rules, it's more convenient."

Not really - the guns are legal because "dem's da rules"! The rules allows the guns so it's NOT more convenient

[racerba]

If it did not move back, why is the hole there?

It moves back when it is "cocked." The hole is there so that the striker can indicate whether it is cocked or not...as stated on the Springfield web site:

"The shooter can check the Striker Status Indicator by sight or touch to verify that the striker is in the cocked position."

[Loves2Shoot]

A well tuned striker fired Glock is better than most any of the shelf single action pistol, so what is your REAL point? There is no practical difference between SA and striker fired these days, so wouldn't a better question be, why shouldn't classic SA's be allowed in Production?

That you can make a XD with a 2# trigger that moves the striker rearward makes the whole question of this thread pointless, since no one would benefit from the change suggested.

Well, if rules DO matter and we should follow them, then there is a difference in the design of Double-Action and Single-Action-Only guns, and some striker-fired guns appear to designed or capable of being modified to be in the latter (non-Production legal) category.

If we don't care about following the rules (perhaps because its inconvenient), and we're okay with allowing some Single-Action-Only (SAO) guns in Production, then I would think the next logical question would be: "If we don't mind ignoring the rules for some guns that are SAOs or could be modified to be SAOs, why don't we allow all guns that are SAOs or capable of being modified to be SAOs?

DOA went out the window with Glock. Glock is not a DAO. If you don't get that, then there is no way to have a discussion with you.

[Loves2Shoot]

Rich is dead on point IMO. You can't turn back the clock without destroying the division.

We do XD's for LEO duty use every week, so you would be making the call IDPA did and that makes no sense to me. A service pistol that is not in the service pistol class. Progress requires change, and the BOD has made very reasonable descisions IMO.

Take non DA guns out of Production and say goodby to Glock, M&P, and XD. Then you would need to create a striker fired class, and that class would destroy Production class, which would be basically CZ (edited to add) Sig, Beretta class.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Loves2Shoot

[Chuck Anderson]

We've heard from the top gunsmiths working on XD's and one of the top gunsmiths working on M&P's. Everyone is saying that you can't safely remove the rearward camming aspect of the sear on the striker without causing the gun to go full auto. If it's camming the striker back, that seems to be enough to rule that the gun is acceptable for Production. I know you've looked at your dad's M&P, but I'm going to take the word of the guys working on the guns. If they say the sear moves the striker back, I trust them. Despite Wikipedia says, if NROI and Amidon have decided that the gun is suitable for Production by virtue of it being a DA trigger, I'm going to go with their ruling as well. Nothing you've said, despite your hypothetical hump removing trigger job, has led me to believe that anyone has ever made a DA gun SAO. Show me an example and I'll reconsider my position. If Mike is right that the modification you suggest makes the gun double, then it's really a moot point and we're only engaging in a discussion that has no useful purpose.

[Flexmoney]

Single-action and Double-action are old terms (heck, those are revolver old...at least ) .

We probably could use some new terms that reflect what is out there.

The reality is, Production division isn't going to lose any of the guns mentioned...no matter what. Production is huge, and growing. And...it is good.

[BritinUSA]

I agree, there are three types, Single-Action, Double-Action and Striker (with the latter being applicable to either or both of the former).

I see no reason to prevent striker fired guns from being in Production regardless of whether they are technically single or double action.

I do think that they need to update the criteria for Production to spell out that striker mechanisms are different from the Double Action requirement for the first shot.

The striker-fired guns are very popular and relatively cheap, both requirements of the original intent of the Production Division.

Rather than trying to thread the needle with wording about whether or not a striker moves by an amount equal to an eyelash on a flea is kind of pointless. Just update the wording of Production Division to remove any ambiguity of striker-fired guns.

Just my 2 cents.

[kgunz11]

What does the name of the division state in itself?

PRODUCTION

The powers at be wanted it to be NON single action guns, which is the 1911/2011 style weapons.

Are the guys shooting the Baretta, the CZ, and the Sig crying because other guns can be modified to make them easier to shoot?

Is the M&P or XD superior to the Glock by design that Glock shooters don't like their advantage? Is it a tactical advantage or a competitive advantage?

Why all the crying and moaning to begin with?

Can someone please explain to me the purpose of this whole thread?

Are we trying to determine if an XD is a SA, DAO, or SA/DA weapon?

Are we arguing about what IS striker fired and what is not?

What a cluster of wasted bandwidth!

[mike cyrwus]

I think the terminology is off kilter; as I think Rich said.

Single action originally referred to a cocked SA revolver; then because the feel of the action was similar, it was used to desribe 1911 actions. Then there are these pistols that are DA first pull and SA for following shots. Then the striker fired mania broke out.

We use generalized vague terms to describe modern firearm engineering.

There isnt a gun engineer in the world now than says to their team . "Well boys and girls, today lets make one of those there single action type pistols."

Firearm R&D is evolving; and all we have are these two old-ass words to describe them. "Double action" and "Single action".

Edited July 31, 2008 by mike cyrwus