Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[VegasOPM]

Well this silliness pushed me back into Limited. I don't like ot cheat, and I spent too much time and money making a competitive Production gun that was perfectly legal until the rules were pulled out from under me.

[Singlestack]

Guys/Gals I think you know where I stand on this issue. With that said though, Bruce has asked a valid question. If anyone can write a rule that covers what he has outlined, is clear, definitive, and has no wiggle room in it, I believe it will be eagerly accepted.

OK, I'll take a stab at it.

• Only handguns approved and listed on the USPSA website may be used in Production Division.*

• Single-action-only handguns are prohibited.*

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

• No externally visible modifications except sights and grip tape or sleeves, unless the replacement parts are OEM and available on similar models from that manufacturer.

• All safeties must remain functional.

• Replacement barrels allowed provided barrel length is same as original factory standard. Heavy barrels and/or barrel sleeves not

allowed.*

*Pulled verbatim from the pre-2008 rulebook.

Benefits include simplicity, room for tuning improvements to trigger or action, and no need to go beyond a visual inspection to ensure compliance.

Curtis

Add the 2oz rule to that and let it go.

[jobob]

That gets my vote, too, Single, Bayou, and Gary. I like to shoot a little in all divisions, and I'm classified in all except revolver. I like the idea behind Production, but is isn't Stock division. If is was, they wouldn't allow replacing the entire upper half of the gun with aftermarket (expensive) parts. But it really gets my goat when I have a gun set up just the way I like it, then some rule makers who have more brains than sense throw a curve ball at me.

Personally, I think the way the rule is written is rather ambiguous. To me, listing the approved modifications in parenthasese implies that it is a list of examples. Obviously JA doesn't see it that way. A list of allowed modifications should be, well, in list form, not in parenthasese, like it's almost an afterthought. There shouldn't be room for interpretation. I know, JA says the rule is clear, but he clearly doesn't understand use of the English language. If it was clear, the members would have understood it a year ago and there would be no controversy now.

There should never be a rule which requires dissassembly of the gun to determine compliance. Any match official who wants to take my gun apart wil have to show me two things; documentation proving that this person is qualified to dissassemble my gun, and a search warrant! All rules should be easily enforceable by any RO with a little common sense.

Any and all internal modifications should be allowed by the rules, as long as:

A. They don't alter the basic function of the gun, and

B. All safeties remain functional.

There should be NO limits to trigger pull weight, as long as the gun is safe. If it doesn't go off by itself, and it doesn't go off when dropped, and only fires when the trigger is deliberately pulled, just what my trigger pull is is no one's business but mine.

If the BOD can't do it, hire someone who understands English to write the damn rule book. I thought this was taken care of after the trigger pull controversy a year ago. The membership let the BOD know what they thought then. We need to let them know, again, that their continual manipulation of the rules is only hurting the sport, and pissing off shooters. If they can't see that, then maybe the BOD members need to find some other form of stimulating entertainment, like torturing small animals. But QUIT MESSING WITH US SHOOTERS!

There's my $.02!

[BlackSabbath]

Agreed, jobob.

Why is it legal to install a $300.00 pair of Bomars on a Production gun, but internal trigger work is the hill some are picking to die on? Why let shooters put match barrels in their guns, but flip out over a freakin' .02 set screw.

We had 15 Production shooters at our monthly match 2 weekends ago. The second biggest division was Limited at 7.

Production is growing. New shooters LIKE it.

Leave.It.Alone.

Edited January 15, 2009 by BlackSabbath

[Chuck Anderson]

Production division has been around for about 12 years now. I'm not sure how many on the BOD were on the BOD at that time. It would seem that many have a different opinion on what the intent of the Division should be. I've never heard a consistent message, some say stock, some say for beginners, some saw for LE, some say for DA 9mms. Whatever the reason, the rules don't match any of those intents. If it was meant to be stock, that train has left the station long ago. If it is not meant solely as a stock Division, the name is an issue. We're going to have people saying it should be stock until don't have a name that says Production. And no I don't have a replacement name in mind, it's too early in the morning for that.

I don't know why the BOD decided to allow checkering, stippling, internal magwells etc in the last rule book. I always thought the grip tape, sights, and bbl being externally visible were enough. They were easy to check, and it could be done without any skill or training. If the gun is changed on the inside, who cares? What can actually be done in there to make the gun that much more shootable. As long as we stay with a weight limit there can't be that much sneaky internal lightening. That pretty much leaves the trigger. If we're not going to have a trigger pull limit, we shouldn't limit the work that can be done to the trigger. It's an unenforcable rule that will soon stop having a purpose. Right now it might somehow serve as a defacto limit because only a factory trigger is allowed. However it won't take much for a couple of gun companies to come out with competition specific models that have excellent trigger from the factory. Do we really want to say a $400.00 Glock is no longer competetive because the connector cannot be exchanged, sorry if you want a good trigger go buy a $1500.00 Sig X-5 or a $3000.00 Sphinx? I'm guessing there would be a fair number of shooter not happy with that.

[RIIID]

It's way too late to draw the line so lets just face it Production is an arms race thanks to the BODs inability to write clear concise rules. We can't back up now 9 years down the tracks. Production has become something nobody wanted but thousands of shooters want to shoot it.

So lets just have a simple way of checking a guns legality, all of the safeties are intact and it fits into the box with an empty mag and it retains the *factory profile. Remove 21 and 22 from D4 and you have the rules for Production.

The hell with what can and can't be done lets just shoot. Thousands of dollars have been spent on gear, and thousands more new shooters will join us with guns that have already been modified. It's just too late.

Rich

* This will keep magwells from being added and external slide cuts. If a manufacture builds a gun with these features it just doesn't get added to the approved list of guns.

[XRe]

sorry if you want a good trigger go buy a $1500.00 Sig X-5

Not in any version of Production I've seen? (single action only trigger). The X-5 only really has a home in L-10 in our game...

Bruce - the only way to achieve what you propose is a trigger pull weight test of some form. Anything else requires way too much technical knowledge of each gun... (whether or not its desirable - would you rather have trigger pull testing, or no trigger jobs at all?).

There's a lot of good points being made about (significant) external mods being allowed, but somehow the gun is still supposed to be close to stock? If that's really the intent and is the way the BoD as a whole wants the ruleset to go, that inconsistency should be cleared up, IMO (ie, no cuts for Bo-Mars, no slide replacements with aftermarket slides, no stippling/non-factory-checkering, etc).

If the requirement for "close to stock" can be relaxed, and allow previously legal Production guns to remain legal, going back to the old ruleset with minor clarifications being described above seems like a good move...

Glad to know that my XD-9 Subcompact will be illegal for Production once it returns from Springer Precision with a new trigger job on it... (replaces sear and trigger bar)

Edited January 15, 2009 by XRe

[racerba]

I didn't know a "disconnector" was a trigger stop. The gun comes with one, the installation of a Ghost disconnector allows the user to tune it to personal preferences by how much material is removed from the tab. It comes long, and you file it until you like it. You're only replacing a factory part with an aftermarket part that is tunable. It's not a trigger stop.

The Ghost Rocket has a trigger stop on it. You are tuning the tab to reduce over travel. That tab IS the trigger stop!! It prevents the trigger from travelling beyond where the tab is. Without filing it, the trigger will not move back far enough to release the striker.

[kgunz11]

Production division has been around for about 12 years now. I'm not sure how many on the BOD were on the BOD at that time. It would seem that many have a different opinion on what the intent of the Division should be. I've never heard a consistent message, some say stock, some say for beginners, some saw for LE, some say for DA 9mms. Whatever the reason, the rules don't match any of those intents. If it was meant to be stock, that train has left the station long ago. If it is not meant solely as a stock Division, the name is an issue. We're going to have people saying it should be stock until don't have a name that says Production. And no I don't have a replacement name in mind, it's too early in the morning for that.

I don't know why the BOD decided to allow checkering, stippling, internal magwells etc in the last rule book. I always thought the grip tape, sights, and bbl being externally visible were enough. They were easy to check, and it could be done without any skill or training. If the gun is changed on the inside, who cares? What can actually be done in there to make the gun that much more shootable. As long as we stay with a weight limit there can't be that much sneaky internal lightening. That pretty much leaves the trigger. If we're not going to have a trigger pull limit, we shouldn't limit the work that can be done to the trigger. It's an unenforcable rule that will soon stop having a purpose. Right now it might somehow serve as a defacto limit because only a factory trigger is allowed. However it won't take much for a couple of gun companies to come out with competition specific models that have excellent trigger from the factory. Do we really want to say a $400.00 Glock is no longer competetive because the connector cannot be exchanged, sorry if you want a good trigger go buy a $1500.00 Sig X-5 or a $3000.00 Sphinx? I'm guessing there would be a fair number of shooter not happy with that.

The intent of the Production Division is a STOCK gun class that beginners or anyone can shoot in for a reduced start up cost. It's always been that way. Well until some cop thinks it was made just for him, most cops seem to have that way of thinking anyway.

It wasn't meant to be an equipment race, from the beginning USPSA has made that clear, and they still do, for some of us anyway.

[makomachine]

The key to me is I don't want to be penalized for shooting a 9mm in whatever division I shoot. I like being able to do 'poor man' modifications to my gun, as well as countless others, to improve it's performance for me. A trigger job, and even more specifically, an overtravel stop, is within reach of all shooters these days. These are very budget friendly modifications that really make a 'stock' gun more enjoyable to shoot. That's not what falls under 'arms race' as far as I'm concerned. I spend more money at one day at the range than a trigger job costs and you can't buy a gumball for what an overtravel stop costs - much less custom stipling, aftermarket sights, etc. that are allowable.

If you think I'm wrong - take a look at xdtalk.com and see what new gun purchasers have done to their handguns without a thought of even competing. I think the BOD is missing the train in a big way on this one - and not just the one the experienced shooters in Production are on - but what the potential new competitor is on that might just be the next new member. Just another 2 cents for me - I got the budget....

[BayouSlide]

It wasn't meant to be an equipment race, from the beginning USPSA has made that clear, and they still do, for some of us anyway.

I've never bought into this whole idea of avoiding the impending doom of an "equipment race" in Production. To me, it's reasonable to add $250 to a $500 pistol to get an extremely competitive, top-drawer Production gun. If you can afford ammo, that's affordable to nearly any shooter. If you don't want to add the parts, you're still competitive...ask Dave Sevigny.

Equipment race, to me, begins in Limited and Open, where guns run $1,500 and up AND UP and a tuned mag can set somebody back $125.

With the rules, as proposed, you would maintain a lower-entry-cost class where everyone is...and would be...remarkable competitive with talent, not a trigger, the difference between top and mid-pack. And the box-stock folks would still play on relatively equal footing. The Vanek trigger in my G34 hasn't turned me into a GM from a lowly C shooter. Just makes it more enjoyable to shoot.

Give people who want to do a little tuning the opportunity to play.

My .$03

Curtis

[Nik Habicht]

The intent of the Production Division is a STOCK gun class that beginners or anyone can shoot in for a reduced start up cost. It's always been that way. Well until some cop thinks it was made just for him, most cops seem to have that way of thinking anyway.

It wasn't meant to be an equipment race, from the beginning USPSA has made that clear, and they still do, for some of us anyway.

Bobby,

from the link provided in your signature it looks like you joined USPSA in the past year. Were you a member of the organization prior to that? Did you take a long break? If you did in fact just join last year, don't you think it's rather presumptuous to lecture people who have been competing in Production for the past ~ 6 years or so on the "intent of the division?"

For the record, here's what the Board of Director's meeting minutes for March 2, 2000 have to say about Production Division --- the first mention I can find:

8. Production Division

Power factor floor 125

Scoring Minor

Minimum bullet weight No

Minimum caliber 9x19

Maximum pistol weight 2 oz over factory specified weight

Maximum pistol dimensions IPSC box

Action types DA/SA (Hammer starts down), DA only, Safe action

Minimum trigger pull No

Magazine length limit No

Magazine capacity Max of 10 rounds loaded in magazine

Comps/porting No

Sights Square notch and post only

Holster Competition holsters of the racegun type are specifically not allowed

Holster/magazine position Must be worn behind the centerline of body

Availability Minimum of 12 months/2000 pieces

List of ALLOWABLE pistol modifications:

* Change of sights to another conventional notch and post type.

* Slip-on grip sock and/or skateboard tape

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

* Custom finishes

List of EXCLUDED pistol modifications:

* Externally visible modifications other than sights

* Heavy barrels and/or barrel sleeves (factory or after-market)

* Add on weights of any type, internal or external, including magazines

* Sights of nonstandard notch and post type

* Porting of barrels (factory or after-market)

* Compensators

Wow --- what's that in bold? Trigger work? It can't be --- this was supposed to be a stock division.....

[rgkeller]

If the BOD had stuck with the orginal "rules," things would be much better.

Now if the BOD is not careful, they will put a serious hurt on the only division in USPSA that is growing.

[Rob D]

Talking about intent or possible consequences seems slightly irrelevant.

The only place you CAN draw the line is where you're willing to enforce it. If prod is going to be a box stock division, lets start tearing down some guns and moving some people to limited. Our members are awesome guys, but competition is no place for the honor system. If we're not tearing down guns, set the rules accordingly and we'll all stop worrying about it.

EDIT:

I'm for the latter by the way.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Rob D

[racerba]

If the BOD had stuck with the orginal "rules," things would be much better.

Now if the BOD is not careful, they will put a serious hurt on the only division in USPSA that is growing.

I agree - I thought PD was doing fine until this set of 2008 rules came out. Then it went worse with some of the additional rulings. Now, if the opinions become rules, it will have gone even further down the tubes. There was nothing wrong with the previouse set of rules.

As a dedicated PD shooter in the past 3 or so years, this is the first time I am seriousely thinking about abandoning it.

[rgkeller]

I was about ready to get a production rig but now I will wait until the rules are settled.

Which should only take a couple of years.

[double_pedro]

Ok, I've resisted since the start of this thread from posting as it seemed folks were reading too much into the rules to their particular liking. I'm no longer sure that is the case so let me throw in some considerations should any "powers that be" actually take time to read this...

1) Some of the confusion in the current rules are due to things being stated redundantly or ambiguously. For example D4.21 says "Authorized modifications (Strictly limited to these items and their stated guidelines)" but then D4.22 goes on to give "Specifically prohibited modifications and features". There is an apparent redundancy here since there must be an infinite number of other prohibited modifications not listed in D4.22 (e.g. addition of peacock feathers, internally or otherwise). If it is the intent to exclude everything not in D4.21, then D4.22 is not needed; its presence casts some doubt on the exclusive intent of D4.21.

Similarly, the statement "Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties, slide stops, guide rods)" is ambiguous. If the intent was to limit it to these components, it would be more concise to drop the "minor components" and simply state "Exchange of springs, safeties, slide stops and guide rods)". Since the BOD apparently chose to leave in the term "minor components" and not specifically say something to the effect "defined as springs, safeties, slide stops, and guide rods", one can reasonably conclude that the items listed are not an exclusive list of minor components.

The trouble with ambiguity created by the examples above is that it leaves too much room for interpretation by the membership and the BOD members themselves as each member may not actually be voting on the same interpretation.

2) Somewhere in the 2008 Production rule revisions, there must have been a problem or problems the BOD was trying to address. Has it been clearly stated or defined? Was it a concern over the safety of drawing a pistol with say a 1 lb trigger weight and no manual safety to disengage? Was it related to a perceived "arms race"? What is it? Is it reasonable?

3) As stated by others in this thread, a good starting point is to begin with what does USPSA (the BOD and the membership) want Production to be. Certainly this requires attention to what it currently is, the wishes of the membership, and what can be reasonably written into clear, conscise rules.

4) My last comment relates to my opinion on what Production should and should not be.

First, it should not be a "stock" division...it is common for shooters to purchase a service handgun and have trigger work done to it regardless of whether it will be used for competition. Since USPSA is a competitive shooting organization, I feel such action work should not be discouraged to any degree so long as the pistol remains safe. This promotes innovation and improvement - and if I am not mistaken, I recall USPSA touting its innovative character and the innovations that have evolved from competition shooting as one of its proud contributions to the "real world" use of firearms.

What USPSA should focus on for Prodcution are readily identifiable parameters that distinguish it as a division. These are minor scoring, DA or striker-fired first shot, 10 round mags, iron sights, no magwells, no compensators. The rest of the rules are background noise. No part of the rules should discourage improvement of the weapon for fit to the shooter, function or performance in the hit-factor scoring methodology of USPSA.

Some may argue as to whether there is enough difference between Production and L10 under such a scenario. Admittedly, the difference may narrow a bit and anyone shooting Production could shoot minor L10, and add a magwell to boot. Further, I would argue that the DA or striker fired first shot is not even a significant impediment to being competitive in L10 - the only real competitive difference is the minor scoring. So, the issue comes down to whether USPSA needs a specific minor-scored division so shooters of 9mm handguns (or others who choose to shoot minor) can compete on a more equal level with each other. Owing to the popularity of the 9mm service pistols, it seems like there is a need - this is what Production is about, IMO. I would even go so far as to say that DA/striker-fired need not be a criteria. There is no need to tie some broader set of subjective rules to a (9mm) minor scoring division, especially when they are contrary to the basic comeptitive nature of the organization and reasonable desires of most shooters (e.g. people don't go out and buy a particular handgun because of the poor stock trigger and the inability to do anything to improve it).

Now, the only real obstacle that I see is taking adequate steps to ensure safety - what modifications are safe, what is reasonable, where to draw the line. USPSA places a great emphasis on safety and has done an exceptional job addressing a wide range of safety issues. However, (almost?) all actions are in response to an unsafe action or circumstance that are observed, as opposed to taking steps (e.g. safety inspections) to eliminate the possibility in the first place. So, oddly enough, this seems like uncharted territory for USPSA. Furthermore, it's a gray area and if a line is drawn, there is an implicit endorsement of the "safety" that lies on one side that really isn't the there. Therefore, I can see the appeal of doing nothing (and relying on existing and arguably effective responses to safety violations that may occur). However, I can also see the desire to establish a line (albeit a somewhat arbitrary one) under the defense that it is better to do something rather than nothing - but that "something" must then be clear and enforceable. Either can be argued as being reasonable....one is easy, one is not. Is one arguably better for USPSA and/or Production division? If so, I don't see it.

This is just one opinion, it would be far better if the membership as a whole could somehow voice a representative opinion. I can only imagine it would make the work of the BOD easier if they clearly understood the representative opinion of the membership....after all it is our organization as much as it is theirs.

My $0.02.

Edited January 15, 2009 by double_pedro

[jobob]

Which should only take a couple of years.

Wishful thinking!

[XRe]

Well until some cop thinks it was made just for him, most cops seem to have that way of thinking anyway.

Uh... making a statement like that is not going to do much in the way of making people care about your opinion.. at least not on this forum....

[jobob]

+1 to that, XRe!

[Gary Stevens]

Neither will comments about "hire someone who understands english".

[jhgtyre]

Mod Note:

This topic does bear discussing but I will close it if any more of the disrespectful or antagonistic comments are made. Keep it civil and we can keep on talking.

-Larry Drake

The Moderating Team

[vluc]

Let's see what I have done to my production gun over the 6 or so years I've been playing.

change Springs - ok

change Sights - ok

change guide rod - ok

change connector - now not okay. But what if I consider the connector to be a leaf spring?

added barber pole markings - hmm, is it okay or is it not? An internal "modification?" that is visible from the outside?

polished internals

That's it. Total cost in this equipment race, maybe $100 and some of my time.

Edited January 15, 2009 by vluc

[ima45dv8]

Well until some cop thinks it was made just for him, most cops seem to have that way of thinking anyway.

Uh... making a statement like that is not going to do much in the way of making people care about your opinion.. at least not on this forum....

Agreed.

From the top of the page you are currently reading:

Due to incessant bickering typical of the Rules Forum, we've (Admin/Moderators) come close to deleting the Rules Forum altogether. (Several times.) We've decided to keep it (by a narrow margin), however, with this stipulation:

No antagonistic tones will be tolerated.

Please post respectfully or don't post at all.

Threads or posts not following this spirit will be locked or deleted, and offenders will be warned or banned from posting.

Please, for the life of the Rules Forum and the constructive input gained from it, participate appropriately.

Thank you,

benos

[Singlestack]

To the man from Thibodaux.