Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[big_kahuna]

I just started shooting production recently. I have swapped the original connector for an OEM 3.5# connector (plus I polished the trigger bar, striker foot & connector). Because the connector swap is not specifically listed, is my trigger non-compliant with the new rules? Do I have to put the original connector back in to become compliant?

Disclaimer: no antagonism expressed or implied. This post is made with the utmost respect for all involved and observing. No kidding, I just want to know what I need to do to ensure I am within the rules.

ETA: gun is a Glock 22, KKM Barrel, Warren Sevigny sights, grip tape, no other mods.

Edited January 16, 2009 by big_kahuna

[Loves2Shoot]

How long have Ghost parts been used in Production Glocks? They were good to go from day one. CZ incorporated Angus's parts into their Shadow and now charge a bunch for it don't thy. Using G34 parts in G17's. Come on Bruce, better parts have always been part of the game in Production, why is it such a stretch now.

I have no doubt that IDPA will get a boost in sponsorships if they make such a broad backwards step. I know that almost everyone of the regular shooters in our local club have mods to their guns that would be deemed the illegal for Production. Heck, it might even be the death of USPSA at our club, as we have a LOT of Production shooters, most all with mods that were legal when they had them done and would still be legal in IDPA. It would be easier and cheaper for them to change the ISPC match weekend to another IDPA match. I think that would makes sense for a lot of smaller clubs, and I say this as someone who greatly prefers the shooting style of IPSC.

[BayouSlide]

Curtis,

In central Mississippi, Production is the largest, fastest growing division. Many, many new shooters are loving Production. The don't complain about the rules one bit. The shooters that have been around 5, 10, 15+ years don't complain about the rules. Nobody does! The only time you'll hear anything negative is when the BOD starts messing with the rules (Read: Costing shooters $$$).

Maybe for once, things are right and should be left alone.

Novel concept, eh?

The first time I ever heard griping at local matches was when the new rules for 2008 were under discussion and the legality of the Blade Tech DOH and instituting minimum trigger pull weights were potential issues. And I'll admit, I was one of the gripers. Lot of the guys weren't even aware of the discussion at first, but became concerned because they "were" legal but might not be next year.

I was always under the impression (perhaps misguided) that the type of Glock trigger mods in the Vanek Production trigger were legal under the 2004 rules. Maybe I was wrong...it appears that I AM for sure under the 2008 rules. Sure that bothers me, but so goes it. If that's the rules, either back to stock or shoot Limited. Or know you're cheating, even if you disagree with the rules. Don't like that last option.

I, for one, would be perfectly happy to have the rules state that ANYTHING internal (i.e. no visible modifications and all safeties intact) is fair game. Seems simple to me, simple to enforce. But I'm a simple sorta guy All this worry about an "equipment race" is rather bogus, and I'm a guy who wants to shoot as cheaply as possible or I'd trade in my Glock and go shoot Limited. If I could have 3X the fun, I'd spend 3X the amount on a gun...but I long ago decided that I couldn't have 3X the fun so a Production shooter is what I am.

My buddy BlackSabbath is right...we'd all rather shoot than gripe about the rules

Curtis

[bgary]

Using G34 parts in G17's. Come on Bruce, better parts have always been part of the game in Production

Really? Where's it say that in the rules? Pick a version: 2000, 2001, 2004, 2008. I can't find it.

Not trying to be a prick (really! it just comes naturally <g>). *AM* trying to make the point that a lot of this started with what people "decided the rules meant", rather than what the rules actually *say*.

But, more relevant, I *am* trying to figure out how we get from where we started, through where we are today, and chart the path to where we want to get, *without* ending up in a bad place.

As I said a few pages ago, I [personally] agree that you should be able to improve and swap parts. I support that. I just think there should be some boundaries around it. The boundary that makes the most sense to me is "if you're improving the function of the gun, good. If you're changing the function of the gun, not so good." That feels (?) like it would leave a lot of room for improvements (such as your street/duty/carry trigger jobs being totally legal in the rules). It also "feels" like it would be good for sustaining the unique attributes of the division, which have driven the growth we've seen so far.

I just don't know how to write those boundaries that so they are "clear", and not subject to "creative reading".

The *nature* of our competitive mindset is to push the envelope. I get that, it's one of the things I love in this game. I don't want to kill that. What I *do* want to do is put some guardrails around it, to make it sustainable for Production division over the long haul. Because I really *do* believe that the more "production gun customization" evolves, the blurrier the line will get between PD and Lim/Lim-10. And if that happens.... I think the train will stop rolling.

------

I'll put it in a different context. Sorry to drag people through my tortured brain. I work in the technology industry. Among the topics I spend a lot of time in is the question of "desktop management".

Picture a really big company with tens of thousands of PCs. If they were to manage those computers by walking around and installing software individually on each one, that would be hideously expensive. Companies that do that are just bleeding money. It gets even worse if every employee in the org can make whatever changes they want to "their" computer. Now you have tens of thousands of different configurations, and ... well, "chaos" is fundamentally unmanageable, by definition.

So, many large companies have adopted an approach of "desktop lockdown". They set up every PC to be absolutely identical. Every PC has exactly the same software. Every PC has exactly the same settings. Every PC has exactly the same... everything. Lots of companies believe this saves them money. And it does, in certain ways (makes "PC support problems" much easier to diagnose and resolve, for example. The fix is usually "put it back to exactly the way it was") The problem is that, while it may be "good" in the sense that it saves money, it is really BAD in that it tends to cripple the organization. People may not be able to use the software they need for *their* job. They may not be able to adjust things to suit their own interests/needs/creativity/etc. So.. "lockdown" is not a viable solution, any more than "chaos" is.

A *better* solution is to have [what my team calls] "managed diversity". That means that every PC starts as a standard configuration. Users can then "tweak and tune" that configuration in a way that suits their unique needs, but also in a way that doesn't "break" the configuration. There are "boundaries" around what the users can do. They can't do everything they might want, but... there's a lot they can do. It is the best of both worlds. Users get flexibility, and the IT department gets sustainable ability to manage the PCs and control their costs.

That's my mindset on this issue. I don't want chaos in the Production division, I don't think that's "smart", for the long run. I don't believe "lockdown" is a viable solution, either. I want to find a way to put *reasonable* boundaries around the things you can do to the computer gun, so that both users shooters are happy and the company division stays healthy and grows.

Bruce

Edited January 16, 2009 by bgary

[BayouSlide]

I just started shooting production recently. I have swapped the original connector for an OEM 3.5# connector (plus I polished the trigger bar, striker foot & connector). Because the connector swap is not specifically listed, is my trigger non-compliant with the new rules? Do I have to put the original connector back in to become compliant?.

Since the OEM 3.5# comes stock in the G34/35, it was ruled as OK in the past...somebody correct me here if I'm mistaken, since no one has addressed kuhana's question. Same with the extended mag release and slide lock lever from the G34/35. I've never read anything to say that's changed under the 2008 rules.

Curtis

Edited January 16, 2009 by BayouSlide

[Flexmoney]

B (...but I happen to *continue* to believe that "do anything you want inside the gun" is not a viable fix, free of consequences, either...)

Why?

And, lets stay specific and on topic here. We are discussing trigger work.

I don't think there is any basis for it except for "what if", but "what if" you worst fears came true?

Over the years, I have felt triggers in Production guns that were at, or near, that of good 1911 triggers. So what?

I don't know where this magic place is that the Production trigger are going to go? There are triggers out there that have been around. They are already good triggers. They have been in use in Production for years.

Nothing that can be done to a Production gun trigger is going to upset the apple-cart. The only way that could happen is if production gun triggers were hitting the wall at...say... 25% of the functionality of a 1911 trigger. But, they aren't stuck at 25%. They aren't even stuck at 75%.

Trigger work that is out there and popular is already approaching the limit. It can only get incrementally better. It will take some drastic innovation to change that. Something like electronic ignition. And, we don't even see that taking hold in precision rifle shooting...let alone pistols.

There is nowhere to go but down.

[Loves2Shoot]

If you're changing the function of the gun, not so good." That feels (?) like it would leave a lot of room for improvements (such as your street/duty/carry trigger jobs being totally legal in the rules).

Nope, if you improve the travel of the trigger and the reset, and that is what most of the folks who get carry triggers on XD's want. Our parts just take out slop of the factory tolerances and make the parts from higher quality materials.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Loves2Shoot

[vluc]

Bruce, what are you meaning by "changing the function of the gun"?

Whether you bend a tab, drill a hole, add a stop, etc, isn't the trigger still functioning the same - doing its function which is causing the rest of the parts to do what they do?

Isn't the connector - regardless of who makes it - still doing the function of a connector?

Aren't springs doing what the function of springs is?

Edited January 16, 2009 by vluc

[big_kahuna]

I just started shooting production recently. I have swapped the original connector for an OEM 3.5# connector (plus I polished the trigger bar, striker foot & connector). Because the connector swap is not specifically listed, is my trigger non-compliant with the new rules? Do I have to put the original connector back in to become compliant?.

Since the OEM 3.5# comes stock in the G34/35, it was ruled as OK in the past...somebody correct me here if I'm mistaken, since no one has addressed kuhana's question. Same with the extended mag release and slide lock lever from the G34/35. I've never read anything to say that's changed under the 2008 rules.

Curtis

Thanks Curtis.

[bgary]

improve the travel of the trigger and the reset

take out slop of the factory tolerances and make the parts from higher quality materials.

Having a hard time reconciling those two statements against each other.

Just "taking out slop" and "better materials" will improve travel and reset?

I don't know the details of what you do. But I look at photos like the one in this post: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...mp;#entry897084

...and I *think* I'm seeing more than "taking out slop" and "better materials". I "think" I'm seeing a change to the design.

?

[makomachine]

I guess I'm just not understanding the concern about trigger work. There could be a new ammunition breakthrough that dramatically changes recoil. Manufacturers are continuously improving and updating new versions of the guns they sell. The trigger work I want done on my XDm in aftermarket today, might be the next new stock trigger in the model tomorrow. You are leaving/limiting innovation and customization to the firearms manufacturers given the controls you are trying to put in place. Again, and I've said it more than I can count, it's an arbitrary line - and one that has proven itself to not be an issue in IDPA or IPSC to date. Why are you so worried? You can always specifically disallow that NEW innovation, that doesn't currently exist, if it ever does pop up and change the balance of things.

[Flexmoney]

...and I *think* I'm seeing more than "taking out slop" and "better materials". I "think" I'm seeing a change to the design.

?

And, that change in the design is being done all around your in the vast ocean of shooters with Glocks, XD's, CZ's, Sigs, M&P's, Berettas, etc.

When those shooters...who demand better triggers and sight on the "Production guns" that they own...when they wash up out of the vast ocean and onto the island of USPSA, are we going to toss them back in he water? And, those that are already populating our island (running our matches and building our population)...are we going to kick them off the island too?

Should we ban rock and roll music? It could lead to dancing?

[bgary]

Bruce, what are you meaning by "changing the function of the gun"?

Great question. Subject to the limitations on my abilities to write english, here's what I think:

"tuning", to me, means taking what the factory gun had, and "making it work better". To me that means smoothing things up, maybe rounding sharp corners, maybe making some bends or changing some springs.

"changing the function", to me, means substantially changing the shapes or alignments of things so that they "work differently". That may be subtle (different radius on a camming part) or it may be significant (drilling a new hole location for a pivot pin). It's making an alteration that the factory wouldn't recognize as being "consistent with the design" of the gun as they built it.

I know that's imprecise. I'm [obviously] struggling with my ability to articulate it. But it's not a new concept. Take, for example, the single-stack rules. They say to be a valid Single Stack gun, it has to be a gun that has its "basis in the original 1911 service pistol as designed by John M. Browning". The Para LDA has been DISallowed for Single Stack competition. Why? It clearly *looks* like a 1911 pistol? It can certainly be argued that its "basis" is as-designed by JMB. But the crux of the matter is, "it works differently" than the 1911. In particular, the fire control system is *very* different.

I think that kind of thinking has a place in Production division, too. I think Production guns should "have their basis" in the original design, as produced by their manufacturer. When things start to change so that they "work differently" from the way they came from the factory, I have a hard time wrapping my head around still calling it a "production gun".

B

[Loves2Shoot]

...and I *think* I'm seeing more than "taking out slop" and "better materials". I "think" I'm seeing a change to the design.

?

Not my design. Give me a call and I can explain the fine points

[murkish]

Bruce,

I do want to make it clear that I for one really appreciate your participation and input in this discussion and thank you for listening to us, even if, occasionally, our emotions outstrip our civility a bit.

I'd like to ask a couple questions.

Does anyone on the BOD primarily shoot Production Division?

Where is the fear coming from? Is there any evidence to support it? Are production classifier high hit factors creeping up on Limited 10?

Regards,

Jack

[vluc]

Bruce, what are you meaning by "changing the function of the gun"?

Great question. Subject to the limitations on my abilities to write english, here's what I think:

"tuning", to me, means taking what the factory gun had, and "making it work better". To me that means smoothing things up, maybe rounding sharp corners, maybe making some bends or changing some springs.

"changing the function", to me, means substantially changing the shapes or alignments of things so that they "work differently". That may be subtle (different radius on a camming part) or it may be significant (drilling a new hole location for a pivot pin). It's making an alteration that the factory wouldn't recognize as being "consistent with the design" of the gun as they built it.

I think that kind of thinking has a place in Production division, too. I think Production guns should "have their basis" in the original design, as produced by their manufacturer. When things start to change so that they "work differently" from the way they came from the factory, I have a hard time wrapping my head around still calling it a "production gun".

B

Thanks for taking the effort to articulate it!

Given that all of these pistols are mass produced at the lowest common denominator, how can we say what their "basis" was? Engineering-wise, they may truly have wanted to do what so many of us have done, but from a production/manufacturing perspective they could not. Saying consistent with the design assumes that the final design was the ultimate and exact design as envisioned, not one that fit into a cost ratio analysis.

Not to flame, but your definition of tuning makes the gun work differently than it did from the factory. A simple polish or stoning of sharp edges makes it different.

I see what you are trying to say, but the language we are all using is imprecise.

[Bill Nesbitt]

4. Internal action work may be used to enhance trigger pull as

long as safety is maintained (no visible external modifications

allowed).

can somebody with idpa experience tell us if this is causing SSP to self destruct? is anyone in SSP using the internal-hammer design that bruce is worried about?

I have the original 11 page IDPA rule book from 1996. It says: Action work to enhance trigger pull as long as safety is maintained. In a different paragraph it says no external modifications other than changing sights and grips will be permitted.

Winner in this years IDPA Nationals in SSP was Dave Sevigny. We all know his trigger isn't trick. Winners in ESP and CDP were Bob Vogel and David Olhasso both shooting what were probably SSP compliant pistols. Or at least SSP compliant triggers.

[bgary]

I for one really appreciate your participation and input in this discussion and thank you for listening to us,

Heh. Thanks. Sometimes I wonder if I'm "accomplishing" anything other than leaving forehead marks in the wall.

Does anyone on the BOD primarily shoot Production Division?

I have to be gone for a couple of hours, but... briefly: I don't know what the various guys on the Board shoot. I shoot primarily Open, largely because my eyes suck. Before that happened, I shot a glock-22 in pretty much everything (USPSA, Steel, etc).

It raises an *excellent* point, though, and that is that I am one ninth of the voting portion of the Board (waiting for applause to die down). The way to get things done, if you want real change, is to *help* build consensus among those 9 votes. there are usually (at least) 9 different perspectives. Things generally don't happen until at least 5 of them find a way to reach common ground. So... *help* your AD understand your point of view. Bonus points if you can help him understand how that point of view is good for the org, because generally speaking, his perspective is long-term strategy for the org. That "help" has much more effect than posting things on a forum.

Where is the fear coming from? Is there any evidence to support it?

In a word, history.

Take 1: The founders of the game "intended" the game to be about "solving the problem with real-world gear". They never envisioned that the game would become dominated by guns with comps and dots. That "unforeseen evolution" changed the game, and led directly to the two original divisions: "open" for comps and dots, "limited" for "you're not allowed to do comps and dots". Note the growth of IDPA, with very restrictive rules, in that timeframe.

Take 2: When "Limited" was implemented, it was "intended" to be a friendly place for single-stacks and wide-bodies alike. The thought was that course design would negate the difference. Nobody anticipated the degree to which wide-body development would accelerate, and effectively eliminate the single-stack as a viable competition choice. Those that were involved in the creation of Limited have told me that they really regret *not* writing a rule that prohibited wide-bodies in Limited, because their "intent" was to ensure that single-stacks remained viable. Note the growth of "the 1911 single-stack society", with very restrictive rules, in that timeframe.

Take 3: When Limited *did* evolve into a hicap division, "Limited-10" was created. Part of the reason "Limited-10" was created was because the then-board "intended" to [re]create a place for single-stack 1911s. They "intended" Lim-10 to be a single-stack division. yada, yada. As recently as the 2008 rule-book discussions, there was serious thought given to *not* formally recognizing a new "single-stack" division, but instead banning wide-bodies, heavy dust-covers, bull barrels, etc from Lim-10 and making it "the single-stack division it was always supposed to be". Because "unforeseen evolution" had dragged the division away from what its creators had "intended it to be", and the choice was either move away from that vision, or create a new division to [re]implement it.

Flash forward to today ("take 4,719") We have *six* divisions. One of which was created for single-stack 1911s... and which is the continual target of pressure to allow "evolution" in the rules ("we gotta have light rails! we gotta have bull barrels! We gotta let Super make Major!"... etc). Another of which was created for "stock guns"... and which, obviously, is the target of pressure to allow "evolution" in the rules. (And that's not even counting the sprawl in multigun divisions. Open, Tactical, Limited, Heavy Metal Limited (irons), Heavy-Metal Tactical (optics), etc, etc, etc. )

My crystal ball is in the shop, but... given the 20 years of history in those three (obviously self-serving) examples, the path is pretty easy to see. A few years from now, we'll have dozens of divisions. Each one "intended" to provide a place for some branch of evolution that hadn't been anticipated when its "parent division" was formed. And *still* someone will be pushing to change the rules, because new stuff is *always* going to come into the game. I just don't think that "we gotta make a new division because something new got invented" approach is a good path. And yet, the other alternative is to make currently-good things (like mostly-stock XDs, Glocks, CZs, etc) competitively obsolete. I don't think that's good, either.

As a member of the Board, I believe its my role to try to "help" the org make decisions that keep it strong and help it grow. I believe - personally - that the more we dilute our rules, the weaker our future is.

But that's just me. So... make sure you reach out to the other 8 guys. They'll [each] have a different perspective.

B (edited to add emphasis to a key point)

Edited January 16, 2009 by bgary

[bgary]

"...[the potential for modification] is already approaching the limit. It can only get incrementally better"

Yup. And everything that can be invented, has been invented.

(Charles H. Duell Commissioner, US Patent Office. 1899)

[XRe]

Huh? Oh, uh, hmmm. Well, excuse me, but you forgot the period at the end of your second sentence.

Perhaps you were not aware that an emoticon is considered valid punctuation?

Besides, I don't think there is a requirement for all posts to be grammatically correct, though I try. But I do think that a rule book should be written so that competitors don't need to hire a lawyer to understand it, and aren't caught in a "gotcha" like seems to have happened to most of us.

Actually, my comment was referring to 00bullit's post - yours only in the "don't insult the guy you want help from" context. It was meant to convey the whole "people in glass houses..." concept. Insulting or berating people and then demanding that they do something for you doesn't get a whole done other than make you look silly, especially when you can't seem to do the same thing you're berating them for....

To your point above, the rule is actually written pretty darn clearly - the problem is that it doesn't say what most people here want it to say, not that that it is somehow unclear. That's pointed out above already at some length.

[Gary Stevens]

And I'll take this opportunity to point out my previous (and probably last) Super Senior Production National Championship, which is conspicuously posted just to the left of this message below the Borg cube . So there is at least one who has an understanding (I think) of Production.

Gary

Edited January 16, 2009 by Gary Stevens

[Flexmoney]

"...[the potential for modification] is already approaching the limit. It can only get incrementally better"

Yup. And everything that can be invented, has been invented.

(Charles H. Duell Commissioner, US Patent Office. 1899)

Right. As I said, until some technological break-through... (which will obsolete every trigger since...oh...1911)

We can worry about what fuel to put in our jet-packs when we all get them.

I had thought you might address my point with your reply.

[XRe]

So, Bruce, here's the thing... I completely see what you're driving at, and I think I understand why. You've done a good job of making it clear. For a moment, lets assume that a rule is able to be crafted that sets some limits. How is that rule going to be enforced? I think this is the only salient point to even consider.

You've already stated that you'd like to avoid technical inspections (I haven't seen anyone disagree with that, for good reason). Trigger pull restrictions are also impractical - and they don't actually accomplish what you want, anyway. What have I missed, anything? Is there some way to ensure a competitor has got a stock trigger system that's only had polishing done to it without taking the thing apart and having some sort of certified technical expert on that platform examine it carefully?

If there's not, I'm afraid the whole thing is moot. You've fought the good fight, my friend, and I think you've been sticking up for what you think is the right direction, but I don't think there's a practical, enforceable way to implement the rules as you'd like to see them actually work, regardless of how eloquently they are worded in the rule book.

As it is, we don't (regularly) enforce a good chunk of the equipment rules - box for Production or Single Stack, magazine lengths, holster positions, consistency of gear from stage to stage, safe functioning of the weapon (assuming it doesn't double or something mid-stage), etc. Those things may get looked at sometimes, and somewhat randomly through a particular match. At the matches I attended this past year, I did not see a box applied to any production or single stack shooter on my squad, I never had a mag gauged nor did anyone on my squad that I'm aware of, I never saw anyone pull out a ruler to look at holster distances or make a diagram of anyone's gear that was later re-checked (including serial numbers of guns, etc), never had a chrono guy check my safety for proper operation, etc... If we can't do stuff that requires a cursory inspection of the competitor and his gear, how can we expect to enforce a rule that requires a detailed, knowledgeable, consistent inspection of the firearm?

In the end, I don't think it matters what the intent of the division was - or even what it is, for that matter - as long as this issue is open. If you cannot enforce the rule, it doesn't matter what the rule says. If the rule is enforceable somehow, then its worth talking about how to write the rule.

Maybe that makes too much sense, though... Or maybe I'm still hittin' the crack pipe... either way...

[makomachine]

"...[the potential for modification] is already approaching the limit. It can only get incrementally better"

Yup. And everything that can be invented, has been invented.

(Charles H. Duell Commissioner, US Patent Office. 1899)

I don't see anywhere in the regulations on what sized battery I'm allowed to have in my railgun. Please insure that is included soon...

[Bill Nesbitt]

[We can worry about what fuel to put in our jet-packs when we all get them.

JET PACKS??? We can have jet packs in Production? I would be much faster with a jet pack.