driver8M3 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 IF a manufacturer were to develop a new wiz-bang blaster based upon the model you already own and make sufficient numbers to be added to the approved USPSA Production gun list, you would (I believe) be able to use the compatible parts to upgrade your "street model" gun. but what if it's not based on the same model? or what if you own a gun from a different manufacturer? not allowing trigger work is the perfect setup for an equipment race of whole guns, rather than inexpensive parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobob Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Is that right? I think Mr. Gary was making the point earlier that swapping the connector from a G34 into a G17 was verboten, unless I missunderstood. Which IS possible. I tend to think there is a LOT of missunderstanding on this thread! I don't see ANY problem with a manufacturer producing a new wiz-bang. That is called free enterprise. If they meet the specifications for the USPSA approved Production gun list, power to them. If they over-price it, it may not be a commercially successful project - their business decision. It is the shooter's choice whether to buy it or not. If it's over-priced, well.... free enterprise at work. I see nothing wrong with innovation. Neither should USPSA. If innovation is such a bad thing, we could always go back to slingshots or other such antiquated artillery. I'm not sure you get my point. Which is, since the rules (as interpreted) don't allow us to upgrade the triggers on our Production gun, a manufacturer may see an opportunity to produce a gun which meets our desires. There is nothing wrong with the innovative manufacturer. What is wrong is writing rules which limit our innovation to make our own guns competitive, and forcing us to buy something new, even though what we already have would fill our needs if we were allowed to do the needed changes. Thus CREATING an equipment race, where none existed before. Except that this equipment race would be between firearm manufacturers, not between shooters who are honestly trying to make their equipment competitive within the boundaries imposed by the rules. Is it cheaper to buy a few after market parts, or a complete new limited production gun? Am I making sense, or just blowing smoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I'm not sure you get my point. Which is, since the rules (as interpreted) don't allow us to upgrade the triggers on our Production gun, a manufacturer may see an opportunity to produce a gun which meets our desires. There is nothing wrong with the innovative manufacturer. What is wrong is writing rules which limit our innovation to make our own guns competitive, and forcing us to buy something new, even though what we already have would fill our needs if we were allowed to do the needed changes. Thus CREATING an equipment race, where none existed before. Except that this equipment race would be between firearm manufacturers, not between shooters who are honestly trying to make their equipment competitive within the boundaries imposed by the rules. Is it cheaper to buy a few after market parts, or a complete new limited production gun? Am I making sense, or just blowing smoke? Makes perfect sense to me. The $600.00 Glock 34 (including the cost of springs and sights and .25 trigger job) is competetive with anything on the market now. Take away the ability to modify the couple tiny things wrong with it and you end up needing to buy the new spiffy Sig X5 USPSA (hypothetical model), that Sig has specifically tuned from the factory with a lighter trigger etc. to meet the needs of today's new USPSA shooter who can't work on his gun. Now unfortunately Sig is going to have to charge $2000.00 for the new uber gun (1500.00 base plus all that time and energy to "tune" it for us). What basis would this gun have to be denied? None. Is this the direction USPSA Production should take, I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) What ever happened to the whipping the dead horse emotioncon. For those concerned that the rule doesn't allow changing a connector or a trigger housing does this mean you have never had a speeding ticket or that you have never been caught. I love reading all the back and forth arguments that are not going to change an established opinion but it is burning up a lot of Brian's bandwidth for something only 9 people might change in some shape, form or fashion that someone is still not gtoing to like. DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL AND YOU ARE NOT TAKING MY GUN APART. Reason for edit: fat fingers Edited January 18, 2009 by LPatterson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 What ever happened to the whipping the dead horse emotioncon.For those concerned that the rule doesn't allow changing a connector or a trigger housing does this mean you have never had a speeding ticket or that you have never been caught. I love reading all the back and forth arguments that are not going to change an established opinion but it is burning up a lot of Brian's bandwidth for something only 9 people might change in some shape, form or fashion that someone is still not gtoing to like. DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL AND YOU ARE NOT TAKING MY GUN APART. Reason for edit: fat fingers Soooo, does this mean you advocating cheating? I'm not quite understanding the logic of your post. Is it that it's okay to make modifications as long as you don't get caught as in your speed analogy? Your last statement makes me think that you might be thinking of just going ahead and making an illegal modification and just not allowing anyone to look. If I was an RM and the Chrono Dude came to me with a shooter he suspected of tinkering with his pistol (and after pulling the trigger he MAY be able to tell) and the shooter wouldn't allow an inspection, that would be a quick bump to Open. Don't know if that would be the right call, but I'm willing to be there are a lot of folks that would make the same call. I know for a fact at least half the BOD (talked to them personally)is aware of this and giving it consideration. I just hope they make a good decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Reading this thread reminds me of why I love Open so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobob Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Reading this thread reminds me of why I love Open so much. A number of us may be joining you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobob Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 What ever happened to the whipping the dead horse emotioncon.For those concerned that the rule doesn't allow changing a connector or a trigger housing does this mean you have never had a speeding ticket or that you have never been caught. I love reading all the back and forth arguments that are not going to change an established opinion but it is burning up a lot of Brian's bandwidth for something only 9 people might change in some shape, form or fashion that someone is still not gtoing to like. DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL AND YOU ARE NOT TAKING MY GUN APART. Reason for edit: fat fingers Soooo, does this mean you advocating cheating? I'm not quite understanding the logic of your post. Is it that it's okay to make modifications as long as you don't get caught as in your speed analogy? Your last statement makes me think that you might be thinking of just going ahead and making an illegal modification and just not allowing anyone to look. If I was an RM and the Chrono Dude came to me with a shooter he suspected of tinkering with his pistol (and after pulling the trigger he MAY be able to tell) and the shooter wouldn't allow an inspection, that would be a quick bump to Open. Don't know if that would be the right call, but I'm willing to be there are a lot of folks that would make the same call. I know for a fact at least half the BOD (talked to them personally)is aware of this and giving it consideration. I just hope they make a good decision. Yeah, I was wondering that too. If you're going to cheat, it probably would be wise not to broadcast your intention! I do agree with him on one thing, no yahoo at a match is going to dissassemble my gun! They wouldn't find anything if they did. I don't cheat, not deliberately anyway, though it sounds like my Production gun's trigger has been illegal for low these many years. Or at least by the interpretation of some it has been. But, unless said yahoo has documentation certifying that he's qualified, he's not touching my gun. If it comes to the point where competitor's guns have to be internally inspected, it may be time to find something else to do. I'm with you, Chuck, hoping for a good decision. But I won't hold my breath! It seems we have Open shooters deciding what Production should be. Maybe the answer to all this would be to form a Production rules committee, made up of people who've been shooting Production for a few years. I don't know, all of this is going to make my head explode! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I've had the opportunity to talk to about half the BOD over the last couple days. While none of them are looking to allow Production to be a do anything you want Division, all of them were willing to take the time to listen to my point of view. (Although I'm sure Manny was tired of me sneaking up behind him every 20 minutes nad telling him "Don't ruin Production" then running off) Don't know what's going to happen with the vote or in the long run. I know at least 25% of the BOD will be changing next year with new directors in A1 and A3 since Bruce and Manny are not running again. I would just hope that any change, if one is made, would have some reasoning behind it. Consistent reasoning. You know if you want it to be a stock Division, don't let the outside of the gun look like my limited gun without a magwell and nothing inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 It's sad that the BOD wants to blame the shooters for creating an anything goes attitude when they the BOD kept changing the rules for the bad. With the 4 different rule books every time something was added to the rules to take it to an anything goes "racegun" Division. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 ...to allow Production to be a do anything you want Division... Yet, they made rules allowing major changes (i.e. AM slide and grip stippling) that were not allowed previousely while at the same time, disallowing minor changes (i.e. trigger work) which were allowed previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 What ever happened to the whipping the dead horse emotioncon.For those concerned that the rule doesn't allow changing a connector or a trigger housing does this mean you have never had a speeding ticket or that you have never been caught. I love reading all the back and forth arguments that are not going to change an established opinion but it is burning up a lot of Brian's bandwidth for something only 9 people might change in some shape, form or fashion that someone is still not gtoing to like. DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL AND YOU ARE NOT TAKING MY GUN APART. Reason for edit: fat fingers Soooo, does this mean you advocating cheating? I'm not quite understanding the logic of your post. Is it that it's okay to make modifications as long as you don't get caught as in your speed analogy? Your last statement makes me think that you might be thinking of just going ahead and making an illegal modification and just not allowing anyone to look. If I was an RM and the Chrono Dude came to me with a shooter he suspected of tinkering with his pistol (and after pulling the trigger he MAY be able to tell) and the shooter wouldn't allow an inspection, that would be a quick bump to Open. Don't know if that would be the right call, but I'm willing to be there are a lot of folks that would make the same call. I know for a fact at least half the BOD (talked to them personally)is aware of this and giving it consideration. I just hope they make a good decision. What I was trying to say was the rule does not specifically allow changing a connector unless that is classified as a spring which I do not as it functions more like a sear. As for the Chrono dude suspecting that I may have tinkered (polishing is legal) then you would be tearing down most M&P and XD's. If you came to me and said I want to tear down your gun because Chrono dude thinks I am cheating then I am liable to tell you to stick it in a dark and smelly place and leave. The main thing is that too many people are paying for modifications that gun smiths believe are legal for this organization to suddenly decided that what is inside the gun can not be improved. Let's not revisit the revo debacle by deciding that the INTENT behind Production to shoot a gun as it came from the manufacturer. Once they allowed milling the slide and aftermarket slides then they opened the door for something known as UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. All this could be solved by implementing IPSC's 5# trigger requirement then listen to shoters complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I have been trying and trying to get my head around the "trigger pull weight" system and simply can't. I must be missing something. It seems to me that if you were to establish a minimum trigger pull weight, what you are saying is that you can do whatever you want to the trigger as long as it weighs at least this. Since the weight would be the go/no go factor, what has been done to the trigger becomes moot. So to break it down a bit farther it seems like this: Do whatever you want to the trigger internally + meets minimum weight = Good Do whatever you want to the trigger internally = Bad What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) >>What am I missing?< Nothing Except the propensity of some folks to want control. They often make very bad analogies. Edited January 19, 2009 by rgkeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I have been trying and trying to get my head around the "trigger pull weight" system and simply can't. I must be missing something.It seems to me that if you were to establish a minimum trigger pull weight, what you are saying is that you can do whatever you want to the trigger as long as it weighs at least this. Since the weight would be the go/no go factor, what has been done to the trigger becomes moot. So to break it down a bit farther it seems like this: Do whatever you want to the trigger internally + meets minimum weight = Good Do whatever you want to the trigger internally = Bad What am I missing? If you're setting a first shot trigger pull minimum that will have a different effect on traditional DA/SA autos (first shot) than it will on striker fired (every shot) autos. (I've spoken to one Glock-shooting World Shoot competitor, who's contemplating shooting a CZ if he returns for the next one....) You'd probably also have to reinstitute the rule requiring the first shot to be attempted double-action --- otherwise the first shot minimum pull would be meaningless...... Institute an every shot minimum trigger pull, and that number will need to be really low, to account for a polished DA/SA in SA mode. Striker fired autos will need to go the Vanek or Burwell, etc. route to take advantage of that...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Has this all been an exercise to get us back to a minimum trigger weight - a proposal that was roundly and soundly criticized by the vast majority of production shooters who commented over at the USPSA site on the rule changes? I cannot for the life of me understand what the heck is going on here. Connector - no connector, spring - no spring, guide rod - no guide rod, no to profile changes but yes to stippling, contour changes. No to tape under the trigger guard but yes to plugs. I thought we put the Production is Stock/Entry level only argument to bed with the latest round of rule changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Has this all been an exercise to get us back to a minimum trigger weight - a proposal that was roundly and soundly criticized by the vast majority of production shooters who commented over at the USPSA site on the rule changes? I wouldn't be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I honestly don't think that was the original intent. I think the problem issues are rule based. With that being said though, I think those who thought trigger pull weights about a year and a half ago were good, still think they are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
double_pedro Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 If you're setting a first shot trigger pull minimum that will have a different effect on traditional DA/SA autos (first shot) than it will on striker fired (every shot) autos. (I've spoken to one Glock-shooting World Shoot competitor, who's contemplating shooting a CZ if he returns for the next one....) You'd probably also have to reinstitute the rule requiring the first shot to be attempted double-action --- otherwise the first shot minimum pull would be meaningless......Institute an every shot minimum trigger pull, and that number will need to be really low, to account for a polished DA/SA in SA mode. Striker fired autos will need to go the Vanek or Burwell, etc. route to take advantage of that...... Isn't the idea of a first-shot minimum trigger pull a safety issue in the holster and during the draw? It may not be the best measure, but isn't safety at the root of the idea? DA/SA and striker fired guns may have no other trigger safety margin than the trigger weight and the length of the stroke (as opposed to SA-only pistols which I believe require an external safety to play under the other USPSA divisions). I would personally feel uncomfortable carrying any pistol with very short and very light trigger without an external safety - however that would be perfectly legal under PD rules without a pull weight limit. Now, I can't say just what trigger weight provides an adequate margin of safety...so therein lies (part of) the rub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 The short answer to your question, which is a good one, is no. We allready require that the safeties work, so trigger weight has nothing to do with that. In all the discussions I have been involved in regarding this issue, safety has never been raised. As an aside, my XD has an external grip safety. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I hope it does not have a canyon creek trigger job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 If you're setting a first shot trigger pull minimum that will have a different effect on traditional DA/SA autos (first shot) than it will on striker fired (every shot) autos. (I've spoken to one Glock-shooting World Shoot competitor, who's contemplating shooting a CZ if he returns for the next one....) You'd probably also have to reinstitute the rule requiring the first shot to be attempted double-action --- otherwise the first shot minimum pull would be meaningless......Institute an every shot minimum trigger pull, and that number will need to be really low, to account for a polished DA/SA in SA mode. Striker fired autos will need to go the Vanek or Burwell, etc. route to take advantage of that...... Isn't the idea of a first-shot minimum trigger pull a safety issue in the holster and during the draw? It may not be the best measure, but isn't safety at the root of the idea? DA/SA and striker fired guns may have no other trigger safety margin than the trigger weight and the length of the stroke (as opposed to SA-only pistols which I believe require an external safety to play under the other USPSA divisions). I would personally feel uncomfortable carrying any pistol with very short and very light trigger without an external safety - however that would be perfectly legal under PD rules without a pull weight limit. Now, I can't say just what trigger weight provides an adequate margin of safety...so therein lies (part of) the rub. Its already "perfectly legal" for striker fired guns in limited and open. If you're going to throw the safety flag, it would have to apply to limited and open as well! Don't think that one is going to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) "I hope it does not have a canyon creek trigger job." quote What difference does it make whos trigger job it is, all trigger jobs are illegal in the 2008 rule book. That is how some people are reading it. Rich Edited January 20, 2009 by RIIID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
double_pedro Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 If you're setting a first shot trigger pull minimum that will have a different effect on traditional DA/SA autos (first shot) than it will on striker fired (every shot) autos. (I've spoken to one Glock-shooting World Shoot competitor, who's contemplating shooting a CZ if he returns for the next one....) You'd probably also have to reinstitute the rule requiring the first shot to be attempted double-action --- otherwise the first shot minimum pull would be meaningless......Institute an every shot minimum trigger pull, and that number will need to be really low, to account for a polished DA/SA in SA mode. Striker fired autos will need to go the Vanek or Burwell, etc. route to take advantage of that...... Isn't the idea of a first-shot minimum trigger pull a safety issue in the holster and during the draw? It may not be the best measure, but isn't safety at the root of the idea? DA/SA and striker fired guns may have no other trigger safety margin than the trigger weight and the length of the stroke (as opposed to SA-only pistols which I believe require an external safety to play under the other USPSA divisions). I would personally feel uncomfortable carrying any pistol with very short and very light trigger without an external safety - however that would be perfectly legal under PD rules without a pull weight limit. Now, I can't say just what trigger weight provides an adequate margin of safety...so therein lies (part of) the rub. Its already "perfectly legal" for striker fired guns in limited and open. If you're going to throw the safety flag, it would have to apply to limited and open as well! Don't think that one is going to fly. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciscoip Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Reading this thread reminds me of why I love Open so much. A number of us may be joining you! Whether we intended to or not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts