Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[Flexmoney]

Yup, I have posted here. And I support the majority of Production shooters in that I'm trying to defend the division against the slippery slope of "anything goes." I think I have demonstrated that I am open to ideas, and am more than willing to take good ideas to the Board room. The problem is that I haven't yet seen anyone come up with an enforceable way to write the rule that *solves* the problem. I want common sense restored, too. But "anything goes" isn't it, for the *production* division, IMHO. The rules have *never* said "you can do anything you want inside the gun". Never.

Bruce, thanks for taking up the interest.

I understand that you are worried about a free-for-all. With that in mind, we are only talking about trigger work here...and I think we can come up with wording that reflects that.

I understand that, in the past, we have seen some things that changed the nature of the divisions and of the sport. I can see wanting to prevent that.

But, we don't currently have a "problem". And, any problem that could possibly manifest with regards to internal trigger work on a Production gun would be constrained by the limit of approaching a single-action 1911 trigger.

If some unforeseen technological break through should come to life that would eclipse the functionality of a 1911 trigger, then we would need to address ALL of what we currently know. Pistol technology as we know it will have been stood on it's ear.

For 98 years now, the 1911 trigger has stood as the de facto standard of the best of the triggers. I can't see where there could be an issue with a Glock trigger approaching that, nor with a first shot from a Beretta or CZ.

It's OK. We haven't been too far off of that in recent years, and I still shot a stock trigger (as a GM that competes in the division).

(thanks for seeking input and listening)

[bgary]

For your slippery slope argument to have any merit, the BOD would have to assume that NONE of the subject trigger work "enhances reliability."

Fair point. But the rule lays out "what is allowed". If you're doing something to your gun (your choice), don't you think you should have to be able to demonstrate that it is connected to the rules? Don't you think *you* have the responsibility to be sure you and your equipment are in compliance with the rules?

If so... where's *your* evidence? Can you document that the work you did to your trigger made it more *reliable*?

If not... how can you possibly tell me you did it to "enhance reliability"? Which is the *ONLY* context in which the [prior, pre-2008] rules allowed "trigger work"....

Bruce

Edited January 22, 2009 by bgary

[racerba]

You've just answered your own question. The rules you cite, where you say trigger work "was expressly, explicitly, and in black-and-white permitted", got "creatively interpreted" by a lot of people.

A lot of those people includes the NROI. It was the NROI which allowed such internal replacements and have ruled consistently so. So if the new rules are trying to rid the old "do whatever you want internally" rule, why does the new rule allows for external replacement such as the slide?

If so... where's *your* evidence? Can you document that the work you did to your trigger made it more *reliable*?

If not... how can you possibly tell me you did it to "enhance reliability"? Which is the *ONLY* context in which the rules allowed "trigger work"....

Sure I can. A better trigger makes the gun more accurate, as far as shooting it goes. Isn't a more accurate gun inherently more reliable?

Edited January 22, 2009 by racerba

[Flexmoney]

I want a rule that makes sense. Not just for the 20 or 30 members who post here, but for the thousands of others who shoot the division.

Bruce

When you hear from guys like Nik and I...who have shot the division for a number of years, ran matches, and have served as Section Coordinators (seems as SC, I always get the job of passing along the grips and accolades)...when you hear from us, chances are you are getting quite a bit more than just the voice of two people.

[Woody Allen]

bgary wrote:

"But "anything goes" isn't it, for the *production* division, IMHO. The rules have *never* said "you can do anything you want inside the gun". Never."

I disagree.

Look at the USPSA website, specifically:

http://www.uspsa.org/rules/2004-2008%20Rul...Differences.pdf

"LLL. Appendix E4 (Production Division checkering, stippling and grip tape limits)"

Look at the NROI on the Vanek trigger:

http://www.uspsa.org/rules/nroi_rulings.ph...dit&indx=22

"The question is whether this is an external modification." NOT whether it as a permitted internal modification. Under your interpretation of the rules, the trigger was also a prohibited INTERNAL modification.

The rules as understood by the members, NROI, and the gunsmiths, were (are) internal modifications were permitted keeping existing safeties, within weight limit etc. ANYTHING GOES. This is clearly evident by the guns shot by the USPSA members-internally modified XDs, CZs, M&Ps, Glocks..... Your assertion is contrary to the rules, the actions of the NROI, the actions of the members of USPSA, and the actions taken by the gunsmiths that work on the USPSA guns.

I believe that it is your opinion that the rules should prohibit trigger work, other than polishing and changing springs. If that is your opinion, just tell us.

If your constituency backs your viewpoint, then as a BOD advocate for either an interpretation of the current rules or new rules that will achieve your objective. The dancing and squirming around the issue is uncomfortable to watch (read). I suspect that you will find support within the ranks of the USPSA, and unfortunately, on the BOD (without a doubt, I suspect the majority of the support will come from those that do not shoot production).

[driver8M3]

and you interpret it to mean "hey, he didn't say it is illegal so it must be OK"

i look at it more as "he told me what about the trigger was not legal, so that i can fix it so it is."

let's say your take on all this trigger talk is the correct way to look at it. why are you ok with not enforcing the rules? why haven't you pushed to have guns inspected? you want to interpret the rules in a particularly strict manner (which is fine), but then appear to be ok with not enforcing those rules.

[Singlestack]

I want a rule that makes sense. Not just for the 20 or 30 members who post here, but for the thousands of others who shoot the division.

Bruce

When you hear from guys like Nik and I...who have shot the division for a number of years, ran matches, and have served as Section Coordinators (seems as SC, I always get the job of passing along the grips and accolades)...when you hear from us, chances are you are getting quite a bit more than just the voice of two people.

I would say the same about almost everyone that has posted in this thread.

[rvb]

how can you possibly tell me you did it to "enhance reliability"? Which is the *ONLY* context in which the rules allowed "trigger work"....

Bruce

my book says :

Authorized modifications

(Strictly limited to these

items and their stated

guidelines)

•Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy,

reliability and function

So the context of helping accuracy is just as viable as helping reliability.

-rvb

Edited January 22, 2009 by rvb

[bgary]

But, we don't currently have a "problem".

I get that, Flex. I really do. And I know I'm polarizing this discussion. I'm doing that on purpose - I want to get people *thinking*.

For two reasons.

1) the issue isn't totally about "today". The Board has responsibility for setting the strategic direction of the org. I honestly believe that, whether we have a problem today or not, if we just throw the doors open and say "hey, as long as it has a DA first shot, anything goes", we *will* have a problem down the road. That's just my opinion, but it is a strongly held one, and I think I can support it with history. If the Board decides thats the direction it wants to go, that's fine. I just want to make sure we consider the implications, rather than just react to pressure.

2) and the other one, for me, personally, is a "moral" one. We are a sport that lives and dies on "personal responsibility". If you break the 180, you're done. You don't get to "creatively interpret the rules" and argue "well, hey, my shoes were pointed 15 degrees off dead-down-range, and the rules don't take into consideration which direction my shoes were pointing, so you can't tell me that what I did was illegal!!!" No, the rules are supposed to mean something. And yet we have people who "decided" the rules in Production Division "mean" something different than they actually say, they argue "but there's no place where you ever specifically said this is illegal", and when I say that there's no place *they* can point to that supports their interpretation... I'm the bad guy. What ever happened to "personal responsibility", and "being accountable for your own actions"??? I, personally, would love to get back to a place where people know where the line is drawn, and choose to stay on the right side of it. That, more than anything else, is why I want to get this clarified before I leave the Board.

[sfinney]

I am very curious about the basis for the slippery slope/anything goes argument.

It was an NROI ruling which allowed you to swap out internal parts with other OEM parts that were available on another approved model.

To me, THAT is the slippery slope - the NROI rulings that interpret the written rules that were very carefuly and specifically worded to convey the intent of the BOD. Buried Bomars? NROI ruling. Parts swapping? NROI Ruling. Butt plugs? NROI ruling.

Theres the camp that says no mods of any kind should be allowed. Well, that eliminates a large percentage of our target audience, as one of the first things many people do when they buy a new gun is change the sights, grips, and get a trigger job. Sometimes the barrel. "Oh sorry, new shooter, you can't use your real world carry gun, your prize and joy, the reason you decided to come try our game, without shooting Limited or Open - you've improved it to much. Please go buy another STOCK pistol you won't enjoy shooting as much so you can play our silly game."

So clearly we need to allow some mods, which is what the current rules seem to be trying to allow. Why there is such heated discussion as to whether the aftermarket connector in that tuned Glock should be allowed or not, is just crazy. Or which specific parts internally can be changed out... when it will be unenforcable to ban the parts changing anyway. Who's going to have the expertise to tear down and check, at every match, for every make of pistol?

Lets add list of what you CAN'T change, and leave it at that - say for example "Exhange of the Frame or Slide is prohibited. Exchange of minor components (anythng that is not the Frame or Slide; such as barrels, sights, springs, safeties, slide stops, sears, connnectors, strikers, guide rods, for example) is allowed."

[George Jones]

His recollection matches 100 percent with my recollection.

That's ...um... odd, because much of the discussion took place at the Dallas meeting (March 2007). That's where the "issues" with trigger-weight testing procedures came up, and it was decided to move away from that and towards a more precise set of explicitly-allowed internal modifications. Somewhere or another I've got a photo of the "whiteboard" that had all the decisions we landed on, I'll see if I can dig that out when I return from this trip.

I agree with that. It was discussed and decided that the division needed clarification and "tightening up". But, and this is the basis for this obvious difference of opinion, is that we did not remove the fundamental premise that internal issues were unenforceable, therefore not to be attempted. The "tightening up", in my recollection of that meeting and subsequent discussions, was directly aimed at the external parts or externally visible parts.

It was a long process. Not every Board member was on the rules committee. Even those that were could not always participate regularly. We did a full-time job on a part-time basis. I agree that it could have been done better (that will always be the case when it comes to the rules), but I can't ignore the fact (that is my recollection) that we never intended to control the internals.

This needs to be addressed and I'm confident it's going to be.

My personal opinion (and it's not worth any more than any one else's) is that we can't police it, we can't undo it, and let technology rule (the internals).

[Flexmoney]

I *thought* the Board reached consensus, in 2007, that the rules should support the notion of "stock or nearly-stock guns". Am I wrong?

Even if you are right...you are missing the market.

The "stock or nearly-stock guns" come off the shelf with crappy triggers and sights. Joe-the-gun-owner then tries to hit something with them...and rather quickly looks to improve sights and trigger on these guns.

I hang out on some of the gun forums that 'others fear the tread'. The shooters that we are likely to recruit as new competitors are well down the tracks already.

[ima45dv8]

But, we don't currently have a "problem".

I get that, Flex. I really do. And I know I'm polarizing this discussion. I'm doing that on purpose - I want to get people *thinking*.

And you have gotten people thinking. Can you please consider that after careful examination of your position, sparked by your efforts, many of us (most here) do not agree with it?

We 'get' that it's a mission for you. Please 'get' that many here don't share your fears about the future.

You said, "That's just my opinion, but it is a strongly held one...." I hope you and the other members of the Board can make room for the possibility that the rank-and-file members do not share that opinion, and our opinions on this issue are just as strongly held.

[bgary]

It was the NROI which allowed such internal replacements and have ruled consistently so.

Really? Can you point me to one?

Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy, reliability and function

Okay, now you've switched to the 2008 rule book. I'm with you.

Tell me what part of a Vanek trigger is "internal throating and polishing"?

Tell me what part of an overtravel stop is "internal throating and polishing"?

Tell me what part of a swapped-in aftermarket connector is "internal throating and polishing"?

Again, please give me a *little* credit. I'm not trying to ban all mods. My ONLY agenda is to write a rule that actually accomplishes the goal of drawing a clear line between what is allowed and what is not. I don't *personally* care what things are on the approved side of the line. The only thing I care about is that the line is clear and enforceable, so that shooters can objectively "tell" when they are on the right side of it without having to "interpret" things.

B

[driver8M3]

and you interpret it to mean "hey, he didn't say it is illegal so it must be OK"

i look at it more as "he told me what about the trigger was not legal, so that i can fix it so it is."

oh, and here's one more reason why i thought internal work was ok. this is a quote from the rules king himself (amidon) in an email exchange after the vanek ruling.

While I do not argue with your logic, action work is an internal thing as is throating the barrel, 21.6 is

an exception to the external modification along with sights. If the trigger work was all done internally,

it would not be an issue, but modifications were done externally to the trigger, thus it is not allowed.

so bruce, do you still think i made a completely off-base assumption?

[bgary]

let technology rule

When the rules actually *say* that, I'll totally support it. 100%. Until then, I feel like I'm on a tilting-at-windmills quest, trying to get people to look at what the rules ACTUALLY SAY, instead of reading things into them.

B

[bgary]

so bruce, do you still think i made a completely off-base assumption?

Absolutely. If it isn't an "official NROI ruling", posted on the USPSA website, it has no official standing.

Sorry. That's long-standing and well-published policy. If you got an email from NROI that conflicts (or even extends) published rulings, that's Really Bad (on NROI)... but that doesn't make it official (it doesn't have "the authority of the rules" until it is posted/published)

If you can point me to an official, posted-on-the-USPSA-site or published-in-front-sight NROI ruling that says that? Yeah, I'll totally eat my hat, retract everything I've said, and shoot Production with a box-stock "new york trigger" Glock for the next year as punishment.

B

[rvb]

Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy, reliability and function

Okay, now you've switched to the 2008 rule book. I'm with you.

Tell me what part of a Vanek trigger is "internal throating and polishing"?

Tell me what part of an overtravel stop is "internal throating and polishing"?

Tell me what part of a swapped-in aftermarket connector is "internal throating and polishing"?

Again, please give me a *little* credit.

Sorry, didn't realize we were debating old rules. That's what I get for skimming.

Notice I didn't comment on the issue, just quoted the rule.

-rvb

[sfinney]

As to what it actually says.... ok then, define "reliability" as it pertains to triggers, etc. To me, one with a shorte reset, and an overtravel stop, is more "reliable" for me in my goal to hit the target accurately than the stock trigger with long mushy reset and overtravel.

Enhance reliabiltiy to what purpose, and by what and who's definition? Loose terms like that are part of the slippery slope as well.

[Flexmoney]

I, personally, would love to get back to a place where people know where the line is drawn, and choose to stay on the right side of it. That, more than anything else, is why I want to get this clarified before I leave the Board.

Well, I'll tell you what. I don't think everybody was stepping over the line. The rules were grey...folks asked what they meant (where the line was)...and then used that understanding as their limit.

The line...for years...was understood to allow internal trigger work, but not external.

I understand that isn't how you interpreted it, but most everybody else in the sport that shot Production division understood that that was where the line was.

The "speed bump" trigger ruling on the Beretta and the Vanek ruling on the Glock further this thinking.

[bgary]

Loose terms like that are part of the slippery slope as well

Indeed, so let's figure out how to fix them.

So *everyone* knows whether they mean "gun modifications allowed to help the gun mechanically operate more reliably" or "gun modifications allowed to help the shooter hit a target more reliably".

'Cuz, I'd argue, there's a big difference between those, both conceptually and pragmatically (I want some of those second kind on *my* gun!)

[Flexmoney]

1) the issue isn't totally about "today". ... I honestly believe that...we *will* have a problem down the road. ... I think I can support it with history.

I know that is the foundation of your belief here. And, in a lot of cases, I would share it.

When I ask myself what would happen if your fears came to life...I find myself saying that it makes no difference.

If we edge closer and closer to a true single action trigger, well...what is the worst that can happen? It won't be prohibitively expensive...because the market is too large and competition will keep the price in line. Availability...it will be there for the same reasons.

And, look at what we see happening today. Springfield, Smith & Wesson, CZ...all have fairly new models of Production guns out. Most all of them based on improvements we have seen in Production division type guns. We can't fight that (and why would we want to).

What we would end up doing, is leaving OUR current members out in the cold.

You see that, right?

[BayouSlide]

I want a rule that makes sense. Not just for the 20 or 30 members who post here, but for the thousands of others who shoot the division.

Bruce

When you hear from guys like Nik and I...who have shot the division for a number of years, ran matches, and have served as Section Coordinators (seems as SC, I always get the job of passing along the grips and accolades)...when you hear from us, chances are you are getting quite a bit more than just the voice of two people.

...and when you hear from 20 or 30 members here on this board, we're not phoning in off-the-wall opinions from left field...our concerns are the same as thousands of others who shoot the division that you will never hear from one way or the other. Even if you take issue with our reasoning, please consider what we're trying to express, even if it appears ill-informed.

If you feel a line must be drawn, I and many others wish you would draw it in a way to include the trigger tuning which, like sights, are the easiest and most economical methods to get increased performance from a lower-cost pistol of the sort typically shot in Production.

Curtis

Edited January 22, 2009 by BayouSlide

[Gary Stevens]

While the following is not a primary part of the decision making process as it applies to USPSA rules, I think that we should consider the effect on the potential "crossover" shooters we have recruited and been seeing from IDPA. We are attempting to grow the sport though various methods, such as the Steel Challenge. To close the door to potential members from another shooting sport, that uses almost identical equipment that was previously legal (or at least thought it was legal) does not seem to be in the best interest of or sport.

When I helped craft the rules to the Single Stack Division, I did so with the expressed idea of opening a path for crossover shooters to bring their existing equipment into USPSA. It seems to me that we should keep that path open for Production Division also.

Gary

[RIIID]

One problem is there are two distinct opinions of what trigger work means, a vast majority believe that replacing parts is trigger work, the other is just polishing. The 1911 is the oldest and the gun that gets trigger work the most. In a 1911 trigger work includes changing the angle of the sear and the hammer hook height, 99.9% of 1911 trigger work involves this. For a high quality trigger work the hammer, sear, sear spring, main spring, disconnector, trigger, and possibly the pins and hammer strut are replaced. It's hard for some to not think trigger work means no replacement of parts.

There has been 4 attempts to write the Production rules every version has allowed more modifications to be done, it's impossible to clear the water up so to speak because the mud has turned to dirt because there is no water left.

I saw the 2008 rules as the death nail into having Production a stock looking gun Division.

One other point I must make in the first set of rules slide lightening was expressly not legal, when the 2004 rules came out I saw that the lightening rule was missing. I contacted several AD's to point this out and how to spot this on some guns. The response I got was it was purposely left out to help some guns be competitive with the rest. Now the 2008 rules say that you can't use a mill to lighten a slide, but you can replace the entire slide with a new one that can be lighter as long as it matches the factory profile. If you really want to according to the rules one could "throat" the inside of a slide and make it lighter to improve function and reliability but you can't use a mill to do it. Hows that for reading the rules as they are written?

Rich