Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[racerba]

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

Really? Can you point me to one?

YES - specifically the ruling on the Vanek trigger. It has already been posted for you. And the consistency of the rulings in the past have had people replacing internal parts. You may refused to accept the rulings or disagree with them, but the rulings have been there. Just because it doesn't agree with your though process, does not mean that the rulings never existed. Why else would all the internal trigger work have been done on the majority of USPSA PD guns for the past few years?!?! Wouldn't you think they all would have been bumped to open at the major matches?

[mike cyrwus]

One wonders why, then, the BOD in their Vanek Trigger ruling (http://www.uspsa.org/rules/nroi_rulings.php?action=edit&indx=22) made such a distinction between internal and external modifications and did not ban all Vanek Trigger jobs since all of them modify internal components. (http://www.vanekcustom.com/3.html)

This Vanek ruling is the very thing that I have used to determine legality in the case of Production division triggers. If the trigger has a "stock" profile, then it is legal. If its visibly altered in orientation and/or appearance, then its a no-go.

I consider this ruling case law.

Id also like to add that the M&Ps can have rocking triggers utilizing all stock parts and some very legal polishing.

I mention this because all polishing, no matter how light, alters surfaces in a measurable way.

-just like filing, grinding .

Also, If we were starting with a blank slate of a division, Id love the concept of bone stock, un tweaked pistols. However, we are far gone from that.

The production shooters I know, like to equipment chase as much as the limited and open guys;

-and the sum total of the evolution of the division is that-

1. Production competitors are as even in equipment as they ever will be; and

2.We have an abundance of small enterprises, catering to shooters, that make an honest living and are very active in supporting the shooting sports, gun rights, and matches on every level; from local sectional championships to the Nationals.

Lets think about this....

Edited January 22, 2009 by mike cyrwus

[bgary]

The fundamental disconnect is the difference between

"if it is on this list, it is allowed"

...and...

"if you never told me I can't do it, it is allowed".

The *rules* say the first one. y'all are still trying to find the second one.

It isn't there.

[bgary]

YES - specifically the ruling on the Vanek trigger. It has already been posted for you.

Does the Vanek trigger ruling actually say "internal modifications are allowed"? Or only that "this mod is illegal, because it is external".

There's a big difference between the two. (see above)

Here's a link to the ACTUAL RULING.

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

Edited January 22, 2009 by bgary

[Gary Stevens]

I just went to the NROI interpretations and quickly went through them.

I have to agree with Bruce that I found no interpretation that specifically said "you can do trigger work, i.e.replacing parts, altering angles, etc., as long as it is internal" I also noted that that question was never asked, at least that I found.

I did find four (4) interpretations relating to Production that either in the question or the answer referenced the word "external". One of those was a very specific question about the Vanek trigger that referenced the word "external".

I know that this is not a court of law, but often I hear about the "reasonable man analysis". Could it be expected that a reasonable man (or woman) having been put in the same situation have acted in the same way."

I think, my opinion only, that a reasonable person, having read the four referenced interpretations could conclude that internal modifications were OK and external modifications, that were not expressly listed, were not OK.

Your mileage may vary.

Gary

Edited January 22, 2009 by Gary Stevens

[bgary]

a reasonable person, having read the four referenced interpretations could conclude that internal modifications were OK

Yup, I totally agree. A reasonable person might conclude that.

The only problem is that the Production Division is *unique* in all the divisions - it is the only one where the equipment rules say "you can't do it if it isn't on this list".

For me (clearly not a reasonable man), that sort of takes the legs out from under any "conclusion" that, well, the concluder can't point to on the list. Expecially because the list *does* list internal mods that are allowed.

[jobob]

Ruling

The Vanek trigger, much like the Speed Bump trigger, has an external modification that makes it illegal for Production division. The Speed Bump trigger has the travel screw mounted to the rear of the trigger and is visible externally, the Vanek trigger, has relocated the pivot pin about 3/16" above the factory specs, and has filled in the original hole with a black material that is still visible on inspection.

Since the Speed Bump trigger is illegal because the overtravel screw is visible externally, this ruling implies that an internal overtravel stop is legal. The implication is that any internal trigger work is ok. No, it doesn't specifically address internal mods. If that had been an issue, and it wasn't, I'm sure the NROI would have mentioned it, but the internal modifications of the Vanek trigger were obviously no concern to them.

B. Garry said:

"Have *never* said I prefer a trigger pull weight. In fact, in a number of places I've plainly said I'd like to avoid it. The *only* thing I think is valid about a trigger pull is that it is measurable. But I strongly believe it would create unwelcome pressure on the types of guns which are "competitive" in the division, and that goes against my goal of having a play-place for any non-single-action-only gun to play. Please don't put words in my mouth... it doesn't help the discussion."

Oh? What is the difference between a "trigger pull weight" and "a trigger pull that is measurable"? Not putting words in your mouth, but I see no difference between those two phrases. If not, just what about the trigger pull do you wish to measure, if not the weight?

[vluc]

FWIW, an email response from JA on the USPSA Forums dated 2006 regarding guide rods:

From: John Amidon [mailto:jamidon1@twcny.rr.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:12 PM

To: Jon

Subject: Re: Question asked on USPSA Forum - Rules section, Vince Pinto recommended sending to you.

Hi Jon,

The rules do not address internal parts, just external, which have to

be OFM, there is a weight restriction on the Production guns of not

more than 2 oz over mfg listed weight, you are allowed action work to enhance reliability, this could include a different guide rod.

Regards,

John Amidon

Note the comment - the rules do not address internal parts. Nothing substantively has changed regarding that since then, if I am following the comments made throughout this thread, is that correct?

[bgary]

What is the difference between a "trigger pull weight" and "a trigger pull that is measurable"? Not putting words in your mouth, but I see no difference between those two phrases.

None. You missed my point. I am not a fan of trigger pull tests. I *am* a fan of objective rules (things that you can measure). The only thing that a trigger pull test has in its favor is that it is measurable. But I'm not saying "I like it because it is measurable", I'm saying "I don't like it, even though it is measurable."

this ruling implies ...

Yup, it implies it. By "inference". What you're doing is connecting the dots, saying (as I noted above) "if you never said I can't do it, it must be okay."

You *still* haven't found a place in ANY rule or ANY ruling where it ACTUALLY SAYS it is okay.

And since the rules say "you can't do it unless it is on this list", "implies" doesn't carry a lot of weight.

Note the comment - the rules do not address internal parts.

Yup. Note the forum. It is not a ruling.

Right across the top of the NROI rulings page, it says "The head of NROI will frequently answer questions regarding the rules from members. Answers to routine questions which do not have the impact of "rulings" are not published on this page. "

If it isn't published on the rulings page, it isn't a ruling.

[sfinney]

Having spent many years in the armed forces, there all types of rules and regulations.

I always found the clearest, easiest to interpret regs were short the ones, that listed a small number of things you are NOT allowed to do. Everything else was implied to be ok.

As opposed to the long, wordy, hard to grasp list of the only things that your ARE allowed to do.

Would it not be easier to make some Production rules that state exactly what is NOT legal, and by inference let everything else be legal?

[bgary]

Would it not be easier to make some Production rules that state exactly what is NOT legal, and by inference let everything else be legal?

I would *love* that. The only problem is when new/unforeseen things "evolve". The question would always come up (just like it has here), "is it legal, because it isn't on the list? Or is it going to be added to the list as soon as they "catch up with it""?

[racerba]

Bruce,

If you continue to ignor what has been allowed (i.e. deemed legal) in the past as far as NROI's ruling goes, you are only fooling yourself. Everybody knows what was legal and what was not. You are trying to argue that most PD guns were illegal and that only means that NROI and/or RM of past matches were not doing their jobs.

[Gary Stevens]

If a Production Division trigger is pulled in the forest, and USPSA is not there to hear it, did it actually get pulled?

Put another way, if were not willing to develop the expertise to technically inspect the triggers, of every conceivable Production Division gun, at every match, since our rules apply at all level of matches, then this is all just a mental exercise.

I revert to my previous position, we had a workable, IMO, solution with the internal/external examination. It may never have been expressely intended to have existed, but it did work.

[driver8M3]

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

bruce, what the rules said was somewhat ambiguous. you interpreted it your way. the rest of the world (including every uspsa shooter i've ever met and, apparently, john amidon) interpreted it another way.

so, we had a set of somewhat ambiguous rules, and the head of the NROI gives me his interpretation, which is what everyone else had always told me was so, and which is at least a reasonable interpretation of the written rules, and you still say i made a ludicrous assumption.

[GmanCdp]

If a Production Division trigger is pulled in the forest, and USPSA is not there to hear it, did it actually get pulled?

Put another way, if were not willing to develop the expertise to technically inspect the triggers, of every conceivable Production Division gun, at every match, since our rules apply at all level of matches, then this is all just a mental exercise

how many shooters got DQ'ed due to the trigger mods last yr???

[bgary]

Bruce,If you continue to ignor what has been allowed (i.e. deemed legal) in the past as far as NROI's ruling goes, you are only fooling yourself.

...yeah. Not so much.

If you can point me to a rule that *says* you can do those things, or a ruling that *says* you can do those things, I'll agree with you.

Until then, I'll keep pointing back to the place that actually *says* "you can't do anything unless it is on this list".

Anything else is assumptions, conclusions, rumors, speculations, hopes, whatever.

I don't have to rely on assumptions, conclusions, etc. to support my position. I can read it straight from the rulebook. Right underneath where it says "Authorized modifications (Strictly limited to these items and their stated guidelines)"

Bruce

[George Jones]

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

And I agree 100%. All I can provide (without any official position) is my best recollection of the procedings.

Another point I failed to mention earlier is that we (the rules committee and BOD) did specifically discuss and agreed that Production would be addressed differently then the other division. By that I mean that Production would no longer be a "if it doesn't say I can't, then I can" division, and would now be "if it's not specifically allowed, you cannot!"

Therein lies our problem and I agree with you that it needs to be fixed, because we failed to address the "internal mods" issue clearly. I have my perspective of what we meant when we did that, you are (rightfully) quoting the rules as written.

What we need to do is fix it, realizing that we cannot support internal inspections or undo years of previous allowances which would now be illegal.

I'll go back to my "let technology rule" approach, though.

[rvb]

This thread has been going on for 5 weeks or so now. Please don't make me read the whole thing to find out if someone has already done what I am about to ask........

Has anyone put the issue of internal (not externally visible) parts* replacement and/or modification (in addition to polishing) in Production Division through the proper chain to get a by-the-book-official-no-more-questions-asked RULING on the issue?

* in addition to those parts mentioned on pg 75, D4.21

Perhaps another 5 weeks of debating will help? Perhaps no one wants to know the answer?

-rvb

Edited January 22, 2009 by rvb

[elenius]

This thread has been going on for 5 weeks or so now. Please don't make me read the whole thing to find out if someone has already done what I am about to ask........

Has anyone put the issue of internal (not externally visible) parts replacement and/or modification (in addition to polishing) in Production Division through the proper chain to get a by-the-book-official-no-more-questions-asked RULING on the issue?

Perhaps another 5 weeks of debating will help? Perhaps no one wants to know the answer?

-rvb

The BOD is supposed to have a phone meeting to discuss it next week.

[BR]

You *still* haven't found a place in ANY rule or ANY ruling where it ACTUALLY SAYS it is okay.

Wrong. The 2004 Rules expressly permitted "trigger work . . . to enhance reliability." There was no limitation as to what that "trigger work" consisted of, and there was no definition of reliability.

You have chosen to narrowly interpret this provision to mean "mechanical" reliability, even though the term is not defined in that manner. Reliability means "dependable in achievement, accuracy or honesty . . . yielding the same or compatible results in different statistical trials..." Thus, if my "trigger work" results in a gun that is more reliable for "accuracy" or more reliable for "lack of trigger freeze" or more reliable for "better splits," I have enhanced reliability. You have chosen to limit and to apply the term "reliability" to mean only what you want it to mean. For you to repeatedly argue that there was NO RULE which permitted internal trigger work simply ignores the truth.

Not only was there an express Rule permitting internal trigger work, approval of such trigger work is further evidenced by the NROI rulings, by Amidon's emails, and by the commonly-held understanding of the production shooting community. Thus, there is a rule which expressly says that which you say it does not, and there is a plethora of persuasive authority that is consistent with the plain language of the rule permitting internal trigger mods. I've read all of the posts on this topic, and you seem to be the only person who does not agree that internal trigger work to enhance reliability [with that term not limited to your narrow definition] was previously approved in the Rules. Cheers.

-br

Edited January 22, 2009 by joker22

[sfinney]

Perhaps you should take a few minutes and actually the thread if you feel so inclined......

[rvb]

The BOD is supposed to have a phone meeting to discuss it next week.

Thanks!

-rvb

[jobob]

Yup, it implies it. By "inference". What you're doing is connecting the dots, saying (as I noted above) "if you never said I can't do it, it must be okay."

You *still* haven't found a place in ANY rule or ANY ruling where it ACTUALLY SAYS it is okay.

And since the rules say "you can't do it unless it is on this list", "implies" doesn't carry a lot of weight.

We are talking about the '04 rule book at this point. It's the book we all use to justify our trigger work, and what this NROI ruling is based on. There is nothing in the '04 book which states that something is ok ONLY if the rules say it is ok. What it says is:

21. Allowed modifications are very limited and include the following:

21.1 No weighted attachments allowed to magazine.

21.2 Front sights may be trimmed, fiber optics inserted, adjusted and/or

have sight black applied. Sights must be of the notch and post type.

21.3 Replacement barrels allowed provided barrel length is same as

original factory standard. Heavy barrels and/or barrel sleeves not

allowed.

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

allowed.

21.5 External modifications other than sights not allowed.

21.6 Aftermarket grips which match the profile of the OFM standard for

the approved handgun and/or the application of grip tape or rubber

sleeves is permitted. Modifications to grips, other than previously

mentioned, not allowed, such as grooves cut to reach mag release

or size reduction.

The word included does not mean all inclusive, or does it?

Let's drift this thread just a tad and talk about sights. My reading of this list of permitted modifications, if I was totally anal about reading the rules to the letter, is that ANY aftermarket sights are illegal. We have "interpreted" this to mean that we can change out the Glock plastic sights to other notch and post sights. But, you say that interpretation of the rules is not allowed, unless the NROI issues an official "ruling". So, sights can only be modified as specified "Front sights may be trimmed, fiber optics inserted, adjusted and/or have sight black applied. Sights must be of the notch and post type." 21.5 does not say "replace", it only says "modifications", which follows that you have to use the as-issued sights, with only the allowed modifications as per 21.2. Guess this means that all the Bomars, Dawsons and Sevignys that Production shooters (including me) have been using all these years are illegal, huh?

So, what does the '08 book say about it:

•Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy,

reliability and function

•Sights – trimmed, adjusted, replaced, colored, or

fiber-optic.

•Slide – refinishing. Milling of slide – only as

required to insert sights.

•After-market slides and barrels – provided they are

the same length, contour, and caliber as original factory

standard.

•Grips – Internal beveling. Checkering, stippling, and

addition of grip tape or grip sleeves. (see Appendix

E4)

•Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties,

slide stops, guide rods).

So, now, we can have our sights. Wonderful! It adds "Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy,

reliability and function". Seems to me that internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy, reliability and function would allow normal trigger improvement work. In paragraph 22, "Specifically prohibited modifications and features", I see no mention of trigger work at all. Couple that with the stipulation in item 6 of no minimum trigger pull, and it would seem that there is no intention of limiting any type of internal trigger work.

[bgary]

and I agree with you

Oh, man. *THAT* had to hurt!

[bgary]

Has anyone put the issue of internal (not externally visible) parts* replacement and/or modification (in addition to polishing) in Production Division through the proper chain to get a by-the-book-official-no-more-questions-asked RULING on the issue?

Yes.

Someone asked the question. NROI responded in an email (which got posted here), saying that other than the 4 parts listed in the rules, you could NOT swap out internal parts.

I (brace yourself, this is going to be shocking) asked the Board to NOT approve that ruling until we had had a chance to discuss it. We're going to have a con-call on Monday to do exactly that.