Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[double_pedro]

...So we don't want inspections or measuring trigger weights and we can't make illegal what was previously legal. For me the logical thing to do is allow internal modifications with external mods limited to what we allow now.

What I got from reading this entire thread, besides the headache, is that we USPSA shooters are a competitive group of equipment tinkerers. I am reminded that this sport was founded on the idea of developing methods and equipment to accurately put holes in targets in the shortest amount of time. Why should we expect it to be any different in Production Division.

As for the arguement that the equipment race will turn new shooters off. I think that the perception that you need a $2000 base gun to start before modifications may turn shooters off but the fact they can use what they already have or start with a $500 gun won't scare people away.

Thanks for sharing your views with us. IMO, your logic, clarity, and practical insight into the nature of USPSA and PD is refreshing.

[Chuck Anderson]

As for the arguement that the equipment race will turn new shooters off. I think that the perception that you need a $2000 base gun to start before modifications may turn shooters off but the fact they can use what they already have or start with a $500 gun won't scare people away.

The fault with the logic here is that a Glock with $100.00 in mods is now as competetive as any gun in the world. Without that $100.00 in mods, or box stock as you're suggesting the division should be, it's not that good of a gun. That's where manufacturers that want the USPSA market will be about to gouge us. Factory "tuned" guns to the tune of $1000.00 - $2000.00 will be the defacto, gotta have it guns. Right now there are at least a dozen guns that could win Nationals. Make it box stock and that number will go way down.

[vluc]

Chris Endersby, area 2 director, replied and said the BOD will address this in a phone meeting next week. He also said he doesn't shout Production, but he didn't otherwise give any clue as to where he stands.

Where I stand is production "should" be a zero modifications division. I didn't even like the sight replacement rule. But as we have no inspection teams running around to matches checking equipment, it is impossible to realistically have a zero modification rule. So for me this is a black or white issue. Right now the rules have a lot of gray. So we don't want inspections or measuring trigger weights and we can't make illegal what was previously legal. For me the logical thing to do is allow internal modifications with external mods limited to what we allow now.

What I got from reading this entire thread, besides the headache, is that we USPSA shooters are a competitive group of equipment tinkerers. I am reminded that this sport was founded on the idea of developing methods and equipment to accurately put holes in targets in the shortest amount of time. Why should we expect it to be any different in Production Division.

As for the arguement that the equipment race will turn new shooters off. I think that the perception that you need a $2000 base gun to start before modifications may turn shooters off but the fact they can use what they already have or start with a $500 gun won't scare people away.

Chris, thanks for posting and offering your insight. Nice to see that while you prefer it be one thing, you also see that what production shooters are doing now is well within why this sport was founded.

[Loves2Shoot]

As for the arguement that the equipment race will turn new shooters off. I think that the perception that you need a $2000 base gun to start before modifications may turn shooters off but the fact they can use what they already have or start with a $500 gun won't scare people away.

The fault with the logic here is that a Glock with $100.00 in mods is now as competetive as any gun in the world. Without that $100.00 in mods, or box stock as you're suggesting the division should be, it's not that good of a gun. That's where manufacturers that want the USPSA market will be about to gouge us. Factory "tuned" guns to the tune of $1000.00 - $2000.00 will be the defacto, gotta have it guns. Right now there are at least a dozen guns that could win Nationals. Make it box stock and that number will go way down.

I think Chuck has a very good point. Just look at CZ. You would be saying that it is ok to buy an expensive Shadow, You would also say someone who has a $400 cz 75 can't upgrade to equal performance for a couple hundred bucks? Come on where is the logic in that?

The way I see it is the majority of he regular Production shooters will piss and moan but fall into line with the higher priced products and the first time shooters would see these wiz bang production guns and say they are too expensive and I can't compete. In competition shooting the expense isn't in the blaster you choose to shoot.

You can put some good sights, a trigger job and a grip on a $400-$500 pistol and hang with any production gun out there the way things have been. Which makes more sense for a "level" playing field with a stock gun making the only good guns available from the factory, or allowing reasonable mods that have been accepted from the creation of the division?

[bgary]

I think (unless I'm misinterpreting) it sounds like Chris agrees with you. What he said was:

For me the logical thing to do is allow internal modifications with external mods limited to what we allow now.

B

[Loves2Shoot]

I think you are correct and think Chris is clear thinking on this. I also think Chuck is correct in his observations.

[bgary]

...except I think Chuck is basing his point on the premise that mods would not be allowed, and that the shooter would have to choose between the $500 stock gun (no mods) or the $2k factory-"customized" gun.

I think what Chris is saying is that, if internal mods are within the rules, that $500 starting point, with later mods as the shooter wants, is a viable on-ramp *instead* of forcing shooters to grapple with the $2k threshold.

B

[Loves2Shoot]

...except I think Chuck is basing his point on the premise that mods would not be allowed, and that the shooter would have to choose between the $500 stock gun (no mods) or the $2k factory-"customized" gun.

I think what Chris is saying is that, if internal mods are within the rules, that $500 starting point, with later mods as the shooter wants, is a viable on-ramp *instead* of forcing shooters to grapple with the $2k threshold.

B

I think that is exactly what the proposed changes would do also, that is why I agree with what Chuck says.

I also agree that Chris' take is the way it has been and the way it should stay.

I think your post clearly and simply illustrates EXACTLY why the BOD should leave it alone.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Loves2Shoot

[kamann]

I think (unless I'm misinterpreting) it sounds like Chris agrees with you. What he said was:

For me the logical thing to do is allow internal modifications with external mods limited to what we allow now.

B

That would be my vote. I've shot Production for almost 3 years now, and for the most part pretty much every Production shooter in my section that I know of has some kind of trigger mods in their guns. I think thats a good thing, and it makes shooting the stock guns more enjoyable. I agree with whats been previously said that you can now buy a $500 gun and do internal trigger work to make it competitive and enjoyable. I tried the open gun route and sold it because I missed the simplicity of shooting in Production. My 2 cents anyway.

[Chuck Anderson]

Where I stand is production "should" be a zero modifications division.

I'm aware that Chris is probably open to allowing internal modifications now. The concern I have is this statement. If someone thinks Production should be a zero modifications division, the choices on rules will be based on that. It also sounds like Chris is on board that we're past the point of saying this is a no mods divison. I simply posted the reason I don't think zero modification is a good basis for a division. I think we went way overboard on the external modifications though.

[kgunz11]

I'm pretty sure the $400-$500 Glock is capable of winning a National Championship with little to no modification at all. Well Dave Sevigny says he'll polish some parts if they are really rough, and replace the connector with a factory 3.5#, but other than that he does nothing to the gun. Told me that at SHOT show. If you think he lying you can take that up with him. I heard Bob Vogel shoots a pretty much stock Glock. I am not advocating that Production should be a stock Division, I just don't know if I agree with the thinking that they need all kinds of tweaking to make them competitive or that there is a more competitive gun out there. It all goes back to the Indian.

Can someone do a little research and tell us what gun has won the last 10 nationals? I'd be curious. Who the shooter was would be nice to know too.

[mike cyrwus]

Im liking the pragmatism Ive been reading on the last couple of pages.

[00bullitt]

OK......so what are the suggestions on how to fix the rule book to suit the division?

[chendersby]

...except I think Chuck is basing his point on the premise that mods would not be allowed, and that the shooter would have to choose between the $500 stock gun (no mods) or the $2k factory-"customized" gun.

I think what Chris is saying is that, if internal mods are within the rules, that $500 starting point, with later mods as the shooter wants, is a viable on-ramp *instead* of forcing shooters to grapple with the $2k threshold.

B

When I was referencing the $2000 number I was refering to limited and open guns. The buy in for those divisions is pretty high. The buy in for production is still relatively low in comparison. One of the reasons for production in the first place was to give new guys a chance to start with what they have or or at least not have to buy a basic race gun.

It seems to me that the growth of production comes from two areas. New guys and existing members leaving the racegun divisions. I think we got really overly focused on the new guy aspect and forgot that a lot of you existing menbers were also playing in large numbers. As we all know once you get into this game you naturally want to start messing with the equipment, we can't help it, it's a big part of what makes this sport unique. I think it may be time to embrace that in production.

[chendersby]

Where I stand is production "should" be a zero modifications division.

I'm aware that Chris is probably open to allowing internal modifications now. The concern I have is this statement. If someone thinks Production should be a zero modifications division, the choices on rules will be based on that. It also sounds like Chris is on board that we're past the point of saying this is a no mods divison. I simply posted the reason I don't think zero modification is a good basis for a division. I think we went way overboard on the external modifications though.

Chuck

There is a reason for the quotation marks. No need to worry about me trying to write rules around that premese anymore. I am fully aware that horse has bolted from the barn.

[big_kahuna]

But as we have no inspection teams running around to matches checking equipment, it is impossible to realistically have a zero modification rule. So for me this is a black or white issue. Right now the rules have a lot of gray. So we don't want inspections or measuring trigger weights and we can't make illegal what was previously legal. For me the logical thing to do is allow internal modifications with external mods limited to what we allow now.

Logical, enforceable, understandable, and practical. I like it.

[kgunz11]

OK......so what are the suggestions on how to fix the rule book to suit the division?

Anything you want on the inside.

Only stipple/grip tape, sights, and slides that match factory profile on the outside.

What's so wrong with that BoD? That would be simple to enforce and no one has to go backwards and undo something already done.

[Bryan W]

But as we have no inspection teams running around to matches checking equipment, it is impossible to realistically have a zero modification rule. So for me this is a black or white issue. Right now the rules have a lot of gray. So we don't want inspections or measuring trigger weights and we can't make illegal what was previously legal. For me the logical thing to do is allow internal modifications with external mods limited to what we allow now.

Logical, enforceable, understandable, and practical. I like it.

This is exactly the right answer, IMO.

[Chuck Anderson]

I'm pretty sure the $400-$500 Glock is capable of winning a National Championship with little to no modification at all. Well Dave Sevigny says he'll polish some parts if they are really rough, and replace the connector with a factory 3.5#, but other than that he does nothing to the gun. Told me that at SHOT show. If you think he lying you can take that up with him. I heard Bob Vogel shoots a pretty much stock Glock. I am not advocating that Production should be a stock Division, I just don't know if I agree with the thinking that they need all kinds of tweaking to make them competitive or that there is a more competitive gun out there. It all goes back to the Indian.

Can someone do a little research and tell us what gun has won the last 10 nationals? I'd be curious. Who the shooter was would be nice to know too.

Trust me, I'm well aware of the limited modifications Dave does to his gun. But he does do some as even you mention above. If you go back and read my posts you would see that. I use Dave as an example of someone who does do very limted mods. That's the point. Where did I ever indicate in any way that Dave was lying?

As far as the guns,

2008 Glock 34 Vogel

2007 Glock 34 Sevigny

2006 Springfield XD Leatham

2005 Glock 34 Sevigny

2004 Glock Sevigny

2003 Glock Sevigny

2002 Jarret won so I'm guessing Para LDA

2001 Glock Sevigny

2000 and 1999 I'm not sure if Production was a division at Nationals. I can't find the results. The Springfield XD and I'm sure the LDA both had modifications that were not legal. Under Amidon's most recent suggested rule, even the very, very limited mods Dave does to his guns would still be prohibited. Also if you look at the guns that "almost" won each year you'll see more extensive mods.

[driver8M3]

i'm pretty sure ernest langdon won in 2000 (which i think was the 1st year it was held).

[vluc]

One of the reasons for production in the first place was to give new guys a chance to start with what they have or or at least not have to buy a basic race gun.

It seems to me that the growth of production comes from two areas. New guys and existing members leaving the racegun divisions. I think we got really overly focused on the new guy aspect and forgot that a lot of you existing menbers were also playing in large numbers. As we all know once you get into this game you naturally want to start messing with the equipment, we can't help it, it's a big part of what makes this sport unique. I think it may be time to embrace that in production.

Bold/underline are mine

To me, as a production shooter since I started, this is the root of the whole issue. The focus was only on NEW, not existing. It was the "entry level" mindset that led to onerous restrictions on common sense modifications.

Once you embrace and accept the fact that a good number of us just plain like to shoot Production, with pistols that we are comfortable with (read do what I as an individual shooter need it to do), then the notion of modifications/improvements becomes more understandable and palatable.

There is no equipment race in production. Sorry, that's just the way it is (IMNSHO).

[AustinMike]

Figures Production would get all complicated the year I jump in! I can appreciate the concept of trying to have a division that removes the equipment race factor as much as possible. I do think it's good to have a "stock car" division to allow newcomers to bring what they have and for guys like me who like to just keep it simple. It's puzzling/amusing to me that there is so much ado about relatively simple and expensive trigger tweaking (Vanek and other kits aside) while at the same time giving the nod to replacement slides and barrels that may double the price of the gun. One can't seriously argue the trigger thing is about the money if they're going to throw replacement of the entire the top end of the gun out there as legal. In any event, having shot Glocks exclusively the past year or so I've gone more and more back to stock over time and don't really have a problem with whatever the powers that be decide; I just want a clear ruling. I think that advantages assigned to lighter trigger pulls are highly overrated. I have no doubt that if I swap my stock Glock with a GM for his $4000 whizz bang race gun, I'm still getting my ass kicked. A nice trigger doesn't make up for gaps in the mental and physical skills required to succeed.

That's my 2 cents at 5:00am as I'm getting ready to leave for an RO class!

[kgunz11]

I'm pretty sure the $400-$500 Glock is capable of winning a National Championship with little to no modification at all. Well Dave Sevigny says he'll polish some parts if they are really rough, and replace the connector with a factory 3.5#, but other than that he does nothing to the gun. Told me that at SHOT show. If you think he lying you can take that up with him. I heard Bob Vogel shoots a pretty much stock Glock. I am not advocating that Production should be a stock Division, I just don't know if I agree with the thinking that they need all kinds of tweaking to make them competitive or that there is a more competitive gun out there. It all goes back to the Indian.

Can someone do a little research and tell us what gun has won the last 10 nationals? I'd be curious. Who the shooter was would be nice to know too.

Trust me, I'm well aware of the limited modifications Dave does to his gun. But he does do some as even you mention above. If you go back and read my posts you would see that. I use Dave as an example of someone who does do very limted mods. That's the point. Where did I ever indicate in any way that Dave was lying?

As far as the guns,

2008 Glock 34 Vogel

2007 Glock 34 Sevigny

2006 Springfield XD Leatham

2005 Glock 34 Sevigny

2004 Glock Sevigny

2003 Glock Sevigny

2002 Jarret won so I'm guessing Para LDA

2001 Glock Sevigny

2000 and 1999 I'm not sure if Production was a division at Nationals. I can't find the results. The Springfield XD and I'm sure the LDA both had modifications that were not legal. Under Amidon's most recent suggested rule, even the very, very limited mods Dave does to his guns would still be prohibited. Also if you look at the guns that "almost" won each year you'll see more extensive mods.

So basically a gun that only has some polishing to improve accuracy and reliability and legal according to the specifically allowed modifications mentioned directly in the rule book is capable of winning multiple National Championships? No added parts to the gun...

[Nik Habicht]

So basically a gun that only has some polishing to improve accuracy and reliability and legal according to the specifically allowed modifications mentioned directly in the rule book is capable of winning multiple National Championships? No added parts to the gun...

Bobby,

when you look at the list of winners of any division for the last x years --- do you see a list of guns? Because I see a list of shooters, who won those divisions. I don't buy that the particular gun made a difference. In fact I'm pretty sure that if a gun were entered in the championship it would finish dead last without a shooter.....

Give any of the Nationals winners a reliable gun, that hits where the sights point, and is appropriate for the division, with enough time to practice/get grooved into the gun prior to the championship, and I'm certain they win. Take a 34 off the assembly line that does the above and Sevigny wins. Stick a Vanek in it and add every other modification that's legal --- and as long as the requirements above are met, Sevigny still wins.

Winning a National Championship is not about the gun; it's about an inordinate amount of mental and physical preparation, desire, and hard work. Talent and a little bit of luck probably also play a role --- the gun most likely doesn't play a large role....

[kgunz11]

I agree Nik, and that is my point. I've mentioned several times in this thread it's about the Indian, not the arrow. I know this thread is about legal/illegal trigger modifications and more than once folks have stated a Glock specifically was not competitive unless it has modifications to it which may or may not make it legal. I feel a stock Glock with some internal polishing CAN be competitive, and it's been proven in competition. That's all. I was trying to use the facts to back up my view, not opinion or emotion.