Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[BlackSabbath]

Flex ... tell me I misunderstood you...

Are you saying we have enough production shooters now that we don't need to continue to promote the sport and try to recruit new shooters?

I wish folks would stop crying like babies and shoot the same box stock gun as everyone else. Is this forum about improving our shooting or our gunsmithing?

For someone who has only been a member of USPSA for less than a year, I wouldn't be so rude. Quite a few of us have been around a little longer than you.

Edited January 16, 2009 by BlackSabbath

[bgary]

Lets say I have a burger joint and I am selling the best cheeseburgers. I've got people lined up around the block...every day...to come buy my burgers. They get their burgers and take them over to the topping bar and put whatever topping on the burgers that they want. They are happy and I'll see them again as repeat customers.

Then one day, I decide that all they need on their burgers is a bit of ketchup. No more topping bar and letting them put what they want on their burger. They get ketchup...and that is all. No cheese, either.

Now...maybe a gain a couple of customers that just like ketchup on their burgers. But, I lose all my valued customers that I built up over time.

Great analogy. Consider it hijacked

Let's say you have a self-serve lunch counter. You offer a menu of things, among which are

-- steaks $20

-- hamburgers (beef on a bun) $4

You think that's pretty clear. But what you find is that someone has "interpreted" your menu to mean "if it is beef on a bun, it counts as a hamburger". They start putting steaks on a bun, handing you four bucks, and loving their meal.

That isn't at all what you intended. And... you don't want to lose these people as customers, but... you also don't want to be jeopardizing your future out of a sense of politeness. So you attempt to "clarify" the available choices:

-- steaks $20

-- hamburgers (GROUND beef on a bun) $4

You're feeling pretty good about this for a while. Until you notice that people are "interpreting" the menu to mean "you can stick as much ground beef on a bun as you want. As long as it is ground-beef-on-a-bun, it counts as a hamburger". People start piling up stacks of hamburger patties, and handing you their four bucks.

This, again, isn't at all what you intended. And you still don't want to lose these people as customers, nor do you want to jeopardize your future. So you, try, once again, to "clarify" the list of choices you intend to offer:

-- steaks $20

-- hamburgers (8 oz of GROUND beef on a bun) $4

At this point, the wheels come off that train. All those customers who were helping themselves to steaks and stacks of hamburger patties are outraged. "we've been able to do this all along", they cry, "it was always allowed!!!" You try to explain that, yes, perhaps the menu wasn't as clear it should have been, but you never intended to offer 30-dollar steaks for 4 bucks, nor did you intend to offer 30 bucks worth of ground beef for four bucks. What you *intended* was to sell steaks for 30 bucks, and hamburgers for four.

"I've had it with this stupid establishment", they say. "You're screwing up my favorite restaurant, because you can't decide what you're selling. I should be able to have whatever I want, whenever I want it, because it's always been that way. You keep telling me what you 'intended', where was that ever decided? I wish you'd go back to the original menu, that was the best one. Jeez, why can't you figure it out?!?!? ALL of us customers believe that there should be no limits on what we can have here. NONE of us can understand why *you'd* have a problem with it!!"

I could go on. But probably shouldn't. The question I'd leave this with is, what's the "right" thing to do?

-- Give all of those customers everything they want, no matter the cost? Or

-- continue to *try* to do the "right thing for the long term", even if it means there might be some "change" for those customers to absorb?

B

Edited January 16, 2009 by bgary

[Singlestack]

The problem with your analogy is trigger work was allowed in the beggining.

For the record, here's what the Board of Director's meeting minutes for March 2, 2000 have to say about Production Division --- the first mention I can find:

8. Production Division

Power factor floor 125

Scoring Minor

Minimum bullet weight No

Minimum caliber 9x19

Maximum pistol weight 2 oz over factory specified weight

Maximum pistol dimensions IPSC box

Action types DA/SA (Hammer starts down), DA only, Safe action

Minimum trigger pull No

Magazine length limit No

Magazine capacity Max of 10 rounds loaded in magazine

Comps/porting No

Sights Square notch and post only

Holster Competition holsters of the racegun type are specifically not allowed

Holster/magazine position Must be worn behind the centerline of body

Availability Minimum of 12 months/2000 pieces

List of ALLOWABLE pistol modifications:

* Change of sights to another conventional notch and post type.

* Slip-on grip sock and/or skateboard tape

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

* Custom finishes

List of EXCLUDED pistol modifications:

* Externally visible modifications other than sights

* Heavy barrels and/or barrel sleeves (factory or after-market)

* Add on weights of any type, internal or external, including magazines

* Sights of nonstandard notch and post type

* Porting of barrels (factory or after-market)

* Compensators

[Nik Habicht]

I could go on. But probably shouldn't. The question I'd leave this with is, what's the "right" thing to do?

-- Give all of those customers everything they want, no matter the cost? Or

-- continue to *try* to do the "right thing for the long term", even if it means there might be some "change" for those customers to absorb?

B

What do you believe is the "right thing for the long term?" Are you convinced that Production is somehow broken? Are you convinced that it will stop growing? When? Convinced that the Board got it exactly right in 2000, and that the current popularity is but a little fad, that will turn into a huge membership influx in Production shooters if we can just dial back the "rules mistakes" of the last 9 years?

One of the things that you're missing in this discussion is that you've got two SCs with a little experience in the division, neither of whom is shooting a high dollar trigger, telling you that allowing trigger work doesn't harm the division. Kyle and I have run matches, recruited shooters, and watched people come into the sport and stay and come into it and leave at the level where more entries exist than any other.....

I'm not having this argument because of it's effect on my shooting --- I'm not talking about taking my Glock and going home (or to Limited.) Production is the most popular division at my club every month, it's the second most popular division in my section --- it's important to me that USPSA not screw that up.....

[Chuck Anderson]

Make a decision as to what the Division should be an stick to it. If the BOD, now, decides it should be a stock division, come up with a set of rules that reflects that. But don't try to tell the membership that a division that you can make "almost" any change to the exterior that you want, but can't do a trigger job is stock. The rules right now are counter intuitive. You're allowing the things that could be restricted, cost the most money and could be enforced easily with a simple external examination. While at the same time you're restricting things that are very difficult to detect without a detailed internal examination and have minimal expense (if any).

If the BOD comes out with a statement (or whatever) that Production should be X and makes rules to reflect that I'm cool with that and will stay in the division, assuming that is what I want to shoot. If the BOD votes that John's interpretation (which after reading the rule is probably correct) is what they intended and what they will retain, that is not a division I want to shoot and I'll probably bounce back to Limited.

As far as what is the right thing to do, it is not making 90-95% of Production guns (at least of the ones I've seen) in use today illegal. Some change is fine, but not telling everyone in your customer base they need to change their guns.

[bgary]

The problem with your analogy is trigger work was allowed in the beggining.

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

Yup. But in the interest of ... accuracy... let's quote the whole thing:

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

It didn't say "action work to reduce trigger pull". Or "action work to reduce overtravel". Or "action work to make the trigger feel better". Or "action work to make the trigger-reset shorter". Or any of a host of other things that trigger work is currently being done to "enhance".

The rule, in the beginning, said "trigger work, to improve reliability". What we *meant* by that was smoothing, polishing, etc. Some "interpreted" it to mean "hey, it says trigger work, that means I can do whatever I want."

B

[RIIID]

Bruce,

With your analogy you fire your cashier because they can't tell the difference between steak and hamburger. The cashier is your line in the sand, you put a steak on your plate with a bun you get charged for a steak and the bun.

From day one nobody knew what Production was supposed to be so there was no way to draw the line in the sand. You can't draw the line 10 miles behind where you at right now. The line has to be draw from the point we're at right now, the train won't and can't back up.

Rich

[Singlestack]

The rule, in the beginning, said "trigger work, to improve reliability". What we *meant* by that was smoothing, polishing, etc. Some "interpreted" it to mean "hey, it says trigger work, that means I can do whatever I want."

B

Agreed. Therin lies the problem. How do you define the difference?

[bgary]

What do you believe is the "right thing for the long term?"

To define a set of rules that are rational and sustainable over the long term

Are you convinced that Production is somehow broken?

Not yet, but I believe (personally) that it is headed in a bad direction, and if we don't put some fixes in place it will become broken.

Are you convinced that it will stop growing? When?

Yes. As soon as it reaches the "tipping point" where simplicity gives way to complexity; where the ability to "just shoot a production gun" is overshadowed by all the things you "have to do" to customize it. I believe it *grew* because it was easy to "get". I believe it will stagnate when it becomes so much like Limited that, if you're going to do all that work anyway, you might as well build a Limited gun.

ETA: I believe "customized production gun" should be considered an oxymoron

B

Edited January 16, 2009 by bgary

[Shadow]

Lets say I have a burger joint and I am selling the best cheeseburgers. I've got people lined up around the block...every day...to come buy my burgers. They get their burgers and take them over to the topping bar and put whatever topping on the burgers that they want. They are happy and I'll see them again as repeat customers.

Then one day, I decide that all they need on their burgers is a bit of ketchup. No more topping bar and letting them put what they want on their burger. They get ketchup...and that is all. No cheese, either.

Now...maybe a gain a couple of customers that just like ketchup on their burgers. But, I lose all my valued customers that I built up over time.

Great analogy. Consider it hijacked

Let's say you have a self-serve lunch counter. You offer a menu of things, among which are

-- steaks $20

-- hamburgers (beef on a bun) $4

You think that's pretty clear. But what you find is that someone has "interpreted" your menu to mean "if it is beef on a bun, it counts as a hamburger". They start putting steaks on a bun, handing you four bucks, and loving their meal.

That isn't at all what you intended. And... you don't want to lose these people as customers, but... you also don't want to be jeopardizing your future out of a sense of politeness. So you attempt to "clarify" the available choices:

-- steaks $20

-- hamburgers (GROUND beef on a bun) $4

You're feeling pretty good about this for a while. Until you notice that people are "interpreting" the menu to mean "you can stick as much ground beef on a bun as you want. As long as it is ground-beef-on-a-bun, it counts as a hamburger". People start piling up stacks of hamburger patties, and handing you their four bucks.

This, again, isn't at all what you intended. And you still don't want to lose these people as customers, nor do you want to jeopardize your future. So you, try, once again, to "clarify" the list of choices you intend to offer:

-- steaks $20

-- hamburgers (8 oz of GROUND beef on a bun) $4

At this point, the wheels come off that train. All those customers who were helping themselves to steaks and stacks of hamburger patties are outraged. "we've been able to do this all along", they cry, "it was always allowed!!!" You try to explain that, yes, perhaps the menu wasn't as clear it should have been, but you never intended to offer 30-dollar steaks for 4 bucks, nor did you intend to offer 30 bucks worth of ground beef for four bucks. What you *intended* was to sell steaks for 30 bucks, and hamburgers for four.

"I've had it with this stupid establishment", they say. "You're screwing up my favorite restaurant, because you can't decide what you're selling. I should be able to have whatever I want, whenever I want it, because it's always been that way. You keep telling me what you 'intended', where was that ever decided? I wish you'd go back to the original menu, that was the best one. Jeez, why can't you figure it out?!?!? ALL of us customers believe that there should be no limits on what we can have here. NONE of us can understand why *you'd* have a problem with it!!"

I could go on. But probably shouldn't. The question I'd leave this with is, what's the "right" thing to do?

-- Give all of those customers everything they want, no matter the cost? Or

-- continue to *try* to do the "right thing for the long term", even if it means there might be some "change" for those customers to absorb?

B

I understand where you're coming from, but the problem with your analogy is that it assumes that giving the customers what they want isn't affordable, and that it should be rationed in accordance with your view of what size serving they should get.

In fact, it appears the majority of customers are willing to pay extra for the amount of steak or extra ground beef they feel they need. On the flip side, there are some who don't want to pay extra for the steak/extra ground beef and think that since they don't want to buy it, nobody else should be allowed to buy it either.

Your dilemma is how much, if any, extra you sell to those who want it.

[ima45dv8]

I believe it *grew* because it was easy to "get".

I think I can agree with that. So why would we then turn around and make it harder to "get"? That's counter-productive, and frankly, the only rationale I've heard for all this concern is that one day, just maybe, the sky might start falling. We should go back to the 2004 rule set and leave it alone.

[00bullitt]

I believe it *grew* because it was easy to "get".

I think I can agree with that. So why would we then turn around and make it harder to "get"? That's counter-productive, and frankly, the only rationale I've heard for all this concern is that one day, just maybe, the sky might start falling. We should go back to the 2004 rule set and leave it alone.

Amen brother

[BlackSabbath]

If Production gun "A" (CZ Shadow) comes from the "factory" with a better trigger than Production Gun "B" (Glock-17),the "B" gun can never be improved to match the "A" gun.

Most newbies start out with the Glock, XD, or some other inexpensive gun they can improve along the way. In the end, the little guy will lose out if he can't improve his platform. He could, but we won't let him. He must go out and buy the more expensive gun from the get-go.

I own both, btw.

Edited January 16, 2009 by BlackSabbath

[driver8M3]

We should go back to the 2004 rule set and leave it alone.

unfortunately, that's not quite the right answer any longer either. the 2008 rules allowed stippling of grips. yet another train has left the station. you can't now tell all those shooters to "undo" the stippling.

bruce, can you explain why changing every single thing possible on my gun externally is fine and dandy, but allowing trigger jobs will somehow lead to the destruction of the division?

Edited January 16, 2009 by driver8M3

[BlackSabbath]

We should go back to the 2004 rule set and leave it alone.

bruce, can you explain why changing every single thing possible on my gun externally is fine and dandy, but allowing trigger jobs will somehow lead to the destruction of the division?

Amen.

[bgary]

bruce, can you explain why changing every single thing possible on my gun externally is fine and dandy but allowing trigger jobs will someone lead to the destruction of the division

Probably not, but here's "my" take on it.

Most of the external mods are either cosmetic in nature (refinishing a slide), around tailoring the gun's ergonomics to the shooter (stippling, sights, etc), or around replacing parts with functionally equivalent parts. None of them change the as-produced operation of the gun. Note that replacement slides have to be essentially the same as stock. Replacement barrels have to be essentially the same as stock.

As I've said before, trigger work that doesn't change the fundamental as-produced operation of the gun would be fine-and-dandy with me (and I don't suspect too many of the Board would disagree. Several of them are lurking as I type this). The trigger work that I (and perhaps others) fear "will somehow lead to the destruction of the division" are the mods that *do* change functional characteristics of the gun. Adding overtravel stops. Moving pivot-points. Changing striker/connector geometries. etc.

I'll drag you [briefly] through a parallel example from my background. I used to race an Olympic-class sailboat called a "soling". It is what is called a "one design" class, every boat has to be the same in all its essential characteristics (length, weight, sail area, center-of-gravity, etc). We were allowed to do a variety of things to "tune" the boat. We could make the keel smoother, for example. But we were not allowed to change the *shape* of the keel - as soon as we did that, it was no longer considered a "soling". It was not legal. The dividing line was, we could do minor things that improved the boat. But we couldn't make major changes that turned the boat into something else.

With the sailboats, it was about a tech inspection. They measured things. I don't want to have to go there. But somehow, I think we ought to be able to write language that helps us define the difference between "you're allowed to improve the trigger by making the parts smoother" and "you're not allowed to make the trigger work differently by changing the shape of the parts."

Edited January 16, 2009 by bgary

[ima45dv8]

We should go back to the 2004 rule set and leave it alone.

unfortunately, that's not quite the right answer any longer either. the 2008 rules allowed stippling of grips. yet another train has left the station. you can't now tell all those shooters to "undo" the stippling.

bruce, can you explain why changing every single thing possible on my gun externally is fine and dandy, but allowing trigger jobs will somehow lead to the destruction of the division?

Good point, Driver.

I'd be in favor of continuing to allow the stippling of grips and even the internal magwell mods allowed under the '08 rules. I just don't think making a reversal of the allowance of trigger work is the right way to go.

As has been stated so many times, it make no sense to allow so many changes externally, where restrictions would be simple to enforce, and disallow internal mods which are almost impossible to enforce.

[driver8M3]

The trigger work that I (and perhaps others) fear "will someone lead to the destruction of the division" are the mods that *do* change functional characteristics of the gun. Adding overtravel stops. Moving pivot-points. Changing striker/connector geometries. etc.

bruce: whether you agree with me or not, those things were essentially legal for years. and during those years, production grew to be a very popular division. it did not self destruct.

now, i know you disagree about those items being legal, but most shooters thought they were. i agree you closed the gap on the pivot point when JA ruled against that. however, JAs ruling was quite clear that the vanek trigger was illegal b/c it was an external modification. he did not mention any of charlie's other (internal) modifications. that would seem to indicate that those internal mods were indeed legal.

so, why would allowing those things that have been done for years while the division grew rapidly all of the sudden cause the division to collapse on itself? i don't understand your concern at all.

[00bullitt]

I think we are at a good point to just allow what we have allowed(since the 2004 rules) and start a definitive end to what is not going to be additionally allowed. What we have has been successful in getting the division where it is at. I for one don't think slides,barrels and stippling should have ever been allowed. I also don't think milling of the slides should have been allowed to change sights. I think sights should have to be used that conform to factory dovetails or attachment methods. But since it was allowed....I took advantage of it. I now have a different barrel and have stippled my grip. Going backwards is not the answer.

[XRe]

As I've said before, trigger work that doesn't change the as-produced operation of the gun would be fine with me (and I don't suspect too many of the Board would disagree. Several of them are lurking as I type this). The trigger work that I (and perhaps others) fear "will someone lead to the destruction of the division" are the mods that *do* change functional characteristics of the gun. Adding overtravel stops. Moving pivot-points. Changing striker/connector geometries. etc.

...

...

With the sailboats, it was about a tech inspection. They measured things. I don't want to have to go there.

Unfortunately - assuming all of these things are done internally to the gun, the only way to know if this has actually been done is tech inspection.

But somehow, I think we ought to be able to write language that helps us define the difference between "you're allowed to improve the trigger from what came out of the factory" and "you're not allowed to make the trigger a whole different design from what came out of the factory."

I've been hacking at language for a couple hours tonight, in the midst of other things. Its not as easy as it seems like it should be. Basically, anything that you do to try to say "you can exchange minor trigger parts as long as they don't alter the fundamental design of the gun" has to involve two things - enforcement has to be by some kind of expert inspection, and there ends up being some amount of interpretation as to what the fundamental design of the gun was (ie, what does it come down to, in the end). If someone reshapes the camming edge of a part, say, but the part is otherwise very similar to the stock part, is that a fundamental design change? If someone adds an adjustment (through a screw, or a fitting tab, or whatever) to pre-travel or over-travel, is that a fundamental change in design?

A rule could be fashioned that basically says that, whatever you swap, each individual part must capable of functioning standalone in a stock gun. That would prevent radical redesign of the internals, but still allow for some innovation and a pretty wide lattitude for improvement. I don't know if that would rule out anything currently in use or not. This actually might not be a bad option, if something has to be done to limit potential changes to the internals. Again, though, actual enforcement of this requires technical inspection....

In the end, you have a conflicting set of requirements - restrict internal modifications, but avoid doing inspections. You can't actually do the first without the second. The second is impractical - effectively impossible to actually implement. That makes the first requirement effectively impossible, too. So, if you can't enforce the rule, why even have it? Why then have a situation where there's easily suspicion that someone might be breaking the rules, but you have no way of proving that in one fashion or another? Its tilting at windmills...

The only workable option, in my opinion, given the current state of affairs, and the current technology and capabilities available, is to allow the exchange of "minor internal-only trigger related parts" as part of D4 21. This would essentially retain all of the current rules, but add in the "trigger work" clause from the 2004 rules (remember that polishing is already allowed, so...).

[murkish]

I can fiddle with the trigger set up of my Glock 34 all I want and it is not going to make my reloads any faster.

I started out in USPSA in 2007 shooting production with my carry Glock 19. Oh, no....my equipment was not competitive! I bought a Glock 34 strictly for competing in Production. Ack...an equipment race.... Carrying mags in my pockets wasn't competitive....so I had to buy cr speed mag pouches...ack...

Bad traction in hiking boots....need cleats...ack...

Oh, no, Flex spends $500 a month on practice ammo and 40 hours a month at the range practicing and dry-fires while driving to work. There is your race.

[Loves2Shoot]

Bruce,

Here is one for you (I know and respect Bruce for those that don't know.)

I make fire control parts for the XD/XDM that improve the reliability of the pistol. I have many broken stock trigger bars from stock pistols from people, and they have no faith in the stock part if they have seen it fail. If I make a product that will improve reliability, why would I not also make it improve performance, and why would any one who wanted to improve reliability not also want improved performance? Who in their right mind would try to sell a product without optimizing performance while improving reliability.

Now how this relates to the discussion: The BOD says from day one, improving reliability of the trigger is ok right? Isn't it given that if anyone is going to go through the cost of making parts to improve the reliability of the trigger, that they would not at the same time improve the performance of the trigger? I can not see any semi reasonable business do so, as making parts only for competition is not a good way to TRY to make a living.

I know that may fly in the "evil empire", but it doesn't in the rest of the empire.

I could lose 100% of our USPSA Production trigger work tomorrow and it would be a blip on the radar compared to what the non competition shooting folks in the real world are doing to their guns. Getting lost in the bubble that is competition shooting would be a real shame IMO.

[jobob]

bruce, can you explain why changing every single thing possible on my gun externally is fine and dandy but allowing trigger jobs will someone lead to the destruction of the division

Probably not, but here's "my" take on it.

Most of the external mods are either cosmetic in nature (refinishing a slide), around tailoring the gun's ergonomics to the shooter (stippling, sights, etc), or around replacing parts with functionally equivalent parts. None of them change the as-produced operation of the gun. Note that replacement slides have to be essentially the same as stock. Replacement barrels have to be essentially the same as stock.

As I've said before, trigger work that doesn't change the fundamental as-produced operation of the gun would be fine-and-dandy with me (and I don't suspect too many of the Board would disagree. Several of them are lurking as I type this). The trigger work that I (and perhaps others) fear "will somehow lead to the destruction of the division" are the mods that *do* change functional characteristics of the gun. Adding overtravel stops. Moving pivot-points. Changing striker/connector geometries. etc.

I'll drag you [briefly] through a parallel example from my background. I used to race an Olympic-class sailboat called a "soling". It is what is called a "one design" class, every boat has to be the same in all its essential characteristics (length, weight, sail area, center-of-gravity, etc). We were allowed to do a variety of things to "tune" the boat. We could make the keel smoother, for example. But we were not allowed to change the *shape* of the keel - as soon as we did that, it was no longer considered a "soling". It was not legal. The dividing line was, we could do minor things that improved the boat. But we couldn't make major changes that turned the boat into something else.

With the sailboats, it was about a tech inspection. They measured things. I don't want to have to go there. But somehow, I think we ought to be able to write language that helps us define the difference between "you're allowed to improve the trigger by making the parts smoother" and "you're not allowed to make the trigger work differently by changing the shape of the parts."

I don't think anyone is advocating changing the trigger system so as to alter the functionality of the gun. I think the idea of adding an internal hammer, like you suggested earlier, would change the basic operation of the gun.

And what's so wrong with adding (internal) trigger stops? They do nothing to change the function of the gun. Taking the Glock, for example, there is a LOT of variance in factory guns. Many factory triggers have a huge amount of overtravel, making it very difficult for most shooters to get the accuracy that the gun is otherwise capable of. A trigger stop is an improvement in the practical accuracy of the firearm. It isn't the end of the Production world, and in fact, allowing them (albeit from a possible misunderstanding of the rules) has improved the division. Since most Production shooters believed in good faith that they could make reasonable modifications to the trigger system, they have done so, and Production has grown, at least in part due to the allowance for internal changes. Sure PD is great for entry level shooters, but you're constraining the division too much by saying, in essence, it's ONLY for beginners and you aren't allowed to grow whithin the division. It isn't, or shouldn't be, for beginners only. PD needs to be big enough to allow for shooters to grow in, or it will stagnate. Shooters shouldn't have to leave and shoot other divisions just to improve and grow in the sport.

I disagree that the allowed slide and barrel changes are merely cosmetic. Many of the aftermarket slides make the guns look "racey", which is something you said we should be getting away from in PD (and I agree). It also could be a slippery slope, because, say, some enterprising 'smith may come up with a slide that is, internally, significantly different from factory, possibly internal skeletonizing to decrease recoil, or other modifications. This is certainly not as far fetched as your idea of an internal hammer which changes the basic function of the gun. And, aftermarket barrels are rarely installed for cosmetic purposes. They are installed to increase the intrinsic accuracy of the firearm. You would (and do) allow a custom fitted match barrel, costing several hundred dollars, for the result of better accuracy capability of the firearm, but you won't allow a little 20 dollar internal firing pin stop (http://www.lonewolfdist.com/Products.aspx?CAT=163) which would help the shooter towards getting the accuracy potential out of the gun? I'm sorry, but you aren't making sense. At least not to those of us who don't smoke crack!

The bottom line is, though, if it can't be enforced, don't make the rule. That discourages honest shooters, and makes it easy for those who want to get away with something to do so. Trying to enforce internal trigger mod. rules will result in getting a lot of folks ticked off, and more time wasted at matches! The way it looks now, according to your interpretation, I've been cheating in Production for years, what with my slightly modified trigger bar, Lone Wolf connector, and Lone Wolf Ultimate Trigger Stop. Shame on me! I will say, though, that if I have to take all of that out of my G34, just to be "legal", well, I'd rather not. Tinkering with my guns' triggers contributes to my enjoyment of the sport. I'd rather just quit Production. And I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment. So, if you want to kill Production, you and JA keep going the way you are.

Sorry if anyone took offense to my earlier post. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, and least not any more than mine have been ruffled. But, yes I do feel that the BOD needs to hire someone to write the rules who understands the English language. If the rules had been well written and unambiguous in the first place, we would not be debating Appendix D4 now. No one should be offended by that statement. A book of rules should be written, or at least edited, by a wordsmith who can communicate those rules in a way that leaves no, or minimal, room for interpretation. The thicker the rule book gets, the harder that job becomes, but it's still necessary.

Despite our differences, this is still the greatest sport around, and has the best people associated with it!

[Chuck Anderson]

Right now, a wide range of guns are very competetive in USPSA Production. Glock has an enviable record of winning National championships, but Springfield Armory, Beretta, Sig, CZ, and even Smith and Wesson have all been right up there at the top. I've had an opportunity to look at, up close, watch shoot, and/or play with each of those top 5 or so guns from the last 4 Nationas. Every one would be illegal now (except maybe Vogel's I didn't get a real close look at his). Even Dave Sevigny who does next to nothing to his gun still has a little bit of polish on his trigger parts. What makes each of these guns competetive is the relative ease of tuning them to be champions in Production. None come from the factory ready to win and dominate. Almost all (except the X5) were under 1000.00 from the factory, and several were under 500.00. In fact, I can buy a G34, polish a connector, add a spring and sights and still be right around 600.00, less with a used gun. This gun (not me) can win a National championship. If the trigger work (as minimal as it was) were to be eliminated the guns might not be as competitive. The big glaring problem I see it USPSA competitors will not be happy with that factory gun. What happens when gun company X decides to make a dedicated model for USPSA competition. They will add all the goodies that are now illegal for the gun shop smith to do, but are fairly simple. Gun companies charge a lot more for their time and restricted marketing options than, well anyone else, even top custom smiths. What we would likely end up with is a super Production gun, that is now the, "Gotta have it Gun" That's the cool thing about Production now is you can have guns from 5 different companies fill out the top 5 roster at Nats. If we do away with the ability of the customer to make those simple and cheap changes, you will restrict that freedom.

[RIIID]

Bruce and others who fear trigger work will be the end of Production.

We have been changing the angles on 1911 sears for decades maybe that's why Open and Limited are so unsuccessful and we should eliminate them, just not enough interest to continue to have them around.

There isn't a factory trigger produced that can't be improved upon, it's in the nature of competition to improve in every aspect. Production is working. Going box stock will cause the sky to fall in Production. You will have more people shooting Revolver than box stock Production.

The writing of the rules got us to this point not the shooters.

Rich

Edited January 16, 2009 by RIIID