Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[XRe]

Even Dave Sevigny who does next to nothing to his gun still has a little bit of polish on his trigger parts.

Regardless of what John Amidon wrote in the email quoted above - and what anyone takes "modify" to mean - polishing of internal, factory parts is specifically allowed in the current rules. Its the very first thing listed in D4 21: "Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy, reliability and function." It does not specify what may or may not be polished - anything is fair game, as long as its done to improve - most importantly, in this case - function. "Function" is a pretty wide word.

[Stony Lane]

Put this debate in practical terms:

Last year I bought a "Production Ready" gun for over $1000. that was OK for competition.

Now, this year, it's (said to be) not legal. MANY others are in the same boat.

How can this help our sport?

[Stony Lane]

PS - I'll be shooting the above gun in competition this year.

[00bullitt]

I'm in agreeance with Jobob about the english language comment. The way the rule book was written is totally screwed up and open for interpretation. And as proven here obviosly its easy to interpret many different ways. Kind of a paradigm. Is JA wrong? Am I wrong? Is Anyone wrong? Not in my eyes. But it needs to be solidified so that we all don't see a different version of interpretation. The way it is interpreted is the difference right now to whether or not I'm a cheater or not. And it all comes down to how gramatically correct the rule or rules are written. By using simple terminology such as the word only or listing specific allowances or restrictions as bullet points could have helped to alleviate all this disagreeance for starters. Instead it was 4 words put into parentheses that are creating all of this havoc and the deletion of the term trigger work that was once in the verbiage.

And then add logic and common sense to the mix for interpretation that all the other exterior changes such as stippling,slide changes,barrels,and milling of slides for sights are fine but trigger work isn't anylonger and we a have arrived at where we are at.

So yes.......the poor execution of english grammar is much at fault for this problem. Unfortunately we are again at the mercy of the BOD so our only recourse is to speak up.

[Bill Nesbitt]

Don't forget the crossover shooters while the rules are being discussed. USPSA Production and IDPA SSP rules should be very similar in order for both sports to attract shooters.

[rgkeller]

I'm in agreeance with Jobob about the english language comment. The way the rule book was written is totally screwed up and open for interpretation. And as proven here obviosly its easy to interpret many different ways. Kind of a paradigm. Is JA wrong? Am I wrong? Is Anyone wrong? Not in my eyes. But it needs to be solidified so that we all don't see a different version of interpretation. The way it is interpreted is the difference right now to whether or not I'm a cheater or not. And it all comes down to how gramatically correct the rule or rules are written. By using simple terminology such as the word only or listing specific allowances or restrictions as bullet points could have helped to alleviate all this disagreeance for starters. Instead it was 4 words put into parentheses that are creating all of this havoc and the deletion of the term trigger work that was once in the verbiage.

And then add logic and common sense to the mix for interpretation that all the other exterior changes such as stippling,slide changes,barrels,and milling of slides for sights are fine but trigger work isn't anylonger and we a have arrived at where we are at.

So yes.......the poor execution of english grammar is much at fault for this problem. Unfortunately we are again at the mercy of the BOD so our only recourse is to speak up.

Agreed. As his point that ambiguous language allows BOD individuals to vote to approve a rule that THEY interpret differently is at the heart of this issue and this problem.

Nine years in and the BOD cannot agree among themselves what the rule means.

[Fireant]

So, is my CZ SP01 from Angus with the works done to it still legal for production? Is my Dan Burwell M&P still legal? I don't know what they do to them so how do you know?

[XRe]

You guys just don't get that insulting the intelligence of the folks you're trying to get change out of is a non-starter, do you? Perhaps before criticizing someone else's command of the language, you ought to examine your own use of grammar and English

[murkish]

If the production division is to be box stock, then I think only factory ammo should be allowed. Most new shooters do not have access to a reloading press, they are expensive and the presses themselves are intimidating.

Jack

[Jman]

Typing to the choir won't change things guys. How do we compel the BOD to take action? Wouldn't an addendum eliminating two or three words from the current Productions rules make sense?

It just gets comical after a while. This subject brings out a lot of doctors. Many are prescribing open skull brain surgery.

When all along a change in shampoo would have fixed everything.

Jim

[makomachine]

If the production division is to be box stock, then I think only factory ammo should be allowed. Most new shooters do not have access to a reloading press, they are expensive and the presses themselves are intimidating.

Jack

That's another great point regarding the current 'line' being drawn. I mentioned barrels and sights as significant ways to improve a guns inherent accuracy - ammunition and minimizing your loads to the brink of legality is another great one. It's also very cost prohibitive for the entry level shooter. I know MOST of the Production shooters in my first match were not using reloads - but there were a couple. Do you think their loads had less recoil and were easier to manage? Do you think they had tuned their loads to optimize the grouping of their particular gun? You betcha...

Trigger work, and the specific exclusion of an overtravel stop is an arbitrary cutoff. It's no more or less important than other 'allowable' modifications. Box stock or enforcable rules around modifications are the only solutions. I know where my vote is...

Edited January 16, 2009 by makomachine

[Flexmoney]

Bruce, (you are getting plenty of piling on, but I'll respond to your post on my burger joint anyway )

Your lunch counter is about how USPSA came in on Production. We didn't get it defined. In fact, we let IPSC take most of the lead. (I believe it was my...pushing...that got our USPSA gun list un-tied from the IPSC list, for example.)

My burger joint wasn't your free-for all lunch counter. For your worries to apply accurately...it would be me offering pepper-jack cheese and swiss on the topping bar, and the customer putting both on the burger. That is fine, like I said...it's still a burger.

We probably need to step back and take a look. The intentions of a decade ago might not be where we should be going. It's certainly not where the market is at.

People are buying these guns and doing the work to give them things like better sights and triggers. We (USPSA) need to realize that. We are a smaller blip on the radar than we seem to think we are.

The slippery slope on trigger work....it's s straw man argument. If somebody comes out with a viable electronic ignition system, then we can worry about it. As it is...what is the best we can do? We can approach a single-action trigger. So what?

The train is rolling down the tracks. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Do we stop/derail the train because there is a bridge that is thousands of miles away ?

[Flexmoney]

Don't forget the crossover shooters while the rules are being discussed. USPSA Production and IDPA SSP rules should be very similar in order for both sports to attract shooters.

That is exactly right.

[makomachine]

Don't forget the crossover shooters while the rules are being discussed. USPSA Production and IDPA SSP rules should be very similar in order for both sports to attract shooters.

Excellent point. For those that aren't familiar with IDPA rules (like I was a couple of minutes ago), I'll list out the IDPA SSP Rules regarding modifications:

PERMITTED Modifications (Inclusive list):

1. Sights may be changed to another conventional notch and

post type (see “sights” in glossary for further information).

2. Grips may be changed to another style or material that is

similar to factory configuration (no weighted grips; see

“weighted grips” in glossary for further details).

3. A slip-on grip sock and/or skateboard tape may be used.

4. Internal action work may be used to enhance trigger pull as

long as safety is maintained (no visible external modifications

allowed).

5. Reliability work may be done to enhance feeding and

ejection.

6. Internal accuracy may be worked to include replacement of

barrel with one of factory configuration and original caliber.

7. Plastic plugs may be used to fill the opening behind the

magazine well.

8. Custom finishes may be applied.

NOTE: The slide releases and magazine releases that are standard

on the Glock 34 and 35 models are available as a factory option on

all Glocks available in the USA. Because of this, that type of slide

release and magazine release are legal on all Glocks for SSP.

EXCLUDED Modifications (NON-Inclusive list):

1. Externally visible modifications other than grips or sights.

2. Robar style grip reduction.

3. Add-on magazine well opening.

4. Guide rods made of a material different from the factory part

it replaces.

5. Seattle Slug Grip Plug and similar weighted products. 21 6. A barrel of another caliber that is not offered in the original

factory model.

7. Slide lightening (see “slide, lightening” in glossary for

further information).

8. Checkering and stippling.

9. Refer to Appendix ONE-A. Firearms-Non-IDPA-Legal

Modifications.

[driver8M3]

4. Internal action work may be used to enhance trigger pull as

long as safety is maintained (no visible external modifications

allowed).

can somebody with idpa experience tell us if this is causing SSP to self destruct? is anyone in SSP using the internal-hammer design that bruce is worried about?

[vluc]

If the production division is to be box stock, then I think only factory ammo should be allowed. Most new shooters do not have access to a reloading press, they are expensive and the presses themselves are intimidating.

Jack

That's another great point regarding the current 'line' being drawn. I mentioned barrels and sights as significant ways to improve a guns inherent accuracy - ammunition and minimizing your loads to the brink of legality is another great one. It's also very cost prohibitive for the entry level shooter. I know MOST of the Production shooters in my first match were not using reloads - but there were a couple. Do you think their loads had less recoil and were easier to manage? Do you think they had tuned their loads to optimize the grouping of their particular gun? You betcha...

Trigger work, and the specific exclusion of an overtravel stop is an arbitrary cutoff. It's no more or less important than other 'allowable' modifications. Box stock or enforcable rules around modifications are the only solutions. I know where my vote is...

Now we are getting too scary. The law of unintended consequences will soon be creeping up on as, and I, in fact, never did think about ammo and the competitive advantage we gain in the division from using it. So I should spend more money on factory ammo, keep my gun less accurate and less responsive to my needs so I can pay to go shoot and not have fun.

[jobob]

An excellent point regarding crossover with IDPA. I've never shot IDPA so I didn't think about it. If that is one of our goals, then the BOD needs to rescind the allowance for stippling, and slide replacement. But I suppose those horses have left the barn by now. Maybe we need to enlist the help of some SASS shooters to round them up!

Also an excellent point about handloads. Hmm, I wonder if factory "remanufactured" ammo, like Black Hills blue box, would be allowed, or not. Oh, think of all the rule-writing possibilities!

[jobob]

You guys just don't get that insulting the intelligence of the folks you're trying to get change out of is a non-starter, do you? Perhaps before criticizing someone else's command of the language, you ought to examine your own use of grammar and English

Huh? Oh, uh, hmmm. Well, excuse me, but you forgot the period at the end of your second sentence.

Besides, I don't think there is a requirement for all posts to be grammatically correct, though I try. But I do think that a rule book should be written so that competitors don't need to hire a lawyer to understand it, and aren't caught in a "gotcha" like seems to have happened to most of us.

[murkish]

Now we are getting too scary. The law of unintended consequences will soon be creeping up on as, and I, in fact, never did think about ammo and the competitive advantage we gain in the division from using it. So I should spend more money on factory ammo, keep my gun less accurate and less responsive to my needs so I can pay to go shoot and not have fun.

Vince, that is my point exactly. I think minor tweaking of the gun and ammo is a natural evolutionary process as one grows into this sport and actually prepares the competitor for moving into Limited and Open. My production gun is a Glock 34 with only a fluff and buff of the internals, grip tape and a tungsten guide rod. Am I being held back by the fact that I do not have a 1.25 lb trigger with no overtravel? Absolutely not. How many times do we have to say it on this website? It is the indian and not the bow and arrow!

There is no arms race in the Production Division, but if there were one I would have to say it is the new guns (XDm and CZ) coming straight off the shelf. Based on what I am reading about the BOD's intent, they should never have added the Glock 34 or any other handgun that was designed specifically for the competition market to the Approved Production List. Then I could shoot my Kel-Tec P12 to my heart's content. I still wouldn't be competitive and my trigger finger would hurt like a mother, but who really cares.

What causes competitors to want to improve themselves and their equipment is the fact that it IS a competition. The only way to change that is to make it not a competition and not keep score. At the end of the day, we can all pat each other on the back and give everyone a trophy. We can call it the "Everyone Wins" Division.

I am sorry that this is so over the top, but I am getting really frustrated with this whole conversation. A year and half ago, I was the new shooter that the BOD is so concerned about attracting. I had owned a handgun less than 6 months and had not shot competitively since I was in 4H 25 years before. I made C class with a stock Glock 19. I cannot possibly see how someone tweaking the angle of their trigger bar could possibly have intimidated, deterred, or dissuaded me from pursuing this sport. Last month, I made C Class in limited shooting minor with my production Glock 34 and shooting Winchester White Box. While a hundredth of a second on a split time might make a difference at the GM level at nationals, it just does not mean anything to the brand new shooter at a local match.

I like the IDPA SSP modifications. They look pretty well thought out.

Happy Friday,

Jack

[bgary]

But I do think that a rule book should be written so that competitors don't need to hire a lawyer to understand it

I *know* I'm going to regret this, but... *I* thought the rule was written pretty clearly. The part that has been at the center of the current discussion says:

Authorized modifications (Strictly limited to these items and their stated guidelines)

•Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy,reliability and function

•Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties, slide stops, guide rods).

It seems pretty clear to *me*. And more to the point, it takes some... "creative reading" to believe that those things add up to "I can drill holes, add screws, redesign fire-control components, file things into new shapes, swap in completely different parts that aren't listed and anything else I want as long as you can't see it from the outside."

I don't know how much more clearly we could have said "if it isn't exactly, specifically, explicitly on this list in plain language, you can't do it to your gun."

Any hints?

[driver8M3]

I *know* I'm going to regret this, but... *I* thought the rule was written pretty clearly.

bruce: this might be the only time you ever hear this from me on the production rules, so listen up. i completely agree. the new rules are very clear. i saw this coming when i saw the draft.

...i just think it's a very bad rule.

let me ask a few questions:

how confident are you that at the open nationals, most shooters' gun complied with the rules? same question for limited and revolver?

ok...now, same question for production? how in the world can anyone be confident that all the production guns were compliant to rules that REQUIRED taking apart the guns to determine compliance, when no guns were taken apart? and i'm talking about nationals, never mind, area, sectional or local matches.

you simply cannot have a rule that requires taking the guns apart to determine compliance. any such rule is a bad rule for our sport.

[makomachine]

But I do think that a rule book should be written so that competitors don't need to hire a lawyer to understand it

I *know* I'm going to regret this, but... *I* thought the rule was written pretty clearly. The part that has been at the center of the current discussion says:

Authorized modifications (Strictly limited to these items and their stated guidelines)

•Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy,reliability and function

•Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties, slide stops, guide rods).

It seems pretty clear to *me*. And more to the point, it takes some... "creative reading" to believe that those things add up to "I can drill holes, add screws, redesign fire-control components, file things into new shapes, swap in completely different parts that aren't listed and anything else I want as long as you can't see it from the outside."

I don't know how much more clearly we could have said "if it isn't exactly, specifically, explicitly on this list in plain language, you can't do it to your gun."

Any hints?

No creative reading required at all. The new competitor got their input in the welcome package from the USPSA. Without even reading the rulebook cover to cover, I received a nice summary of what Production class guidelines are - nicely summed up in the official journal of the USPSA. As previously stated, on page 10 there is an article titled "Understanding the Divisions" and here is what it says about Production.

Strictly limited to the use of production handguns with double- or safe-action triggers, Production lines up very nicely for owners of double-action 9mm or .40 S&W firearms. Glocks are popular, as are Berettas, SIGs, Springfields, Para-Ordinance LDA's, and a host of others. Stock revolvers may also be used, including the 7- and 8-shot variants.

Shooters may change the sights, add skate tape, and tune the internal parts of the gun, but externally-visible changes are not legal.

Now that's definitely confusing to a new member like myself. The long term member who didn't refresh themselves with the very entertaining read of 92 pgs in the rulebook also got this magazine as well - and it fits with what people are doing in the matches they shot yesterday and will shoot tomorrow.

Train kept a rollin....

[BayouSlide]

But I do think that a rule book should be written so that competitors don't need to hire a lawyer to understand it

I *know* I'm going to regret this, but... *I* thought the rule was written pretty clearly. The part that has been at the center of the current discussion says:

Authorized modifications (Strictly limited to these items and their stated guidelines)

•Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy,reliability and function

•Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties, slide stops, guide rods).

It seems pretty clear to *me*. And more to the point, it takes some... "creative reading" to believe that those things add up to "I can drill holes, add screws, redesign fire-control components, file things into new shapes, swap in completely different parts that aren't listed and anything else I want as long as you can't see it from the outside."

I don't know how much more clearly we could have said "if it isn't exactly, specifically, explicitly on this list in plain language, you can't do it to your gun."

Any hints?

Perhaps the new rules are that clear. If so, then the real problem—for at least the majority of the Production shooters posting here—would appear to be considerable dissatisfaction from the rank and file with the new rules/interpretation/direction for OUR division.

There appears to be a real divergence in what we believe the Production division should be versus what the BOD believes it should be. As such, perhaps the BOD would seriously consider these alternative points of view in any future discussions/changes/clarifications of the rules.

Curtis

[bgary]

this might be the only time you ever hear this from me on the production rules, so listen up. i completely agree. the new rules are very clear. i saw this coming when i saw the draft.

...i just think it's a very bad rule.

you simply cannot have a rule that requires taking the guns apart to determine compliance. any such rule is a bad rule for our sport.

This won't be the only time you hear this from me.

I completely agree.

*MY* interest in this whole discussion is, "how do we make the rules better?"

As with most things in life, nobody is probably going to get everything they want. USPSA isn't ever going to have Production be the "stock gun" division that it thought it was creating. Production shooters (now and future) probably aren't going to be able to make every modification they want to.

But somewhere in the middle, I believe, lies some "goodness". A place where we can generally agree on what Production should be. It should be "mostly stock". It should mostly work like it was designed to. It should be tunable and tweakable, within some limits. It should be "different" enough from the other divisions that it retains some relevance. It should have a logically-consistent and sustainable set of rules, that are easily consumable by new-member and range-lawyer alike. It should not require a tech-teardown to enforce. Etc.

I know it isn't apparent from many of my posts (most of which are intended to get people thinking about the problem rather than just defending their position), but, I'm *with* you. I want to solve this problem in a way that makes sense. The current approach of "rubber bands around less-than-optimal rules held together by a layer of interpretations" is just... bad. I want to fix it.

B (...but I happen to *continue* to believe that "do anything you want inside the gun" is not a viable fix, free of consequences, either...)

PS - ETA re: your last question. I have 0.000% confidence that every Production gun at the 2008 Nationals was compliant with a plain-language reading of the rules. **THAT**, more than anything, makes me crazy-motivated to fix the rules. Because, at the end of the day (as many have noted), if we can't enforce rules compliance - if we can't even *detect* non-compliance, and as a result don't even try - the rules are meaningless. It is a bleeding wound in our side, that affects our long-term health, IMHO.

Edited January 16, 2009 by bgary

[BlackSabbath]

Curtis,

In central Mississippi, Production is the largest, fastest growing division. Many, many new shooters are loving Production. They don't complain about the rules one bit. And,the shooters that have been around 5, 10, 15+ years don't complain about the rules. Nobody does! The only time you'll hear anything negative is when the BOD starts messing with the rules (Read: Costing shooters $$$).

Maybe for once, things are right and should be left alone.

Novel concept, eh?

Edited January 16, 2009 by BlackSabbath