Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[Flexmoney]

Only if there are 2,000 made and they are readily available to the public. lol

[makomachine]

Only if there are 2,000 made and they are readily available to the public. lol

Just trying to cover all our bases given how it's going to shake up the Production Division when it happens! Have to have every possible scenario covered that can/will happen in the future or we aren't being comprehensive enough. It is, after all, all about the arms race!!!

Edited January 16, 2009 by makomachine

[murkish]

[We can worry about what fuel to put in our jet-packs when we all get them.

JET PACKS??? We can have jet packs in Production? I would be much faster with a jet pack.

I do not see anything in the rules about alternate modes of transportation. I think jet packs and hover boards are perfectly with in the rules.

Jack

[makomachine]

[We can worry about what fuel to put in our jet-packs when we all get them.

JET PACKS??? We can have jet packs in Production? I would be much faster with a jet pack.

I do not see anything in the rules about alternate modes of transportation. I think jet packs and hover boards are perfectly with in the rules.

Jack

Sweet! Makes working around those no shoots a LOT easier!

[double_pedro]

I don't see anywhere in the regulations on what sized battery I'm allowed to have in my railgun.

Depends on the rail length...9V usually makes minor without excessive arcing or breakdown.

*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*.

BGARY - Is it really all that clear? D4 is certainly not complete....e.g. can I replace a part with an OEM replacement? That is not explicitly included and may even be explicitly prohibited if I take D4 at face value. If I can replace a part with an OEM replacement, can I fit it for reliabilty and function by any means other than *polishing*?

FWIW, you may want to focus on the OEM-ness of parts regarding how to write rules that allow the most common internal work but avoid changing function (whatever that is exactly).

Finally, regarding the other 8 directors, any chance you could direct their attention to this thread? Thanks again.

Xre - Although being able to enforce rules for compliance is infinitely better, there is still value in rules that are clearly written, even if they are not enforced. It helps those of us who want to be good citizens to know exactly where the line so we can sleep better at night. Not ideal, but better than confusion and uncertainty.

Edited January 16, 2009 by double_pedro

[Gary Stevens]

Other 8 Directors? Let's revise that math a bit

Gary (Rodney Dangerfield, I get no respect) Stevens

Area 5 Director

[XRe]

Xre - Although being able to enforce rules for compliance is infinitely better, there is still value in rules that are clearly written, even if they are not enforced.

I agree 300,000%!!!! I'm definitely not advocating for unclear rules In fact, I would consider clarity to be mandatory, as well as enforceability.

It helps those of us who want to be good citizens to know exactly where the line so we can sleep better at night. Not ideal, but better than confusion and uncertainty.

I understand what you're saying - and clear rules definitely give you a clear basis to work from. The point I'm trying to make to Bruce is that it might be best to abandon the idea of a rule or rules that would match his vision for Production, because they wouldn't be able to be enforced (just as the current rule set is not, either, without technical inspection). Instead, perhaps its better to focus on defining parameters we can actually do something about, and can reliably check for... I'm just kind of doing it from the other direction

[XRe]

Other 8 Directors? Let's revise that math a bit

Perhaps he "demoted" Mr. Voigt?

[double_pedro]

Other 8 Directors? Let's revise that math a bit

Gary (Rodney Dangerfield, I get no respect) Stevens

Area 5 Director

Sorry about that...I knew you were also following and participating in the discussion....and sincerely thank you for that.

Mea culpa!

[RIIID]

The fear of something being made better by the change of design will happen. Just because there is a rule that says you can't do it isn't going to stop people from seeking the better mouse trap.

Springfield has a good mouse trap the XD, they saw a need for it to be better and just like that the XDm came about. Did they do it for the 18,000 USPSA members who might use it, I think not. They did it for the hundreds of thousands of the gun buying public. Is the XDm perfect no, I've found ways to make it even better. The evolution continues no matter how much you don't want it to.

Doing trigger work on guns happens every day and it's done without competition in mind. I did eight this week that weren't for competition will some of these guns make it into competition someday they might. The others I did were for competition are they Production legal, I'll just have to see how all this pans out.

Production guns will evolve no matter how many restrictions you try to place on it. Your trying to prevent something that will happen and it will find it's way into Production. Will it happen tomorrow, next month, next year, or the next decade who knows. All I know is I won't fear it.

Rich

[Bill Nesbitt]

Here's an idea. Just make the USPSA Production rules the same as the IDPA rules. They have been working OK for the last 12 years. Might not be a popular idea but it could work.

[Rob D]

Here's an idea. Just make the USPSA Production rules the same as the IDPA rules. They have been working OK for the last 12 years. Might not be a popular idea but it could work.

No disrespect, but I think that would alienate even more production shooters than making people stick to appendix D4 for authorized mods would.

As a new shooter, I can testify to the effectiveness of the "production on-ramp" to USPSA. I got in with a glock 34 and then did a few minor mods to make my trigger a lot better (LWD connector, springs, polishing). It seems like the lightly modified glock is THE most popular gun in production. Outlawing the most popular mods people use could really hurt the division.

[jobob]

So, we Production shooters can't do anything to the triggers of our box stock guns in order to avoid an equipment race (this we're being told by Open shooters). Of course, we can put $1000+ in an aftermarket top end, but that's another topic.

So, some enterprising manufacturer sees an opportunity here. He improves one of his models by putting a supurb trigger in it, makes some slight changes to the exterior and gives it a new model designation, makes 2,001 units of this new super Production Blaster (maybe that would be the new model name!), and sells them for $1500 ea. I can't take a similar 'street' model and put the new trigger parts in it. No, can't have that! Instead, if I want be competitive, I need to scrap my old, perfectly serviceable pistol, but with it's sloppy trigger, and limit out my credit card to get the new 'gotta have' Production Blaster. Is that how we avoid this mythological equipment race?

I'm beginning to think that the real problem here is Open and Limited shooters over-regulating a division they don't shoot in. For what reason, I don't know. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding of what Production really means to the vast majority of its participants. The cynical view might be that they want to regulate it out of existence. I won't subscribe to that view, though, at least not until I'm shown a reason for thinking that.

What I really think may be the real reason is that the BOD members saw what happened to USPSA back when there was only one division. I know Mr. Gary was around then, so that would explain a lot. We lost shooters due to the equipment race. I was one of them. Back in the early '90s I was able to work my way into A class shooting a compensated single stack 1911 .45. But I saw that if I was going to improve, I was going to have to invest a LOT of $. To really compete, you needed a high cap, optically sighted 38 Super race gun, put together by one of the top smiths. And that was USPSA. Shooters had two options: invest lots of money, or just know that you were there to buy prizes for the top shooters. The classifier that put me into A class was the last match I shot for nearly 10 years (partly due to work schedules). But now, I'm back in shooting and I'm really enjoying myself. Anyway, that may explain why Production is being regulated away. Just for the love of the sport, and not alienating shooters. It will have the reverse effect, though. Most Production shooters will leave and find better places to play. Too bad, it was a good Division!

[George Jones]

So, some enterprising manufacturer sees an opportunity here. He improves one of his models by putting a supurb trigger in it, makes some slight changes to the exterior and gives it a new model designation, makes 2,001 units of this new super Production Blaster (maybe that would be the new model name!), and sells them for $1500 ea. I can't take a similar 'street' model and put the new trigger parts in it. No, can't have that! Instead, if I want be competitive, I need to scrap my old, perfectly serviceable pistol, but with it's sloppy trigger, and limit out my credit card to get the new 'gotta have' Production Blaster. Is that how we avoid this mythological equipment race?

That particular scenario is not very likely.

IF a manufacturer were to develop a new wiz-bang blaster based upon the model you already own and make sufficient numbers to be added to the approved USPSA Production gun list, you would (I believe) be able to use the compatible parts to upgrade your "street model" gun. I base that statement on the existing Production allowance to use parts from one approved model into another approved model.

You could get a real bargain.

[jobob]

So, some enterprising manufacturer sees an opportunity here. He improves one of his models by putting a supurb trigger in it, makes some slight changes to the exterior and gives it a new model designation, makes 2,001 units of this new super Production Blaster (maybe that would be the new model name!), and sells them for $1500 ea. I can't take a similar 'street' model and put the new trigger parts in it. No, can't have that! Instead, if I want be competitive, I need to scrap my old, perfectly serviceable pistol, but with it's sloppy trigger, and limit out my credit card to get the new 'gotta have' Production Blaster. Is that how we avoid this mythological equipment race?

That particular scenario is not very likely.

IF a manufacturer were to develop a new wiz-bang blaster based upon the model you already own and make sufficient numbers to be added to the approved USPSA Production gun list, you would (I believe) be able to use the compatible parts to upgrade your "street model" gun. I base that statement on the existing Production allowance to use parts from one approved model into another approved model.

You could get a real bargain.

Is that right? I think Mr. Gary was making the point earlier that swapping the connector from a G34 into a G17 was verboten, unless I missunderstood. Which IS possible. I tend to think there is a LOT of missunderstanding on this thread!

[jobob]

Besides, there still may be the incentive for a manufacturer to produce a gun designed for Production which will put all the others to shame. Noone will be allowed to improve their own gun to be competitive, essentially forcing them to buy the latest whiz bang. That sound like an equipment race to me!

[eerw]

So, some enterprising manufacturer sees an opportunity here. He improves one of his models by putting a supurb trigger in it, makes some slight changes to the exterior and gives it a new model designation, makes 2,001 units of this new super Production Blaster (maybe that would be the new model name!), and sells them for $1500 ea. I can't take a similar 'street' model and put the new trigger parts in it. No, can't have that! Instead, if I want be competitive, I need to scrap my old, perfectly serviceable pistol, but with it's sloppy trigger, and limit out my credit card to get the new 'gotta have' Production Blaster. Is that how we avoid this mythological equipment race?

That particular scenario is not very likely.

IF a manufacturer were to develop a new wiz-bang blaster based upon the model you already own and make sufficient numbers to be added to the approved USPSA Production gun list, you would (I believe) be able to use the compatible parts to upgrade your "street model" gun. I base that statement on the existing Production allowance to use parts from one approved model into another approved model.

You could get a real bargain.

Is that right? I think Mr. Gary was making the point earlier that swapping the connector from a G34 into a G17 was verboten, unless I missunderstood. Which IS possible. I tend to think there is a LOT of missunderstanding on this thread!

NROI Rulings

Title: Replacement parts for Production division

Created: 8/12/08

Updated: 8/19/08

Effective: 8/19/08

Rule number: Appendix D4 item

Applies to: Pistol

Ruling authority: John Amidn

Status: Released

Question

May I replace external parts on my Production gun with aftermarket parts.

Ruling

Aftermarket parts are allowed but restricted to those listed in Appendix D4, any other part must be OEM, either offered on an approved model for Production or in their catalog.

[George Jones]

Is that right? I think Mr. Gary was making the point earlier that swapping the connector from a G34 into a G17 was verboten, unless I missunderstood. Which IS possible. I tend to think there is a LOT of missunderstanding on this thread!

Yes, there certainly is. Much of it in the form of opinions or hypothetical scenarios without the benefit of actually reading the rules and/or interpretations.

I don't see ANY problem with a manufacturer producing a new wiz-bang. That is called free enterprise. If they meet the specifications for the USPSA approved Production gun list, power to them. If they over-price it, it may not be a commercially successful project - their business decision.

It is the shooter's choice whether to buy it or not. If it's over-priced, well.... free enterprise at work.

I see nothing wrong with innovation. Neither should USPSA. If innovation is such a bad thing, we could always go back to slingshots or other such antiquated artillery.

Hmm...... I wonder what the Power Factor floor might be and how many chronos would get destroyed.

[kgunz11]

There is already an equipment race, between the shooters, the gunsmiths, and the manufacturers. I don't think we can stop that. The BOD can refuse to let that new "wiz bang blaster" from being used in Production, in the best interest of the Division, for whatever reason if they so choose to. Just because something better comes along, doesn't mean you have to go out and buy it. I shooting, and the fact that I have a venue that will allow me to do so in a country where it is also allowed. I am quite thankful personally. I have an M&P 9 and an M&P Pro that I want to shoot in Production. Will my box stock gun be competitive against the tuned and tweaked guns? Who knows, I plan to have fun trying to make myself competitive. For me, it's not about winning, it's about having a good time with good people that also enjoy shooting. I have fun even when I lose miserably.

I have taken my brother-n-law and other friends to matches before, and they shot Production. Either with duty weapons or personal carry stuff, and they have been and were intimidated by some of the other Production shooters, mostly because of the way the person was able to shoot. Back to the Indian, not the arrow.

[George Jones]

There is already an equipment race, between the shooters, the gunsmiths, and the manufacturers. I don't think we can stop that. The BOD can refuse to let that new "wiz bang blaster" from being used in Production, in the best interest of the Division, for whatever reason if they so choose to.

The BOD could only exclude a gun if it did not meet the published defined division criteria. To exclude a gun because of an arbitrary "best interest" theory would not be in the financial best interest of the organization (read that to mean something about bad faith and potential litigation).

Just because something better comes along, doesn't mean you have to go out and buy it.

Exactly.

[Chuck Anderson]

NROI Rulings

Title: Replacement parts for Production division

Created: 8/12/08

Updated: 8/19/08

Effective: 8/19/08

Rule number: Appendix D4 item

Applies to: Pistol

Ruling authority: John Amidn

Status: Released

Question

May I replace external parts on my Production gun with aftermarket parts.

Ruling

Aftermarket parts are allowed but restricted to those listed in Appendix D4, any other part must be OEM, either offered on an approved model for Production or in their catalog.

You keep posting this ruling but it doesn't apply. It is specific to external parts, not internal parts.

[Singlestack]

Speaking calmly here about enforcing a rule that makes a lot (most?) of the guns used in the division illegal is one thing. Telling the seasoned shooters that the gun they have been shooting for years is illegal is another.

I get the feeling the BoD's attitude is they already told them.

My attitude is if they did, I didn't hear it. I feel like it was slipped in the back door while we weren't watching.

[eerw]

You keep posting this ruling but it doesn't apply. It is specific to external parts, not internal parts.

My bad Chuck...

keep forgetting we are hung up on that dang connector

[Vlad]

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.

Not really, replacement slides can be LIGHTER. I've pointing this out for a while, even before the rule book become reality. Also changing a trigger can also be considered an ergonomic change for folks with short fingers, or who lack hand strength to fight a 13lb factory trigger, etc.

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.

While I agree with you, this is not what Amidon seem to be proposing (and I'm not fond on unelected USPSA officials trying to change what a division is without actually talking to the people that shoot it). However, the board should have though about this BEFORE sending the book to the printers. Seriously guys, you put the book for comment, people make a MOUNTAIN of comments, and then the final rule book is still flawed by not clearly defining what you wanted or meeting what the shooters want. We've had this division for 10 years now, do you think we can actually have a set of rules that are clear now? This doesn't seem to be an issue with other divisions.

It is absurd to do gun teardowns. You either do them at EVERY match or you don't do them. As a match director I'm busy enough, and I suspect most local matches don't have the time, man power, or knowledge to do it. Seeing how many versions of parts factory guns have, I doubt you can correctly do it at any match without an army of gunsmiths and you are just going to add more contention. Finger worn trigger guards, anyone?

As much as you may dislike trigger pull limits, it is the only practical way to limit internal modifications. Everything else if going to fail miserably in contact with reality. I've been supporting the idea for a while, though the way it was worded in the proposed 2008 rules was broken. Again, a whole lot of folks came up with lots of good ideas how it can be made to work, and as fair as I can tell were ignored.

In my opinion, the board has made a huge mess of a successful division and to fix it, they plan to make a larger mess. To continue with the culinary analogies, the proposed solution to the steak/burger problem , is to take both and replace them with haggis, pleasing neither the stake lovers of the burger aficionados, in an attempt to reduce store theft.

Finally no one seems to be really paying attention to the folks that keep telling you that people outside USPSA get trigger jobs done in much higher numbers then USPSA shooters. If you are worried about the entry level, the fracking aftermarket parts ban will keep people out of the game at this point, not bring them in.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Vlad

[RIIID]

Vlad,

Trigger pull weight tests can only can tell how much weight it takes to fire the gun. It can't tell the distance of, pre-travel, over travel, and reset. Those are what most trigger jobs are done for besides pull weight. Having a pull weight limit won't solve the problem that some of the BOD are afraid of.

I wrote it early in this thread that we have to deal with the "problem" from the point we are at right now. Dump section 21 and 22 from the rules and replace it with a compliance test. As in The gun with an empty mag must fit into the Production box and no external changes from factory with the exception of grip stippling and checkering.

Rich