XRe Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Whether we intended to or not! No doubt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH45 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I just read this thread, from the beginning, and am getting cross-eyed. I've been shooting USPSA for 15 years, and IDPA since its inception. I've seen more people go to USPSA from IDPA because of IDPA rule changes. Now, where will the shooters go? What a can of worms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What a can of worms! Welcome to exactly the type of decision the BOD must make all of the time. Trust me, this is far from the largest can of worms I have seen while on the BOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What a can of worms! Welcome to exactly the type of decision the BOD must make all of the time. Trust me, this is far from the largest can of worms I have seen while on the BOD. Charlie, What's your take on it? What would you do...if you had to make a decision as a bod member? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I am glad that I shoot a glock in production, because the trigger is one of the three safeties. For several years I have used a Vanek trigger because "trigger work" was expressly permitted under the 2004 production rules, US Appendix D9. Now I use a Vanek modified "safety" [trigger] which is now expressly permitted under the new 2008 rules. Lucky for us glock shooters that we can modify our safeties ;-) Are the new rules really that clear? -br Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 This is all quickly becoming a joke, t me. I didn't shoot at all, except for one match during 2008. I intend on shooting during 2009. My Production gun (not stock) is the same as it was during 2006 and 2007. I'm changing nothing. There, I said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I'm changing nothing.There, I said it. You know...I can't say I agree with that, but I can see the rational pretty easily. Like prohibition, Production division might become a "speak easy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobob Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What a can of worms! Welcome to exactly the type of decision the BOD must make all of the time. Trust me, this is far from the largest can of worms I have seen while on the BOD. This may be, but it appears to me that many of those cans of worms have been opened by the BOD members themselves, and most certainly this one. The Production rules keep changing, the interpretations of those rules change, and the shooters don't know where they stand. It seems that there is an agenda with some board members. Whether the intention is good or ill means little when the decisions made hurt the shooters and damage the sport through unnecessary controversy. The BOD didn't HAVE to make trigger pull an issue. It didn't HAVE to allow total replacement of the upper half major parts, while making the changing of small, inexpensive internal parts verboten. And it didn't HAVE to prohibit modifications that 90% of Production shooter have been doing to their guns for years, thinking that they were within both the letter and spirit of the rules. We thought we had won the trigger pull debate, only to learn that wording had been slipped in to the rules prohibiting nearly ANY trigger modification. That apparently got past us as we were rather fixated on trigger pull. Guess we weren't protecting our flanks! On the surface this appears devious. I could be wrong, and hope I am, but it all seems rather petty and vindictive. Please know that I have nothing at all against any of the BOD members. I love this sport, and I love USPSA as the leading organization promoting action shooting. But controversies like this, which are totally contrived and unnecessary, hurt all of us. I ask that you do the right thing and consider what effect your actions will have on the shooters and the sport. If Production is killed, which is the direction it's going, the sport will be diminished. Is that what any of us wants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 We thought we had won the trigger pull debate, only to learn that wording had been slipped in to the rules prohibiting nearly ANY trigger modification. That apparently got past us as we were rather fixated on trigger pull. Guess we weren't protecting our flanks! On the surface this appears devious. I could be wrong, and hope I am, but it all seems rather petty and vindictive. +1 Thats my take on it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What a can of worms! Welcome to exactly the type of decision the BOD must make all of the time. Trust me, this is far from the largest can of worms I have seen while on the BOD. Charlie, What's your take on it? What would you do...if you had to make a decision as a bod member? Speaking only for myself here it was my intent to adopt rules that left the production trigger issue alone. Earlier on in the rules discussion, I saw value in requiring a trigger pull because I thought that would level the playing field. After I was contacted by a number of production shooters who brought to my attention that to do so would only move many production shooters from striker fired guns to those that are DAO on the first shot and SA on each subsequent shot, I changed my mind and voted for a set of rules that I believed left the production trigger issue unchanged. I believe in rules and I believe rules must be followed. I also believe that having rules that can not be enforced are akin to having no rules at all since if you can not enforce a rule, all you are doing is telling those who follow the exact language of the rules what fools they are. Reading draft after draft of rules is an exhausting exercise but I do not recall at any time ever being made aware by anyone that the what is being disucssed as the rule here was in fact the rule we were adopting. That is not to blame anyone else but rather just to say I am not sure the entire BOD viewed this rule at that time as it is now being read. Frankly, even at this point I have to look closely to see that parts replacement is forbidden. Clearly we should have communicated to the membership better than we did this change if that is what we desired the rule to be. So back to your question. If I had to make a decsion as a BOD member what would I do? The short answer is that I am not yet sure. I believe the rules must be upheld but USPSA dropped the ball here and unless we are going to tear down guns at matches, what is really the point? Charles Bond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobob Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 What a can of worms! Welcome to exactly the type of decision the BOD must make all of the time. Trust me, this is far from the largest can of worms I have seen while on the BOD. Charlie, What's your take on it? What would you do...if you had to make a decision as a bod member? Speaking only for myself here it was my intent to adopt rules that left the production trigger issue alone. Earlier on in the rules discussion, I saw value in requiring a trigger pull because I thought that would level the playing field. After I was contacted by a number of production shooters who brought to my attention that to do so would only move many production shooters from striker fired guns to those that are DAO on the first shot and SA on each subsequent shot, I changed my mind and voted for a set of rules that I believed left the production trigger issue unchanged. I believe in rules and I believe rules must be followed. I also believe that having rules that can not be enforced are akin to having no rules at all since if you can not enforce a rule, all you are doing is telling those who follow the exact language of the rules what fools they are. Reading draft after draft of rules is an exhausting exercise but I do not recall at any time ever being made aware by anyone that the what is being disucssed as the rule here was in fact the rule we were adopting. That is not to blame anyone else but rather just to say I am not sure the entire BOD viewed this rule at that time as it is now being read. Frankly, even at this point I have to look closely to see that parts replacement is forbidden. Clearly we should have communicated to the membership better than we did this change if that is what we desired the rule to be. So back to your question. If I had to make a decsion as a BOD member what would I do? The short answer is that I am not yet sure. I believe the rules must be upheld but USPSA dropped the ball here and unless we are going to tear down guns at matches, what is really the point? Charles Bond Thanks! You're my kind of BOD, er, dude! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxd9 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) I bought an XD in 2005 and got a Canyon Creek trigger job done to it. From what I'm hearing I accidentally broke the rules in 2008 when I shot it. Guess I'll have to cancel my USPSA membership now as Production was the only division I intended to shoot in. How many others will stop shooting due to these rule changes? Do we want to grow the sport? Let's not alienate those who've been shooting for some time already. Dissapointed Edited January 21, 2009 by zxd9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 It would be rather interesting if there was some kind of way to determine how many Production Division guns had trigger jobs and how many were stock guns throughout an entire year of competition. I'd be willing to bed the folks that are USPSA members and shoot a match or more a month most likely have done something to enhance the internals of their Production gun. I'd hate to see all those people have to undo what they spent good money to have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) What a can of worms! Welcome to exactly the type of decision the BOD must make all of the time. Trust me, this is far from the largest can of worms I have seen while on the BOD. Charlie, What's your take on it? What would you do...if you had to make a decision as a bod member? Speaking only for myself here it was my intent to adopt rules that left the production trigger issue alone. Earlier on in the rules discussion, I saw value in requiring a trigger pull because I thought that would level the playing field. After I was contacted by a number of production shooters who brought to my attention that to do so would only move many production shooters from striker fired guns to those that are DAO on the first shot and SA on each subsequent shot, I changed my mind and voted for a set of rules that I believed left the production trigger issue unchanged. I believe in rules and I believe rules must be followed. I also believe that having rules that can not be enforced are akin to having no rules at all since if you can not enforce a rule, all you are doing is telling those who follow the exact language of the rules what fools they are. Reading draft after draft of rules is an exhausting exercise but I do not recall at any time ever being made aware by anyone that the what is being disucssed as the rule here was in fact the rule we were adopting. That is not to blame anyone else but rather just to say I am not sure the entire BOD viewed this rule at that time as it is now being read. Frankly, even at this point I have to look closely to see that parts replacement is forbidden. Clearly we should have communicated to the membership better than we did this change if that is what we desired the rule to be. So back to your question. If I had to make a decsion as a BOD member what would I do? The short answer is that I am not yet sure. I believe the rules must be upheld but USPSA dropped the ball here and unless we are going to tear down guns at matches, what is really the point? Charles Bond Charlie, Thanks for your response. I own both a Vanek Custom Production Gun, as well as CZ from their custom shop. For the record, I along with every Production shooter I spoke with at our home club would like USPSA to allow Production guns do anything they want inside the gun. Don't resrtict trigger pull weight. Let the gunsmiths be creative on the inside of the guns. Anything else will be difficult or impossible to enforce. Respectfully, Cliff L-1610 Edited January 22, 2009 by BlackSabbath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Well time to get wet again. Like Charles, as the discussions of the 2008 rules progressed I never heard a word about reversing any previous rules, rulings, interpretations, conveyed information (expressly or implied) regarding trigger work. I believed the 2008 rules borough forward the existing status quo of trigger work and that the new rules actually relaxed other areas of the PD rules. It would seem to me that if the 2008 rulebook were to remove already existing language, rulings, interpretations, conveyed information (expressly or implied) regarding trigger work that it would clearly say so. We had great discussions about weighing triggers. Eventually that was removed from the 2008 rulebook. I though that left us with what we had when the 2004 book expired, which was (rightly or wrongly) that you could do internal trigger work. Now we are at a place where I did not want to go. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I had a half-dozen local shooter bring their Glocks to my place a few weeks back. I gave a basic class on how to do your own trigger job. I probably made all of their gun illegal. Had I known that this was how the rule would read...I could have gave them the same functionality in a different manner. For that matter, I could probably do a trigger job on a Glock that would appear legal to most anybody that tore the gun down. And, as a person that has ran Chrono at a few Majors...I could tear down a Glock and catch those that are breaking the rules. I could not do so with a CZ, XD or Beretta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Reading this thread, it seems only one person supports the no-trigger mod stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Flex, That's just a hand full, how would you feel if you had done a thousand or two? Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Richer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTew Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) It would be rather interesting if there was some kind of way to determine how many Production Division guns had trigger jobs and how many were stock guns throughout an entire year of competition. I'd be willing to bed the folks that are USPSA members and shoot a match or more a month most likely have done something to enhance the internals of their Production gun. I'd hate to see all those people have to undo what they spent good money to have done. I, like many, have spent quite a bit of money to make our guns to our liking based on the '08 rules and current decisions of JA. I have had trigger work on all my guns, my production gun has had the (not reversible) Sevigny Speedwell done based on an "OK" from a past JA decision. My only option would be to purchase new guns and start over to conform to a new set of rules. The financial burden of that on me and the many members who have already put out funds, is not where I want to spend what disposable income I have to continue participating in this sport. There is so much money involved in buying bullets, reloading supplies, matches, travel, etc, that having to start at buying new guns is almost ridiculous. I got into this sport just a couple years ago. I slowly got to like certain things I read about, saw, and tried and the worthwhile alterations that were rules legal I had done. Some of my shooting friends do not choose to, or would not do similar alterations. I believe they helped me and were within the rules. Whether it is my perception or reality, I choose to customize what was available to me to customize and I love where my guns are as far a function and reliability. The bottom line is my gun is as "State of the Art" as can be. I don't think I could do much more to it without going into illegal modifications so it is complete, but generally I get beat by those who should be beating me, at my classification level, and I beat those who I should be beating. I would vote to leave well enough alone. It truly does come down to the shooter, not the gun, but let us chase that equipment illusion that keeps many of us loving the journey but which also helps the manufacturers and customizers to stay busy which leads them to offer more support to us. Sorry I went OT a little. John Edited January 21, 2009 by JTew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makomachine Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Well, glad to see we've gotten nowhere with this one thus far. Just got word that my XDm is ready to ship back to me and I should have it when I get back in town on this coming Monday. Dawson Adjustable sights and PRP Match Trigger job were performed - and it appears, as of today, I'll be shooting Limited. Would be nice to be able to stay in Production but I'm not going to do anything that gives the appearance of cheating. With that said, I'm going to survey the participants at my next club match in February who are shooting Production and give an account of the real world application of the trigger job rules. I'm betting more than half will be cheating and not even know it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 This situation is going to be re-evaluated in a few days. All may not be lost, but if you care, your AD needs to hear from you. Area 5, no need to reach out, I'm already here. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elenius Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 This situation is going to be re-evaluated in a few days.All may not be lost, but if you care, your AD needs to hear from you. Area 5, no need to reach out, I'm already here. Gary Writing to the Area 2 director... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Stoeger Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Man… this is awesome. Seriously guys... I hope some workable solution is found. Edited January 22, 2009 by Ben Stoeger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 This situation is going to be re-evaluated in a few days.All may not be lost, but if you care, your AD needs to hear from you. Area 5, no need to reach out, I'm already here. Gary And on this the director from Area 6 agrees. To say it simply, I believe the BOD wrote a rule poorly worded in the new book which did not relect the intent of what we actually wanted to do and we need to revisit that decision. I can not in good concious allow those who had guns in compliance with our old rule book have to go out and buy a new one now after the rules were revised. My intention was to allow what was previously allowed under the old rules to be allowed under the new rules. I also want to say that I have had a busy day today hearing from a number of members on this issue and the other hot button matter of team selection. I very much appreciate all of the communication I have today receieved. If for any reason I did not respond in a timely matter to anyone, it was simply becaause your email, im, or pm got lost in this record setting communication day. I have had not a single message from any shooter which suggests that production modifications be tightened to the extent it is now being stated as is provided in the newest rule book. So I have heard your marching orders and I wil gladly obey. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts