murkish Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I *thought* the Board reached consensus, in 2007, that the rules should support the notion of "stock or nearly-stock guns". Am I wrong? Even if you are right...you are missing the market. The "stock or nearly-stock guns" come off the shelf with crappy triggers and sights. Joe-the-gun-owner then tries to hit something with them...and rather quickly looks to improve sights and trigger on these guns. I hang out on some of the gun forums that 'others fear the tread'. The shooters that we are likely to recruit as new competitors are well down the tracks already. Flex is absolutely right on this point. Long before I ever heard of USPSA, I was looking on the internet to find out how to improve the trigger on my Kel-Tec P-11 carry gun. The fact is that anybody could probably be just as competitive with a box stock gun, but they would not be happy about the gun. There also seems to be an assumption that all Glocks off the shelf have exactly the same performance characteristics and that plainly is not true. One my be smooth as silk and break like glass and another may feel like somebody poured sand in it and mushy as hell. I don't know about anyone else, but when I buy my guns I might have a choice of two if I'm lucky. I think it is a bit much to declare that "you bought a gun on the low side of the quality curve and it sucks to be you, because we are not going to let you improve it." Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTew Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Has anyone put the issue of internal (not externally visible) parts* replacement and/or modification (in addition to polishing) in Production Division through the proper chain to get a by-the-book-official-no-more-questions-asked RULING on the issue? Yes. Someone asked the question. NROI responded in an email (which got posted here), saying that other than the 4 parts listed in the rules, you could NOT swap out internal parts. I (brace yourself, this is going to be shocking) asked the Board to NOT approve that ruling until we had had a chance to discuss it. We're going to have a con-call on Monday to do exactly that. The four parts that the rules list for production,are the same four parts that are listed in Limited and Limited 10 without an "etc" either; although under limited the rules state you can modify internal parts you can only exchange those four minor parts. I do not believe that those 4 parts are the only ones exchanged in most limited guns. Production rules state that they are to Strictly be limited to these items and their intended purpose, but I didn't realize that under the Limited division"exchange" of minor parts could be less strictly followed. I believe those statements under the production rules were to explain, limit and define the new additions to the production rules involving the stippling, slides and barrel replacement points. I just wish I knew whose gun, modifications etc, was bringing all the attention to the need to more clearly define the production division. As Flex has stated in a couple posts, the triggers on most production guns are about at their limit now as to function and reliability. There may be different ways to get there, but they are there. The worst case sceneario will be a 1911 type trigger that in some production guns you could argue might already be there after the first double action pull. Let me see. CZ Long 4lb pull then short 2lb..2lb..2lb etc. Glock longish 2-3lb, longish 2-3lb, longish 2-3 lb, etc. Not really a lot of differrence and is this all we are trying to prevent with further refinement of the wording? I just want to keep what I and many others have and want and get back to shooting. I don't want to get like the ATT commercial and have to start saying, Am I legal now, AM I legal now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 and I agree with you Oh, man. *THAT* had to hurt! No more so than that one other time I agreed with you! In any case, I'm no longer involved in the process. All I can do is to pass on my recollections to try to help it along. I agree that it needs to be cleaned up, but I also believe (personally) that we never intended to restrict internal mods. Whatever you guys decide..... My production gun will still be legal regardless..... I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I want a rule that makes sense. Not just for the 20 or 30 members who post here, but for the thousands of others who shoot the division.Bruce When you hear from guys like Nik and I...who have shot the division for a number of years, ran matches, and have served as Section Coordinators (seems as SC, I always get the job of passing along the grips and accolades)...when you hear from us, chances are you are getting quite a bit more than just the voice of two people. +1. That comment --- "the 20 or 30 members who post here" has annoyed me for quite a while..... It's not quite that simple --- we have a pretty high percentage of match directors, SCs, and even ADs posting here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Everybody but, uh, well, uh, never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 That comment --- "the 20 or 30 members who post here" has annoyed me for quite a while.....It's not quite that simple --- we have a pretty high percentage of match directors, SCs, and even ADs posting here.... I meant nothing disparaging by that. I was only trying to point out that the people who post here are - numerically - a pretty small percentage of the affected shooters. From walking around and talking with shooters throughout Area-1, my observation is that very few of them are aware of - let alone involved in - the controversies that rage here in the benosverse. But yet they're affected by the things that get discussed here. I'd like to think that we can write rules that work for all of "us". Not just the ones "here". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 OK, I think I'm as against the NROI's proposed ruling as anyone. But some of this stuff is pushing the envelope a bit. I think everyone would assume that trigger work to enhance reliability would mean just that. To make the gun more reliable. Not to make it more accurate. Especially since accuracy is mentioned elsewhere. That's like saying a red dot sight makes the gun more reliable. And besides, the huge majority of Glock trigger jobs I've seen make the gun less reliable, not more reliable. I along with most other folks assumed Amidon's ruling regarding the Vanek trigger allowed internal mods but it really didn't. If I shoot Production at a match with Skateboard tape covering the slide, a magwell, a raceholster and with fully loaded hi-cap match and the RO bumps me to open because I have too many rounds in the gun, does that mean the rest of that stuff is legal in Produciton? Of course not. I think we need to look at both sides of this, not just the side we are in favor of. It sounds like several of the BOD members are willing to allow some if not all the trigger work we want, we just need to come up with a workable rule for it. As much as I hate this proposed ruling I have to admit Bruce does have a very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Bruce is right, his logic is undeniable, all guns with trigger work are illegal in Production. Cease and desist, conformity is the only option. The words "trigger work" and "allowed" were never mentioned in the same sentence in the 2000, 2001, and 2004 rule books. The 2008 rule book is the law of the land, trigger work is not mention so it isn't allowed. Reverse the illegal mods or buy a new gun that complies. It was a long 8 year dream that trigger work was allowed, time to wake up and die. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 That comment --- "the 20 or 30 members who post here" has annoyed me for quite a while.....It's not quite that simple --- we have a pretty high percentage of match directors, SCs, and even ADs posting here.... I meant nothing disparaging by that. I was only trying to point out that the people who post here are - numerically - a pretty small percentage of the affected shooters. From walking around and talking with shooters throughout Area-1, my observation is that very few of them are aware of - let alone involved in - the controversies that rage here in the benosverse. But yet they're affected by the things that get discussed here. I'd like to think that we can write rules that work for all of "us". Not just the ones "here". Have you ever found a production shooter who objected to internal trigger improvements while, at the same time, wanted his grip stipled and his bomars melted into his slide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 That comment --- "the 20 or 30 members who post here" has annoyed me for quite a while.....It's not quite that simple --- we have a pretty high percentage of match directors, SCs, and even ADs posting here.... I meant nothing disparaging by that. I believe that, but it suggests something that your reply denies --- thereby affecting people's perception of how seriously you take some of the comments offered here..... From walking around and talking with shooters throughout Area-1, my observation is that very few of them are aware of - let alone involved in - the controversies that rage here in the benosverse. But yet they're affected by the things that get discussed here.I'd like to think that we can write rules that work for all of "us". Not just the ones "here". A couple of thoughts on that --- are you talking to shooters, or to production shooters? Are you distinguishing between the two? Obviously every USPSA member is affected by a rules change, members who regularly compete in production however might be more affected than the primarily open division shooters.... I don't know how popular production is in Area 1, I have a sense of how popular it is in Area 8. In my neck of the woods --- the Mid-Atlantic Section generally, and at the New Jersey clubs more specifically, Production is quite a bit more popular than national or area statistics would predict. Laws certainly play a role here, as does the fact that Dave Olhasso and Dave Marques compete in Production on a pretty regular basis.... And I'm on board that the rules need to work for all of us --- and that they need to work everywhere, from club matches to National Championships..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I was on the USPSA NROI Rulings section a ruling that was made about internal vs. external is missing, what happened to it? It pertained to internal modifications that effected the external of the gun. It should support the belief that internal mods were allowed. It was brought out on the same day the Vanek ruling was made. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FDH Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I've just finished reading most of the posts on this thread. Please allow me to offer my response. 1. My head hurts. I am a lawyer whose practice includes criminal defense and firearm rights so I read statutes and rules everyday. But still, MY HEAD HURTS !! 2. I am very impressed by the creativity of the individuals offering various ways to comply with the letter of the rules but still find ways to circumnavigate the intent of the rules. That is the way of competition ! Love it, or get another hobby. 3. I do not logically believe or emotionally feel that I have ever been beaten by another shooter merely because she had a lighter trigger, one with an over-travel stop, or because she bought a Glock connector at the local auto parts store. Performance seems to prevail, so I don't think Production is broken. 4. All I want from USPSA (or professionally) is CONSISTENT INTEREPRETATION. 5. And finally, let me know when the BOD is done messin'. I will make whatever modifications that are legal (if any) and that I believe are in my best competitive interests. Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 A couple of thoughts on that --- are you talking to shooters, or to production shooters? Are you distinguishing between the two? Obviously every USPSA member is affected by a rules change, members who regularly compete in production however might be more affected than the primarily open division shooters....I don't know how popular production is in Area 1, I have a sense of how popular it is in Area 8. In my neck of the woods --- the Mid-Atlantic Section generally, and at the New Jersey clubs more specifically, Production is quite a bit more popular than national or area statistics would predict. Laws certainly play a role here, as does the fact that Dave Olhasso and Dave Marques compete in Production on a pretty regular basis.... And I'm on board that the rules need to work for all of us --- and that they need to work everywhere, from club matches to National Championships..... Production is pretty popular in Area 1. Probably more so than any other Division. It's been my experience that you see more Production shooters locally than Nationals based on the type of shooter it attracts. You get more new shooters in Production that are unlikely to attend at a National level. Most Lim/Open shooters have been around a little bit before they buy a 3K-5K racegun. They tend to be more likely to go to Nats. Bruce's experience matches my own though. Very few shooters keep up with the rules arguments that come up here. Just look at this topic. Let's blow it way up and say 100 people posted they don't support the changes. That still is a small fraction of all the shooters out there. The fact that all of them are against it would tend to indicate that trend would continue but it's not a guarantee. After spending the week at SHOT and talking to many Production shooters from across the country, including some of the very top guys, Bruce is probably right. Most people have no idea this controversy is even going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Fred, You are making entirely to much sense...please leave. Thanks, good post. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayouSlide Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've just finished reading most of the posts on this thread. Please allow me to offer my response.1. My head hurts. ... 5. And finally, let me know when the BOD is done messin'. I will make whatever modifications that are legal (if any) and that I believe are in my best competitive interests. Fred I'm with Fred. Let the BOD put the whole matter to bed and then we can comply appropriately. Hope something definitive results from all this expended bandwidth. Curtis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I don't know how popular production is in Area 1, I have a sense of how popular it is in Area 8. In my neck of the woods --- the Mid-Atlantic Section generally, and at the New Jersey clubs more specifically, Production is quite a bit more popular than national or area statistics would predict. Laws certainly play a role here, as does the fact that Dave Olhasso and Dave Marques compete in Production on a pretty regular basis....And I'm on board that the rules need to work for all of us --- and that they need to work everywhere, from club matches to National Championships..... On the opposite side of the state, in the Western PA Section, almost 30% of the shooters in 2008 shot production (28% Ltd, 19% O and 10% L10). You are talking about a lot of shooters who can be affected by any such ruling, and a goodly number of them have done or had done some trigger work. I would venture a guess that there are LW trigger stops, strikers with edges angled and filed, springs that have been thinned and a host of other mods - any and all of which can easily be found on the web - that have been done under the assumption that they were acceptable and legal as internal mods. I have a Section Meeting this weekend, and this will make the second consecutive year that production rules is a major topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've just finished reading most of the posts on this thread. Please allow me to offer my response.1. My head hurts. ... 5. And finally, let me know when the BOD is done messin'. I will make whatever modifications that are legal (if any) and that I believe are in my best competitive interests. Fred I'm with Fred. Let the BOD put the whole matter to bed and then we can comply appropriately. Hope something definitive results from all this expended bandwidth. Curtis Given each of them still has their own impressions of what Production should be, I wait with trepidation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Most people have no idea this controversy is even going on. Which in no way indicates we aren't seeing a representative sample. This isn't the elections. How about we look at what is representative. Everybody and God is doing trigger work to their Glocks, XD's, M&P's, CZ's, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Meek Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Now Flex everyone knows God shoots a 1911 Sorry but I just had to yank your chain. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 OhOOOOOO, good one Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayouSlide Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) I've just finished reading most of the posts on this thread. Please allow me to offer my response.1. My head hurts. ... 5. And finally, let me know when the BOD is done messin'. I will make whatever modifications that are legal (if any) and that I believe are in my best competitive interests. Fred I'm with Fred. Let the BOD put the whole matter to bed and then we can comply appropriately. Hope something definitive results from all this expended bandwidth. Curtis Given each of them still has their own impressions of what Production should be, I wait with trepidation. I hear ya, but I've finally come to the conclusion that, whatever the result, it's bound to be better than continuing to beat our 20 collective heads against the wall until the wall...or our heads...break By comparison, shooting Limited minor would be much less frustrating Curtis Edited January 23, 2009 by BayouSlide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Most people have no idea this controversy is even going on. Which in no way indicates we aren't seeing a representative sample. This isn't the elections. How about we look at what is representative. Everybody and God is doing trigger work to their Glocks, XD's, M&P's, CZ's, etc. I'm not saying they would agree or disagree, (although I did say the fact that all of them posting are against it would be a pretty good indicator). I'm just saying most don't know what's going on. I doubt we are seeing a true representative sample though. The people posting are the ones who feel strongly one way or the other. The folks who aren't that concerned probably wouldn't post to just say "whatever". That said, I think the huge majority of Production shooters have done a modification to their gun, believing it to be legal, that under the ruling proposed by JA would now (or has been) illegal. Everyone speeds, doesn't make it legal. How about this for a proposal. The AD's hand out a something at each Area match (like Area 6 does) soliciting information from folks on what they want Production to be (again, it's imperfect because you may get multiple responses from one person, not everyone shoots Area matches, Limited/Open shooters will have input, etc.) but it's a start. From there make a decision what Production would be. If everyone wants it to be a 9mm factory ammo friendly Limited Division so be it. If everyone wants it to be a stock gun only division, that's workable as well. But the rules will have to change to reflect those wishes. In the meantime, issue a ruling along the lines of trigger work will be allowed until Dec 31, 2009 (2010?) when the rules may be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00bullitt Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) I keep seeing how several folks are focusing on reliability as a means of allowing trigger work. How about the term "function". Can one not construe "function" to mean trigger work. I can. No doubt about it....the rules need work. I read Appendix D4 #21 to say that the bullet pointed items are authorized but strictly limited to these items(bullet points)and their stated guidelines. For example,notice the first bullet point reads pretty broadly with no guideline to explain. The second bullet point says Sights and then there is a dash with what I consider a stated guideline that reads that sights can be trimmed,adjusted,replaced,colored or fiber optic. Thats a specific guideline as I read it. Bullet point number three says Slide followed by a dash which states refinishing is allowed only. Then Milling of the slide is only allowed to install sights. Pretty clear to me.Bullet point four says Aftermarket slides and barrels again followed by a dash that states that provided they are the same length,contour,and caliber as original factory standard. Again....another stated guideline. Bullet point number five says Grips followed by that dash again with a stated guideline following it. That guideline says that internal beveling is allowed. Checkering,stippling,and addition of grip tape or grip sleeves are allowed. In parentheses it says to see Appendix E4 for further clarification. Still pretty clear to me. Now on to the controversial bullet point number 6 that says Exchange of minor components and notice that dash is not present as in previous bullet points. Now we have a set of parentheses that lists four items(springs,safeties,slide stops,guide rods). Also note that this same terminology is used under #21 of Appendix D2 and D3. This leads me to believe these are meant as examples. But according to how some interpret said rules.....I guess all the Limited and Lim10 shooters are cheating as well. If I am reading the rules correctly.....the four items in parentheses in accordance with a current NROI ruling basically says I can use whatever type of aftermarket slide stop I want on my Glock or any other Production legal gun although it is an external modification it meets the so called "Guidelines" according to how some interpret it. The same is said for safeties. I guess those guys shooting CZ's and Berettas or any other Production gun with an external safety can now change or modify their safeties although its an external modification as noted under #22 of Appendix D4. The rules have severe gray areas that need fixin(fixin is a term relative to us southerners below the Mason Dixon line). My recommendation Mr. Gary is this: We have a rule book in place. We have identified several gray areas that need clarification. The BOD(and member base if need be)needs to work on clarification of these gray areas and integrate more sound interpretation via a possible addendum to the current rule book which is supposed to last us at least a 4 year term. The rule book has #21 and #22 under Appendix D4. The BOD should confer and determine the repercussions of changing the current rules to affect what shooters are already doing and have been doing regardless of what they assumed in the past with past and current rules. A train has left the station on a one way track and that needs to be taken into consideration. Wording needs to be specific in Production division as to what is allowed and not allowed. Some may argue it is specific now,but I sorely disagree or we would not have 20+ pages of this discussion taking place. I personally think that allowing any internal modification should be allowed. It could be limited by saying that only parts that match factory configuration are allowed. That allows the aftermarket parts that are being installed in XD's and Glocks and others to remain legal. The honor system should stay in place but arbitration should be allowed. If another shooter wants to arbitrate another shooters gun...then a fee can be placed on that arbitration. The shooter can be responsible for tearing his/her gun down in front of appropriate arbitration committee to show compliance with the rules. If the accused shooter is not found to be in violation....the accused shooter keeps the arbitration fee. If accused shooter is found to be guilty,accussee gets their fee back and accused shooter is moved to open or DQ'ed. The fee needs to be high enough so that an accuser thinks twice about his financial interest in the claim and high enough to compensate the accused if they are found to be in compliance for having to have their match disrupted and being inconvenienced. I modify my competition Glock the same way I modify my carry Glock except for the Ti parts in my competition Glock. I carry a Glock 24/7/365. I would not shoot in a division that would not at least allow me to compete with what I carry and with the modifications that are done to it. I change all my connectors out with the 3.5# Lone Wolf and install an overtravel screw in the trigger housing just like the Lone Wolf Ultimate trigger stop. That should be allowed without question and the rules should reflect so. That is in no way a detriment to the current path of Production. At least not by my standards. A committee may need to be assembled to discuss common moifications to Production guns so that all bases are covered. It would not be a bad idea to have select Production shooters participate along with the BOD. You asked for solutions.....I have offered up mine here in a nutshell. Edited January 23, 2009 by 00bullitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 An approach, Chuck. And how to address it if those same people all want grip stippling removed as part of a production gun package - who want it a bare bones stock division? All those who have had it done have to buy a new gun or go play in L10 minor or Ltd minor? "Reversing" grip stippling is not in the same league as buying a $10.00 trigger bar and putting it in your gun. Horse is so far gone out of the barn you need to buy a new horse.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Also note that this same terminology is used under #21 of Appendix D2 and D3. This leads me to believe these are meant as examples. But according to how some interpret said rules.....I guess all the Limited and Lim10 shooters are cheating as well. I direct that to the AD's participating in this thread. If the language is the same, are Limited and L10 shooters in the same "violation" as Production shooters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts