Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[Ben Stoeger]

I would like to weigh in one more time on this issue.

There has been lots of talk on this thread about what “Production” Division means to people. There are many views on what production should have been made into. The reality is that we are way past that being relevant. The division we have now is very popular and fast growing. No matter what you think production should have been, (Box stock no mods) it is what it is today.

Changing the rules to suit what you think should have happened a decade ago will not change what people want or what people want to shoot. If we were to rename “Production” division “Enhanced Service Pistol” and then create a new production division with the “box stock no mods” philosophy, does anyone believe that people would shoot it?

Guys, it is way too late to write a mission statement for production.

[vluc]

Guys, it is way too late to write a mission statement for production.

Too true, Ben. Truth be told, it has kind of written itself due to the lack of one to begin with.

[makomachine]

Just got back in town and received my gun back with the new sights and trigger mod. It is now "Perfect" for me and will be shot in whatever Division it is legal in - preferably Production. With that said, here is what is visible from the exterior and after removing the slide.

How many RO's could tell me if this is a picture of the stock gun vs. the modified gun? Is this gun legal? If that answer can't be easily assessed, even with the slide off (not suggesting that should even be done), then we have a serious problem in managing the sport, IMO.

Whatever ruling comes down, I hope that it centers around enforceability. As I've stated, I'll follow the rules however they are clarified. There will be others that don't - either unintentionally or otherwise, and I don't want to be at any disadvantage given there is no way for the local club/match to easily steer people into the proper division at a match.

It's easy to tell the guy at the match when his mag pouches are in front of the hip bones that he's not legal for Production and needs to move them or be pushed to Limited.

It's easy to tell the guy his racegun holster is illegal for use in Production.

It's easy to verify whether someone has more than 10 rounds loaded in his/her magazines and have them conform to the Production limits.

I can name a dozen other examples like this and it needs to be THAT clear without having to take down someones gun at a match - as that's just not realistic.

Just another 2 cents from me...

[RIIID]

It is not too late, the statement would have to based off where we are at right now, not 9 years ago. If we don't have a statement we will have what has happened for the last 9 years, a mindless wondering all over the map. It's allot easier to get some where when the tracks are in a straight line going in one direction. Right now there are about 6 spur lines going no where.

Rich

[Chuck Anderson]

Guys, it is way too late to write a mission statement for production.

I don't think it is too late to write something. I do think it's too late to write something that says box stock. But if it's written to reflect what we have after tonight, it will probably save some of these issues in the future.

[Chuck Anderson]

Dang, that Rich guy is smart, and apparently a bit quicker on the keyboard.

[George Jones]

That is a pretty important question, as we haven't allowed that in the past because of the 9mm barrel in the 40 guns giving a 'bull barrel' effect.

Barrels are visible externally and have been restricted all along. I said nothing about changing that.

So what's the question that you want answered? And by whom?

[00bullitt]

That is a pretty important question, as we haven't allowed that in the past because of the 9mm barrel in the 40 guns giving a 'bull barrel' effect.

Barrels are visible externally and have been restricted all along. I said nothing about changing that.

So what's the question that you want answered? And by whom?

I personally don't care one way or the other if it is allowed or not. I just don't see the logic in believing the bull barrel effect making any difference. There is not enough weight to change the shooting characterisitc of the gun. Not to mention the 2 ounce rule prevents adding additional weight.

I only suggested it as a rule change in the possible upcoming session to correct the rules. I see it as a benefit to guys having one gun to shoot two divisions.

Personally I would not run a 9mm case head against a 40 cal breechface and expect total reliability in a match but some folks would that cannot afford a limited Glock and a production Glock. A G35 could serve as a crossover gun for some with the addition of a 9mm conversion barrel. And of course there is always .40 minor

[Gary Stevens]

The only thing I have ever read or heard NROI say about the barrel switch is that Glock never made a 9mm Model 35. I don't think the weight of the barrel has anything to do with it.

Perhaps I am wrong, been known to happen from time to time.

[ciscoip]

That is a pretty important question, as we haven't allowed that in the past because of the 9mm barrel in the 40 guns giving a 'bull barrel' effect.

Barrels are visible externally and have been restricted all along. I said nothing about changing that.

So what's the question that you want answered? And by whom?

If you have an unmarked replacement Glock slide and an unmarked conversion barrel, the difference would not be externally visible at all . . . and if this combo IS legal, it would be functionally no different than a a gun with a stock Glock 35 slide with a conversion barrel.

I don't have them handy, but I think the 'bull barrel' effect is a red herring...if it there were a 'bull barrel' issue, I would think the "2 oz over stock" weight limit would be a better way to address it.

I just noticed a lot of would-be newbie shooters on here and glocktalk with Glock 22s and Glock 35s want to be competitive in Production, but don't reload. Being able to buy a conversion barrel for $100 would allow them to cut their shooting costs in half, rather than having to spend $500 on a new gun.

Regardless of how the rules shake out, I really think there should be added language to the rule or a criteria for future interpretations of the rules that bases decisions on whether a competitive advantage is gained.

Edited January 26, 2009 by ciscoip

[ima45dv8]

The only thing I have ever read or heard NROI say about the barrel switch is that Glock never made a 9mm Model 35. I don't think the weight of the barrel has anything to do with it.

Perhaps I am wrong, been known to happen from time to time.

Sounds familiar to me, too.

Link to ruling.

[Ben Stoeger]

They wrote it into the rules this time:

(from the approved mods section)

•After-market slides and barrels – provided they are

the same length, contour, and caliber as original factory

standard.

The rulebook actually is clear on this topic.

[ima45dv8]

They wrote it into the rules this time:

(from the approved mods section)

•After-market slides and barrels – provided they are

the same length, contour, and caliber as original factory

standard.

The rulebook actually is clear on this topic.

Right you are (I should have checked there first ).

[ciscoip]

They wrote it into the rules this time:

(from the approved mods section)

•After-market slides and barrels – provided they are

the same length, contour, and caliber as original factory

standard.

The rulebook actually is clear on this topic.

Perhaps, but as long as we're considering a redefining or a restatement, I think it's something that should be looked at. Given the degree and costs of some of the other modifications that are allowed (or are being argued should be allowed), why not reconsider one that would:

1. Really help out the newbie shooter who doesn't reload,

2. results in a gun that is functionally no different than a gun that is manufactured (35 vs 34, 226 in 9mm vs. .40, or M&P9 vs. M&P40, etc.) and,

3. for those that are arguing internal mods should be okay, and only external mods should be limited, would seem be legal under that criteria with an aftermarket unmarked slide and aftermarket unmarked conversion barrel?

Edited January 26, 2009 by ciscoip

[bgary]

The discrete issue at hand is "trigger work" -- NOT "anything you want inside the gun". I am very curious about the basis for [your concern about the] slippery slope/anything goes argument.

B

[DaveM]

I guess it will all shake out one way or another. I just hope USPSA recognizes that one of the things they've done a lot better than others (IDPA) over the years is to not obsolete equipment with the rule book. I bought a 5" revolver a few years ago thinking I would shoot some IDPA with it right before they changed the rule to 4" max for revolvers. That along with trying to remember when you can and cannot drop a magazine and the failure to do right crap just turned me off. USPSA has a great deal going. With the new SS division along wiht production limited relover and open about anything you want to use will work in some division. The rules are not hard to learn or subjective. It's a very good sport and it's growing. I just hope everyone remembers what got us here.

[sslav]

I do not think I can add too much to what was already said (many times over in this thread and many other threads). But I think I can put together a concise summary.

1. Current rules are unenforceable.

2. Box stock rules are unenforceable.

3. Max trigger pull rules have issues with consistency of application and can easily make a whole class of guns uncompetitive.

4. Cost of production mods is a red herring as it is dwarfed by recurring costs of competing.

5. No matter how hard you work to eliminate the excuses, those that are not drawn to this sport will find something they do not like about it.

There is no slippery slope. The only thing that threatens the popularity of production is the constant attempts to define it as box stock.

[makomachine]

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

Gary - Been a few days and not sure if the meeting took place. Any AD's have an update on the situation and the current status?

[Gary Stevens]

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

Gary - Been a few days and not sure if the meeting took place. Any AD's have an update on the situation and the current status?

There will be an NROI interpretation coming soon. That is all I can say at this point. There are a few "T's" to cross and "I's" to dot. I would expect something around the end of the week, maybe sooner, just not sure at this point.

Gary

[makomachine]

Thanks Gary - appreciate your support and quick response.

[Gary Stevens]

Thanks Gary - appreciate your support and quick response.

No problem. Just doing what I get paid....uhh, never mind.

Gary

[BR]

The discrete issue at hand is "trigger work" -- NOT "anything you want inside the gun". I am very curious about the basis for [your concern about the] slippery slope/anything goes argument.

B

Bruce-

Point well made - even our discrete discussion has started to get slippery.

-br

[vluc]

There will be an NROI interpretation coming soon. That is all I can say at this point. There are a few "T's" to cross and "I's" to dot. I would expect something around the end of the week, maybe sooner, just not sure at this point.

Gary

{sound of crickets chirping}

Edited January 27, 2009 by vluc

[George Jones]

Give 'em a break, Vince.

If this is to be an official BOD decision, it has to take place in a formal meeting, which is subject to bylaws requirements of notice of meeting. Then, the formal minutes have to be reviwed prior to publication, etc.

Even if the BOD wanted it to be instantaneous, it can't happen immediately.

It's all for our protection.

[Rob Boudrie]

Even if the BOD wanted it to be instantaneous, it can't happen immediately.

Agreed, but it can happen dang quickly. An special meeting can be called by the president or three directors and may occur no sooner than 7 days after call for said meeting. The meetings are generally conducted on-line using a voting system that is self-documenting, so there is no need to "review the minutes". Every director sees the motion they are voting on, casts a vote (w/optional "roll call request"), and it's recorded. Once the president adjourns the meeting the President marks the meeting "closed" and "publish" and the minutes are immediately available on www.uspsa.org in the "Board Minutes" section.

It is quite possible for an on-line meeting to go from "Open for voting" to "Minutes published" in less than 24 hours.

The board occasionally gets together for a conference call, but these are generally discussions rather than meetings with motions and votes. By leaving the "votes and motions" for the on-line meeting, the President directors can see the exact wording of the motion, and the voting record is maintained with absolute precision.

The lengthy prepare and review process occurs after the in-person meetings only; on-line ones more much more quickly.