Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[DrShooter]

USPSA Production Division seems to just be defined so as to exclude single-action autos and be a safe place for 9mm to play. Otherwise, it's pretty loose, I mean P7-M13s are legal.

Flex has a good idea about rule harmonizing: can we get a rule set so that the same gun could be used for USPSA, IDPA, and IPSC? I don't think we're very far from that.

With a G17, it would be cheap enough to have part sets made up to make trigger pull in IPSC and race in USPSA.

As far as disassembly to check parts in the middle of the match...I think it's far more likely that winners would be checked AFTER the match for illegal parts. The great majority would never be checked and it would only be their own self image that would be in danger from knowingly cheating. Course they may not know if they just bought an off the shelf trigger job.

Probably less than $0.02

[driver8M3]

I think it's far more likely that winners would be checked AFTER the match for illegal parts.

good luck getting the winners to return for the inspection....a day or two after they drive or fly home...

[XRe]

Dave, I know you don't shoot Production, so I'll assume you just didn't read the rules all that closely and actually aren't smoking crack.

Who took a dump in your Cheerios this morning, Chuck? Just because I currently don't shoot the division doesn't mean I haven't been following the rules with the intent to have a Production rig to shoot some in the off-season (and because I get asked all the time what gear folks should get, etc, etc, etc).

You can seriously argue that the intent was to make guns more "stock"?

Go have some coffee and then re-read post 10, then try to understand what the words "if" and "reasonably" mean and why I used them. I wasn't "in the room" when they wrote the rules, but I did have conversations with those doing the writing, and summarized my understanding of what went on and why in post 10 (based on those conversations and various posts here and on the USPSA forum). The final result may very well have differed from my understanding (see caveats in post 10).

What I heard, and the only thing that makes any sense to me was that they were trying to come up with a set of rules that would allow the gun to be inspected at Chrono without dissasembly, and by someone with only a reasonable understanding of the gun. If it looks legal from the outside, it makes power factor and it makes weight, that's good enough.

That's not an unreasonable set of goals, either (again, see use of "if" and "reasonably"), and makes sense if that's what the division wants to be.

Inspections (even basic safety inspections on all guns involved in the game) don't even happen at the chrono, as it is.

[XRe]

Second: Anyone who advocates a trigger pull would need to advocate two, otherwise all striker fired guns will disappear from the game --- cause unless you set it at 1 lb. there's a significant difference between first shot and all subsequent shots....

That dichotomy exists in the game today, and I don't see striker fired gun shooters bailing to shoot CZs....

[Nik Habicht]

Second: Anyone who advocates a trigger pull would need to advocate two, otherwise all striker fired guns will disappear from the game --- cause unless you set it at 1 lb. there's a significant difference between first shot and all subsequent shots....

That dichotomy exists in the game today, and I don't see striker fired gun shooters bailing to shoot CZs....

Set a 5 lb. minimum for the first shot and it will happen.....

3 lb. --- there might be a small shift.....

< 3 lb. probably won't matter.....

[Dan Burwell]

Now, what can you do to a trigger that can't be seen? Just saying.........

Gary,

I know of at least 3 ways to reduce the trigger travel in a M&P some of which cannot be seen without first knowing what the mod looks like(if you don't know what you are looking for you will never see it) then completely tearing the gun apart(more than just a field strip) to find it. This isn't done to be sneaky, just happens to be a good way to do it.

There is also several ways to reduce the trigger weight, one way is not easily visible without a complete tear down and close inspection.

So you would need someone who is intimately familiar with each production legal gun and the possible modifications to each gun. I would venture a guess that there are very few gunsmiths in the US capable of doing this, let alone willing to do it.

[kgunz11]

Why can't Production be like SS? The rules are pretty simple. Don't lighten the slide, must fit in the box and make X weight. Holsters and mag pouches have to go "here" and look like "this", set a maximum mag capacity and be done.

Sounds entirely too simple.

[Graham Smith]

Well, I started shooting USPSA this a year with a Glock 19 and finished with a Glock 35, so I feel at least modestly qualified to weigh in on this. I started shooting Production because I didn't want to have to compete against other peoples wallets. Now I find myself with a Glock 35 that, in my opinion both is and is not Production. It's Production legal, but when I look at it I have to say that it's not Production in spirit.

Think about this:

Let's take a stock Glock 17

Apply some grip tape

Follow the instruction in "Making Glocks Rock" and pull out the guts and do a really good buff and polish

Replace the sights with a Dawson sight set

Replace the mag release with a G34 stock release

Replace the stock connector with a G34 connector

After 1 year, send the gun to a pro and have them do a really good buff and polish and replace all the springs

After 1 more year, put in a Vanek Classic trigger

At what point in all this did the G17 stop being a true "production" gun? I honestly cannot tell you when, but it did happen!

[XRe]

With the 2008 rule book a Production shooter can now buy a Glock frame, install a lightened connector, reduced power springs, checker the frontstrap, stipple the grip, buy an aftermarket slide, mill in a set of Bo-Mars, add a tungsten guide rod, polish and nickel plate the slide and Duracoat the frame with the message "This is my Production Gun...no seriously".

I did read back through this - actually, IIRC, the only thing that differs in this case from previous rules is that they can stipple the grip (maybe not... I didn't drag the green book back out - don't have it handy)? It does appear that my understanding of what went on didn't really end up matching what ended up in the rules... the question asked at the beginning of this thread was why the rules would move in the direction of making some common aftermarket mods not be legal anymore - the answer to which seemed to line up with my understanding.

As to how much those things make a difference vs. bone bare stock - that's probably up to the shooter. Some definitely will - some can be accomplished less expensively - some don't make any difference.

[Chuck Anderson]

Fortunately I didn't eat Cheerios this morning so even if someone did take a dump I wouldn't have noticed. You don't know the history of Production. I read Post #10 and you indicate there was a desire for Production to be a Box-Stock division when it was created. I have yet to find anyone in the know that points that out as the real reason Produciton was created. Part of that is the problem with Production. It didn't have a Mission Statement when it was made and everyone wants it to be something different. Box Stock, Entry Level for new shooters, Low cost, 9mm with cheap ammo, Easy to fly to matches with enough ammo to shoot, Duty/Carry gun friendly. Some of these things work together, others don't. I haven't talked to two BOD members that agree 100% on all of them. Until there is a "reasoning behind Production" the rules will continue to look silly. You can replace a $300.00 part but not a $10.00 part.

BTW, you missed a couple of things on the 2008 Rule changes. Aftermarket slide, stippling the grip and checkering the frontstrap were the biggies. I think Amidon even missed the boat on these. I believe he sent out an email saying you could modify the grip but you couldn't add or remove material. Who has developed the technology to checker wtihout adding or removing material??? Anyone?

[kgunz11]

BTW, you missed a couple of things on the 2008 Rule changes. Aftermarket slide, stippling the grip and checkering the frontstrap were the biggies. I think Amidon even missed the boat on these. I believe he sent out an email saying you could modify the grip but you couldn't add or remove material. Who has developed the technology to checker wtihout adding or removing material??? Anyone?

If all you do is take a soldering iron and texture aka "stiple a polymer grip" you aren't really removing any material. I think this is what they meant by stippling. Though how do we know for sure unless the BoD specifically names this as "acceptable stippling"? I understood Amidons email to mean you could texture the grip to be equivocal to adding grip tape, but you could not recontour the grip area since applying grip tape did not do this either.

Edited December 16, 2008 by kgunz11

[Filishooter]

Clarification of a piece of equipment, such as two plugs that go in the grip of a Glock. is one thing.

of course.

but...plugs have NEVER been legal in production. now they are, while things that have been legal for years are now NOT legal.

LOL... you said but plug!

Sorry, just lightening things up. I'm keeping a close eye on this thread.

[Chuck Anderson]

BTW, you missed a couple of things on the 2008 Rule changes. Aftermarket slide, stippling the grip and checkering the frontstrap were the biggies. I think Amidon even missed the boat on these. I believe he sent out an email saying you could modify the grip but you couldn't add or remove material. Who has developed the technology to checker wtihout adding or removing material??? Anyone?

If all you do is take a soldering iron and texture aka "stiple a polymer grip" you aren't really removing any material. I think this is what they meant by stippling. Though how do we know for sure unless the BoD specifically names this as "acceptable stippling"? I understood Amidons email to mean you could texture the grip to be equivocal to adding grip tape, but you could not recontour the grip area since applying grip tape did not do this either.

Stippling I understand, that is why I asked specifically about checkering.

[kgunz11]

BTW, you missed a couple of things on the 2008 Rule changes. Aftermarket slide, stippling the grip and checkering the frontstrap were the biggies. I think Amidon even missed the boat on these. I believe he sent out an email saying you could modify the grip but you couldn't add or remove material. Who has developed the technology to checker wtihout adding or removing material??? Anyone?

If all you do is take a soldering iron and texture aka "stiple a polymer grip" you aren't really removing any material. I think this is what they meant by stippling. Though how do we know for sure unless the BoD specifically names this as "acceptable stippling"? I understood Amidons email to mean you could texture the grip to be equivocal to adding grip tape, but you could not recontour the grip area since applying grip tape did not do this either.

Stippling I understand, that is why I asked specifically about checkering.

But isn't the front stap already checkered from the factory? Mine are.

[eerw]

But isn't the front stap already checkered from the factory? Mine are.

ahh..but I would love to checker my CZ.. but hard to do without removing metal

Edited December 16, 2008 by eerw

[kgunz11]

But isn't the front stap already checkered from the factory? Mine are.

ahh..but I would love to checker my CZ.. but hard to do without removing metal

I must remember, Glock isn't the only gun under review here.

[DrShooter]

I think it's far more likely that winners would be checked AFTER the match for illegal parts.

good luck getting the winners to return for the inspection....a day or two after they drive or fly home...

Inspection can be the last stage for everyone. Inspectors don't need to inspect everyone, however. Skipping "inspection" is like skipping "chrono" i.e. you shoot for no score. Some "cheaters" would be "caught," appeals, ugly stuff ensues, sport suffers. They do stuff like this in "formula" car racing, so it's not like no sport does inspections.

I don't think they should ever need to inspect any Production gun, but that's not saying the officials can't do it. Chrono already is supposed to be a trigger/etc safety check as I understand it. That's enough for me. Chuck says the reasoning behind Production is not crystal clear, and it isn't, but the main points I got when I started in productions was no single action and 9mm friendly. Lots of guns meet that.

[Loves2Shoot]

Just an observation for someone who does production style trigger jobs every day. WAY more folks who will never shot in a competition have gun work done than the ELITE competition crowd. The number one thing they do in our shop, trigger, number 2 sights. Having those things allowable in competitions allows a lot of folks to use what they already have to complete. I think many competition shooters have no clue what the average shooters are doing to their guns and most of what they do would be a barrier from them participating in our sports if the rules were changed yet again. I don't think that is a good thing.

[Flexmoney]

That is a good point, Scott.

[kgunz11]

It is of my thinking that on a self defense weapon one of the biggest mistakes you can make is tinkering with the gun, trigger included. Things like that don't go over well in court. It is absolutely unacceptable with any LE agency and they will tell you it is because of the ramifications of what might happen in court.

"Mr. X had this weapon specifically modified in a manner to make it easier to shoot and kill someone, the State recognizes that as an inadvertent premeditation to murder."

[Singlestack]

"Mr. X had this weapon specifically modified in a manner to make it easier to shoot and kill someone, the State recognizes that as an inadvertent premeditation to murder."

Internet tales. Please show one example.

[Chuck Anderson]

It is of my thinking that on a self defense weapon one of the biggest mistakes you can make is tinkering with the gun, trigger included. Things like that don't go over well in court. It is absolutely unacceptable with any LE agency and they will tell you it is because of the ramifications of what might happen in court.

"Mr. X had this weapon specifically modified in a manner to make it easier to shoot and kill someone, the State recognizes that as an inadvertent premeditation to murder."

I actually know of several LE agencies that allow trigger jobs. Most notably the FBI HRT and SWAT teams. The trigger jobs are done by Springfield but the guns are also worked on by agency armorers. There are many more examples. This has been propogated by many instructors. While a defense attorney may raise the issue, it can be easily defended. Also, I'm sure many of the guns that Scott works on, like many gunsmiths, won't be used for competition or shooting a person. A lot of people just like a trigger better than what comes on the gun from the factory, just like sight, grips etc.

[kgunz11]

US vs. Kelly

The court rejected the literal language of the statute, and the case, saying the law meant what Congress said in the legislative history for it to mean, not what it might or might not say. The court suggested that "and" and "or" can be used interchangably, to further Congress' "intent", as divined from their reports, not from their laws. Alice in Wonderland time, although that sort of hogwash goes on a lot in court.

Wasylow vs. Glock

Where a young man has an AD into his own abdomen.

THE PISTOL HAS NO OUTSIDE LATERAL SAFETY LEVER AND NO GRIP

SAFETY DEVICE. IT IS FIRED LIKE A DOUBLE-ACTION REVOLVER BY

SIMPLY PRESSING THE TRIGGER FOR COMMERCIAL USE. ALWAYS KEEP

THE GUN UNLOADED. WITH THE GUN LOADED DO NOT TOUCH THE TRIGGER

UNLESS YOU INTEND TO FIRE.

First, as to Counts I and II, Wasylow alleges negligence in

design, manufacturing, testing, inspection, distribution,

marketing, and in failure to warn regarding both the Glock pistol

and the storage case. Negligence, in general, requires a duty,

breach of duty, cause-in-fact (or "but-for-cause"), and proximate

cause (or "legal cause"). "The focus of the negligence inquiry is

on the conduct of the defendant. We impose liability when a

product's manufacturer or seller has failed to use reasonable care

to eliminate foreseeable dangers which subject a user to an

unreasonable risk of harm." Colter v. Barber-Greene Co.. 403 Mass.

50, 61 (1988); W. Page Keeton et al., Presser and Keeton on the Law

of Torts section 96, at 683 (5th ed. 1984).

Second, Wasylow alleges breach of the implied warranty of

merchantability in Counts III and IV. This cause of action stands

on a different footing, focusing on the product rather than on the

conduct of the manufacturer or the user. Colter, 403 Mass. at

61-62. In Massachusetts, the warranty of merchantability is

governed by Mass. Gen. L. ch. 106, section 2-314 which provides,

inter alia, that goods must be "fit for the ordinary purposes for

which such goods are used" and must "conform to the promises or

affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any."

section 2-314(2) © and (f). In turn, Massachusetts warranty law

has been interpreted as congruent in nearly all respects with the

strict liability principles in the Restatement (Second) of Torts

section 402A (1965). [footnote 8] Back v. Wickes Corp., 375 Mass.

633, 640 (1978). In other words, although not recognized by name,

the Massachusetts products liability claim for breach of the

warranty of merchantability "is basically the same as strict

liability theory in tort" under Massachusetts law. Haves v. Douglas

Dynamics, 8 F.3d 88, 89 n.1 (1st Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Therefore, a breach of warranty can occur, regardless of

negligence, if either 1) the product is defectively designed, or 2)

foreseeable users are not adequately warned. Kearney v. Philip

Morris, Inc., 1996 WL 74180 at *2 (D. Mass. Feb. 16, 1996). As

with negligence, Wasylow must also prove that Glock's products

were--more likely than not--the cause-in-fact, as well as the

proximate cause of the injury. Id. at *2, 8; Hayes, 8 F.3d at 89;

Lubanski v Coleco Industries, Inc., 929 F.2d 42, 48 (1st Cir.

1991).

From a Texas LE agency:

Officers will not, in any way, alter or modify the trigger or any other part of a firearm without written permission from the department armorer. Each employee will, by every practical means, secure all weapons from unauthorized access.

Another incident would be the one in 1997 where someone modified an SKS to fire full auto to kill a Denver police officer. The state offered testimony to say the perp not only violated the National Firearms Act but did so in such a manner to portray the intent to commit murder with the weapon by modifying its fire control group. I can't find the case number but the reports can be found on line.

So if you don't think an attorney can and will try to say you modified the trigger of a weapon to make it easier to fire the weapon or that you had malicious intent when you did so... well, hope you never wind up in court. Some lawyers will do anything to get their convictions. The pool of pro 2nd Amendment lawyers is real shallow. Remember, if you make it to the point that you are a defendant in court, you've already been arrested for committing a crime in which someone thinks they can win a case against you.

[Loves2Shoot]

Ask for an example and someone will post case law that is un-relevant every time.

Having done lots of trigger jobs for duty guns in Texas, you will find the policy is largely up the the Chief.

I've yet to see anyone post case law on persecution of a properly modified trigger appropriate for carry being to shoot someone that needed being shot. But since this is BE's forum and discussions are not appropriate here on that subject, I'll leave you with this, I've done many trigger modifications for duty use, lawyers (prosecution, defense, and civil) and even a sitting Attorney General of a state. None of them seem to have any issues with making their pistols the way they want them.

If you don't want to mod your trigger, don't, telling folks what to do with no case law to support your opinion good reason is just silly. Even Mas can't find a case where the person needed shooting and he's a semi-professional court room sitter.

[kgunz11]

I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't modify their trigger, I just see what could be said, rather someone "needed shooting" or not.