Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[ima45dv8]

Mod Note:

This topic does bear discussing but I will close it if any more of the disrespectful or antagonistic comments are made. Keep it civil and we can keep on talking.

-Larry Drake

The Moderating Team

You beat me to it, Larry.

[bgary]

This is great discussion (once the insults are filtered out ). Thanks!

Let me ask this: *I* have always believed that there is a reasonable line that can be drawn around trigger mods.

-- I think that mods that "improve" the operation of the gun should be fine (e.g., polishing surfaces, swapping out a disconnector, filing a tab, etc).

-- I think that mods that *change* the operation of the gun are over the line (e.g., re-engineering the trigger geometry, changing pivot-pin locations, etc).

1) is that a reasonable place to draw a line? I mean, it seems like a sweet spot between "we want to tweak and tune" and "it should still basically operate as it was produced"?

and

2) how would that language look? So that any reasonable person could read it and understand whether they were on the right side of the line or not?

As a test case, where would "drilling a hole in the frame and adding an overtravel screw" fit in. Is that "improving the existing operation", or "making changes to the way it operates"?

I'll be really candid, I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the idea that the "production" division rules should say "anything you do inside the gun is fair game". Cuz I *know* there's someone out there who will figure out a way to build a completely new action that rocks the world and fits into a Glock frame. And I don't [personally] believe that's the right direction for the division to go. IMHO, without *some* kind of boundary, it *will* become another $1500-custom-gun division, with guns that "sorta look" like production guns but have no "as-produced" attributes.

B

Edited January 15, 2009 by bgary

[rgkeller]

The principle around which all USPSA rules should be constructed is that if the rule cannot be simply and straightforwardly enforced then the rule should not be written.

A rule without an enforcement mechanism is worse than useless; it is hurts the organization and its members.

[bgary]

Totally agree.

The options (hesitating to make this a black-and-white issue, but there *are* endpoints to the spectrum of possibilities) are:

-- make a rule that has no limits, because the limits simply can't be objectively evaluated ("do anything you want")

or

-- make a rule that has specific, objective, measurable limits (e.g., a minimum trigger-pull).

I don't love either one of those options. Would prefer to find something in between that is both "reasonable" and "enforceable". Recognizing that at least one of those is subjective.

B

[bgary]

Afterthought:

I'd add that *part* of the reason this is such a mess is because - culturally - we're pretty used to the "find the loophole, get a prize" mentality in this game. It has always been a widely-accepted premise that "if the rules don't specifically say I can't do it, it is fair game".

Production division, from its beginning, is the one place where that premise is *not* valid. PD has always been about *limiting* the options, stating that *only* certain modifications are allowed, and if a mod isn't on the list, it is *not* fair game.

But (IMHO) part of the reason we're where we are today is that that premise has come to roost in the Production division, with a lot of people looking at the list of approved modifications (whether in the 2000, 2004 or 2008 rules) and convincing themselves that a given modification "isn't specifically prohibited, so it must be okay".

We have unquestionably done a bad job of communicating the boundaries clearly. But at the same time, I'd argue that there are those that do a bad job of "honoring" the boundaries, too. Yes, I know that's an unusual position in our game. But it *is* one unique aspect of Production division which, as I said, has been there since the beginning.

Not sure how we solve that. But it's probably a factor we'll have to address, if we're going to have any success in "writing enforceable rules".

$.02

B

Edited January 15, 2009 by bgary

[makomachine]

This is great discussion (once the insults are filtered out ). Thanks!

Let me ask this: *I* have always believed that there is a reasonable line that can be drawn around trigger mods.

-- I think that mods that "improve" the operation of the gun should be fine (e.g., polishing surfaces, swapping out a disconnector, filing a tab, etc).

-- I think that mods that *change* the operation of the gun are over the line (e.g., re-engineering the trigger geometry, changing pivot-pin locations, etc).

1) is that a reasonable place to draw a line? I mean, it seems like a sweet spot between "we want to tweak and tune" and "it should still basically operate as it was produced"?

and

2) how would that language look? So that any reasonable person could read it and understand whether they were on the right side of the line or not?

As a test case, where would "drilling a hole in the frame and adding an overtravel screw" fit in. Is that "improving the existing operation", or "making changes to the way it operates"?

I'll be really candid, I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the idea that the "production" division rules should say "anything you do inside the gun is fair game". Cuz I *know* there's someone out there who will figure out a way to build a completely new action that rocks the world and fits into a Glock frame. And I don't [personally] believe that's the right direction for the division to go. IMHO, without *some* kind of boundary, it *will* become another $1500-custom-gun division, with guns that "sorta look" like production guns but have no "as-produced" attributes.

B

Does changing the below XDm components:

The Powder River Precision, INC lever compared to the stock lever:

1) cost a lot of money or make it cost prohibitive to other shooters? No, $102 + shipping.

2) Significantly alter the design of the gun? Take a look at the picture and tell me with a straight face. Not changing a XDM to a race gun here...

I think the trigger jobs and overtravel stop mods are 'tuning' and not design changes. They make the gun more efficient and are not cost prohibitive to the average entry level competitor. Does a 3# trigger pull vs the stock 5.5 to 6# trigger pull instantly make me a better shooter and threaten the leaderboards? I think it's been proven on a regular basis that is not the case. It does however allow someone with a small budget to squeeze the most efficiency in an 'off the shelf' firearm which is a win/win for everyone.

With that said, this is a more expensive mod than even a set screw. We are talking pennies as it relates to that modification. Why the line on those items but not on aftermarket sights, grip stipling, aftermarket barrels, etc.?

Regardless, you will always have people pushing the limits to get the most from the equipment. The difference is, you are taking that ability away from the budget minded consumer with these restrictions. If it's 'off the shelf' only you've just created an arms race in a different area - the manufacturers. That race will be a lot more expensive for the average competitor...

Just another 2 cents...

[driver8M3]

bruce: it almost doesn't matter what the rule should be, no matter whose point of view you're considering.

it has to be dictated by how it can be enforced. any rule that requires looking inside the gun to see if it's compliant is a bad rule. therefore, we're basically stuck with "anything you want, as long as it's not an external modification."

what is it about such a rule that bothers you?

[rgkeller]

Mr. Gary,

You seem determined to limit the ingenuity of USPSA shooters and gunsmiths serving them. Making better parts is long standing practice and should not be constrained.

Everyone on the BOD should reexamine the "intent of the Production Division" in light of today's reality.

And agree on that BEFORE doing the necessary rule clarifications and changes.

[Nik Habicht]

Let me ask this: *I* have always believed that there is a reasonable line that can be drawn around trigger mods.

-- I think that mods that "improve" the operation of the gun should be fine (e.g., polishing surfaces, swapping out a disconnector, filing a tab, etc).

-- I think that mods that *change* the operation of the gun are over the line (e.g., re-engineering the trigger geometry, changing pivot-pin locations, etc).

1) is that a reasonable place to draw a line? I mean, it seems like a sweet spot between "we want to tweak and tune" and "it should still basically operate as it was produced"?

and

2) how would that language look? So that any reasonable person could read it and understand whether they were on the right side of the line or not?

As a test case, where would "drilling a hole in the frame and adding an overtravel screw" fit in. Is that "improving the existing operation", or "making changes to the way it operates"?

I'll be really candid, I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the idea that the "production" division rules should say "anything you do inside the gun is fair game". Cuz I *know* there's someone out there who will figure out a way to build a completely new action that rocks the world and fits into a Glock frame. And I don't [personally] believe that's the right direction for the division to go. IMHO, without *some* kind of boundary, it *will* become another $1500-custom-gun division, with guns that "sorta look" like production guns but have no "as-produced" attributes.

B

I've been a competitor in 4 Production Nationals and a bunch of Area/Sectional/Other big matches -- in Production. I was a match director for 5 years, I'm currently a Section Coordinator. Looking at this from both perspectives, we're not going to start measuring trigger pulls or tearing guns down at Level 1 matches. We shouldn't be tearing guns down at larger matches. We shouldn't expect Chrono masters to have to become experts on all the different guns listed on the production list.

Trigger pull restrictions (minimum weight) come with their own pitfalls --- unless you want to favor one gun type over another or have two different weights for traditional DA/SA guns and for DAO/Safe Action/Striker fired guns.

Frankly --- the availability of trigger jobs simply doesn't change the playing field in the division. My Glock triggers are lightly buffed, I have many Glocks, I want the triggers to feel identical, and i don't want to send any of the Vanek children to college. I compete regularly with shooters using Sigs tuned by EGW or Bruce Gray, M&Ps tuned by Dan Burwell and others, XDs tuned by a variety of smiths, etc.

I manage to beat some of these folks on a fairly regular basis --- because my equipment can compete. Eliminate the 10 round limit, allow magwells, allow major/minor scoring and I'd have to change my gear to remain competitive. Allowing trigger jobs won't do it. (I'm not even certain that allowing 1911s that follow the same restrictions as current production guns would force me to change anything --- but I'm not advocating that change.)

In short --- there's nothing that anyone can do to a trigger that renders my fairly stock Glock trigger uncompetitive in Production; it doesn't matter whether that hypothetical shooter holds the same classification as me or is shooting for the division win....

Get over the trigger thing. That horse left the barn years ago. The proof is in the success that the division enjoys....

[Nik Habicht]

Totally agree.

The options (hesitating to make this a black-and-white issue, but there *are* endpoints to the spectrum of possibilities) are:

-- make a rule that has no limits, because the limits simply can't be objectively evaluated ("do anything you want")

or

-- make a rule that has specific, objective, measurable limits (e.g., a minimum trigger-pull).

I don't love either one of those options. Would prefer to find something in between that is both "reasonable" and "enforceable". Recognizing that at least one of those is subjective.

B

No limits simply doesn't have a downside in this particular situation --- where we're talking about trigger work.....

[Nik Habicht]

Afterthought:

I'd add that *part* of the reason this is such a mess is because - culturally - we're pretty used to the "find the loophole, get a prize" mentality in this game. It has always been a widely-accepted premise that "if the rules don't specifically say I can't do it, it is fair game".

Production division, from its beginning, is the one place where that premise is *not* valid. PD has always been about *limiting* the options, stating that *only* certain modifications are allowed, and if a mod isn't on the list, it is *not* fair game.

But (IMHO) part of the reason we're where we are today is that that premise has come to roost in the Production division, with a lot of people looking at the list of approved modifications (whether in the 2000, 2004 or 2008 rules) and convincing themselves that a given modification "isn't specifically prohibited, so it must be okay".

We have unquestionably done a bad job of communicating the boundaries clearly. But at the same time, I'd argue that there are those that do a bad job of "honoring" the boundaries, too. Yes, I know that's an unusual position in our game. But it *is* one unique aspect of Production division which, as I said, has been there since the beginning.

Not sure how we solve that. But it's probably a factor we'll have to address, if we're going to have any success in "writing enforceable rules".

$.02

B

Bruce,

you're probably right on in assessing how we got here. I think the fix comes down to some rules that won't require us to measure trigger pulls or tear guns down form enforcement, that allow for cheaper or more available aftermarket parts (while opening the door for more expensive parts too), and that preserve the 10 rounds, Minor PF, DA or DAO or Striker fired, Iron Sight, No Magwell, No raceholsters, Holster position parts of the division, while also including language to limit exterior changes.....

Personally I think the biggest thing that's wrong with the division is its name --- because it sets unrealistic expectations.....

[bgary]

what is it about such a rule that bothers you?

there's two ways I could answer that. Me, personally; or me, as a member of the group that was involved in the discussion that resulted in the original rules in 2000 (and sorta remember the "intent").

For me, *personally*, my belief is that the "gadget-ness" of our game is a blocker for some people. I used to spend a lot of weekends at the local gun-show working the booth for my local section. What I found (and I still believe it is valid) is that when we had a video of the nationals up on the screen, and a handful of high-zoot Open and Limited guns on the table display, people would walk right past shaking their heads and muttering about those "weirdos with their race guns." But when we put up a video of "normal people" (local guys shooting local matches), and put glocks and sigs and revolvers on the table, all of a sudden those people stopped and asked questions, usually starting with "hey, I have one of those, you mean I could use that?!?"

That experience formed a strong *personal* belief that we need to have an "on-ramp" into our game that is *not* based on the premise that you have to go out and build/buy a highly-customized "competition gun" in order to get started in our game. Sure, once you're sucked in and the competitive bug has bitten, you're going to want to do tweaking and tuning and whatever else you can, but... I *believe* we need a place in our game that *isn't* focused on the question of "how much do I have to spend on tweaking/parts/gadgets/whatever in order to be on a level playing field?" IMHO, Production division is that place. It is (in my mind) a place for people to get involved in the *game*, without having to get involved in "the race". If that makes any sense.

I *get* that most people believe the right place to land is "do whatever you want inside the gun". I understand that. As one who has long been sucked in (and I'm a gadget kinda guy), I even agree with it. But I don't believe Production Division is the right place for it. There are already five divisions where you can "do whatever you want inside the gun". I think there should be one division where that's *not* a competitive requirement.

B

(and, yes, one line of thought originally was to call it "stock gun" division, until it was pointed out that "stock" was pretty ambiguous. IPSC named theirs "production", and USPSA followed suit. The thought process was that "open" meant "wide open, no boundaries"; "limited" meant "some, limited boundaries"; and "production" meant "as produced by the factory".

[Flexmoney]

Production Rocks !

Get on the Crazy Train.

Alllll aboard.....

[bgary]

Devil's advocate (just because that's how I think: I tend to worry about not just "today's" implications, but the down-the-road effects of things):

Not changing a XDM to a race gun here...

Making better parts is long standing practice and should not be constrained

No limits simply doesn't have a downside in this particular situation --- where we're talking about trigger work.....

If what we're talking about is trigger work... I can find common ground with y'all.

But (as I asked above), isn't "trigger work" (or, more specifically, "anything goes inside the gun") a really slippery slope?

I can *easily* imagine a clever smith out there figuring out a way to... oh, I don't know, fit a 1911 single-action trigger system with no creep, no overtravel and a 12-oz pull into a Glock frame, give it a lever so it cocks the [hidden] hammer on a first pull, and off you go. It is totally "inside the gun". And it would totally change the division. It would be a "have to have it" modification, just like the compensator, the red-dot and the wide-body/double-stack frame were in their rise to dominance.

Now what you'd have is (and, yes, I know I'm making an extreme point, but I believe it is a valid one) a Limited-like division, but *more* expensive. Because not only do you "have to" heavily modify your gun, you have to do it in a way that can't be seen from the outside, in order for it to still count as "just trigger work". So, you'd have Limited, Lim-10, and "Limited with 10 rounds, minor, and hidden modifications". But no "Production" division as we know it today. And, more to the point, that mostly-stock glock/sig/xd/whatever would be back to having "no place to play".

Isn't that the end-game of "anything goes inside the gun"?

And, is that a good thing?

IMHO... no, it isn't. THAT, more than anything, is what drives me to the belief that we have to find a reasonable "limit" to what you can do under the label of "trigger work".

B

[Flexmoney]

But when we put up a video of "normal people" (local guys shooting local matches), and put glocks and sigs and revolvers on the table, all of a sudden those people stopped and asked questions, usually starting with "hey, I have one of those, you mean I could use that?!?"

Bruce,

Those same people can see those same guns...and still say, "hey, I have one of those, you mean I could use that?!?"

But, they don't want to have to back track and dumb down what they have now.

If you go to the gun forums for Glocks, CZ's, XD's....etc....they are populated with people that are making their production guns better.

They have realized that the factories have shipped them guns with crappy triggers and terrible sights. They are fixing them to make them shootable.

Now days, we aren't alienating them by allowing some basic modifications. We'd be alienating them if we didn't provide the lee-way.

More importantly, we have a huge population of current Production shooters. They are already here. We don't have to attract them. All we have to do is let them keep playing with the stuff that has been..defacto...the same legal stuff they have been using for years now.

[makomachine]

Devil's advocate (just because that's how I think: I tend to worry about not just "today's" implications, but the down-the-road effects of things):

Not changing a XDM to a race gun here...

Making better parts is long standing practice and should not be constrained

No limits simply doesn't have a downside in this particular situation --- where we're talking about trigger work.....

If what we're talking about is trigger work... I can find common ground with y'all.

But (as I asked above), isn't "trigger work" (or, more specifically, "anything goes inside the gun") a really slippery slope?

I can *easily* imagine a clever smith out there figuring out a way to... oh, I don't know, fit a 1911 single-action trigger system with no creep, no overtravel and a 12-oz pull into a Glock frame, give it a lever so it cocks the [hidden] hammer on a first pull, and off you go. It is totally "inside the gun". And it would totally change the division. It would be a "have to have it" modification, just like the compensator, the red-dot and the wide-body/double-stack frame were in their rise to dominance.

Now what you'd have is (and, yes, I know I'm making an extreme point, but I believe it is a valid one) a Limited-like division, but *more* expensive. Because not only do you "have to" heavily modify your gun, you have to do it in a way that can't be seen from the outside, in order for it to still count as "just trigger work". So, you'd have Limited, Lim-10, and "Limited with 10 rounds, minor, and hidden modifications". But no "Production" division as we know it today. And, more to the point, that mostly-stock glock/sig/xd/whatever would be back to having "no place to play".

Isn't that the end-game of "anything goes inside the gun"?

And, is that a good thing?

IMHO... no, it isn't. THAT, more than anything, is what drives me to the belief that we have to find a reasonable "limit" to what you can do under the label of "trigger work".

B

Given your argument, then you need to go completely the other direction then. No modifications from factory standards PERIOD. Anything else comes off as arbitrary. Is the trigger the end all be all of accuracy? How about those aftermarket barrels? Don't think accuracy comes into play there? How about the sighting systems - seems there some benefits to be gained there as well. Given your statements, if that's the intention, it should be bone stock and leave it at that. No stipling, guide rod changes, springs, nothing - and ESPECIALLY, no set screws.

When you do that, I want to be the first to put in a vote for a new division for Limited, minor power factor only. That's where 80 to 90% of your ongoing Production people will head when things shake out in the newly defined Production Division.

[Nik Habicht]

But (as I asked above), isn't "trigger work" (or, more specifically, "anything goes inside the gun") a really slippery slope?

I can *easily* imagine a clever smith out there figuring out a way to... oh, I don't know, fit a 1911 single-action trigger system with no creep, no overtravel and a 12-oz pull into a Glock frame, give it a lever so it cocks the [hidden] hammer on a first pull, and off you go. It is totally "inside the gun". And it would totally change the division. It would be a "have to have it" modification, just like the compensator, the red-dot and the wide-body/double-stack frame were in their rise to dominance.

Now what you'd have is (and, yes, I know I'm making an extreme point, but I believe it is a valid one) a Limited-like division, but *more* expensive.

Bruce,

I guess you missed the part above where I talked about what makes production the division it is:

Minor PF

10 Round Limit

Iron Sights

No magwell

No SA guns allowed

Holster/Pouch position restrictions

So --- knock yourself out and invent that whizbang trigger. A bunch of people, me included won't be buying it......

In my experience --- and I've grown a match from averaging ~25 competitors to around 55 competitors, getting a number (40-50) to join USPSA over five years --- the appearance of production guns, revolvers and Single-Stacks gets people out to the match. Once they're there one of two things happen: They either get hooked, in which case they stay, though not necessarily in the division that they shot their first match in, or they go --- because it's too hard, takes too much time, or is too expensive on an ongoing basis. (Expensive -- ammo or component prices, match fees, travel, time away from the family -- these all get mentioned when people drop out. The price of the gun is rarely a factor in my limited experience....)

Production guns should continue to look like production guns on the outside. SS and Revolver and L10 should remain Divisions, and should be heavily featured in recruitment materials....

You guys have done a terrific job getting us here ---- even if here isn't quite where you intended to go in 2000....

[XRe]

Man, Bruce, you're starting to sound like me with all these mental experiments and whatnot Soon, Chuck will tell you you're smoking crack!

Honestly, I don't think you're going to see someone carry it to the end you describe. Yes, there are probably some people out here smart and diligent enough to pull something like that off, but it would appear to pass the point of diminishing returns and then some to get there.

Again, though - the primary issue in this is how do you enforce it? If you aren't going to have experts on every gun at every match you care to truly enforce the rule, you effectively already have anything goes inside the gun, don't you? I mean from a practical standpoint?

I don't agree with Nik's comments on trigger pull measurements suddenly obsoleting anything but CZ pattern guns from the game. If the pull weight limitation is set reasonably, I believe its effectively not an issue, given the trigger jobs I've handled out there (not a comprehensive, but a representative sampling anyway). The compelling objection that I've seen to trigger pull measurement is that its hard to get right - even with the right gear. If that route were to be taken, there would have to be some amount of care used to be sure that a measurement system that was as consistent as possible, and easy to use, was employed in all cases (in other words, someone needs to come up with a calibrated, repeatable, consistent device, and good instructions on how to use it that protect the competitor from improper operation, etc - and the device would need to be generally available, as well). Somehow, that seems like its a pretty hard thing to do, as well.

I'd think that you could craft some language, though, that would allow all of the current, common trigger mods, and still keep someone from going down the dark and dangerous worst case path you've conjured up I'll see if I can't come up with something to that end...

[XRe]

If you go to the gun forums for Glocks, CZ's, XD's....etc....they are populated with people that are making their production guns better.

They have realized that the factories have shipped them guns with crappy triggers and terrible sights. They are fixing them to make them shootable.

Based on the reading around I've been doing about Production type guns, XDs in particular, this is definitely true. JoeBob who just buys something and plinks, and doesn't know the Internet from the stump out back may not be doing anything, but there's a bunch of folks out there who currently don't seem to shoot USPSA that have got a lot of these same things done to their guns... I think Scott and Rich have both made this point earlier in the thread, too, though Flex puts a different spin on it...

[bgary]

Soon, Chuck will tell you you're smoking crack!

He does.

But then, he also thinks Production Division has been around for 12 years.

[Gary Stevens]

I think one should also note that Production is our third most popular division, behind Open and Limited. Even if we agree that the PD rules have been poorly written, the intent not properly expressed, and all the other things that we can think of, the members seem to have overcame the problems.

I thought it was interesting that in the "original" set of rules, trigger work was expressly permitted (Thanks Nik). If it was good then, why is it bad now?

I bought a new Mustang in 2008. Often I start thinking about how to make it "better". But then I come back to my senses and realize that it isn't broke and doesn't need fixing.

From my prospective, I think the same analogy applies to Production Division. If we start twisting the wrenches under the hood of this division, I am afraid that all we are going to do is hurt the end product.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Gary Stevens

[Shadow]

BGARY-

I think you already have some legal triggers in Production (Glocks, XDs, M&Ps and probably others) that are the equal of Open/Limited gun triggers (~1.75lb or less), and there is no "got to have it movement" taking place.

I don't think you can have what you want, other than a minimum trigger pull (which I'm totally against, as it provides problems with measurement, and pull is inconsistent on many triggers). A detailed dissassembly and inspection could not be practical time wise or effective against creative minds working to disguise the modifications.

You could make the rules, but without an effective means of enforcement, you'd merely give the advantage to those who are willing to "cheat."

[BayouSlide]

I thought it was interesting that in the "original" set of rules, trigger work was expressely permitted (Thanks Nik). If it was good then, why is it bad now?

I bought a new Mustang in 2008. Often I start thinking about how to make it "better". But then I come back to my senses and realize that it isn't broke and doesn't need fixing.

From my prespective, I think the same analogy applies to Production Division. If we start twisting the wrenches under the hood of this division, I am afraid that all we are going to do is hurt the end product.

Gee, Gary, there you go again...I was going to toss in one more post on this topic, but you covered all my points for me

Seems like the previous rules were closer to the mark than the 2008 variant: another case of fixing something that wasn't broke...until it was broke?

I realize the postings on BENOS are in no way a scientific sampling, but it's entirely reasonable to assume that when this many people are unhappy with new rules, there may be something wrong with the new rules, especially for a membership-driven organization like USPSA.

I, like many other Production shooters, are no-doubt encouraged that someone may be listening and taking our concerns into consideration.

Curtis

[kgunz11]

I spoke with JA tonight at SHOT and you guys aren't going to like this. He was going back to his room to post something on the nroi website which if approved by the bod will return the production division back to a bone stock gun. No internal mods to the trigger components at all.

[double_pedro]

I can *easily* imagine a clever smith out there figuring out a way to... oh, I don't know, fit a 1911 single-action trigger system with no creep, no overtravel and a 12-oz pull into a Glock frame, give it a lever so it cocks the [hidden] hammer on a first pull, and off you go. It is totally "inside the gun". And it would totally change the division.

I respectfully disagree and argue it would not change the division nor make the person shooting it more competitive than what is already out there and regularly being used in Production at all levels.

Make Production L10/minor (without magwells if need be) but using approved handguns. It keeps what I believe is the essential character of the division (10 rounds, minor scoring, iron sights, no comps) and still maintains the "accessibility" for new shooters via the approved handgun list.

The underlying fear shouldn't be the possibility of revolutionary innovation, that is something that should be embraced by all USPSA divisions, IMO.

Thanks for your significant thought and consideration of this issue.