JohnRodriguez Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 here is my take on this issue. Revolvers are allowed to swap factory barrles to different frames, so why cant you swap your glock frame and uppers if its from the factory. As far as the holes in the frame, I would have filled them in with devcon or black silicon and not said anything to anybody. Most of the time you are only going to be running a non-legal gun at your local matches anyway. I think that production is stupid in the fact that it is catered to states that only have 10rnd laws, and uspsa production division should be changed to "magazine capacity limited to local and/or state laws". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 You might try JB Weld also.Let us know what you find out. Richard Or Crayon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 here is my take on this issue. Revolvers are allowed to swap factory barrles to different frames, so why cant you swap your glock frame and uppers if its from the factory. As far as the holes in the frame, I would have filled them in with devcon or black silicon and not said anything to anybody. Most of the time you are only going to be running a non-legal gun at your local matches anyway. I think that production is stupid in the fact that it is catered to states that only have 10rnd laws, and uspsa production division should be changed to "magazine capacity limited to local and/or state laws". Playing by the rules is playing by the rules. It doesn't matter if you are shooting a local match or the Nationals--Production rules are the same for all USPSA matches. Doing things differently locally has spelled trouble for a lot of competitors once they get to their Area Championships or Nationals. Production Division was developed (and the rules are as strict as they are) in order to allow anybody to purchase and compete with popular over-the-counter handguns. This meant DA or Safe Action 9mm pistols. The intent was that they can be shot as-is, with no modification, and be competitive. In order to do this, there had to be certain limitations on # of rounds loaded, modifications, etc. If you want to buy a gun and fool around with it, then shoot in Limited or Open. Production isn't the place for experimentation. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Troy, So then if you have a Production legal pistol other than having some extra holes drilled in to the side from a removed scope mount is that not legal? I say this because the next question is that are we asking people to buy a new pistol because they change divisions and there's basically a cosmetic change to the pistol? Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Troy,So then if you have a Production legal pistol other than having some extra holes drilled in to the side from a removed scope mount is that not legal? I say this because the next question is that are we asking people to buy a new pistol because they change divisions and there's basically a cosmetic change to the pistol? Rich I'm pretty confident that Amidon's gonna call than an external modification. (Full Disclosure: I'm not him, I don't speak for NROI, but I have run a few things past him over the years, and he was my mentor/instructor for the CRO correspondence course.) And really that's the right call --- otherwise you start down a slippery slope..... I get where you're coming from --- hey, let's just be friendly and let that guy compete with modifications that in the grand scheme of things don't amount to an advantage. I really see the appeal --- but where does it stop? Do we pass 164.88 at Chrono as major? 164.5? At the local matches I've shot and run over the last 5+ years there's often been a heated rivalry among groups of friends not for a division win, but for a class win, or for a first among the group win. If we're going to call this a competition or a sport, then we need rules and we need to enforce those rules. If we want to throw them out the window to be friendly, then we might as well call it USPSA style plinking and stop keeping score.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 The difference there Nik is that power factor is a measurable/definable advantage. We're talking about a scope mounting hole. It's not like Brazos holes in the slide or a slide cut up by Bedell. So by this then is an old steel gun not allowed in Singlestack because it's got C-More holes in the receiver? Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 So by this then is an old steel gun not allowed in Singlestack because it's got C-More holes in the receiver?Rich We're talking about production, not SS --- Apples and Oranges in how the divisions were conceived, how they turned out and in their rules..... That said the SS rules have some language about "any milling deemed to provide a competitive advantage" on the prohibited modifications and features list. (I wouldn't make that call....) I'm no where close to being an expert on SS rules --- we get one or two shooters competing in the division a few months out of the year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 The difference there Nik is that power factor is a measurable/definable advantage.We're talking about a scope mounting hole. It's not like Brazos holes in the slide or a slide cut up by Bedell. Comp mount holes are measurable..... Does a 164.88 pf load provide a measurable advantage over a 165.01 pf load? I'll argue that's not a difference that can be perceived by any of us --- therefore it's as arbitrary as suggesting that comp mounting holes are an unapproved modification. So we've set arbitrary values (165 Major/125 Minor) and you're fine with those because they're measurable? The shooter's ammo either makes power factor or it doesn't. How is that different from the shooter's gun either having an illegal modification or not having one? The standards need to be set somewhere --- or we could all be shooting open. (Yes, I know even Open has some requirements --- but not many.) I suspect that wouldn't be fun for all of us..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 The holes in question are in the frame. We've already allowed Glock 'C' pistols to play in Production if they run a replacement barrel right? Again...where's the advantage? A 0.nothing drop in weight on a plastic frame. Come on. As for SS, it's my understanding it's Production for a 1911, with some basic allowed mods. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 The holes in question are in the frame. We've already allowed Glock 'C' pistols to play in Production if they run a replacement barrel right?Again...where's the advantage? A 0.nothing drop in weight on a plastic frame. Come on. But you can't cut a port in the slide in a regular non-c pistols. If the frame came from Glock with holes, it would be allowed and frames that you put holes in would still NOT be allowed. I understand your argument where it does not provide any advantage, but a line has been drawn. It needs to be drawn somewhere. I feel that a lot of the PD rules allow way too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Just so it is clear, we are talking about 2 small holes, one on either side, at the front of the dust cover. I doubt they are 1/8". If it was me, I'd just plug them with some sort of putty and move on if I thought they were not in the spirit of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 The rule is in black and white... no external modifications. Rather or not the modification provides an advantage is not a valid piece in the argument. It's a modification and it's external. It's not allowed. Do I need to copy it out of the rule book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) I also don't like the fact that Revolver guys can switch barrels and calibers but a Production guy with a G34 can't put a G35 bbl in his 34 and shoot Limited major with the same gun, but I don't write the rules. Edited January 7, 2009 by kgunz11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciscoip Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 Just so it is clear, we are talking about 2 small holes, one on either side, at the front of the dust cover. I doubt they are 1/8". If it was me, I'd just plug them with some sort of putty and move on if I thought they were not in the spirit of the rules. I'd be fine with putting in temporary threaded plugs or something. But the if I plugged them up permanently, I wouldn't be able to use the scopemount when I swapped top-ends back to shoot open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I'd be fine with putting in temporary threaded plugs or something. But the if I plugged them up permanently, I wouldn't be able to use the scopemount when I swapped top-ends back to shoot open. This was the issue with the Vanek trigger. He drilled another hole and pluged the other one up. It was a no-no since it was an external mod. Same situation here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciscoip Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 I'd be fine with putting in temporary threaded plugs or something. But the if I plugged them up permanently, I wouldn't be able to use the scopemount when I swapped top-ends back to shoot open. This was the issue with the Vanek trigger. He drilled another hole and pluged the other one up. It was a no-no since it was an external mod. Same situation here. Yeah, but in the case of the Vanek, the modification was done to secure a competitive advantage and plugging up the hole did not change the fact that there was still a competitive advantage. In this case, the temporary plugs would serve to eliminate any perceived competitive advantage...really, I don't see how the unfilled holes would offer a competitive advantage; if I wanted an advantage, I'd want to *add* weight to the frame for more inertial mass to a non-reciprocating part, not reduce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 It doesn't matter if it provides an advantage or not. It is a external modification, which is strictly prohibited per the USPSA rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I'd really like to hear JA's take on this. drnoi@uspsa.org is a supported way of getting the JA take you seek. Posting your desire on the forum isn't a supported manner of submitting such a request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 The holes in question are in the frame. We've already allowed Glock 'C' pistols to play in Production if they run a replacement barrel right?Again...where's the advantage? A 0.nothing drop in weight on a plastic frame. Come on. As for SS, it's my understanding it's Production for a 1911, with some basic allowed mods. Rich The Glock C pistols come that way from the factory --- the frame in this case was user/user gunsmith modified. You can't seem to wrap your head around that distinction --- between factory mods and end user mods. If someone wants to play in Production --- there are rules to be followed. Not all of us may like all of the rules, or the way that they are interpreted, all of the time --- but we all have choices: To play in any of six divisions, or to play another game or to not play at all...... Advantage has nothing to do with it. Production has different requirements than the other divisions. Your understanding of SS is flawed --- the rules for the division read quite a bit different from the rules for Production.... Two suggestions: Don't like the rules --- run for the Board and work on changing them. Want to more fully comprehend the rules --- attend an NROI Level 1 Seminar, sign up for the CRO correspondence course, or apply to the RM program as appropriate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I also don't like the fact that Revolver guys can switch barrels and calibers but a Production guy with a G34 can't put a G35 bbl in his 34 and shoot Limited major with the same gun, but I don't write the rules. Revolver : Production = Apples : Oranges..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Just so it is clear, we are talking about 2 small holes, one on either side, at the front of the dust cover. I doubt they are 1/8". If it was me, I'd just plug them with some sort of putty and move on if I thought they were not in the spirit of the rules. Unfortunately that wouldn't make the frame production legal either..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSteel Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I suppose the case could be made that if the holes were left in and allowed on your frame there should be no reason why I could not use grip tape or stippling in the same area which MAY give me an advantage (Obviously against the rules). Being a NEWB I probably would have just filled in with Black RTV flush to the form for good looks and not realized I had broken the rules. Kudos to you for having the integrity to question if you had an issue and bring it out for discussion. Although the replies may not pertain to your problem specifically the information/opinions given are useful and sometimes entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Actually Nik I'm in the correspondence course now and have RO'ed more than a few Area matches and Nationals. It's things like this that will drive folks away from the sport that have been in the sport since 'the good ol' days'. Right now, I'm considering cutting to the front of the line. IMGA and Sniper matches are looking better and better. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 From correspondence to John Amidon: From: Richard White [mailto:RWhite@anovaarchitects.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:30 PM To: dnroi@uspsa.org Subject: Glock Mod in Production Writing to find out if a particular modification that has come in to question falls under an external modification. Shooter has a Glock that was setup for Open. As a result there are holes in receiver where the mount was located. He’d like to shoot in Production but the holes are in place. Is this considered an external modification? My interpretation is no, only because it serves no competitive advantage. It’s like using a 1911 in Singlestack that used to be a bowling pin or steel challenge gun that has scope mount holes in it, in my opinion. It would be one thing if the slide was cut up like a Brazos or a Bedell slide, but it’s scope mount holes. Further, we allow a shooter with a ‘c’ model pistol from Glock to compete in Production by replacing the ported barrel with a non ported barrel and if anything they have an advantage over increase slide cycle speed (not really in my opinion, but I think you know where I’m going). Basically I don’t see it being good business to tell a shooter that he has to go and buy a second pistol just because of 2 tiny (I would have attached pictures, but couldn’t get them in time) holes in the receiver. Any information and/or a ruling is appreciated. Sincerely, Richard White ****************************************************************************************** ***** Hi Richard, I totally agree with your assessment, there is no reason this should not be allowed in Production, it is not lightening of the slide, and the holes present no advantage. Regards, John Amidon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Rich, I'm glad on all counts --- that you're in the CRO course, that you're here hashing out rules issues, and about Amidon's thinking. My only concern now is that Amidon's reply to your e-mail get turned into an official ruling, so that all of us (match staff and competitors) can operate from the same page..... As to people leaving the game: Yeah, there may be a specific incident that becomes the straw that breaks the camel's back ---- but I flat out don't believe that a single rule changes a happy, content USPSA competitor into a disgruntled walks-away from the sport shooter. There's always more to it than that; people don't live in a vacuum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now