Chuck Anderson Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I seem to remember JA giving an opinion (can't find it now and it's not listed as a ruling) regarding checkering and stippling in Production. The statement was that it's legal but you can't remove material to do so. I've got stippling down, but has anyone figured out how to checker without removing material? And if you can't remove material from the grip for an approved modification, how could it be legal to remove material for one not allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I so love circular logic. kgunz11 - PM inbound. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 So now, you support the legality of applying stickers to the frame? You can try to put words in my mouth...... It was a question...note the question mark at the end of the sentence. Since you agreed with JA's statement that since it was not an advantage, it would be legal. Since you adamently stated that the slide rule was set in stone, no interpretation can be had. I stated that the frame rule should also be set in stone. Now, since JA made that post, it seems that the frame is NOT set in stone and interpretations seems to be accepted as long as it is interpretted by JA. Before that, everybody seems to agree that the hole was an unacceptable modification. Now it is acceptable? So I posed a question to you on your stance on the matter. I am not trying to put words in your mouth. As far as the post by JA - it would seem to be acceptable. Am I wrong? If I am please point out as to which point I am missing. Why would the slide rule be set in stone and the frame would not? You are asking the wrong person. The ruling on your slide was in 2007. I won't get into a frame/slide comparison in the 2008 rules. My opinions on the frame issue are (at this point) personal and would add nothing helpful or definitive to this discussion. I don't mind posting helpful opinions. I just don't think this would fit that description. While I don't mind posting on general rules, I try to avoid posting on division rules issues which would require "interpretation". That responsibility lies with JA. If you want to pursue this, you know where to go for the answer(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) So now, you support the legality of applying stickers to the frame? The original question is to you since you have been/are/may be the RM of local major match(es) and you have made and will make decisions based upon the rule book and "interpretations". I would like to know your stance/views/decisions/interpretations on the issue. * Edited to change MD to RM. Edited January 8, 2009 by racerba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) I seem to remember JA giving an opinion (can't find it now and it's not listed as a ruling) regarding checkering and stippling in Production. It's in the new 2008 rule book now. Appendex D4 #21 about allowing stippling. #22 about not allowing removal of material. Seems #22 also prohibits plugs, but then there's an interpretation which allows plugs that are flush. Edited January 8, 2009 by racerba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 So now, you support the legality of applying stickers to the frame? The original question is to you since you have been/are/may be the MD of local major match(es) and you have made and will make decisions based upon the rule book and "interpretations". I would like to know your stance/views/decisions/interpretations on the issue. Sorry, Bob. I am not going to "rule" on your hypotheticals. And if I was the MD, it would not be my call in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 It would be the call of the Range Master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I seem to remember JA giving an opinion (can't find it now and it's not listed as a ruling) regarding checkering and stippling in Production. It's in the new 2008 rule book now. Appendex D4 #21 about allowing stippling. #22 about not allowing removal of material. Seems #22 also prohibits plugs, but then there's an interpretation which allows plugs that are flush. I got that Bob. Now tell me how to checker, authorized under #21 without removing material, prohibited under #22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 And if I was the MD, it would not be my call in any case. My fault - RM. It's not hypothetical. I'm serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I seem to remember JA giving an opinion (can't find it now and it's not listed as a ruling) regarding checkering and stippling in Production. It's in the new 2008 rule book now. Appendex D4 #21 about allowing stippling. #22 about not allowing removal of material. Seems #22 also prohibits plugs, but then there's an interpretation which allows plugs that are flush. I got that Bob. Now tell me how to checker, authorized under #21 without removing material, prohibited under #22. I think it's understood that the removal of material in the checkered area is a given and legal, but you are not allowed to remove material anywhere else. For example, removing the portion of a Glock that serves as an accessory rail, which is interesting, since earlier generations of the Glock didn't have these to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) For example, removing the portion of a Glock that serves as an accessory rail, which is interesting, since earlier generations of the Glock didn't have these to begin with. Or removing material as small as 2 holes in the receiver?!?! Edited January 8, 2009 by racerba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) I guess you could call those holes an attempt at checkering and no one could say anything... checkmate edited because it's a hole, not a whole... Edited January 8, 2009 by kgunz11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Those are external modifications specifically approved by the rule book. There are even stipulations on where you can and cannot add tape or stippling. It's all in there, and they say no other external mods. But you keep rocking, get more sh!t added to the rule book.In one of your previous posts you say that all these rules are making you want to quit the sport, yet it's people like you that want to tweak and play every angle on the rule that cause it to get worse. Don't be a part of the problem Bro. The rule book is written and it's clear and concise. I'll buy the guy a Glock frame to keep the rule book from growing. I know what the rules say. But come on guys, a little common sense here. 2 or 3 holes left over from a different division. that isnt what is going to beat you and if you want to make an issue of it then your are getting pretty petty about silly things and not concentrating on shooting and having fun. This picking nits about holes is why I dont shoot production . Limited and Open are all I am interested in because you have the least amount of restrictions and having to explain to a range lawyer why you did something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Well what about the guy that stipples somewhere he is not suppose to? Let him shoot in Production anyway? No, you don't. What about the guy with grip tape on his slide? What if the RO does not notice the grip tape until "if you are finished"? Then the guy is shooting open. You explain the rules to him and remind him when he joined USPSA he was given a copy of the rule book and encouraged to read it. The rules are there for a reason, if you're going to break one why not break them all? At some point the rule book needs to be followed, changed, or just thrown away. BTW, I have never shot Production, but I plan to, and I will abide by all the rules set forth by the BOD when I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I think a lot of you are missing the point here. If you are going to produce a USPSA match, at any level, you implicity agree to play by USPSA rules. They are not guidelines, nor should they be subject to local interpretation. Even John's opinion on this question is not, I repeat, NOT an official interpretation or a change to a rule. It's only his opinion until it's gone through the whole vetting process with the BOD and been published as an official interpretation. If someone were to show up at a match with these holes in the frame, and shoot Production division, he would (providing he got caught) be moved to Open (Not Limited, Not any other division), based on the rule stating "no external modifications". The RM would have no choice, because it is an external modification and not specifically allowed by the rules for that division. Competitive advantage is not mentioned in the rules governing Production. There are mods that are specifically allowed--everything else isn't. Doesn't matter if you don't agree, because you are bound by the rules if you are shooting a USPSA match. The reasons for this are many, but the main one is to ensure consistency across the country. That way, Joe Local Shooter doesn't get a big nasty surprise at his first Area match or Nationals. If I were the RM and someone brought me that gun to question it's legality in Production division at a match, I'd have to rule it as an external modification and move the competitor to Open. No choice at this point, even though I agree with John's opinion. The rule is plain, and it's not within my purview to ignore the rule just because I don't agree with it. Could the division rules be changed to allow for drilled/threaded frames? Yes and easily so, but that's not the case at present. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I agree 100% Troy. While it sucks for the guy, it is the rule according to the Appendix and it is what it is. We don't have to like the rules, but if we want to play we have to follow them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) To further stir the pot, is it now legal IAW John's opinion to have the frame and/or trigger (or any other part) drilled and tapped for over-travel and pre-travel screws in an open/limited gun (say a Glock again) and then just remove the screws to shoot production? Edited to add limited and correct spelling. Edited January 9, 2009 by Shadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Even John's opinion on this question is not, I repeat, NOT an official interpretation or a change to a rule. It's only his opinion until it's gone through the whole vetting process with the BOD and been published as an official interpretation. Although it's not an official ruling, John IS the NROI president and he does make the sole decision at major matches. His decisions at major matches do not go through the whole vetting process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Someone should ask JA specifically if he would allow it in a match in Production Division. His answer might change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I seem to remember JA giving an opinion (can't find it now and it's not listed as a ruling) regarding checkering and stippling in Production. It's in the new 2008 rule book now. Appendex D4 #21 about allowing stippling. #22 about not allowing removal of material. Seems #22 also prohibits plugs, but then there's an interpretation which allows plugs that are flush. I got that Bob. Now tell me how to checker, authorized under #21 without removing material, prohibited under #22. Lawman- Maybe impressed checkering (or is that an oxymoron)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Although it's not an official ruling, John IS the NROI president and he does make the sole decision at major matches. His decisions at major matches do not go through the whole vetting process. Well...... point of order. John is the Director of NROI. At the Nationals, if he is in the assigned position of Range Master, he has the very same authority (no more, no less) as any other RM at any match. His rulings at the match are subject to the same arbitration procedings as anyone else. If he is not in a RM position, then he has no direct authority. He can certainly advise any of the staff, including the assigned RM, but the rulebook does not give him any official involvement due to his DNROI position. Vetting of a DNROI interpretation is an organizational administrative issue (per bylaws) and is unrelated to the functions at a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Are we done talking about holes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Yeah, what he said. Thanks for saving me the time, George. Although it's not an official ruling, John IS the NROI president and he does make the sole decision at major matches. His decisions at major matches do not go through the whole vetting process. Well...... point of order. John is the Director of NROI. At the Nationals, if he is in the assigned position of Range Master, he has the very same authority (no more, no less) as any other RM at any match. His rulings at the match are subject to the same arbitration procedings as anyone else. If he is not in a RM position, then he has no direct authority. He can certainly advise any of the staff, including the assigned RM, but the rulebook does not give him any official involvement due to his DNROI position. Vetting of a DNROI interpretation is an organizational administrative issue (per bylaws) and is unrelated to the functions at a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Yeah, what he said. Thanks for saving me the time, George. Anything to protect your manicured typing finger, buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 And BTW Rich, Holster positition etc. has been checked at many matches, you just need to get out more. In the last two years I've had just about every possible thing on my guns checked from mags, trigger, weight, trigger weight (IPSC), grip tape, holster position and I'm sure there is a bunch I'm missing. If you're seeing people cheat at the Nationals that's on them and a little on you. Just got back in February brotha. But I'll be back to normal soon. And at the Nat's...yeah...we busted him. Rich 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