Production review

[ChuckS]

Gary,

I liked your pre-edit post better

I have to go get some clips so I can do reload practice for my next qualifier.

Later,

Chuck

PS: I will probably look into "directly" tomorrow

What class you going to shoot in?

You stole Gary's line....

[Behr]

So using CZ75 mags in an SP01 is a no-go since the CZ75 mags are shorter, and thus, not "dimensionally the same as the original magazine for that model of gun"?

Good thing I procrastinated on that Brownell's order.

[dr2e]

the sp-01/shadow is sold with 10 round magazines. these are dimensionally the same as a mec-gar 16 rounder. the rubber base pads some use are cz factory parts. that would make them acceptable to use within the guidelines (afaik ) .

[EricBudd]

I have a quick question. When the new rule book came out last year didn't the BoD promise that there we be no changes for 3 years and that we would have rule stability? If this is 'stability', raising taxes to pay my neighbors mortgage is 'investment'.

Just leave the rules alone. They work. Or, at least, screw with someones else's division for a change.

Eric

[DaG]

So using CZ75 mags in an SP01 is a no-go since the CZ75 mags are shorter, and thus, not "dimensionally the same as the original magazine for that model of gun"?

Good thing I procrastinated on that Brownell's order.

Didn't Amidon rule at one time the SP01 is a variant of the 75B and therefore the 75 mags were legal in the SP01? Anyone?

DaG

[ChuckS]

Can't do it because it directly affects the movement of the firing pin.

What a difference a good nights sleep makes. Well, Gary, your logic would also support that the only safety device on the 1911 would be the Series 80 style FPB. The Thumb Safety does not directly affect the movement of the firing pin nor does the Grip Safety directly affect the movement of the firing pin.

Later,

Chuck

[Dan Burwell]

Can't do it because it directly affects the movement of the firing pin.

What a difference a good nights sleep makes. Well, Gary, your logic would also support that the only safety device on the 1911 would be the Series 80 style FPB. The Thumb Safety does not directly affect the movement of the firing pin nor does the Grip Safety directly affect the movement of the firing pin.

Later,

Chuck

I am not Gary but we are discussing the Production gun rules, and last I checked there are no 1911s that are production legal.

I understand your argument but we have to compare apples to apples. These rules are for production only....right now.

[EricBudd]

I am not Gary but we are discussing the Production gun rules, and last I checked there are no 1911s that are production legal.

I understand your argument but we have to compare apples to apples. These rules are for production only....right now.

Safety is job one. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Pot meet Kettle.

If it isn't safe for production it isn't safe anywhere. Time to un-pin all those grip safetys. JMB included it in the design so it MUST be necessary.

Eric

[Gary Stevens]

I think if you look back a few dozen post or so, I acknowledged that those were valid quesions. However, this issue is about Production Division, not any other divisions.

History shows that it is better to fight one battle at a time if possible.

[ChuckS]

Can't do it because it directly affects the movement of the firing pin.

What a difference a good nights sleep makes. Well, Gary, your logic would also support that the only safety device on the 1911 would be the Series 80 style FPB. The Thumb Safety does not directly affect the movement of the firing pin nor does the Grip Safety directly affect the movement of the firing pin.

Later,

Chuck

I am not Gary but we are discussing the Production gun rules, and last I checked there are no 1911s that are production legal.

I understand your argument but we have to compare apples to apples. These rules are for production only....right now.

I understand the subject It is the definition of Saftey device that is a hair obfuscated in this discussion. Like I said above, I fully support keeping ALL factory safety devices installed.

Later,

Chuck

edited to remove a spurious plurality

Edited March 20, 2009 by ChuckS

[double_pedro]

Obviously, the question of a FPB falls into a tricky spot for the rules.

Is it a safety issue? Safety should be universally addressed within USPSA. Therefore if it is a "safety issue", then it should be applied across the board in all divisions. How absurd would it be if you were allowed to break the 180 rule in Open, but not in other divisions? If safety is the real issue, then in good conscience sweeping changes to other divisions should follow shortly....would it be all guns must have FPB? no disabling of factory safeties? I don't know, but certainly the same measure of safety should be applied irrespective of the division.

Is it a matter of expediency? On the surface, this might be the case - leave it to the manufacturer to decide what features should be on a given model. The problem is that USPSA has an approved list of Production guns. Therefore, they are using a minimum set of criteria that must be met for a gun to be suitable for Production Division (e.g. DA/SA or striker fired, no external mag well, etc.). Since there are guns on the approved list that do not have a FPB, apparently a FPB is not a requirement. To object to the means (i.e. the user can't remove the FPB, but the manufacturer can by design or option) that arrive at the same result (i.e. no FPB) is somewhat arbitrary on its own. Without further explanation, it is difficult to understand - especially for those who may be adversely affected.

Is there another explanation or approach to help everyone come to a better understanding on this?

My $0.02.

[EricBudd]

I think if you look back a few dozen post or so, I acknowledged that those were valid quesions. However, this issue is about Production Division, not any other divisions.

History shows that it is better to fight one battle at a time if possible.

Gary,

I have to respectfully disagree. If this is a safety issue it must be immediately addressed across all divisions. How can we acknowledge that disabling a safety device is inherently unsafe while at the same time condoning the practice in other divisions? It this isn't really a safety issue but is instead a quest to keep production stock, it should be acknowledged as such and not hide behind calling it a gun safety issue.

Eric

[ima45dv8]

I think if you look back a few dozen post or so, I acknowledged that those were valid quesions. However, this issue is about Production Division, not any other divisions.

History shows that it is better to fight one battle at a time if possible.

Gary,

I have to respectfully disagree. If this is a safety issue it must be immediately addressed across all divisions. How can we acknowledge that disabling a safety device is inherently unsafe while at the same time condoning the practice in other divisions? It this isn't really a safety issue but is instead a quest to keep production stock, it should be acknowledged as such and not hide behind calling it a gun safety issue.

Eric

It might be best if you started a new thread regarding your concern.

[Fireant]

While another thread is a good idea for the other divisions, it is a valid point here. In less than 30 days these new rules go into effect as I understand it. It's easy to lock the slide back on a cz and check for a FPB, but how many non or even regular Glock shooters know how to check the drop safety on their guns? I didn't until I searched. One of my old Glocks had been adjusted to where the drop safety was not working. I think we have added another hard to check rule unintentionally.

[Nik Habicht]

It's easy to lock the slide back on a cz and check for a FPB, but how many non or even regular Glock shooters know how to check the drop safety on their guns? I didn't until I searched. One of my old Glocks had been adjusted to where the drop safety was not working. I think we have added another hard to check rule unintentionally.

Actually it's incredibly easy to check on a Glock --- but you do need to pull the slide.....

[00bullitt]

It's easy to lock the slide back on a cz and check for a FPB, but how many non or even regular Glock shooters know how to check the drop safety on their guns? I didn't until I searched. One of my old Glocks had been adjusted to where the drop safety was not working. I think we have added another hard to check rule unintentionally.

Actually it's incredibly easy to check on a Glock --- but you do need to pull the slide.....

The drop safety and firing pin block are two different safeties on a Glock. But yes.....both are easy to check for function.

[Fireant]

A Glock can have too much of the travel taken out by using those set screws that keeps the trigger bar pushing in on that plunger the whole time. When that happens you have deactivated the firing pin/drop safety. Pick any 10 ro's from your club and any 10 production division guns and do a test. See if all 10 Ro's can identify all safeties on all 10 guns. If they can not I think we have a problem enforcing the rule. Even if they happen to pass that test, there are way more than 10 production division guns.

Maybe production needs to have a stage gun. If your club has 5 stages you need 10 certified PD guns that are all the same (2 per stage). The shooter walks up and LAMR with that gun and go. The second one is the back up.

[SA Friday]

Maybe production needs to have a stage gun. If your club has 5 stages you need 10 certified PD guns that are all the same (2 per stage). The shooter walks up and LAMR with that gun and go. The second one is the back up.

OK, now you're getting into the 'completely unproductive' area...

I know this a productive debate, and lots of us are reading as the posters involved are posting, but come on. This will do nothing but get this thread closed...

[Fireant]

I don't mean to get anything closed, just point out the direction it could be leading to.

[sslav]

A Glock can have too much of the travel taken out by using those set screws that keeps the trigger bar pushing in on that plunger the whole time. When that happens you have deactivated the firing pin/drop safety. Pick any 10 ro's from your club and any 10 production division guns and do a test. See if all 10 Ro's can identify all safeties on all 10 guns. If they can not I think we have a problem enforcing the rule. Even if they happen to pass that test, there are way more than 10 production division guns.

As a Glock shooter I do not really have a dog in this fight, but I still do not see the point of this rule. I know what the safeties on my production (and other guns) are and how they work. If challenged I can demonstrate that my gun is in compliance in less than five minutes. Actually I can demonstrate it in under a minute, but it might take ROs a couple of minutes to catch up and acknowledge the fact.

But is it reasonable to expect every shooter to have that level of understanding of the inner workings of their gun? I shot my Glock just fine for many years before understanding what the FPB and drop safeties are and how they work.

I am not sure what we are gaining for all the trouble. The new rules/clarifications pretty much acknowledge that the train has left the station with regards to trigger work. Not sure why the line was drawn at internal safeties. It is clearly not a safety issue because identical and even more extreme modifications are allowed in other divisions.

[Morphire]

Simple Why do I have to keep the passive secondary safety in my pistol while another pistol (the M&P is an example) is allowed to explicit;y remove an active safety from inside their gun? Why make a loophole and exception in the rules if the stated intent is to not do that? Furthermore, why require the FPB on the SP-01 when another version of that pistol, the SP-01 Shadow, does not come with one and is already on the approved gun list for Production?

Of course, the use of the term "safety" for both things definitely seems to have a rules implication, though, doesn't it? The difference here, though, is that the M&P is offered - as the same model, made from literally the same parts - both with and without the mag safety. On the other hand, the SP-01 has a big hole drilled in the slide, whereas the SP-01 Shadow does not. As I understand it (and I could be wrong), even a skilled M&P smith could not inspect an M&P and tell whether it originally came with or without the mag safety, whereas on the SP-01 variants, its very obvious if it came with an FPB or not. In reality, you can only enforce an M&P mag safety on M&P shooters from California (my understanding is that, as of 2006, CA requires all semi-auto pistols sold to have a magazine safety?). You can enforce FPB on every pistol that came wit one.

That doesn't make either thing right or wrong, it just is what it is...

So the short of it is - I think you've done the right thing by banging on Charles about it, and making comments on the USPSA forums. I'd suggest sticking the argument of comparisons of the SP-01 to the SP-01 Shadow, etc, rather than comparing it back to the M&P magazine safety...

A safety by definition keeps the gun from firing when it's engaged so I still see the mag "safety" and the firing pin block to both be "safeties" and regardless of whether they have a benefit in any class (we allow other classes to completely disable safeties!) it is still an exception when the stated goal of the division is to remove exceptions. Anyone can actually tell if every M&P came with a mag safety. The shooter provides proof that that particular serial numbered gun was manufactured and sold without the safety in place. That's what the FAQ requires.

As to the big hole drilled in the side. The M&P .45 is offered with and without an external thumb safety yet I believe both frames have the big hole drilled in the side for it if it's added. The suggestion in the FAQ is that a shooter must keep with them proof of what their original configuration looked like to prove that the gun was purchased without the safety. The reason for that is to prove you haven't removed a safety. Call it what you like but when a mag safety is engaged it prevents the gun from firing so why is that not a safety? If it's allowed to be removed, then why not the FPB?

To be clear, I'm all for the mag safety being allowed to be removed from the M&P. It's a PITA option in a competition gun and for that reason I ordered mine without them in the first place. But if the stated goal is to get rid of exceptions and loopholes then why specifically add one? Why not simply keep the existing condition that all external safeties or externally operated safeties remain functional as safeties and be done with it? You remove the need for the mag safety exception and you don't require hundreds of CZ and other PD shooters to reconfigure their guns and get a new trigger job. If the FPB is such an integral part of providing that a gun remain safe then why did the SP-01 Shadow get approval? Is this about the safety or about the trigger job?

Edited March 20, 2009 by Morphire

[Morphire]

Simple Why do I have to keep the passive secondary safety in my pistol while another pistol (the M&P is an example) is allowed to explicit;y remove an active safety from inside their gun? Why make a loophole and exception in the rules if the stated intent is to not do that? Furthermore, why require the FPB on the SP-01 when another version of that pistol, the SP-01 Shadow, does not come with one and is already on the approved gun list for Production?

Honestly --- in an effort to bolster your argument and not confuse the opposition with too many facts/concepts --- accept that the magazine safety on the M&P and the firing pin block on the SP-01 are apples and oranges. Now, comparing the SP-01 and SP-01 Shadow --- and pointing out the differences, that may get you somewhere.....

If you overwhelm the opposition --- it can actually be counterproductive. (I'm reminded of a courtroom scene in a movie or TV show, where the Judge says to the Lawyer: You already won your argument --- you might want to shut up now, lest I change my mind....)

Focus your energy on that one difference --- and why removal should be allowed for the SP-01. Attempt to think that problem through from the match staff perspective --- odds are that if it will be difficult to enforce without tearing down the gun, that argument will carry some weight....

I do appreciate you candor and your insight very much. Thank you. But in the end, I think my goal is to get the same thing that the rules committee is striving for - a more consistent Production rule set. I'm less about the FPB than I am about consistent rules and no more loopholes. If they decide that all safeties in every configuration must remain in effect then so be it. If they decide that only external safeties have to remain then so be it. It's the middle ground that doesn't make sense to me. This type of [mag]safety isn't a "real" safety (even though it keeps the gun from going bang when you pull the trigger if engaged) so we aren't going to require it. But that type of [FPB]safety IS a "real" safety (it if it only prevents the gun from firing if it's accidentally dropped with enough force and in the right vector to overcome the firing pin spring) so we are going to require it? That is just, as you said, apples and oranges to me.

So that is one argument.

Then separate from that is my contention that if different version of the same model of gun are available with and without a safety then they should be allowed to be taken out of the version that ships with the safety. That exact same argument is being used for the M&P mag safety so the arguments intertwine but this issue is distinct and different from the one above.

My passion is understandably clouding them together too much and I appreciate the bigger picture push you and XRe are making so that I don't become so confusing that my arguments are diminished. Again thank you to both of you. =]

[EricBudd]

"Is this about the safety or about the trigger job?"

If someone were a wacko conspiracy theorist, they might believe that USPSA held a bit of favoritism toward the striker fired guns and the companies that build them. But that is ridiculous and supportable. That would almost be like starting a new youth shooting sport and banning hammer fired guns....

Eric

[kevin c]

...What happens if you have a gun - say an SP-01 - that you replace the slide on using a slide that would be legal by the rulebook (same length, contour, caliber), but said slide is not made with the appropriate cuts for the FPB? In other words, by the rules, a shooter could legally replace the top end of an SP-01 with the top end from an SP-01 Shadow...

This question, at least, JA has (unofficially) addressed when I asked him about the analogous swap with Glock receivers/top ends. His answer boiled down to that the receiver, or top end as the case may be, must be the same as the original model in every respect, so that the gun ends up being the same model as it was starting out.

Now, in the case where there are no distinguishing marks/differences between the parts being exchanged, there's no way of telling short of a comprehensive s/n reference list or a shot of sodium amytal...

[Morphire]

There might be some rollmarks on guns destined for CA, but you can't say that everybody from CA has a drop test complaint gun as some guns make it into CA by way of private party transfer and they would not have such safeties or rollmarks.

If the argument is made that there is no difference in SP01 and SP01 Shadow minus the FPB and it should be OK. Then it is not very hard for people to say well you OK'd the removal of additional not primary safety, therefore I should be able to remove(make inoperable) the grip safety from XDs and FPBs from Glocks, XDs and M&Ps. So I can see it is easier for BoD to say "No, unless otherwise allowed", which seems to be the direction of production division.

The beavertail safety on the XD would be considered external and is already covered I think. The M&P and the Glock both have an external safety built into their trigger so those would be the safeties involved with the external rule too. You can easily test them all at chrono without a tear down of the gun too. Push on a glock/XD/M&P trigger without engaging the inner trigger lever and see if the gun will go click on an empty chamber. I'd love to see someone prove to me that a glock's FPB is in tact. You'd have to prove that the firing pin couldn't move forward when it's engaged. I'm not sure you could easily do that even with a detail strip but I'm not a gunsmith and someone may be able to shed better light on that if I'm incorrect in my thoughts.