Production review

[Nik Habicht]

Explain to me, then, the concept of the division.

You're suggesting that the Board banned something --- in fact the Board had never allowed it in the first place. The Board says they hadn't intended Production to be like the other divisions; I've told multiple board members on different occasions that that decision was probably a little unrealistic, given both the origins of the game (To find what equipment and technique work the best) and the type of individual attracted to the game....

However I think the Board took a pretty good shot at defining the concept in the documents released earlier this month --- better than I could sum it up....

It's OK to spend several hundred dollars milling a slide to accept non OEM sights but not OK to put ten cents worth of removable tape on that same slide.

I've never been nuts about that particular modification being legal (slide milling for sights) but I also realize that it's a little late to wheel that one back in, given that a number of competitors have done just that. It's harder to undo than skateboard tape removal --- something I'll need to peel off my magazine baseplates, in light of the recent rules interpretation.....

And no, I have never been in violation of any production or any other division equipment rules. Take another shot.

Sincerely --- that wasn't intended as a shot. Your somewhat cryptic earlier responses in this thread left me wondering what problem you had with the rule/interpretation. So I started musing out loud, hoping to provoke a clarification. Sorry if I struck a nerve somewhere --- I wasn't trying to make it personal....

[kevin c]

I, too, have just taken the skate board tape off my basepads (they weren't an issue when I handed a mag so dressed to Greg Lent at the '08 LPR Nats, but that's the past).

I would like to put grip tape on my slide, to give me purchase for my favored overhand rack technique (don't have the grip strength otherwise), but since my Glocks only have rear serrations, and no milling is allowed for new cocking serrations, I'm out of luck - even under the old rules that's more of a competitive advantage and an external modification than allowed (extra traction mods allowed only in the grip area shown in the diagram).

Milling of the slide has always been just to get better sights in, no? (no other competitive advantage other than the loss of a miniscule amount of metal)

eta: Nik is as reasonable as his moniker - I am certain he asked the question about your personal experience with exactly his described intention. And his apology is just as sincere.

edited because apparently I was time travelling...

Edited March 19, 2009 by kevin c

[Gary Stevens]

I, too, have just taken the skate board tape off my basepads (they weren't an issue when I handed a mag so dressed to Greg Lent at the '09 LPR Nats, but that's the past).

I would like to put grip tape on my slide, to give me purchase for my favored overhand rack technique (don't have the grip strength otherwise), but since my Glocks only have rear serrations, and no milling is allowed for new cocking serrations, I'm out of luck - even under the old rules that's more of a competitive advantage and an external modification than allowed (extra traction mods allowed only in the grip area shown in the diagram).

Milling of the slide has always been just to get better sights in, no? (no other competitive advantage other than the loss of a miniscule amount of metal)

eta: Nik is as reasonable as his moniker - I am certain he asked the question about your personal experience with exactly his described intention. And his apology is just as sincere.

Hey Kevin you can use my overhand technique which is to stick the rear sight about half way into my hand and then try to see the front sight around the flesh and blood. Works fairly well, sometimes.

[kevin c]

Hey Kevin you can use my overhand technique which is to stick the rear sight about half way into my hand and then try to see the front sight around the flesh and blood. Works fairly well, sometimes.

BTDTHTTS

First I cussed and swore when I stuck a Glock w/ skate board tape on the slide into a soft plastic holster whose manufacturer will remain unnamed - it took removing all the screws and the use of the screwdriver as a prybar to get it out.

Then I cussed and swore after taking the tape off and trying what you did.

[Morphire]

actually if the factory lists the parts as OFM/OEM and they can be had on a legal production gun. they can be installed on another legal production gun.

factory parts list, catalog, product sheets have been said to be credible documentation.

so all the CZ parts are good to go.

Really? Cause the new rules don't seem to say that. They specifically say that external parts must be OEM parts that are offered on the specific model of the gun or on another approved gun and that custom shop standard parts are not approved unless the custom shop version of the gun is an approved gun.

The old ruling stated they could be OEM parts available from the catalog but the new ruling doesn't say that. Does the new ruling supersede the old one? Does it compliment it? Does it confuse it? This one will probably require a ruling from Amidon to get it clarified if it makes it through the member review in tact IMO.

The rule wording for it all is in my original post above.

[Morphire]

By that same logic then the M&P owner shouldn't be able to remove the mag safety on their pistol if it shipped with it originally. and that's a specifically allowed option in the new rules. If there is a place to install it [mag safety] then that gun should be in open as well shouldn't it?

Smith ships M&Ps both with and without the mag safety, and reportedly will now remove the mag safety from guns if asked to do the conversion. Since the factory offers the otherwise identical gun both ways, as well as offering the change/removal as an option, it seems silly to suggest that the factory is the only place allowed to make that modification....

In other words the M&P is a different animal than the CZ. Now if CZ offers a particular model both with and without a firing pin block, then you might have a leg to stand on, in terms of a rules clarification.

You've gotten good advice here --- you need to draft a note with your concerns and send it off to your area director. Heck, for that matter copy Voight and the other directors --- who knows who might listen?

The CZ SP-01 Shadow doesn't come with a FPB.

And I have drafted my opinions and I am in communication with my area director and he says he's forwarding my communication to the rest of the board. I don't have all the emails for the board members or I would do that myself. I like talking about it on here too as it helps to refine my arguments and helps me to learn what others are thinking as well. Since USPSA hasn't set up a discussion forum for this rule change like they did for the last big rule change, we are forced to use Brian's forum for the talk. I would hope that if I drafted the latter to any of the board members that they would do me the courtesy of listening. =]

[eerw]

actually if the factory lists the parts as OFM/OEM and they can be had on a legal production gun. they can be installed on another legal production gun.

factory parts list, catalog, product sheets have been said to be credible documentation.

so all the CZ parts are good to go.

Really? Cause the new rules don't seem to say that. They specifically say that external parts must be OEM parts that are offered on the specific model of the gun or on another approved gun and that custom shop standard parts are not approved unless the custom shop version of the gun is an approved gun.

The old ruling stated they could be OEM parts available from the catalog but the new ruling doesn't say that. Does the new ruling supersede the old one? Does it compliment it? Does it confuse it? This one will probably require a ruling from Amidon to get it clarified if it makes it through the member review in tact IMO.

The rule wording for it all is in my original post above.

Exactly..and CZUB lists all the parts as factory options on the CZ SP01 Shadow which is on the production approved list.

[Morphire]

I've already passed on my feelings to my Section and Area Coordinators. Hopefully there will an official location from USPSA where members can comment like they had for the last rule book too.

Well, looks like there's a comment thread on the official USPSA forum now: Click Here!

Look at who started the thread! LOL

Look familiar?

The thing with the last use of the forum was that we were assured that the board was watching those threads. Me starting my own thread doesn't have any similar assurance.

[Nik Habicht]

And I have drafted my opinions and I am in communication with my area director and he says he's forwarding my communication to the rest of the board. I don't have all the emails for the board members or I would do that myself.

For future reference all USPSA directors have uspsa.org e-mail addresses:

AreaX@uspsa.org --- just replace the X with the number of the area.....

I like talking about it on here too as it helps to refine my arguments and helps me to learn what others are thinking as well.

It helps the rest of us too --- it's a two-way street.....

Since USPSA hasn't set up a discussion forum for this rule change like they did for the last big rule change, we are forced to use Brian's forum for the talk.

You're free to start a thread on the USPSA forum as well --- I know of at least a few USPSA members who have left this board, who might still be hanging on the USPSA forum. The USPSA forum is apparently the official venue, so it might be worthwhile to at least crosspost your ideas....

[Morphire]

And it turns out that the Board actually addressed this. From the NROI Interpretation dated 3/7/9:

The burden of responsibility is on the shooter to ensure that his/her equipment is compliant with these provisions. If a modification is disputed – either by a Match Official or a competitor, under 11.1.2 and 11.7 – the competitor may be required to provide evidence of a specific clause in the rules or published NROI rulings which specifically authorizes the modification.

That reference to 11.1.2 and 11.7 sets the procedure as requiring arbitration --- so at a major match the $100 fee would likely apply. (11.4.1 sets a limit of $100 or the maximum individual entry fee for the match, whichever is lower, as the arbitration fee.) If the appeal is upheld, the arbitration is refunded, if the appeal is denied both fee and decision must be forwarded to NROI.....

The more I look at this product --- the interpretation --- the more I'm impressed by how comprehensively the Board addressed the situation. Did they do so perfectly? No, but I believe they came closer than ever before....

Okay so that does bring more to light. but it still doesn't make it clear I think.

The 03/09 general interpretation states that "If a modification is disputed - either by a Match Official or a competitor, under 11.1.2 or 11.7 - the competitor may be required to provide evidence of a specific clause in the rules or published NROI rulings which specifically authorizes the modification." Furthermore the new interpretation states that the competitor will be responsible for disassembling the gun to prove that the equipment is compliant with the rules and that if they can not or will not, then they are moved to open. Imagine that you can be moved to open for not knowing how to detail strip your weapon and reassemble it during a match! Plus now you have to make sure you have a complete set of tools on you since that requirement can be asked "at any time".

How does one competitor challenge another by arbitration? Isn't arbitration an act that requires a ruling to have been made already? How does one arbitrate on the challenge? Wouldn't the other competitor still be allowed to challenge without penalty and force the issue of the shooter proving compliance. If the challenger or the competitor disagrees with the ruling made by the official as to whether or not the competitor has proven compliance then it would seem that appeals and arbitration would come into play. Am I misunderstanding this rule?

Edited March 19, 2009 by Morphire

[Morphire]

The Board says they hadn't intended Production to be like the other divisions; I've told multiple board members on different occasions that that decision was probably a little unrealistic, given both the origins of the game (To find what equipment and technique work the best) and the type of individual attracted to the game....

However I think the Board took a pretty good shot at defining the concept in the documents released earlier this month --- better than I could sum it up....

It would have been great if the intention of the division had been made clear in the definition of the division up front. To do so years after the division was defined seems a touch discriminatory in that it now affects some guns very differently than others.

[Morphire]

actually if the factory lists the parts as OFM/OEM and they can be had on a legal production gun. they can be installed on another legal production gun.

factory parts list, catalog, product sheets have been said to be credible documentation.

so all the CZ parts are good to go.

Really? Cause the new rules don't seem to say that. They specifically say that external parts must be OEM parts that are offered on the specific model of the gun or on another approved gun and that custom shop standard parts are not approved unless the custom shop version of the gun is an approved gun.

The old ruling stated they could be OEM parts available from the catalog but the new ruling doesn't say that. Does the new ruling supersede the old one? Does it compliment it? Does it confuse it? This one will probably require a ruling from Amidon to get it clarified if it makes it through the member review in tact IMO.

The rule wording for it all is in my original post above.

Exactly..and CZUB lists all the parts as factory options on the CZ SP01 Shadow which is on the production approved list.

That is exactly what I hope is the interpretation but I can see an argument being made for it either way with the rule worded as it is now and the change from the old rule in specifically not saying parts from the catalog. The CZ-USA website doesn't currently list the Shadow as a pistol available yet it is in the US. I can't even get the CZ-USA parts catalog to show online right now. lol If the onus is now on me to prove that my competition hammer is now legal I want it in as clear and plain text so that everyone agrees easily that it is allowed. You understand my point? With the onus being on us to prove our guns are legal, we now have to force the situation so that all areas of gray are removed.

[HoMiE]

It still seems wrong that the production division uses a different set of compliance rules than other divisions. Limited doesn't specifically state that the beavertail safety may be pinned and therefore disabled, and yet it's done regularly. Can someone challenge a shooter to prove where that is legal by the Limited division rules?

The rules for limited/open/l-10 only say primary safety device(i.e. thumb safety, rule 8.1.2.4) must be operable. It appears the BOD are saying for production ALL safeties must remain intact even though the it contradicts the externally visiable wording.

[Morphire]

And I have drafted my opinions and I am in communication with my area director and he says he's forwarding my communication to the rest of the board. I don't have all the emails for the board members or I would do that myself.

For future reference all USPSA directors have uspsa.org e-mail addresses:

AreaX@uspsa.org --- just replace the X with the number of the area.....

Thanks! Have added the other area coordinators to my email as well as my own AC and Mike Voigt.

[Morphire]

It still seems wrong that the production division uses a different set of compliance rules than other divisions. Limited doesn't specifically state that the beavertail safety may be pinned and therefore disabled, and yet it's done regularly. Can someone challenge a shooter to prove where that is legal by the Limited division rules?

The rules for limited/open/l-10 only say primary safety device(i.e. thumb safety, rule 8.1.2.4) must be operable. It appears the BOD are saying for production ALL safeties must remain intact even though the it contradicts the externally visiable wording.

My CZ SP-01 is a DA/SA pistol so it's a "Selective Action" and is covered under 8.1.2.3 which is referenced by 8.1.2.4. This rule seems to differ from the Production rules now being put forth since 8.1.2.4 through calling 8.1.2.3 says that the "safety" is the "primary visible safety lever on the handgun". Which, according to 8.1.2.3, doesn't have to be engaged if I start from "chamber loaded and hammer fully down". Which happens to be the standard start position for that gun in Production Division anyway.

[HoMiE]

It still seems wrong that the production division uses a different set of compliance rules than other divisions. Limited doesn't specifically state that the beavertail safety may be pinned and therefore disabled, and yet it's done regularly. Can someone challenge a shooter to prove where that is legal by the Limited division rules?

The rules for limited/open/l-10 only say primary safety device(i.e. thumb safety, rule 8.1.2.4) must be operable. It appears the BOD are saying for production ALL safeties must remain intact even though the it contradicts the externally visiable wording.

My CZ SP-01 is a DA/SA pistol so it's a "Selective Action" and is covered under 8.1.2.3 which is referenced by 8.1.2.4. This rule seems to differ from the Production rules now being put forth since 8.1.2.4 through calling 8.1.2.3 says that the "safety" is the "primary visible safety lever on the handgun". Which, according to 8.1.2.3, doesn't have to be engaged if I start from "chamber loaded and hammer fully down". Which happens to be the standard start position for that gun in Production Division anyway.

I guess I don't understand what your question is? But straight from question #3 of the production FAQ on uspsa site.

3) My Production Division gun came from the factory with a firing pin block or a trigger safety. It affects the trigger pull and I would like to disable or remove them to get a smoother or lighter trigger. Is that allowed? You probably won’t be able to tell that I have done it without disassembling my gun anyway.

ANSWER: NO. Per Appendix D4 item 22, disabling any external safety mechanism is specifically prohibited. In addition, USPSA has taken the position that ALL factory safety mechanisms must remain operable and functional on USPSA Production Division guns. As a result, disabling ANY safety mechanism on a USPSA Production Division gun is PROHIBITED. Per section 22.2 of the 2009 interpretation, a magazine-disconnect is not considered a “safety mechanism” and may be removed.

Note that it is the competitor’s responsibility to ensure that his/her equipment is in compliance with the rules. A competitor may, at any time, be required to demonstrate that all factory safety mechanisms are operable and functional on their USPSA Production Division gun.

[kimel]

How does one competitor challenge another by arbitration? Isn't arbitration an act that requires a ruling to have been made already? How does one arbitrate on the challenge? Wouldn't the other competitor still be allowed to challenge without penalty and force the issue of the shooter proving compliance. If the challenger or the competitor disagrees with the ruling made by the official as to whether or not the competitor has proven compliance then it would seem that appeals and arbitration would come into play. Am I misunderstanding this rule?

If you wish to challenge a competitor's equipment you take it to the RM at the match. The RM then will determine if they will want you to file a formal appeal/arbitration or if they will handle it otherwise. A ruling does not have to have been made per se.

At World Shoot a few years ago an appeal was filed based upon the configuration of a competitors equipment (Adam Tyc's pistol appeared to have had the trigger guard ground down; it was determined to be normal wear) as a 3rd party arbitration.

I'll admit it isn't as clear as it could be but the vehicle is there and the RM at the match should know how to act upon your request/concern in a fair and equitable manner. An RM has the ability to act on rules problems without a full arbitration committee being empaneled.

7.1.6 Range Master (“RM”) – has overall authority over all persons and

activities within the entire range, including range safety, the operation

of all courses of fire and the application of these rules.

This is really no different than alerting the RM that a competitor might have a magazine that is over-length because they are consistently getting what appear to be too many rounds out of a magazine. The RM can just grab the mag gauge and go check without forming the whole arbitration committee.

[XRe]

I, too, have just taken the skate board tape off my basepads (they weren't an issue when I handed a mag so dressed to Greg Lent at the '09 LPR Nats, but that's the past).

Correct me if I'm wrong... but isn't that the future...

ETA - I agree w/ rgkeller, though. Its always seemed a little silly to allow grip tape on the grip, but not elsewhere - especially, say, under the trigger guard. However, I suppose that the rules don't always have to follow some sort of strict logic, as long as they're clear and applied evenly...

Edited March 19, 2009 by XRe

[XRe]

At World Shoot a few years ago an appeal was filed based upon the configuration of a competitors equipment (Adam Tyc's pistol appeared to have had the trigger guard ground down; it was determined to be normal wear) as a 3rd party arbitration.

You're going to bring that up as an example of how to introduce a "challenge"??? Oh man...

I agree, though, that the mechanism to dispute someone's equipment is clearly covered in the NROI Interpretation document - you do so under the 11.x rules, which require an arbitration (and a commensurate fee - so these disputes will not occur lightly).

[Nik Habicht]

The 03/09 general interpretation states that "If a modification is disputed - either by a Match Official or a competitor, under 11.1.2 or 11.7 - the competitor may be required to provide evidence of a specific clause in the rules or published NROI rulings which specifically authorizes the modification." Furthermore the new interpretation states that the competitor will be responsible for disassembling the gun to prove that the equipment is compliant with the rules and that if they can not or will not, then they are moved to open. Imagine that you can be moved to open for not knowing how to detail strip your weapon and reassemble it during a match! Plus now you have to make sure you have a complete set of tools on you since that requirement can be asked "at any time".

How does one competitor challenge another by arbitration? Isn't arbitration an act that requires a ruling to have been made already? How does one arbitrate on the challenge? Wouldn't the other competitor still be allowed to challenge without penalty and force the issue of the shooter proving compliance. If the challenger or the competitor disagrees with the ruling made by the official as to whether or not the competitor has proven compliance then it would seem that appeals and arbitration would come into play. Am I misunderstanding this rule?

IIRC, you've always been able to file an arbitration to challenge another's equipment --- at least I can think of a well-known incident from the World Shoot in 2005. (I know -- that was IPSC, but I'm pretty sure that the bulk of the arbitration rules/procedures predate the split....) Think of it this way --- the competitor and his gun are entered in PD --- that alone is a decision (selection of division of competition) that is subject to challenge by arbitration. Need more? The shooter and gun passed through chrono -- another decision...

Field stripping is certainly likely in those situations --- "See, no holes, my FPB is in place..." --- detail stripping probably not so much. No arb committee is going to want to tear the gun down any more than necessary to either uphold or refute the detailed claim in the arb filing. The claim in the arb filing will need to be specific (I know Nik's gun is illegal, I don't know how, but I'm sure if you strip it down you'll find something --- that'll get laughed out of any arb hearing anywhere. Heck, if I'm the RM, I'd be trying to talk the competitor into either amending or withdrawing the arb) or it'll get tossed. Where are people going to get info that is specific enough to warrant a complete teardown?

[00bullitt]

Kevin...I wish you luck in your endeavor to get the ruling to allow the removal of FPB's. The BOD tried hard to maintain that what has been done and once been allowed was going to be hard to reverse and pretty much everything had held true to that except the allowance of removing internal FPBs. Now they are enforcing all safeties be intact with the exception of the magazine disconnect safety. Which I tend to agree with. The magazine disconnect as no inherent affect on the overall safety of the gun. It actually creates a more dangerous situation on the ULASC command when guns have those. I honestly think you and Stuart have valid points for the CZ FPB. I just hope you guys can convince the comittee and BOD. Good Luck Dudes!!!

[Morphire]

It still seems wrong that the production division uses a different set of compliance rules than other divisions. Limited doesn't specifically state that the beavertail safety may be pinned and therefore disabled, and yet it's done regularly. Can someone challenge a shooter to prove where that is legal by the Limited division rules?

The rules for limited/open/l-10 only say primary safety device(i.e. thumb safety, rule 8.1.2.4) must be operable. It appears the BOD are saying for production ALL safeties must remain intact even though the it contradicts the externally visiable wording.

My CZ SP-01 is a DA/SA pistol so it's a "Selective Action" and is covered under 8.1.2.3 which is referenced by 8.1.2.4. This rule seems to differ from the Production rules now being put forth since 8.1.2.4 through calling 8.1.2.3 says that the "safety" is the "primary visible safety lever on the handgun". Which, according to 8.1.2.3, doesn't have to be engaged if I start from "chamber loaded and hammer fully down". Which happens to be the standard start position for that gun in Production Division anyway.

I guess I don't understand what your question is? But straight from question #3 of the production FAQ on uspsa site.

3) My Production Division gun came from the factory with a firing pin block or a trigger safety. It affects the trigger pull and I would like to disable or remove them to get a smoother or lighter trigger. Is that allowed? You probably won’t be able to tell that I have done it without disassembling my gun anyway.

ANSWER: NO. Per Appendix D4 item 22, disabling any external safety mechanism is specifically prohibited. In addition, USPSA has taken the position that ALL factory safety mechanisms must remain operable and functional on USPSA Production Division guns. As a result, disabling ANY safety mechanism on a USPSA Production Division gun is PROHIBITED. Per section 22.2 of the 2009 interpretation, a magazine-disconnect is not considered a “safety mechanism” and may be removed.

Note that it is the competitor’s responsibility to ensure that his/her equipment is in compliance with the rules. A competitor may, at any time, be required to demonstrate that all factory safety mechanisms are operable and functional on their USPSA Production Division gun.

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?

[Morphire]

The 03/09 general interpretation states that "If a modification is disputed - either by a Match Official or a competitor, under 11.1.2 or 11.7 - the competitor may be required to provide evidence of a specific clause in the rules or published NROI rulings which specifically authorizes the modification." Furthermore the new interpretation states that the competitor will be responsible for disassembling the gun to prove that the equipment is compliant with the rules and that if they can not or will not, then they are moved to open. Imagine that you can be moved to open for not knowing how to detail strip your weapon and reassemble it during a match! Plus now you have to make sure you have a complete set of tools on you since that requirement can be asked "at any time".

How does one competitor challenge another by arbitration? Isn't arbitration an act that requires a ruling to have been made already? How does one arbitrate on the challenge? Wouldn't the other competitor still be allowed to challenge without penalty and force the issue of the shooter proving compliance. If the challenger or the competitor disagrees with the ruling made by the official as to whether or not the competitor has proven compliance then it would seem that appeals and arbitration would come into play. Am I misunderstanding this rule?

IIRC, you've always been able to file an arbitration to challenge another's equipment --- at least I can think of a well-known incident from the World Shoot in 2005. (I know -- that was IPSC, but I'm pretty sure that the bulk of the arbitration rules/procedures predate the split....) Think of it this way --- the competitor and his gun are entered in PD --- that alone is a decision (selection of division of competition) that is subject to challenge by arbitration. Need more? The shooter and gun passed through chrono -- another decision...

Field stripping is certainly likely in those situations --- "See, no holes, my FPB is in place..." --- detail stripping probably not so much. No arb committee is going to want to tear the gun down any more than necessary to either uphold or refute the detailed claim in the arb filing. The claim in the arb filing will need to be specific (I know Nik's gun is illegal, I don't know how, but I'm sure if you strip it down you'll find something --- that'll get laughed out of any arb hearing anywhere. Heck, if I'm the RM, I'd be trying to talk the competitor into either amending or withdrawing the arb) or it'll get tossed. Where are people going to get info that is specific enough to warrant a complete teardown?

Thank you Nik and xRE! Excellent arguments and a good education on what's gone on before. Precedent offers a lot of insight into how the rules are going to be interpreted so that is very reassuring. To challenge a competitors equipment will require an arbitration through 11.x and that is a time tried and tested methodology. One answer down and many more to go.

I'm sure a lot of my questions are showing my lack of experience in these situations but I'm hoping these answers help the others that are in my situation too. Thank you!

[XRe]

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?

I understand your concerns about the change in rules around safeties, and I understand the consternation over the differences in the "SP-01" and the "SP-01 Shadow". Its seemingly illogical, given that you can basically, legally turn an SP-01 into an SP-01 Shadow, minus the removal of the FPB (if I'm recalling all the rules correctly). However, comparing this to a magazine safety (and the "active"/"passive" wording) is a little apples and oranges. The magazine safety is really an annoyance, rather than a real safety mechanism, in the context of competition shooting. It has usefulness as a safety in an LEO context, of course, but its pretty worthless in a competition setting. The FPB, though, theoretically can prevent a dropped gun from going off - that scenario is certainly possible (although you won't find many folks that willing run an FPB in any other division, regardless of whatever added safety margin it might provide).

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...

[Nik Habicht]

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....