Production review

[Morphire]

Guns produced without the FPB, don't need them. Guns produced with them do need them.

This actually falls into two different areas. First of all information was provided that if parts get worn, or are improperly fit at the beginning, the firing pin can possibly impact the primer without the FPB. Second this puts USPSA in a difficult position to allow a part to be removed that's single purpose is to prevent the firing pin from impacting the primer.

Now one could ask why does CZ produce guns with them and without them, or why does Smith and Wesson produce guns with magazine disconnects and without them, those are questions the manufacturers will have to answer if needed.

The more important question might be why do some manufacturer's produce the same gun with and without the FPB? SP-01 and SP-01 Shadow is an example. That woudl seem to invalidate your first sentence.

Your second sentence is confused by the fact that the 3/09 interpretation does that very thing as far as I can tell. A magazine safety, when engaged, prevents the firing pin from impacting the primer. So why is it expressly allowed to be removed if that puts USPSA in a difficult position as you suggest?

Does the manufacturer need to answer those questions? USPSA is the one that rules whether or not a gun is on the approved list. Not every gun makes it to the approved list for one reason or another if my understanding is correct.

[Morphire]

Where's that popcorn emoticon?

I am just glad USPSA sees a magazine disconect for what it really is: a feature. NOT A SAFETY!!!

Dan you did the trigger job on one of my M&P's. I say that to show that my intent is not to needlessly argue or personally attack you. I've trusted you enough to shoot a gun that you've worked on.

But if both of us were to stand shoulder to shoulder, you with a bone stock M&P 9mm with a mag safety and me with a bone stock CZ SP-01, both LAMR and then drop the magazine, point our guns down range and then pull the trigger... which one would go bang?

So which one has the "safety" and which one has the "feature"?

[Morphire]

Of course most S&W smiths probably can't read, so.... :roflol:

Hey now that just wasn't very nice

S&W has let some M&Ps out of the factory without the laser etching on the slide. Plus how are you going to tell if someone has their gun refinished, any bead blasting completly removes the etch.

According to the FAQ, you'd have to provide proof that your gun came from the manufacturer, in it's original condition, without the safety. The burden of proof is on you to prove your gun is in compliance.

[XRe]

This question, at least, JA has (unofficially) addressed

Keep in mind that any "unofficial" JA judgements by email or phone call are rendered null and void by this rule update, if its approved, so...

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...

Is there a distinguishing mark on the frame on an SP-01 or Shadow that designate them as normal or Shadow? I believe its only marked on the slide? So... good luck proving which one it was originally...

[Morphire]

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.

Yes but here is part of the problem. If you don't know how to demonstrate it, then you're in Open. Putting the onus on the gun owner means that the shooter must be a smith. Again no other division has this requirement!

======================

n While the rules are currently silent on a Match Official’s authority to disassemble a competitor’s equipment, a competitor may – at any time – be required to prove that the equipment is compliant with the equipment rules, up to and including the disassembly of their equipment to verify compliance and proper function (e.g., the proper operation of factory safety mechanisms).

n A competitor who cannot demonstrate that his/her equipment is compliant with these provisions will be moved to Open Division, under 6.2.5.1

======================

[Morphire]

...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...

But could someone take a CZ SP-01 Shadow (a PD approved gun without a FPB) and put it on an SP-01 using the OEM parts swap rulings and effectively do the same thing? They are both SP-01 pistols but the slide on the Shadow doesn't have the ability to even install a FPB. Again it's breeding more inconsistencies and loopholes.

[XRe]

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!)

Its division, not class

I would modify your definition slightly - "...keeps the gun from firing unexpectedly...". There is a strong argument that, in a "real world" setting, a magazine "safety" is nothing of the sort, as you cannot purposefully discharge the weapon while in the process of reloading. This makes it an "unsafety" in certain circumstances. "Magazine disconnect" is actually a commonly used, and seemingly maybe a little more correct term for the device (in as much as its relatively neutral on whether the thing is "good" or not).

I don't disagree with your argument, fundamentally, but I feel there's a bigger difference between the two than you're letting on. The comparison still doesn't work for me. However, to me, removing the FPB isn't a big deal (I agree with you completely on this).

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. Those that didn't come with one are laser engraved on the side of the slide with the following "Caution: Capable of firing with magazine removed".

My understanding from threads on this forum are that not every gun with that engraving actually shipped w/ a magazine disconnect. So, assuming that the folks who posted here are correct, its pretty ambiguous...

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.

I would think presence of the parts should be proof enough? (though that doesn't prove the parts aren't broken, it at least proves that they're installed, etc...) Removing the slide should be plenty to prove that?

Guns produced without the FPB, don't need them. Guns produced with them do need them.

The more important question might be why do some manufacturer's produce the same gun with and without the FPB? SP-01 and SP-01 Shadow is an example. That woudl seem to invalidate your first sentence.

He's got you there, Gary

I'm tellin' you Kevin, stick w/ the straight argument, and don't get bogged down w/ trying to make an apple equal an orange

[Morphire]

Its division, not class

This is karma for all those times I've corrected others in calling it a class and not a Division. LOL *touché*

I would modify your definition slightly - "...keeps the gun from firing unexpectedly...". There is a strong argument that, in a "real world" setting, a magazine "safety" is nothing of the sort, as you cannot purposefully discharge the weapon while in the process of reloading. This makes it an "unsafety" in certain circumstances. "Magazine disconnect" is actually a commonly used, and seemingly maybe a little more correct term for the device (in as much as its relatively neutral on whether the thing is "good" or not).

I don't disagree with your argument, fundamentally, but I feel there's a bigger difference between the two than you're letting on. The comparison still doesn't work for me. However, to me, removing the FPB isn't a big deal (I agree with you completely on this).

I've always felt the big issue is will the gun go bang with the safety engaged. A working mag safety engaged gun will not go bang. That seems pretty black and white to me so it still seems a safety. S&W thinks it is and sells it as such. We aren't in the real world as this is a game and competition so although I see your point, it's kind of spurious to our situation I think.

My understanding from threads on this forum are that not every gun with that engraving actually shipped w/ a magazine disconnect. So, assuming that the folks who posted here are correct, its pretty ambiguous...

Then according to the FAQ you'd have to prove it through documentation proving that your serial numbered pistol was built by Smith & Wesson without the mag safety.

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.

I would think presence of the parts should be proof enough? (though that doesn't prove the parts aren't broken, it at least proves that they're installed, etc...) Removing the slide should be plenty to prove that?

The new interpretation is pretty clear. You have to prove that the safeties work. Not that they are just there.

22 3/09 INTERPRETATION: Removing or disabling firing-pin blocks or any other factory safety mechanism in Production division is specifically prohibited.

[ciscoip]

Probably because I can't find anybody who would be named in the lawsuit that is willing to put up everything they have or everything they ever will have so that someone can have a half pound better trigger pull.

If I recall correctly, USPSA is incorporated, so while USPSA might have liability, the individual board members wouldn't. Even then, I doubt it would even be an issue unless USPSA is assuming the risk of creating rules to regulate safe gun design and function, instead of leaving that responsibility up to the competitor. It looks like USPSA is doing this now, by putting specific conditions on what safeties need to work and don't need to work in Production Division.

Now if you're going to do that in Production Division, but not have the same requirement in any of the other divisions, it would seem USPSA would just be BEGGING for a lawsuit if someone in Open/Limited/L-10/Single Stack with a disabled firing pin block safety or grip safety drops a gun or has an AD and someone is injured. After all, USPSA would be admitting it recognized the danger by instituting the rule in Production Division, but negligent by not instituting the same rule in its other Divisions.

Seems to me, the best way for USPSA to avoid a potential lawsuit is to:

A. Insert the language requiring all factory safeties to work in the rules for every division (which will piss a lot of people off); or

B. Remove the language in the Production Division rules requiring all safeties to be functional and just say something to the effect of, "each competitor is responsible for ensuring their firearm is safe to shoot in USPSA competitions." This places the onus on the competitor, instead of having USPSA appear to assume responsibility for ensuring a competitor's gun is safe.

[ciscoip]

This question, at least, JA has (unofficially) addressed

Keep in mind that any "unofficial" JA judgements by email or phone call are rendered null and void by this rule update, if its approved, so...

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...

Is there a distinguishing mark on the frame on an SP-01 or Shadow that designate them as normal or Shadow? I believe its only marked on the slide? So... good luck proving which one it was originally...

No, no, no, you're looking at it the wrong way! It's not an SP-01 with a replacement Shadow slide (illegal), but rather, a Shadow with a replacement SP-01 frame (legal)!

[Gary Stevens]

Hey Dave, maybe I am just public educated, but I don't feel "got".

My point is if gun company XYZ makes two basically identical guns, one with and one without some form of safety, they "they" get to explain why they did so.

If USPSA says "Sure go ahead and remove that FPB, it is fine with us, then Joe Threetoes shoots himself, his lawyer points the cannon at USPSA and says "They" said it was OK and now look at poor old Threetoes.

As to the incorporation issue, I don't want to take the chance. Because I am an officer and actually voted on the rules, I and others make very good targets, and I'm not speaking of No Shoots either.

[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.....

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

Yes but here is part of the problem. If you don't know how to demonstrate it, then you're in Open. Putting the onus on the gun owner means that the shooter must be a smith. Again no other division has this requirement!

======================

n While the rules are currently silent on a Match Official’s authority to disassemble a competitor’s equipment, a competitor may – at any time – be required to prove that the equipment is compliant with the equipment rules, up to and including the disassembly of their equipment to verify compliance and proper function (e.g., the proper operation of factory safety mechanisms).

n A competitor who cannot demonstrate that his/her equipment is compliant with these provisions will be moved to Open Division, under 6.2.5.1

======================

Well, no other division disallows SA guns. No other division scores everything minor, regardless of caliber or power factor. Divisions have different rules --- trying to bring other divisions into the argument doesn't really fly. We're talking production rules here --- again streamline your argument to support the end you'd like to achieve....

[North]

Probably because I can't find anybody who would be named in the lawsuit that is willing to put up everything they have or everything they ever will have so that someone can have a half pound better trigger pull.

If I recall correctly, USPSA is incorporated, so while USPSA might have liability, the individual board members wouldn't. Even then, I doubt it would even be an issue unless USPSA is assuming the risk of creating rules to regulate safe gun design and function, instead of leaving that responsibility up to the competitor. It looks like USPSA is doing this now, by putting specific conditions on what safeties need to work and don't need to work in Production Division.

Now if you're going to do that in Production Division, but not have the same requirement in any of the other divisions, it would seem USPSA would just be BEGGING for a lawsuit if someone in Open/Limited/L-10/Single Stack with a disabled firing pin block safety or grip safety drops a gun or has an AD and someone is injured. After all, USPSA would be admitting it recognized the danger by instituting the rule in Production Division, but negligent by not instituting the same rule in its other Divisions.

Seems to me, the best way for USPSA to avoid a potential lawsuit is to:

A. Insert the language requiring all factory safeties to work in the rules for every division (which will piss a lot of people off); or

B. Remove the language in the Production Division rules requiring all safeties to be functional and just say something to the effect of, "each competitor is responsible for ensuring their firearm is safe to shoot in USPSA competitions." This places the onus on the competitor, instead of having USPSA appear to assume responsibility for ensuring a competitor's gun is safe.

This is how I see this issue. How can it be a safety issue only in one division?

[EricBudd]

Again, the question is if this is a safety issue (in which case all divisions should be changed immediately), or is it something else?

Eric

[JakeMartens]

Again, the question is if this is a safety issue (in which case all divisions should be changed immediately), or is it something else?

Eric

I would bet it is something else, it would be addressing something that would really uh.... get the membership all up in "arms".

Let's face it, no there is no difference in a 1911 style gun with the series 80 parts removed, and the grip safety pinned. However the rules are written for Production and they specifically address this, where as it is not specifically addressed for other divisions.

Personally I would let it lie, do we really want a ruling on this for other divisions, or just leave well enough alone. The firing pin block issue is really only affecting the CZ 75. So shooters of this can either switch to the CZ 85, the Shadow or put the firing pin block back in. Putting the block back in will not really affect the overall pull of the trigger, the block is moved during the prep of the trigger and if set up correctly you won't notice.

[Fireant]

That's not really the point. They are saying you are allowed to remove an internal safety in one gun and not allowed to on another and claiming it is for safety. If it is truely for safety then all divisions should be safe. Why make a shooter have to switch guns?

[JakeMartens]

That's not really the point. They are saying you are allowed to remove an internal safety in one gun and not allowed to on another and claiming it is for safety. If it is truely for safety then all divisions should be safe. Why make a shooter have to switch guns?

No they are saying that in one division you cannot remove the internal safety, however in the others it is still legal.

I do not disagree that saying in 1 division this is because of a safety, but it is not in the others.

Under your arguement you would like for them to rule that all internal and external safeties in all divisions must function as to the design of the manufacturers original specs.

So you would like for, I am guessing, but say 75% of the current USPSA shooters to have to make changes to or replace existing firearms?

Or would you rather leave it only effecting a small handful of shooters?

Or would you like to have them change the wording to "in Production this is the rule because of safety, however in the other divisions we don't care about safety?" Like wouldn't look to good.

It is impossible to make everyone happy, especially when it comes to rules. But it is what it is, for now, why not live with it?

[LPatterson]

This is getting really boring with some people trying to force their interpretation on every one. If you don't like the way the BOD wrote the rules then get your name on the ballot for area director so you can be privy to all the discussion about rule changes.

Have those that want the mag safety considered the concept that the change was allowed so that those shooters would not needed an empty magazine for "if clear hammer down holster".

There is a comment period but in the end the BOD is going to vote on what it decides is best for USPSA not how many times a single person post an arguement that they won't budge from.

[additional comments removed before the moderators remove my whole post]

[Nik Habicht]

Probably because I can't find anybody who would be named in the lawsuit that is willing to put up everything they have or everything they ever will have so that someone can have a half pound better trigger pull.

If I recall correctly, USPSA is incorporated, so while USPSA might have liability, the individual board members wouldn't.

This is how I see this issue. How can it be a safety issue only in one division?

Again, the question is if this is a safety issue (in which case all divisions should be changed immediately), or is it something else?

Eric

I think Gary's explained it pretty well: They were dealing with a single division, and enough area directors were uncomfortable with voting for a rule that permitted removing a working safety on a gun, that we got the language we did.....

There's no conspiracy there.

As to the other divisions --- the rulebook is silent on the legality of pinning grip safeties or removing firing pin blocks. If an RO believes that pinning a grip safety or removing a FPB is unsafe on a gun in other divisions, he is free to exercise his discretionary authority under Rule 5.1.6......

There is no necessary rule change --- unless you can point out rulebook language that specifically allows for the removal/deactivation of a safety in any division.....

[North]

Nik,

Great explanation, Thanks I needed that.

Edited March 21, 2009 by North

[Nik Habicht]

Nik,

Great explanation, Thanks I needed that.

You're welcome. George Jones knows that sometimes I need to be hit over the head with an explanation repeatedly, before it sinks in....

[Behr]

My frustration after reading the "Frequently Asked Questions for the Production Division Equipment Rules (Appendix D4)" is that this should have been done waaay sooner or left as is. Now I have to re-tool my equipment that in the end will not change my performance or the pistols, nor delete any "edge" over my competitors. It will only cost me more time and money to get "same as it ever was".

If no safeties are to be removed or disabled I am ok with that...S&W calls it a mag safety, to me, nuff said. Redefining something that the manufacturer has defined is problematic to me. Are we making this exception because we don't like this feature or that it comes in different configurations (with and without said safety)?

Well so does the CZ SP-01 in regards to the FPB. The only difference is that CZ added a "Shadow" stamp to a particular configuration of the SP-01 platform. S&W, arguably, did not add or remove a stamp (or at least not 100% correctly as I understand) to tell the difference on mag safety installation. The frustrating part to me is that all of the models I am talking about are specifically on the approved list, so what are we trying to fix here? I guess i am not sure. If you are allowing the modification because it comes from the factory in the modified configuration, then be consistant.

[eerw]

just information for all doing the comparison between Smith and CZ.

Smith did the M&P with both the mag disconnect in and without..both called the M&P and both OKed for Production under the same name.

CZ produced an SP01, SP01 Tactical and an SP01 Shadow..all three are different..one manual safety with FPB, one decocker with FPB, one manual safety with no provision for FPB..all three had to be OKed seperately by USPSA for production.

so by definition..the SP01 Shadow is not just an SP01 without a FPB..while the M&P 9mm was OKed all under the same banner.

[SA Friday]

The difference between a mag disconnect and a FPS is one directly affects the trigger pull feel and weight and the other one is not. The Trigger mechanisim is a KEY issue for Production division. It's defined what is acceptable and what is not acceptable types of trigger mechanisms in this division. Nobody gives a crap (and neither do the rules) as to what trigger mechanism is used in Limited.

This is the difference.

[ciscoip]

Hey Dave, maybe I am just public educated, but I don't feel "got".

My point is if gun company XYZ makes two basically identical guns, one with and one without some form of safety, they "they" get to explain why they did so.

If USPSA says "Sure go ahead and remove that FPB, it is fine with us, then Joe Threetoes shoots himself, his lawyer points the cannon at USPSA and says "They" said it was OK and now look at poor old Threetoes.

As to the incorporation issue, I don't want to take the chance. Because I am an officer and actually voted on the rules, I and others make very good targets, and I'm not speaking of No Shoots either.

Gary, you're looking at this the wrong way. USPSA shouldn't say, "go ahead and remove the FPB" nor should it say, "remove the FPB, but only in Production Division." Rather, USPSA should remain silent on specifics and only say, "competitors are responsible for ensuring their firearms are safe for competition."

If you make a more definite statement, then USPSA is, in effect, stating that it is the arbiter of what is and isn't safe and therefore, should be held liable for errors in such decisions . . . and I *guarantee* you it's not going to look good for USPSA to be picking and choosing which safeties can be disabled and which divisions you can disable safeties in.

This whole idea of prohibiting the disabling of safeties, but only in Production Division, does not reduce USPSA's exposure to potential liability, it kicks the door wide open!

Edited March 21, 2009 by ciscoip