Production Sights

[spook]

Hi everyone, I've started this thread as a follow up to this thread...

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8877

...discussing the IPSC (not USPSA) Production Division rules concerning sights.

I tried to make my own set of rules dealing with sights in production class. My criticism of the current rules are:

1) they're not clear to the general public. PD allows sights that are offered by the factory. Companies such as Glock started offering their guns to certain law enforcement agencies or deparments thereof, with pre-installed aftermarket sights. It is very difficult to know all the gun/sight combinations that are offered (or even worse, were once offered) by all the different gun manufacturers.

2) as a result of this, it is also practically impossible to maintain the rules. RO's cannot be asked to know every sight/gun combination.

3) the final result of this all is that the unclear appliance of the rules will result in people competing with "unfair differences" in the same division. And since production division is supposed to be the one division in which people can be competitive with "simple gear", these differences are not acceptable (IMHO )

Also, there is the possibility that people will be kicked into open division, because they installed sights they thought were PD-legal, but in fact aren't.

Now for the special all new "Spook rules", concerning sights in production division (in blue) Let me know whatcha think

Aftermarket sights are allowed as long as their installation requires no alteration to the slide/frame

Specifically allowed are the following sights:

1) Notch and post sights (these include trapezoid and V-notch sights)

2) Tritium sights, or dot sights (various bar/dot etc. patterns allowed)

3) Adjustable sights

Specifically prohibited are the following sights:

1) Electronic or optical sights

2) Ghost ring sights

3) Fiber Optic sights

OK, I'll elaborate on the whys and hows:

I wanted to make a list with types of sights offered. This list is supposed to be a complete list of all types of sights that exist and can be installed on handguns. These sights go in the allowed or prohibited lists. This way, one can immediately see, by looking at the written rules, which sight is allowed/prohibited. If some company designs something new, it'll go in one of the two lists.

I put Fiber Optics on the prohibited list, but I might as wel have put them on the allowed list. I thought this would be more within the spirit of production, but basically it doesn't matter in which list they go.

Clear rules, I think.

Now for some disclaimers:

1) IPSC, not USPSA

2) The list is probably not complete. There must me more types of sights out there. Please feel free to add other types to the rules. They'll simply go in the allowed or the prohibited list.

[Vince Pinto]

Spook,

Well done - it's a great start, and I'll try to keep my mouth shut until a few other guys have responded (anybody seen my medication?).

BTW, I already deleted your duplicate thread.

PARTY ON!

[spook]

Vince, thanks.

I'll try to keep my mouth shut until a few other guys have responded (anybody seen my medication?).

Or...you could have that tempting double espresso and speak up

[Garfield]

Nice initiative Spook,

here's my proposal (and I mean this seriously, not wanting to tick anybody off) :

"Only the sights that are fitted on the gun by the manufacturer are allowed."

Or something to that effect. Time fails me to write it down more thoughtful, but I really want PD to be a divsion where NO/as little as possible modifications are allowed. I think that there are plenty other divsions for those people that like to modify their weapons.

[spook]

Arvid, the problem with the kind of rule that you propose is exactly what I wrote down in the first post of the thread. There are so many sights/gun combinations out there... A rule like that is too "open". It all depends on the factory that way.

What if glock starts manufacturing G17's with the sight of your choice (for extra $$$) just for for production shooters? Also a very plausible scenario. They've already made the G35 and G34 for IPSC/USPSA shooters. That's another problem with the current rules. It leaves a lot of room for "factory cheating". I know H&K for instance, will do some work on their guns if you ask them. And if it leaves the factory like that, it's allowed.

Glock manufactures G17s with maybe a dozen different sight combos. And when they stop with one type of sight on the G17, do you disallow it? And when they produce guns with Fiber Optics (or 50 types and brands of other sights), do you allow them? And when they produce G22s with a pair of Heinie sights, but G17s with only stock sights, do you allow G17s with Heinie sights?

Rules like the current ones are not clear, and therefore cause trouble. It might look like the rules I propose allow more modifications, but in fact, they are more limiting to shooters than the current rules:

No fiber optics, only post and notch (basically).

Besides, you can restrict the rules as much as you like when they're clear. Unclear rules are hard to restrict (and to apply). It is easier to shoot a gun with Hi-Tech Fiber Optics with the current rules, than with the rules I drafted. And under the current rules, I can still outfit my G17 with Bo-Mar adjustables, Heinie sights, Novaks, LPA sight etc.

The rules I wrote down will limit the "growth" of sight options, and clearly defines what is allowed and what is not.

I understand your urge to keep it as basic as possible, and that is exactly what I'm trying to accomplish.

[BerettaRacer]

Spook

I basically like your proposal, although I do like my fiber optic front.

Garfield

A person needs to be able to make some sight adjustments for various ammo POA/POI.

The Novaks on my Beretta EII are fine for sight picture but shoot so low for me I couldn't compete with them, and Novak doesn't make the correct height replacement, so I have to tweak them just to shoot.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

There's a solution which is deceptively simple.

All we have to do is ......... <gurgle> <gurgle> sorry, gotta go - my industrial strength espresso is ready.

Later

[David Olhasso]

Interesting views that many have on sights and other modifications in production. A division that I believe was intended to be a "bring what you got" division has been messed up by those that must make restrictive rules that they think "level the playing field".

The bottom line is that many of the rules concerning production division are BS.

1) Any combat capable type sight should be allowed.

All of my carry/defense guns have trijicon sights on them. If the gun doesn't come with trijicons, I put them on. Other people prefer fiber optic. Still others prefer plain black target. And some may even want an adjustable sight.

Since a sight is typically an off the shelf item and can usually be installed by the shooter themself, why would any sight replacement not be legal in production? Why are my completely practical carry guns, with completely practical sights, potentially not legal because they might not come from the factory they way I set them up. Again, just stupid rules.

2) De-horn/carry bevel jobs should be allowed.

So my Sig 229 with a bobbed hammer and carry bevel job is not legal in production? Why do some consider my completely practical modifications to my 229 an unfair advantage in production? Give me a break.

3) Any grip replacement should be allowed.

It is amazing that I cannot recontour a glock grip, nor on a metal gun replace the factory plastic grips with wood ones, but I can put all the skateboard tape I want on the slide, frame, and grip of a production gun. Skateboard tape is NOT practical for a duty type gun, but replacing the factory grips is!!

And the idea that "if the factory sells the part" then it is OK to use is stupid. Just because one factory decides to sell a 3rd party hogue grip while another doesn't shouldn't make it legal for one and not the other!

4) The XD is not a production gun? Give me a break. I know it is technically a single action, but based on the other guns allowed in the division, how can the XD not be allowed? Hmm... Maybe the way the rule is written is the problem and not the XD?

just my opinions. I'm sure plenty of people will tell my why I am wrong.

[Vince Pinto]

David,

1. a "bring what you got" division has been messed up by those that must make restrictive rules that they think "level the playing field".

2. The bottom line is that many of the rules concerning production division are BS.

3. Again, just stupid rules.

4. And the idea that "if the factory sells the part" then it is OK to use is stupid.

5. Maybe the way the rule is written is the problem and not the XD?

If you'd like to launch a barrage of offensive and insulting remarks against the IPSC Rules Committee, take it somewhere else such as the IPSC Digest or other forums where such activities thrive. You could also try the Hate Forum here.

In this forum, we prefer to debate and discuss rules without attacking people who devoted thousands of hours working on them.

[Flexmoney]

spook,

Very well done.

And, your option to put the fiber optics back in play is a good one. There are some shooters that want/need the fiber optic (old eyes?). Without it, they feel as if they can't be competitive...thus, they would be forced out of the division.

_______

Fear of lawyers and cheap manufacturing practices (heavy triggers and plastic sights) should not drive the rules we compete with.

[David Olhasso]

Vince,

I thought I was presenting my opinion about the production rules. I don't recall insulting you or anyone else who worked on the rules other than to say that the division has been "messed up" by those that must make restrictive rules.....

Although I strongly believe in production division, I happen to believe that it is flawed. If my opinions on the rules are seen as a "barrage of offensive and insulting remarks", then I appologize. It is not my intention to insult anyone but to merely point out the rules in production division that I feel are bad.

Let me clarify:

I believe that any practical sight should be allowed.

I believe that not allowing the XD is not productive to the sport.

I believe that the rule disallowing the XD should be changed.

I believe that forcing a shooter to use the gun in a given way is stupid. If a DA/SA shooter wants to cock the hammer for the first shot, then who cares? The gun is still a DA/SA type gun. I believe the rules should allow/disallow a given gun and not specify how the shooter must use that gun.

I believe that making a part legal just because the factory sells it is stupid.

[Vince Pinto]

David,

Thank you for your apology. I have absolutely no problem with dissent, but I'm sensitive to remarks which appear, intentionally or otherwise, to lambast my colleagues who tirelessly and selflessly devoted thousands of hours of their time (and money) to try and create a better set of rules.

Diplomacy 101:

1. I don't agree with banning widgets (Good - it expresses your opinion of the rule, not the people who made the decision).

2. Banning widgets is stupid (Bad - it implies that the people who banned them are stupid).

Next week we'll do Geology 101.

Anyway, moving on, I agree that we could've done a better job in respect of further simplifying the IPSC Production Division "sight" rules but, if you had been part of the rules committee and received the same 5,000 emails the rest of us received over a 9 month period, you would understand how it's possible to overlook some things. In fact, the next rulebook hasn't even been printed yet but I've already got a list of 12 necessary and important improvements for next year.

One of these is my solution to the PD "sight" rules. Given that the next rulebook has the following definition:

5.1.3.1 "Open sights" are aiming devices which do not use electronic circuitry and/or lenses.

-:the easiest, clearest and simplest solution for the PD "sight" rules is "All types of Open Sights are permitted, provided no alterations are made to the handgun in order to fit them". This would include fixed, adjustable, night, ghost ring, fibre optic, square notch, V notch and whatever the hell is invented next, provided they comply with the definition.

Badabing.

Springfield XD: eventhough it may look, feel and shoot like a Glock, under the IPSC definition it's a single-action pistol, so it cannot be approved for IPSC Production Division. However it's not just IPSC who has ruled this way - the original manufacturer (HS Produkt in Croatia) describes the gun as single-action, as does IDPA and the ATF. However, being a sporting chap, I sent three emails to Springfield to ask them to comment, but they didn't reply. Mike Voigt then asked Rob Leatham to chase Springfield for a reply, but there was still nada.

Bottom line - the PD rules prohibit SAO pistols (they do not say "all striker fired pistols acceptable"), so we simply cannot make an exception.

Cocking the hammer: like every other rule, it could've gone one way or the other, a decision had to be made, and we made it. Sorry if you don't agree, but we don't always get everything we want (I fought tooth & nail against the 5lb trigger weight in favour of 3lbs but, when the vote was taken, I was the sole dissenting vote. I accepted the verdict and moved on).

Aftermarket bits: the essence of PD is not allowing the operation of a gun to be affected. There are three other divisions where you can modify your gun to your heart's content, and we just didn't want yet another "arms race" division. Judging by the incredible growth of PD worldwide, I think we done good.

[spook]

Flex, thanks.

And, your option to put the fiber optics back in play is a good one. There are some shooters that want/need the fiber optic (old eyes?). Without it, they feel as if they can't be competitive...thus, they would be forced out of the division

Good point.

Vince, I like the rule you made. I hope it makes it's way into the next rulebook.

[Bucky]

Thank you for your apology. I have absolutely no problem with dissent, but I'm sensitive to remarks which appear, intentionally or otherwise, to lambast my colleagues who tirelessly and selflessly devoted thousands of hours of their time (and money) to try and create a better set of rules.

Vince,

In the utmost sincerity I ask, don't you think you would have a better chance at perfecting the rules by tweaking and enhancing the existing set of rules rather than recreating them from the ground up every three years (or less)? It seems we tend to over look things in each revision that were covered previously. It is my opinion that we would have a lot less resentment, if we took this approach.

Two suggestions, and perhaps we should start a new thread.

1. After the next rule book, no more rewrites. Let just make adjustments to fix oversights or issues on perhaps a 2 year rotation.

2. Once we deam something legal for a divsion, it should never be disallowed. This of course requires much more consideration before we sign off on allowing a mod.

Just a thought and my $.03 (I'm more generous than some )

-- Bucky.

[Vince Pinto]

Bucky,

Under Clause 13 of the IPSC Constitution, the rules may only be amended during a World Shoot year (i.e. every 3 years) unless there's firstly a two-thirds majority of delegates who vote to amend them in other years. The changes in recent years have easily achieved the requisite quorum and, at the last GA in Italy in August, the vote was unanimous in respect of the January 2004 Editions of the rules.

The 2004 rulebooks have seen the most dramatic changes since 1996, however the primary changes have been the clarification of rules which were interpreted differently around the world. There were also some additional rules created to document "common practice" and/or to make a statement on issues on which the rules were previously silent (e.g. Vendor areas). We also did some restucturing in order to make rule "lookups" more logical, and we also aligned the handgun, shotgun and rifle rules so that common rules had a common rule number. This was a huge but important task, in order to help ROs and compettors who shoot multiple disciplines.

We also created our first ever Tournament Rulebook.

The other thing is that many rule changes arise from comments or queries raised by competitors in forums such as this, and it would be remiss of us to ignore valid issues. The good news is that the 2004 rulebooks are unlikely to be changed dramatically in the next few years, but I have no doubt there will be a series of ongoing tweaks. For example, here's an issue which arose too late for 2004, but it's something which we will be discussing next year:

Proposed New 10.1.4 Procedural penalties cannot be nullified by further competitor action. For example, a competitor who fires a shot at a target while faulting a line will still incur the applicable penalty(ies) even though he subsequently shoots at the same target from within the fault line.

(No comments on the above proposal now, folks, because it's way too early, but I wanted to highlight another issue on which is there is currently no rule)

My personal "policy" with the rules is that we must make a statement on every known issue. In many cases, I really don't mind whether we say "widgets allowed" or "widgets prohibited", and I will happily accept the majority opinion, but it's imperative that we make a decision, one way or the other, to ensure consistent application of the rules across our 65 member regions.

And, while I don't think it's possible to have an iron-clad policy of "once approved, never rescinded", I cannot recall any equipment or division rules where widgets were allowed at one time, but where they were later prohibited. If you can give me examples, I'll happily comment.

[Garfield]

Hi guys,

@Spook: I see your point and I agree with you. In fact I realized it later on myself, but I am very busy at the moment so I tend to take shortcuts when writing my thoughts down, which is probably not a good thing thing to do in general. The way you wrote them down is indeed better.

My general point is that I do not like modifying guns. So I want to compete in an IPSC Division where as little modifications as possible are allowed. At the moment this is PD, and I hope that this will remain so.

Still a very interesting discussion !

[spook]

Arvid, yeah, it's great to have division in which you can shoot with a very basic gun and still win. Let's keep it that way.

[Bucky]

I cannot recall any equipment or division rules where widgets were allowed at one time, but where they were later prohibited. If you can give me examples, I'll happily comment

In the very early days or Limited, there was a lot of Bull Barrel allowed... not allowed, tungsten guide rods etc. Not sure if that was just USPSA or IPSC.

Also, let's not forget the Springfield XD. While not "in the rule book", this was on the list of approved guns and later taken off.

[Nemo]

Hola Gents,

IMHO, even though nowadays I mainly shoot in USPSA because I recently moved from another IPSC region to the US, the Fiber Optic fronts should not be an issue in PD. What the FO presents is just another dot, just like factory Glock fronts and Tritium inserted sights. I believe the brilliance of the dot does not give the shooter an advantage over the shooter that is used to any other kind of front sight available.

I would like to see the 5lb. trigger changed to maybe 3lb. As a shooter on a tight budget what I could afford to get my two sons (10 & 12) in the sport were two G17's. The 5lb trigger on their pistols is a bit too much for their little fingers and it could make them develop a tendency to "yank". Glock offers a factory 3.5lb connector that could be installed in all models and again in my opinion it doesn't by any means make a G17 or any other model a limited racegun... well maybe in the hands of Sevigny but that's another issue. I don't know much about other makers but I'd like to think that good, practical triggers in the 3 to 4 pound range could also be obtained in the Berettas and Sigs of the world and maybe be offered as factory options.

My $0.02

Cheers &...

[Vince Pinto]

Bucky,

If there were mid-stream changes to Limited Division you need to spank the USPSA, because IPSC had zero input.

Yes, the Springfield XD series (and the Croatian HS2000) were approved for IPSC Production Division for about 2 months, but approval was subsequently withdrawn. This error occurred because we believed what we were originally informed and we mistakenly used the Duck Theory (i.e. if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck).

However another major gun manufacturer (don't ask, don't tell) complained that the Springfield XD series were single-action. After considerable investigation by yours truly, we confirmed that the complaint was valid, so we had no choice but to react.

Doo-doo happens but, luckily, only two competitors worldwide have threatened to deprive me of my milk 'n' cookies.

[Skywalker]

I'd like to add a bit of fuel to the discussion, since the one below is a common problem here in Italy:

we have a well-known handgun manufacturer (and I mean a firearms firm) that will usually sell PD handguns in a lot of different formats and will (again) usually sell "customized" models of their handguns.

I'll make an example: the X-model of their PD handgun is reported on the catalogue with fixed sights (no FO sights). An adjustable rear sight is available, but it is quite crappy and doesn't require milling the slide. If you ask them, they'll mill the slide and install on it their version of the Bo-Mar sight, which is available on other guns in their catalog. Moreover, if you ask for it, they'll mill the slide to accept a FO front sight instead of the original one: the FO front sight is not offered even as an option on the catalog for that gun, but it is regularly installed on other models.

The sights problem is only an example of all the problems we face at each match with this manufacturer, but we had problems with manual safeties, magazines, and so on.

My question is: how can we deal with this elusive handgun maker, whose catalog is not reliable, and who will sell you a factory gun with the specs you gave them? How can I discern a legal PD model from an illegal one?

Certainly I cannot rely on a manufacturer certificate, neither can I pretend the gun is not PD compliant basing my assumption on the catalog (that, BTW, changes every 8/10 months).

I'll be glad for your help.

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

Yes, Massimo drives me nuts too

As frustrating as the huge number of variations may seem, and the challenges of maintaining an updated approved gun list, our basic criteria are the driving force behind IPSC Production Division. To recap:

1) We prohibit single-action-only guns.

2) We prohibit compensators, ported barrels, optical sights and barrels over 127mm (5 inches).

3) Our 5lb trigger weight effectively eliminates expensive trigger jobs.

4) Our holster position effectively reduces the advantages of "race" holsters.

5) We prohibit "+2" basepads and similar devices (e.g. "+1" followers).

6) We allow reasonable flexibility with sights (and I hope to make it even more flexible next year), because this does not affect the operation of the gun.

The concerns about manufacturers effectively offering customised guns are duly noted, but our final protection is the approved gun list. If we think a manufacturer is selling what is tantamount to a "prototype", we can decline approval. The approval process allows IPSC (not the manufacturer) to determine whether a particular model gun complies with the written rules and with the spirit of the division.

Yes, I realise that it might be difficult for frontline Range Officials to determine whether a competitor's Model X gun is the same Model X gun on the approved gun list but, as far as I can determine, such instances are the exception rather than the rule, and I just don't see an alarming trend.

The vast majority of Production Division competitors worldwide use guns from major mainstream manufacturers, and most of us are familiar with their offerings. Is it possible for some competitors to get around the rules? Sure, no question about it, but how much of an edge can they really create for themselves? I strongly believe that such "non-kosher" modifications have a far greater effect on the competitor's wallet than on his scores!

Anyway, unless and until it becomes a major issue, I really don't think we have a problem to fix.

[Skywalker]

Vince,

thanks for the clarification (much appreciated, since you show deep knowledge of our problem )

Yes, I realise that it might be difficult for frontline Range Officials to determine whether a competitor's Model X gun is the same Model X gun on the approved gun list but, as far as I can determine, such instances are the exception rather than the rule, and I just don't see an alarming trend.

Anyway, how are we "frontline Range Officials" supposed to act in the quoted occurrence, even if this is not a common one?

How can we determine with fairness and equality of judgement if the subject gun is the same gun in the approved list?

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

How can we determine with fairness and equality of judgement if the subject gun is the same gun in the approved list?

I wonder whether your problem is the gun or the competitor?

Presumably when you suspect something is wrong, it's not because you see something unusual on the exterior of the gun, and I doubt that you're field stripping guns on the line. I suspect that Mr. X has a bad reputation, and you'd like to be able to catch him.

Let's consider Glocks, which are easier to identify. If a guy comes to the line with what looks like a 100% box standard Glock 17, it's highly unlikely that I would have a reason to suspect foul play. However if the guy holding the Glock is somebody who has a bad reputation, I'll let him shoot the COF and, after scoring it, I'll ask to examine his gun in the safety area.

It would take me one trigger pull to determine if, for example, he was using an aftermarket striker (e.g. Lightning Strike) and it would only take me about 60 seconds to field strip and examine the internal workings of his gun to check compliance with the declared division.

I first did this "random" testing (e.g. I picked my prime suspect and three other guys who are above reproach), at our first Level III match in Hong Kong a few years ago. I found nothing unusual, but the message was delivered loud and clear. I've done it again since to keep everybody honest, and the only guy to complain was my prime suspect who, unluckily (!!), was always one of the guys selected for "random" testing. However since he's always a top contender, that was my excuse which he reluctantly accepted.

You may want to consider doing similar "random" testing at your next match. Of course if your prime suspect usually shoots a Model X, you should obtain as much information as possible about that gun prior to the match.

[Garfield]

Now stop harassing people shooting Glocks ok