Ipsc Production - Triggers & Mags

[LwE]

At the club level Production class is a shot in the arm for USPSA/IPSC, and the level of competition in this class at the big matches is becoming first rate. Under U.S. rules the longslide Glocks are very hard to beat although other guns still do well in good hands. The gun of choice under international rules is still up in the air, which is one attraction of shooting this class, but this will likely be affected by how the rules are interpreted in the future.

At the World Shoot, Guillermo Jude from Uruguay, shooting a chrome Jericho 941 out of a race rig, was leading Sevigny as of the third day. He ended up third behind a member of the Italian team, which used Tangfolio 9x21s w/factory beavertails and BoMar-copy sights drawn from race rigs. The guns of Glock, CZ, Beretta, and SIG were each used by multiple competitors, and individuals armed with other makes such as S&W, H&K, and Taurus, were in the thick of it as well.

The major problem with Production is that on the issues that really matter to competitors - the nitty gritty of sights, triggers, and capacity - the rules have been unclear.

At the World Shoot last year the Heinie-sighted G17s of Sevigny and at least one other competitor were examined during trigger-testing and mag-inspection before the shoot and were passed without any need to resort to either the Glock letter brought by Sevigny, or the email from Doug Lewis approving the use on the Glock of Heinie or any other notch-and-post sight requiring no modification to the slide to install, which the other competitor obtained prior to the match. On the day of the match, however, confusion ensued as other Glock-armed Production competitors understandably complained that they understood the rules to prohibit this type of replacement sight and were at a disadvantage without them. The RO on the second stage also apparently misunderstood the rules to prohibit replacement notch and post sights, which led him to make a notation at the bottom of the scoresheet for one of the Heinie users that his race-cut Heinies were "not production - sights." The notation was not pointed out to the competitor and he signed the sheets without noticing it as he was focused on the time and points. Sevigny had his letter in his bag, which he provided, but the email was back at the other competitor's hotel, so it was verbally summarized. The matter was taken under advisement by the powers that be and it was eventually decided in the Heinie-users' favor. In the meantime the match went forward and the one competitor, somewhat shaken by the thought that he may have mistakenly signed away his objection to getting moved to Open by initialing his scoresheet, threw two cheap mikes on the next stage. For their part, the Glock shooters who had misunderstood the rule were stuck with their plastic sights for the rest of the match, which was a significant disadvantage to them. This was unfortunate all the way around, particularly that it would arise in this fashion at a world championship, but it looks like the sight issue is much better understood now.

However, there remain at least a couple of issues which could pose similar issues in the future - triggers and magazines. Judging by the speed of operation and lack of muzzle twitch evident during dry-fire practice in the safe areas, most every DA Production pistol at the World Shoot had a DA trigger greatly reduced in weight from factory spec, and the SA trigger on these weapons would consequently have been well below 5lbs. The improved triggers gave these weapons at least one potential advantage over the heavy Glock trigger, and it may be that in some hands a steel CZ variant with a lightened and tuned trigger and a decent stock mag well is a better Production gun under international rules than the Glock. This is an interesting question and I have begun experimenting a little to see what works best in my own hands.

Under the new International rules original parts must be used in Production guns and under 19.1 "modifications to them, other than minor detailing, are prohibited." To get a good trigger out of a CZ/Tangfolio/Jericho, it appears that one must either (1) replace the hammer spring with an aftermarket reduced weight version, (2) cut length off the spring, (3) polish the outside of the spring enough to reduce its circumference and thus its strength, or, possibly, (4) compress the spring in a vice long enough to weaken it significantly. As I read the new rule, options 1 & 2 are not permitted, while options 3 & 4 are permitted. Others will read the rule differently. What matters, as Vince Pinto has said elsewhere, is that we have a definitive and easily-accessed answer on these sorts of nuts and bolts issues before the day of the big match.

Particularly where there is so much parity between weapons, serious competitors need to know what options are legally available to them under the rules. If a cut spring is permissible under 19.1, a competitor may determine that the steel gun is the preferable option, while if it is not, the Glock may be preferable. If the minor detailing rule prohibits cut springs and a competitor has a lighter-than-factory DA at trigger-testing, is his gun going to be disassembled to see how this was accomplished? If the match director does not insist upon this, has he not obviated the rule?

Respecting capacity, at least one competitor at the World Shoot brought a .40 mag for his 9x19 Beretta, as it fed 9mm perfectly and brought his mag capacity up from 15 rounds to 16 or 17. Of the 35 stages in the match, 2 were 15-rounders and 12 were 16-rounders. Capacity matters for Production, and a gun which holds 17+1 is a big advantage over a gun which holds 15+1 or even 16+1 in that it allows the option of being more aggressive on a Medium stage with much less of a disaster factor (The latest Glock 17 mags actually give 18+1 and feed well). The Beretta shooter was reportedly told that his .40 mag was legal under international rules, but ended up buying on site 9mm mags for the intermittently-produced SA version of the Beretta, which hold 17 rounds and worked perfectly in his gun, and he used these mags for the match. I am not familiar with all the various mag options for all approved Production guns, but some share with the Beretta the 15 round factory capacity, and the .40 option may be a general solution for many shooters. Depending upon how one reads the mag rule under 20.1 these might or might not qualify as matching the "external dimensions" of the OFM, or being offered by the OFM for the approved handgun.

Has anyone shooting under international rules gotten the definitive word on these issues already?

Any views on the strengths and weaknesses of the various Production guns under international rules? Has anyone changed what they started with, and if so why?

This is a great forum,

Lance

[spook]

Lance, nice post. Welcome to the forum. I don't have any sure shot answers for you, but a question to add (if that's OK with you ).

What if I shoot a CZ and take a 16 round mag apart. I melt the spring into the follower and cut the follower down a little, so the mag will hold 18 rounds. Next thing I do is laser engrave my gunsmith's name and a TM all over the mag. Voila, aftermarket mags that will hold 18 rounds. Are they legal?

I have to agree with you that sights, mags(capacity) and triggers are the things that make or break a gun in this division. I would stive to make the choice of guns less of an issue by creating a rules that focus on creating equality between most guns on the approved list.

[Vince Pinto]

Lance,

Welcome to the Brian Enos Forums.

You've made conflicting statements in your posting. On one hand you confirm trigger-testing was conducted at WSXIII but, on the other hand, you state "most every DA Production pistol at the World Shoot had a DA trigger greatly reduced in weight from factory spec, and the SA trigger on these weapons would consequently have been well below 5lbs".

Irrespective of your observations, the trigger-testing is the definitive measure of compliance with Production Division.

As I read the new rule, options 1 & 2 are not permitted, while options 3 & 4 are permitted. Others will read the rule differently

No Sir. Minor detailing does not include reducing the circumference, compressing or in any other way modifying internal components of an approved gun. Minor detailing would permit, for example, removing polymer burrs which often appear inside Glock magazine tubes, as these can prevent the gun from operating correctly.

at least one competitor at the World Shoot brought a .40 mag for his 9x19 Beretta

This is not permitted because Beretta do not offer 40 cal magazines as an option on their 9mm pistols.

Spook,

What if I shoot a CZ and take a 16 round mag apart etc

It's a factory magazine which you've illegally modified so, no, it's not legal.

I have to agree with you that sights, mags(capacity) and triggers are the things that make or break a gun in this division.

Silly me. I thought shooting skill was the "make or break' in every division

[spook]

QUOTE 

I have to agree with you that sights, mags(capacity) and triggers are the things that make or break a gun in this division. 

Silly me. I thought shooting skill was the "make or break' in every division 

Well of coure it's always the shooter. So why dont you pick up that 8 round, sh!t-triggered Walther P5 and whoop my heinie-sighted-glock-toting ass with it

[LwE]

Vince,

Thanks for clarifying the rules on these questions.

My recollection is that DA production guns at the WS were tested in the trigger-cocking/hammer-down mode and if they held five pounds they passed. Their single-action weight wasn't tested. A radically-tuned DA gun would pass this test with ease, and there is nothing wrong with this being the definitive test. It was so at the WS and is still a good idea. My understanding is that there is still no minimum trigger weight for the SA trigger mode under the revised Production rules. All well and good, as it means that DA guns from many manufacturers can be made competitive.

However, your clarification of new rule 19.1 means that a competitor can't do any significant internal spring modification to achieve such a trigger and the guns should all be restored to factory spec in order to compete next time. If the competitors are restricted to using a factory-offered reduced weight spring, then the only really competitive guns will be an 18-round Tangfolio Production racegun with factory reduced trigger or a 19-round G17 w/Heinies. Simplifies the choice for now, but also takes out the neatest thing about Production at the WS, which was that the various guns were all roughly competitive with each other and the difference in the results was the shooter. Maybe the idea of the rule is to get the manufacturers to offer reduced springs in order to make their guns competitive, in which case this may be self-resolving with time, but for now it looks like any of the common DA guns with a good trigger are going to be verboten under international rules. Disappointing, as I had my eye on the generous mag well and heavy dust cover of the Jericho, but without a serious trigger job it is no match for a Glock.

Spook,

We seem to share the same view about leveling the playing field between the approved guns. As an aside, my impression was that most Production shooters at the WS found an option that allowed them to get at least 16 rounds in their mag. Because it makes for rough parity, competitors are not likely to begrudge rule accomodations that make it feasible for the bulk of the approved guns to not have to shoot to slidelock to cover the minimum rounds on a Medium field course. Lessening the effect of magazine capacity limitations keeps it more of a proficiency test between contestants.

By the way, that Sevigny guy is unreal!

Lance

[Vince Pinto]

Lance,

Yes, we only test the "double-action" shot for compliance with the minimum 5lbs trigger weight, because this only applies to the "first shot must be double-action" requirement. Although this was (hopefully) understood, we've spelled it out in new Appendix F2 in the new rulebook for the trigger pull test as follows:

1. The unloaded handgun will be prepared as if the handgun is ready to fire a double action shot;

Given that we didn't want yet another "spend more money and your gun will give you an edge" division, we had to place a number of restrictions on the most common mods done to guns in the other divisions, without restricting items which do not affect the operation of the gun (i.e. primarily sights, but also magazines).

And yes, we hope gun manufacturers will create better guns within the parameters of our basic criteria.

[David Olhasso]

A bunch of production division questions.

1) Is a trigger job done by the factory "performance department" legal? Obviousily any replacement parts will be factory provided parts but those parts would probably be polished and detailed.

1a) If "yes" to #1, then what about a trigger job done by a non-factory gunsmith as long as factory parts were used?

2) Some parts wear out and must be replaced: specifically springs. Can springs be replaced by 3rd party springs rather than paying for the factory ones? These include firing pin springs, mainsprings, extractor springs, and most often, recoil springs. I know the answer will probably be NO, but I believe that the spirit of production division was to not prevent such replacement. Almost all shooters I know replace worn recoil springs regurarly, and then almost never are they factory replacements. Even more importantly, how could something like this be policed? Springs wear out over time. Just leaving a gun with the hammer cocked for an extended period of time will reduce the spring tension. Similarily, leaving a gun locked to the rear will reduce the spring tension. Many gun manufactures buy their springs from 3rd party vendors and those vendors change over time. How could an RO possibly verify that a spring in a given gun did or did not come with the gun or from the factory.

3) If the factory offers a solid guide rod from the "performance department", can it be used?

4) If the factory offers an extended magazine release button from the "performance department", can it be used?

5) If the factory offers extra thick basepads, that do NOT add capacity and still fit in the IPSC box, can they be used?

6) What constitutes an aftermarket magazine? If I buy a "tuned" factory magazine from a gunsmith, is it an aftermarket magazine? The part started out as a factory part, the gunsmith modified the part, the gunsmith put his own engraving on the part, and then sold the part as his own part. In the automotive industry, a part such as this would be considered an aftermarket part.

7) Can you replace the spring in an aftermarket magazine?

8) Can you replace the follower in an aftermarket magazine with a factory follower?

9) Can a "carry bevel" to remove sharp corners job be done on the frame. I consider this "polishing and detailing" of a factory component.

10) After 5000 draws, my gun is looking a bit crappy. Can I have it refinished? Can it be refinished in a different color than from the factory? Does the sandblasting necessary to remove the old finish constitute an illegal modification?

[Vince Pinto]

A bunch of (IPSC) production division answers:

1) Yes, provided the OFM offers that gun (or component) as an option for the particular gun which is on the approved gun list and provided that gun (or component) is available to the general public. Hence protoypes are not permitted, and this is decided by the Production Division Committee. Hence a S&W Performance Centre Model X is permitted, provided that gun is on the approved gun list (btw, as far as I know, "performance centre" guns are never just "trigger jobs" - they're invariably offered with a number of refinements).

1a) No.

2) No.

3) See (1) above.

4) See (1) above.

5) Yes, but there's no box required for IPSC Production Division.

6) A magazine produced entirely by a party other than the OFM - modifying OFM components is prohibited.

7) Yes.

8) Yes.

9) No. This extends beyond the "minor detailing" allowed to enable proper gun operation.

10) Yes, but only by the OFM according to standard OFM specifications for the approved gun.

[Bucky]

DO asked:

2) Some parts wear out and must be replaced: specifically springs. Can springs be replaced by 3rd party springs rather than paying for the factory ones? These include firing pin springs, mainsprings, extractor springs, and most often, recoil springs. I know the answer will probably be NO, but I believe that the spirit of production division was to not prevent such replacement. Almost all shooters I know replace worn recoil springs regurarly, and then almost never are they factory replacements. Even more importantly, how could something like this be policed? Springs wear out over time. Just leaving a gun with the hammer cocked for an extended period of time will reduce the spring tension. Similarily, leaving a gun locked to the rear will reduce the spring tension. Many gun manufactures buy their springs from 3rd party vendors and those vendors change over time. How could an RO possibly verify that a spring in a given gun did or did not come with the gun or from the factry.

Vince Answered:

2) No.

Wow, the cost of a factory spring can be three times the price of a Wolff replacement... even though sometimes it is Wolff that makes the part from the factory. Plus, what if you want to shoot a .40 in production?? The factory is spring is way too heavy for use with minor loads. Seems like a lot of the new rules make it very hard to "Bring what you got", even to those who are not looking to "game out" the gear. These types of restrictions, IMO, will make people "cheat", just for practical and financial considerations, rather than to gain an advantage.

Bucky.

[David Olhasso]

And I thought USPSA production rules were messed up!

In IPSC production,

1. I can use any part the factory offers. So if I want a part that isn't offered, all I need to do is to have the factory offer it.

2. I cannot modify a factory magazine.

2a. But I can make my own magazine (as long as it is the same outside dimension.)

2b. But, I can buy an aftermarket magazine (as long as it is the same outside dimension.)

2c. But, I can replace the follower in the aftermarket magazine with a factory follower.

3. A trigger job by anyone other than the factory is not allowed!!

4. If I want to refinish my gun, it has to be done by the factory!!

5. If my spring wears out, then I have to get a new one from the factory.

What happened to bring what you got? This division has become more complicated than any other division!!

Is this comical to anyone by me?

[Paul B]

I don't want this to cause any defensiveness on the part of the rule makers because theirs is a very tough job, but some of the IPSC production rules seem to promote too much exclusivity in a division that should do just the opposite.

If I can afford a "performance center" type gun, I can get just about anything I want, but if I buy it over the counter, on sale, I can't touch it.

I should state that I am all for a total squelch on an arms race in this division, but we may be going in the wrong direction.

It's unfortunate that we don't realize the path we're going down just reading a rule till someone brings up the practical application of a rule. The deal with factory recoil springs "only" seems unrealistic and unenforceable.

[Vince Pinto]

Bucky,

If cost was the key issue, we'd have a "maximum price" placed on approved guns, but that's not the case. However, if we did, how would we police or enforce such a value? Anyway, the fundamental criteria for IPSC Production Division are:

1) No single-action-only pistols. Period.

2) First shot must be double-action, and the trigger pull must not be less than 5lbs.

3) No modifications to an approved gun except for some leeway with sights and magazines, because these do not affect the internal workings of the gun.

And the expression "bring what you got" is yet another urban legend. The criteria of the division have been stated and, if you want to participate in that division, then you must comply with the rules, failing which you will be relegated to Open Division, if and when anomalies are discovered. If you prefer more flexibility, at least three other divisions provide you with much more freedom.

And, although you might consider me to be naive, I believe that the vast majority of IPSC competitors worldwide are honest people. Of course the rules currently allow match officials to examine guns for compliance with a declared division but, if we ever get to a point where we think we're inundated with "cheaters", then we have the option of introducing a documented regime of testing of equipment for, say, the Top 16 in the division. As I'm sure you know, winning jockeys are weighed after each race, and many other sports conduct random drug and other forms of testing, so it would not be out of the question for IPSC to follow suit.

David,

You consider IPSC Production Division to be utter nonsense and comical. So noted.

Paul,

If you examine the IPSC Production Division approved gun list, you'll find there's a huge choice of firearm choices available, so I don't share your concerns about "exclusivity". However there are 8 manufacturers (Glock, CZ, H&K, S&W, Tanfolio, SIG-Sauer, Para-Ordnance and Beretta) who have the lion's share of the IPSC Production Division market worldwide, but that's to be expected, since they have a lion's share of the general firearm market worldwide.

Moreover, judgiing by the phenomenal popularity and growth of IPSC Production Division that I've witnessed in the 15 or so regions with which I'm intimately familiar, I have no doubt that we've found the right formula, and that the division will continue to prosper, despite the predictions of a handful of naysayers.

And, while there are some people who believe they cannot be competitive unless the rules allow them to tinker with their guns, IPSC Production Division World Champion David Sevigny won his title by shooting a Glock 17 which was a 100% factory standard gun, save and except for the addition of Heinie sights, which are allowed under the rules.

[Nik Habicht]

Vince,

Just to clear things up ---- at least Smith & Wesson and Sig-Sauer have performance centers operating in the U.S., where you can order an a la carte trigger job, or any of the other services they provide on a performance center gun, on your S&W or Sig. You alluded earlier that this would be legal ---- but I think you were operating under the belief that ONLY entire guns came out of the performance center. So could I send my S&W to the performance center for any or all of their services offered on a P.C. gun?

[Vince Pinto]

Nik,

Thanks for the clarification.

1) If the OFM tuning service is available to everybody; and

2) If the OFM tuning service uses (or retains) parts and components offered by the OFM for the specific model gun on the approved handgun list; and

3) If the other conditions of the division are satisfied (e.g. trigger pull weight, no +2 basepads etc.);

-:then, yes, the gun would still qualify for IPSC Production Division. The relevant rules in the new rulebook are:

19. Original parts and components offered by the OFM as standard equipment, or as an option, for a specific model handgun on the IPSC approved handgun list are permitted, subject to the following:

19.1 Modifications to them, other than minor detailing, are prohibited.

19.2 Base plates and/or any other devices which provide additional ammunition capacity (e.g. “+2” magazine extensions), are prohibited.

19.3 Front sights may be trimmed, adjusted and/or have sight black applied.

[Bucky]

And, although you might consider me to be naive, I believe that the vast majority of IPSC competitors worldwide are honest people. Of course the rules currently allow match officials to examine guns for compliance with a declared division but, if we ever get to a point where we think we're inundated with "cheaters", then we have the option of introducing a documented regime of testing of equipment for, say, the Top 16 in the division. As I'm sure you know, winning jockeys are weighed after each race, and many other sports conduct random drug and other forms of testing, so it would not be out of the question for IPSC to follow suit.

There are different levels of honesty. I'm sure any American competitor at the World Shoot (provided they are of age) has cheated on their taxes . How does that measure their honesty?

But seriously, I find a vast difference between the following:

> Competitor #1 takes a file to open up his mag well to gain a competitive advantage.

> Competitor #2 breaks a trigger return spring and the factory is out of stock and has been for some time so he buys one from Wolff.

Can you honestly say Competitor #2 is a cheater?

[Vince Pinto]

Bucky,

People cheating on their taxes, their diet, their wives or anything else is none of my business. My only interest is that competitors at IPSC matches comply with IPSC rules, as they are written, whether we personally like them or not.

As I've stated in this and other forums many times before, there are rules which I personally don't support, but I must (and do) yield to the majority decision in the rule drafting process and I get over it, then I support the written rules to the letter and word.

And "close enough" is not good enough. If you're caught with 172mm long magazines in Open Division, your scores are deleted from the match. If you achieve a power factor of 169 in Standard Division, you're scored Minor. If you handle a single round of ammunition in a safety area, you get a match DQ. And if you fail to comply with IPSC Production Division rules, you get a warm welcome to Open Division.

That's the way organised competition works .......................... but you knew that already.

[Bucky]

Vince,

People cheating on their taxes, their diet, their wives or anything else is none of my business. My only interest is that competitors at IPSC matches comply with IPSC rules, as they are written, whether we personally like them or not.

I respectfully must say, as I see it, you are diverting from my point. I only use the tax analogy to try to show that certain instances create a situation where by a generally honest person chooses to be dishonest, merely because the situation is defined as such to make any other choice not feasible. As exemplified in the Trigger return spring example.

As I've stated in this and other forums many times before, there are rules which I personally don't support, but I must (and do) yield to the majority decision in the rule drafting process and I get over it, then I support the written rules to the letter and word.

Also, I at no point said that you were responsible for the ruling. I am merely trying to point out that in my opinion, it is a flawed ruling that may be hard to enforce ... and again create a situation where it is selectively ignored... again, by someone who would never dream of "cheating" in an "advantage gained" sort of way. By our back and forth discussion, I can only conclude that you are in support of this ruling, which is fine... which is why we have debate.

And "close enough" is not good enough. If you're caught with 172mm long magazines in Open Division

Not to rehash old hat, but this was such an issue at both the 1998 US Limited AND 1998 US Open nationals that a decision was made to design an official USPSA gauge. This took a measurement that was slightly subjective and turned into a definitive pass/fail measurement. A GREAT accomplishment for USPSA. (Does IPSC recognize the gauge?). The rules should be as concrete and enforceable as possible.

That's the way organised competition works .......................... but you knew that already

I can only reply to this disrespectful sarcasm by saying, I actually do know how our organized competition does work. There are rules that the majority do not agree with, so not only do the competitors ignore them, but the officiator's ignore them as well. At a somewhat major match, a top competitor had some heavy filing done to open up his mag well. Both the other competitors and some ROs had commented on this, yet he was never moved to open division. Certain rules play into the don't ask / don't tell and I think an effort should be done to avoid the almost necessity of this.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

Bucky.

[Vince Pinto]

Bucky,

OK, let's agree to disagree but, as a summary of our discussion:

Bucky says that a competitor facing "extenuating circumstances" should not be penalised for, inadvertently or otherwise, failing to comply with IPSC rules.

Vince says irrespective of the circumstances, a competitor who, inadvertently or otherwise, is found to have failed to comply with IPSC rules, must face the consequences - no exceptions.

Do I understand you correctly?

BTW, for the record, I happen to agree with the IPSC Production Division rules in respect of the prohibition against the modification of factory parts and componnets and/or the use of aftermarket parts or components. In fact, if I were King, I wouldn't allow the use of aftermarket sights or magazines either. For me, if it's not produced (or at least offered) by the OFM, no deal.

And IPSC has no comment on the USPSA magazine gauge. Firstly it's never been submitted to IPSC as a proposed "official gauge" but, secondly, while I think it's useful, we also don't have an officially sanctioned "IPSC box" available for purchase either - we merely provide the measurements and most clubs and match organisers build their own.

Having said that, perhaps IPSC should consider offering an "official box and magazine gauge" in a single unit. I'll look into the matter.

[ErikW]

"official box and magazine gauge" in a single unit

Don't forget the trigger pull gauge. This could be an interesting contraption...

[Vince Pinto]

Erik,

Don't forget the trigger pull gauge. This could be an interesting contraption...

OK, I'll build it but, dammit, YOU write the owner's manual .............. for food, of course

[Skywalker]

Talking about PD requirements non-compliance, I'd like to ask the following: a competitor's firearm doesn't comply with the DA minimum trigger pull requirement, or the sights one (FO FS on a Glock).

Then, he is to be moved to another division (Open, according to the rules).

If his gun still complies with Standard division requirements, why he has to be bumped in Open Division?

It was my understanding that if your gun was suitable for a division with more stringent requirements, you weren't allowed to compete in another division whose requirements were more relaxed.

For example, I thought (maybe I was wrong) that a competitor shooting a gun that fit the Modified division requirements couldn't compete in Open division, or, if he wished to do so, he had to use something like a magazine that wouldn't have the gun pass the box test.

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

If his gun still complies with Standard division requirements, why he has to be bumped in Open Division?

The answer is very simple - we must have a more serious deterrent. If a competitor intentionally tries to circumvent IPSC PD rules knowing that the worst case is relegation to Standard Division, that's not such a serious change. However if he knows that he'll be moved to Open Division, this is a greater deterrent.

And yes, it's possible that a competitor who makes an honest mistake is severely spanked, but it will only happen once.

There is currently another rule (see Point 18 of Appendix E - Modified Division) which prohibits somebody with a Production or Standard Division gun competing in Modified Division, and this was intended to deter "trophy hunters" from selecting their division by checking the size of the field. However we agreed this rule was flawed, so it's been removed from the new rulebook.

[BerettaRacer]

I would have thought that a production gun that failed inspection for parts and/or modifications would be bumped to L 10. Bumping to open would be for something like 11 rnds in a mag or similar.

[Bucky]

Bucky,

OK, let's agree to disagree but, as a summary of our discussion:

Bucky says that a competitor facing "extenuating circumstances" should not be penalised for, inadvertently or otherwise, failing to comply with IPSC rules.

Vince says irrespective of the circumstances, a competitor who, inadvertently or otherwise, is found to have failed to comply with IPSC rules, must face the consequences - no exceptions.

Vince,

This is not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is the rules shouldn't be so stringent in areas where there is no advantage gained as to otherwise create such a situation - leading to both competitors and officials ignoring certain rules. I don't condone breaking any rules, I just understand why certain ones will be overlooked.

So for a more accurate summary: you think guns should be box stock, period. I think certain aftermarket parts should be allowed as long as no advantage is gained. I feel this is what our differences are.

-- Bucky

[redmercury2]

erik and vince,will the rules allow me to modify the official trigger pull gauge ,if you make it? this may give me a competitive advantage.??-just kidding