Bo-Mar Glock sights: should be allowed in IPSC?

[colt45gunner]

I shot my G19 the other night in standard, just to get the dust off of it.
I have the 3 dot tritium sights on it & i found it a bit harder to quickly line up my aim over the black notch & front F/O that I'm used to in my colt .45

But, I'm sure in part, that was just because I'm not use to shooting it so often ? I shot slower as I just wanted to have a clean shoot.
I think the white u shaped rear sight w/ dot front is not easy to line up, but the 3 dot, i'm sure with practise you can do quick.

I found it was fun to shoot the Glock in the match. I can see why others would chose a Glock for production.

I have all the extended options on mine as well & a 3.5 connector & trigger spring which gives me a smooth 4.6 lbs. pull

But, without the magwell, I'd hate having to reload. My first ever reload with the glock (IPSC type), I hit the bottom of the grip & dropped the mag. so, I ordered the magwell

 

[Bartledan]

This is a neat discussion...


Back when extended mag releases were approved for Glock, I would have agreed;
I have never, to this day - seen a glock 17 come from the factory with an extended mag release.

Today, "too much room in terms of allowable modifications", in my opinion, is this: http://www.ghostholster.com/cz_home.htm

But hey, this is the way it is has been laid out so I play within the rules.

(The opinion expressed here is mine, as a competitior - not as a gun distributor, dealer or Regional Director... )

IIRC, according to Uncle Vinny on the IPSC global village (or global circle jerk, as I think of it), the test is whether the gun can be ordered as a mass purchase in the "production legal" configuration.

Therefore, if Glock will sell 1000 G17s with extended mag releases to the Podunk police department (they will) the extended release is Production legal.

If a part must come from the "custom shop", the part is not production legal.

 

[Slavex]

The reason I installed a Bomar Rear Sight is because the dovetail is exclusive to all Glock pistols.
If other rear sights are installed, I suspect that the dovetail has to be re-cut to accept these sights.
If this is the case, there are a number of "illegal" production Glocks out there which are impossible to detect.
However, I stand to be corrected regarding these other rear sights.
I someone could enlighten me as to other brands that don't require the Glock dovetail to be re-cut, it would be much appreciated.

just about every sight maker out there makes sights that will fit the Glock, no slides need to be cut.

 

[Popurhedoff]

I have no complaints at all with the stock Glock sights, they are functional, sure they are not the "in thing brand name of the week" but they work just fine.

The 5 lb trigger is not a problem at all, it only takes some practice to get used to it, I do not feel I am disadvantaged at all using my Glock 17 in the Standard Division even with the stock sights and trigger.

I do not use the lack of the lastest gizmo's as a crutch for when I shoot badly, nor do I look at these gizmo's as a solution to make up for my lack of performance at some matches. Only practice and trigger time will help most do better... anything else is really just an artificial sense of security.

I think the "Spirit" of the Production Division is being lost, which is a shame because it is a fun and competitive division.

 

[HKfan]

This is a neat discussion...


Back when extended mag releases were approved for Glock, I would have agreed;
I have never, to this day - seen a glock 17 come from the factory with an extended mag release.

Today, "too much room in terms of allowable modifications", in my opinion, is this: http://www.ghostholster.com/cz_home.htm

But hey, this is the way it is has been laid out so I play within the rules.

(The opinion expressed here is mine, as a competitior - not as a gun distributor, dealer or Regional Director... )

I agree with you re the CZ. There has been a lot said about them, but then again Tanfoglio are keeping up with them in terms of what you can have on those guns. I think what we are starting to see is smaller manufacturers (CZ, Tanfoglio, Grand Power and to some extent the HS2000/XD) custom making IPSC Production guns which push the envelope as far as the rules go.

Back to the Bo-Mar's, I think that these sights really go aginst the objects of Production by overcoming one of the major constraints in Production: the 127mm max barrel length rule. Presumably one of the reasons for the barrel length restriction is to limit the sight radius of Production guns. The Bo-Mar's in questions take the sight radius closer towards the Glock 34 than the 17 which is, IMHO, unacceptable. That said, it probably won't help people much, but I can imagine a match where there is a target 25m away the guy with Bo-Mar's may get 2 A's while the other guy with a Beretta gets C D due to the slightly longer sight radius. This may be enough to change the result in a match, and such a result, IMO, would be a result of an artificial advantage which should not have been allowed in the first place.

I really think that the definition of "same type" needs to be tightened. This should be that sights must not only be of the same type (adjustable, FO etc) but also of similar dimensions. A rule like this allowing wide discretion is bound to be abused, IMHO.

In a sense, this issue goes to the heart of the Production technology race story. Screw it, maybe I'll just buy an SP-01 and be done with it!

 

[hungrybeagle]

Back to the Bo-Mar's, I think that these sights really go aginst the objects of Production by overcoming one of the major constraints in Production: the 127mm max barrel length rule. Presumably one of the reasons for the barrel length restriction is to limit the sight radius of Production guns. The Bo-Mar's in questions take the sight radius closer towards the Glock 34 than the 17 which is, IMHO, unacceptable.

There is no box in Production Division. I would guess that the barrel length is to maintain the "spirit of Production Division". Has anybody ever measured the distance from the barrel to the rear of the slide of every firearm in Production Division to see if any are longer than the others? Maybe they were unfairly designed that way to get a bigger sight radius.

I really think that the definition of "same type" needs to be tightened. This should be that sights must not only be of the same type (adjustable, FO etc) but also of similar dimensions.

Ugh. You want us to add calipers to our RO kits now?

In a sense, this issue goes to the heart of the Production technology race story. Screw it, maybe I'll just buy an SP-01 and be done with it!

People seem to forget that IPSC is a game. People want to win when they play a game, or at least do well. If I can do better by choosing a gun with the most advantages I can, you bet I'm going to do it. If I really felt that the FO sights and the long dust cover were that much of an advantage, you bet I'd go for an SP-01. Heck, I may still do that.

As for "Pushing the Envelope" of Production Division, there's not supposed to be a grey area. Is it legal? It should be a simple question with a yes or no answer. You maybe just need to ask the right people. I know I'm definitely not the right person, even though I've been an RO for 4 years and for 4 years before that (don't ask....long story) and have kept up with the current rulebooks dilligently. As far as I'm concerned, Production Division should have the following criteria:

Double Action First shot, minimum 5 pound trigger pull.
Scored minor, regardless of power factor (meeting the minimum 125)
No Compensators
No Optics
No bull barrels
No Mag wells
No Race Holsters

By trying to add in all the restrictions, they've actually made the division harder to enforce and even more of a rules nightmare than all of the other divisions combined.

 

[Dragonblade]

I do not use the lack of the lastest gizmo's as a crutch for when I shoot badly, nor do I look at these gizmo's as a solution to make up for my lack of performance at some matches. Only practice and trigger time will help most do better... anything else is really just an artificial sense of security.

I think the "Spirit" of the Production Division is being lost, which is a shame because it is a fun and competitive division.

+1

I agree with you completely. I will be doing my Black Badge in early May and will be using my USP Custom Sport with the stock adjustable sights, which are plain Black and do not even have any White paint or any other markings, but I have no plans on switching them, it will just be a matter of practice and getting used to them.

Personally I plan on doing IPSC for fun and to imrpove my shooting ability. I have said it before and will say it again. I believe IPSC Production should be out of the box, no modifications at all (factory or otherwise). KISS Keep.It.Simple.Shooters

 

[Slavex]

yeah out of the box, so when one manufacturer makes an improvement to a gun, you have to buy a new gun to get that improvement, otherwise you're left in the dust? sorry that doesn't work for me. Make it a DA/SA division and let us go to town, keep the 5lb first shot but toss the rest.

 

[Dragonblade]

yeah out of the box, so when one manufacturer makes an improvement to a gun, you have to buy a new gun to get that improvement, otherwise you're left in the dust? sorry that doesn't work for me. Make it a DA/SA division and let us go to town, keep the 5lb first shot but toss the rest.

Then maybe we should have a Production division, with no mods and a Double Action Standard division with all the mods you want.

Besides Slavex IPSC wont be changing anytime soon, except possibly into a Double Action Standard division like you suggest. I made this suggestion on the IPSC Global Village and it went nowhere, so I would not worry.

 

[omen]

THese things are there to seduce inexperienced shooters into thinking that they can buy performance. There are some things on a gun which do make a difference for me (like the ease with which I can reach the mag release, the extended one for the cz85C is a big win for me, over the cz75), but beyond that... I like adjustable sights so I can zero for my type of ammo, but they, by themselves, don't add anything in the competition. The extra cm of sight radius? I really don't care... Glock shooters are welcome to them, I don't feel like I'm being disadvantaged shooting my $350 Norinco NP22 against them. If I lose it's because I ####ed up, not because they have a better gun (most of the time; sometimes it's the ammo, haha).

 

[hungrybeagle]

Then maybe we should have a Production division, with no mods and a Double Action Standard division with all the mods you want.

If you go with a no mod PD, the problem rears up again. How do you police what is a mod and what isn't? How do you tell how it came from the factory and how it didn't? How much of the "polishing" is normal wear, and how much was deliberate?

As for a Double Action Standard Division....ugh. We have enough divisions as it is. I'm still not even sure why there's a Modified Division.

 

[Dragonblade]

If you go with a no mod PD, the problem rears up again. How do you police what is a mod and what isn't? How do you tell how it came from the factory and how it didn't? How much of the "polishing" is normal wear, and how much was deliberate?

As for a Double Action Standard Division....ugh. We have enough divisions as it is. I'm still not even sure why there's a Modified Division.

With any type of production based division it relies on an honor based system as it is impossible to tell what mods have been done outside of obvious ones like the Bomar sights.

The only reason I prefer no mods is that it makes it easier for all involved and you stay away from the slippery slope. I believe IPSC and other shooting sport, should be about the skill of the shooter and not their equipment.

And yes I use a USP Custom Sport for Production .

 

[hungrybeagle]

With any type of production based division it relies on an honor based system as it is impossible to tell what mods have been done outside of obvious ones like the Bomar sights.

The only reason I prefer no mods is that it makes it easier for all involved and you stay away from the slippery slope. I believe IPSC and other shooting sport, should be about the skill of the shooter and not their equipment.

Maybe there are two schools of thought: those that believe that the top shooter is still the top shooter, even if they've tweaked their firearm and those that believe that the minor tweaking give you enough of an edge to beat a superior shooter.

Personally, I believe that if I put on a mag funnel, polish the bejeezus out of my trigger internal guts to get a crisp, light trigger pull, and put on funky fibre optics with an extended sight radius, I'm still gonna get my ass handed to me by Dave Sevigny and Adam Tyc.

One way to look at PD is that it's a "what can you carry?" division (even though we know that's not the intent). If I had a carry gun, would I put on a mag well? Damn right I would. Would I polish the trigger parts? Yup, to get a nicer, crisper (but SAFE) trigger. Would I shave down the grip to fit my hand better? Of course I would.

90% of shooting is confidence and mental preparation. I would wager that most of the advantage gained from modifying a PD gun is mental rather than physical. Why not let people modify their guns in PD? To force them to keep it box stock seems ludicrous and unenforcable, unless you work strictly on the honor system.

Working completely on the honor system works nice in theory, works abysmally in practice, especially in a GAME.

 

[Dragonblade]

Maybe there are two schools of thought: those that believe that the top shooter is still the top shooter, even if they've tweaked their firearm and those that believe that the minor tweaking give you enough of an edge to beat a superior shooter.

Personally, I believe that if I put on a mag funnel, polish the bejeezus out of my trigger internal guts to get a crisp, light trigger pull, and put on funky fibre optics with an extended sight radius, I'm still gonna get my ass handed to me by Dave Sevigny and Adam Tyc.

One way to look at PD is that it's a "what can you carry?" division (even though we know that's not the intent). If I had a carry gun, would I put on a mag well? Damn right I would. Would I polish the trigger parts? Yup, to get a nicer, crisper (but SAFE) trigger. Would I shave down the grip to fit my hand better? Of course I would.

90% of shooting is confidence and mental preparation. I would wager that most of the advantage gained from modifying a PD gun is mental rather than physical. Why not let people modify their guns in PD? To force them to keep it box stock seems ludicrous and unenforcable, unless you work strictly on the honor system.

Working completely on the honor system works nice in theory, works abysmally in practice, especially in a GAME.

Well I guess it is personal prefrence. I always thought of production as being more of a duty type competition personally. The other divisions in IPSC allow modding and it would be nice to have one division without any modding.

You say that it is ludicrous and un-enforcable to allow no mods, well I say that it is just as is ludicrous and un-enforcable to only allow certain mods, with some pertaining only to certain manufacturers. At that point why don't we just allow all mods.

Either way this is just personal opinion. I will be shooting production this summer and will be using my stock USP Custom Sport.

 

[hungrybeagle]

You say that it is ludicrous and un-enforcable to allow no mods, well I say that it is just as is ludicrous and un-enforcable to only allow certain mods, with some pertaining only to certain manufacturers. At that point why don't we just allow all mods.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Bartledan]

 

[hungrybeagle]

Of course this topic is going to get brought up again and again and again until IPSC gets their act together and comes up with some clear, concise rules for Production Division.

The fact that it keeps rearing its ugly head is a good thing. It means that people that weren't involved in IPSC when it last came up are asking the right questions and looking for clarification on the right topics.

I say kudos to them.

 

[Dragoon]

I think the IDPA rules for their Stock Service Pistol (SSP) Division would be great for IPSC Prodution Division

Handguns permitted for use in this division must:
A. Be semi-automatic.
B. Be double action, double action only, or safe action (when
the trigger is pulled, the hammer/striker is cocked and then
released).
C. Be 9mm (9x19) or larger caliber.
D. Have a maximum unloaded weight of 39oz., including an
empty magazine. (Will be effective January 25, 2006)
E. Have a minimum annual production of 2000 units;
(discontinued models must have had a total production of
20,000 units).
F. Fit in the IDPA gun test box measuring 8 ¾” x 6” x 1 5/8”
with an empty magazine inserted.
G. Be loaded to the division capacity of ten (10) rounds in the
magazine plus one (1) round in the chamber. Should division
capacity not be achievable because of lower magazine
capacity, load to maximum mechanical capacity of magazine
plus one (1) round in the chamber. Competitors must use the
same capacity magazines through out the competition
(Example: if you start with a 9 round magazine, you must use
that capacity magazine throughout the match).
H. Begin hammer down for selective DA/SA pistols.
PERMITTED Modifications (Inclusive list):
1. Sights may be changed to another conventional notch and
post type (see “sights” in glossary for further information).
2. Grips may be changed to another style or material that is
similar to factory configuration (no weighted grips; see
“weighted grips” in glossary for further details).
3. A slip-on grip sock and/or skateboard tape may be used.
4. Internal action work may be used to enhance trigger pull as
long as safety is maintained (no visible external modifications
allowed).
5. Reliability work may be done to enhance feeding and
ejection.
6. Internal accuracy may be worked to include replacement of
barrel with one of factory configuration and original caliber.
7. Plastic plugs may be used to fill the opening behind the
magazine well.
8. Custom finishes may be applied.
NOTE: The slide releases and magazine releases that are standard
on the Glock 34 and 35 models are available as a factory option on
all Glocks available in the USA. Because of this, that type of slide
release and magazine release are legal on all Glocks for SSP.
EXCLUDED Modifications (NON-Inclusive list):
1. Externally visible modifications other than grips or sights.
2. Robar style grip reduction.
3. Add-on magazine well opening.
4. Guide rods made of a material different from the factory part
it replaces.
5. Seattle Slug Grip Plug and similar weighted products.
6. A barrel of another caliber that is not offered in the original
factory model.
7. Slide lightening (see “slide, lightening” in glossary for
further information).
8. Checkering and stippling.
9. Refer to Appendix ONE-A. Firearms-Non-IDPA-Legal
Modifications.

 

[Dragonblade]

I think the IDPA rules for their Stock Service Pistol (SSP) Division would be great for IPSC Prodution Division

I think those rules sound pretty reasonable to me, since illegal modding is so hard to catch. I do not know if I missed or not, but I did not see compensators on the excluded list.

Edited: I guess comps would fall under "1. Externally visible modifications other than grips or sights."

Great pic Bartledan, I understand completely.

 

[Quigley]

I think those rules sound pretty reasonable to me, .

Well then you've contradicted your earlier post....

The IDPA rules as posted allow for more after market Mods than the current IPSC rules...