Chuck Anderson

The tough part with a low power division would be scoring reactive steel targets. It's been brought up for pistol matches as a way to get juniors involved earlier. Some clubs do it now with just a hit on steel scoring. I don't think it would work for 3 Gun though because the targets are farther out and hits would be next to impossible to score. At a club level though it is fun. I think we did one a few years back with just .22s. You can also do a lot of your rifle practice with .22s to cut back on the cost.

Which in no way indicates we aren't seeing a representative sample. This isn't the elections. How about we look at what is representative. Everybody and God is doing trigger work to their Glocks, XD's, M&P's, CZ's, etc. I'm not saying they would agree or disagree, (although I did say the fact that all of them posting are against it would be a pretty good indicator). I'm just saying most don't know what's going on. I doubt we are seeing a true representative sample though. The people posting are the ones who feel strongly one way or the other. The folks who aren't that concerned probably wouldn't post to just say "whatever". That said, I think the huge majority of Production shooters have done a modification to their gun, believing it to be legal, that under the ruling proposed by JA would now (or has been) illegal. Everyone speeds, doesn't make it legal. How about this for a proposal. The AD's hand out a something at each Area match (like Area 6 does) soliciting information from folks on what they want Production to be (again, it's imperfect because you may get multiple responses from one person, not everyone shoots Area matches, Limited/Open shooters will have input, etc.) but it's a start. From there make a decision what Production would be. If everyone wants it to be a 9mm factory ammo friendly Limited Division so be it. If everyone wants it to be a stock gun only division, that's workable as well. But the rules will have to change to reflect those wishes. In the meantime, issue a ruling along the lines of trigger work will be allowed until Dec 31, 2009 (2010?) when the rules may be changed.

Production is pretty popular in Area 1. Probably more so than any other Division. It's been my experience that you see more Production shooters locally than Nationals based on the type of shooter it attracts. You get more new shooters in Production that are unlikely to attend at a National level. Most Lim/Open shooters have been around a little bit before they buy a 3K-5K racegun. They tend to be more likely to go to Nats. Bruce's experience matches my own though. Very few shooters keep up with the rules arguments that come up here. Just look at this topic. Let's blow it way up and say 100 people posted they don't support the changes. That still is a small fraction of all the shooters out there. The fact that all of them are against it would tend to indicate that trend would continue but it's not a guarantee. After spending the week at SHOT and talking to many Production shooters from across the country, including some of the very top guys, Bruce is probably right. Most people have no idea this controversy is even going on.

OK, I think I'm as against the NROI's proposed ruling as anyone. But some of this stuff is pushing the envelope a bit. I think everyone would assume that trigger work to enhance reliability would mean just that. To make the gun more reliable. Not to make it more accurate. Especially since accuracy is mentioned elsewhere. That's like saying a red dot sight makes the gun more reliable. And besides, the huge majority of Glock trigger jobs I've seen make the gun less reliable, not more reliable. I along with most other folks assumed Amidon's ruling regarding the Vanek trigger allowed internal mods but it really didn't. If I shoot Production at a match with Skateboard tape covering the slide, a magwell, a raceholster and with fully loaded hi-cap match and the RO bumps me to open because I have too many rounds in the gun, does that mean the rest of that stuff is legal in Produciton? Of course not. I think we need to look at both sides of this, not just the side we are in favor of. It sounds like several of the BOD members are willing to allow some if not all the trigger work we want, we just need to come up with a workable rule for it. As much as I hate this proposed ruling I have to admit Bruce does have a very good point.

5 years ago I would have said Area 2 over anything. Now, go to Nationals. Mesa has gotten way too expensive (not the match, just the hotels) and I think the match lost a lot of it's luster when they took out the gully at the end by the sporting clays field. It used to be a really fun natural terrain match. Now it's a bunch of square ranges, I would only consider one a truly natural terrain stage. I can do that anywhere. I think Nats is going to be good this year.

I've got a 627 9mm and a 625 .45. I bought the 627 for Steel and ICORE, but I'm still working out the bugs with the caliber. I asked the guys at the PC about .355 bbls either for a 9mm or .38 super and they literallly laughed at me at SHOT. Guess I won't be using that gun anytime soon. The 625 I bought had a "Randy Lee" action job in it. Apparently it wasn't the Randy Lee from Apex though because I had to put another $200.00 into the gun to get it to work at all and it's still at the gunsmiths. Plan is to use the 625 for the occasional USPSA match in the off season. I just got it to break up the year and do something a bit different. I'll probably only shoot it at 4-5 matches a year. But who knows, I might like it. ICORE was what I really wanted to shoot. Unfortunately right now I'm a bit steamed by the PC guys. I guess there's a huge market for 1 1/2 inch barreled 8 shot .357 mags but not enough competition shooters interested in 9mm or .38 super. And I'm not willing to pay $1600.00 for a .38 Super 627 on GunBroker.

But if those are the types of courses the team will shoot at the match they're being picked for, doesn't it make sense to use them to qualify for the team? I know a lot of people that can shoot very well on short speed courses and lots that can shoot well on long field courses. There are less people that can shoot both well.

9.1 is straight out of the last qual process. Nationals score is worth double any of the qual matches.

It was on the member page posted for quite a while. I think it was one of the top couple items. It was taken down after the meeting took place. So, just right on this page: http://www.uspsa.org/members/ - it doesn't pop up buried under somewhere else? At least I'll know that I need to go check that page every week or so... Yep, that's the page. I think (as Charles posted before) it was up for 30 days.

I would rather have a sub-optimal team and an objective process than a better team lacking such process. There you go.

It was on the member page posted for quite a while. I think it was one of the top couple items. It was taken down after the meeting took place.

Ok, these two got me. First how is he going to know something happened if he's not at the match, is he going to go them all. Should we come with a special form to email to DNROI when we have a bad match? Maybe: I performed poorly because: A.) My gun broke B.) My ammo sucks C.) I was out drinking last night and have a killer hangover or D.) I didn't properly prepare and blew it. You may liken this to a professional sports team but it's not. USPSA is a membership organization and not set up to make a profit. USPSA is an individual sport where every couple years we form up as a team. If you were going to compare it to a Pro Sports team, they all have scouts and go out and actually see everyone they're looking at. Rob, what benefit does USPSA gain from "hiring" this team as you put it. Does USPSA derive any benefit from winning the gold?

I don't think anyone looked at the agenda item on WS Team Selection and expected the BOD to change the process that just selected the Gold winning USPSA teams for every category. I know I sure didn't. I thought last years process worked great. I also thought it served more than one purpose. It prepared USPSA shooters for IPSC. Most USPSA shooters (we'll just use Chris' number) 99.9% don't shoot IPSC. The rules are different and it was good to have a match or three run under those rules to prepare for the World Shoot. I didn't see Tulsa's match so I can't speak to that one. Arizona's was not impressive to be honest. But I thought the one in Michigan was awesome. It also reflected the stages I saw in Ecuador fairly well. In fact it ALMOST made me want to go back, but not quite. Taking the matches because the first time they were run is not the answer. Give them feedback and see if they fix them. Heck if you want I'll run one here in Portland. I'll find a weekend and make it work. I'm not making any accusations against the BOD. I have no problems with Mike or anyone else on it and I think everyone voted the way they felt was best for USPSA. I don't think it's possible for the Team Manager to base his decision on ALL major matches, Area Championships and Nationals. Sure he's going to go to the Nationals, and probably a couple Area matches, and maybe a few other major matches. But what about the other ones. He'll have to look at paper and the match results. That won't give him any better of a picture than someone at the main office compiling numbers. The reason some of the big names didn't shoot the qualifiers this year was not because they couldn't afford to, they just didn't want to go to Bali. I don't think that will be an issue with Greece. One of the things I've always thought was great of USPSA is it allows every shooter a chance at the top. We compete directly with National Champions and the occasional World Champion. There is always the chance that one of the several very talented folks could run away with it and pull out an upset. That to me is cool. With this new format, we might get a better team (one that will win by 500 points instead of 400?) But we take away one of the great things about USPSA. Seems like one of the previous issues was that a top shooter may have a gun problem or screw something else up and take them out of the running. Or in the case with 2005, have the gun they were shooting at the beginning of the qualifiers ruled illegal by IPSC to only be allowed back in before the match. How about this. Run the previous qualifier system for the three designated team members. The 4th slot is a wildcard for the Team Manager. If he wants to give it that years National Champion (and that person is not already on the team) we end up with last years system. But there may be someone else out there that could be a better fit. That would cut back on the amount of work he has to do, allow competition to be the deciding factor for the majority of the slots and still allow some room for that OOPS factor.

The Springfield Custom Shop has a really good reputation. Dave Williams runs it. (His wife is Debbie Williams, the person in charge of sposnsorships for matches, She's a good lady to know). I believe they do all the custom work on Robbie's guns and have been doing most of the work for the FBI HRT and SWAT teams for awhile. I felt some of the XD's they had on display at SHOT and was very impressed. Not sure where you are located but Springer Precision in Oregon and Canyon Creek in Illinois also do great work.

I hear a bunch of talk about the expense of travelling to all the qualifier matches. There were a grand total of 5 matches for the 2008 qualifier, you could max out points by only attending 3 and two of them were held the same week in Tulsa. How expensive do you think it will be to travel to random matches hoping to catch the eye of the Team Manager who may or may not be there. This is not a cheap sport. If you can't afford to go to a couple one day matches and Nationals, you're not going to make the team. The team manager will probably have never heard of you. As far as what is best for USPSA. Do we receive any benefit at all from fielding a gold medal winning team. Do we get more votes on the GA? Do we get our money back? Nope, it's all about prestige. I think it's better for USPSA in the long run to reward the folks who are attending and supporting our matches, rather than the folks who show up only at the World Shoot.

Until one of those captains happens to be sponsored, which they most likely would. If Dave was captain and picked Vogel it would still look bad. Even though Vogel would have earned it, there still would be the appearance of impropriety.

By removing the competition aspect it removes the ability to have an open process. Sure JA will probably pick a team that can win the WS in 2011 for us. I can do that now and without a lot of work. We have enough shooters in the US that we can pretty much throw darts at a board and pick a decent team. The problem I have with it is this. Take Limited/Standard for example. Does anyone doubt that there are half a dozen shooters in the US that are capable of WINNING the WS in Standard? Any of these folks would obviously make excellent contenders on a WS team. Each of them work very hard to get to where they are. To say that JA is going to be able to pick from that group and come up with the absolute best 4 shooters at the WS is ludicrous. How many people would have expected Robbie to finish in the top 4 at the Limited Nationals this year. Is there anyone that expected him to finish 7th? I would bet money there isn't. Stuff happens. If we accept there is no way to predict exactly who will finish up top, then we are setting up whoever picks the team as a scapegoat. If something weird happens, it's going to be blamed on JA and that is not fair to him. There is a very good chance that someone he didn't pick will finish better than someone he did pick. In fact, if this process is used and someone wants to lay a wager on that I'll take your money. If competition is used we get what we get. I liked the Olympics analogy very much. This is an individual sport. The best people should go. The 2008 process worked excellent. There was a nice low number of matches, turnout was good, and we picked teams that kicked butt.

According to the folks at Sig this year the All Around is available again. Makes sense with Max shooting one. The one I tried at the show was OK as far as the DA. There were several other guns with very nice DA's though so this one may have been a bit of a fluke. The SA was awesome though. Short crisp and no reset. I think once that DA gets shot a bit it would probably smooth up a bit, or just switching the mainspring (does Sig have a mainspring?)

Sorry Tom, not sure if you're familiar with the last qual process. First at Nationals the year of did get a slot on the team. If you wanted to shoot the minimum qualifiers, you could shoot two qualifiers and a Nationals and get all the possible points. And one of the qualifiers was immediately after the Nationasl. Travelling to two locations and shooting is not that big of a committment. The most available was a total of 5. How does the Team Manager make his selection. I've never seen JA at a match I've shot besides Nationals. Is it going to be based solely on Nats performance, or will shooters closer to JA have a better shot because he will see their skills and abilities more. Also, I hate to say it but USPSA shooting doesn't automatically equate to IPSC shooting. The stages are different, the equipment is different in just about every division (I think Revolver may be the only one that is the same and USPSA couldn't be bothered to send a team in Revo) and the rules are different. The last process worked well. The reason some shooters with potential to win didn't go was because they didn't want to.

That's a 6" Open gun that belongs to one of the employees. The rear sight you think you are seeing is a Docter red dot. Sorry Bobby, it's a Burris Fast Fire, unless Docter started putting On/Off switches on the side. Yes Sir, you're prolly right. Didn't remember that actual Manufacture, and I fondled so many this weekend. I thought the one on that gun came on when you removed the cover or something, it was a long weekend. My feet still hurt. But yeah, a red dot sight of some sort. No worries, I had to pull up the original of the picture to make sure I wasn't seeing things. I think there were only around 1000 of the little mini red dots at the show. I swear everyone had one on something.

Keep in mind that first sentence of mine. I don't agree with the change and would much rather have a competetive process. I was just trying to guess at the BOD's intent. I really liked the competetive process. While I didn't make the cut in Production I knew exactly what I needed to do. There was no question about the makeup of the team and within 20 minutes of the results being posted I think everyone who cared, knew who the team would be (except for the 2008 Nats champ slot). I really don't like the idea of one person making the decision. No matter how objectively, and I'm sure John would be objective, the decision is made there will be hard feelings. It's kind of hard to be mad at the process when you're the one who blew it.

Lone Wolf was displaying a prototype AR based carbine that takes Glock magazines at SHOT. Actually made that way, not modified from something else. Looked solid and they said the price would be nice as well.

I don't agree with it, but... In 2005 the US Produciton team lost. The team was made up of members that competed in the selection process. However only 1 of the top 4 finishers at that years Nationals was even on the team. Had a subjective deciscion been made to include Angus and Matt the US would have won. I believe that year Robbie and a few other top shooters were not on the team. This years teams were much better and I think the selection process was much better as well. But with a substitution or two may have been made better. I guess what it comes down to is, whether USPSA wants an open and objective decision regarding who gets to be on the team, but maybe the team doesn't have the BEST US shooters and comes in second, or USPSA wants to win, but maybe (probably) give the appearance of favoritism.

I've had the opportunity to talk to about half the BOD over the last couple days. While none of them are looking to allow Production to be a do anything you want Division, all of them were willing to take the time to listen to my point of view. (Although I'm sure Manny was tired of me sneaking up behind him every 20 minutes nad telling him "Don't ruin Production" then running off) Don't know what's going to happen with the vote or in the long run. I know at least 25% of the BOD will be changing next year with new directors in A1 and A3 since Bruce and Manny are not running again. I would just hope that any change, if one is made, would have some reasoning behind it. Consistent reasoning. You know if you want it to be a stock Division, don't let the outside of the gun look like my limited gun without a magwell and nothing inside.

That's a 6" Open gun that belongs to one of the employees. The rear sight you think you are seeing is a Docter red dot. Sorry Bobby, it's a Burris Fast Fire, unless Docter started putting On/Off switches on the side.