Chuck Anderson

Regarding the magnetic mag pouches in Production and Single Stack. The idea behind it was to try and cut down on the amount of race specific gear someone had to buy in either Division. Rather than make someone go out and buy 3-4 magnetic magazine pouches, and have them tote them around to each match that might have a table start, they were eliminated. I know Production and Single Stack are more greatly effected by the change than other divisions would be since you need to grab more mags. But that means you'd also need to buy more magnets. The idea behind both Divisions (at least in my, writing this at 4AM head) is to try and minimize the amount of competition specific gear you "have" to buy to be competetive.

Geez, never figured I'd see so many three gunners in favor of adding arbitrary limits to Divisions. The funny thing is at least one or two is opposed to an arbitrary 10 round limit in Production, but cool with it for the rifle? Can some of you guys go over to the 3# Production Trigger thread and support that? I just don't see the reason to try and make Tactical Scope "different" than Open. The Division doesn't need any help gaining people, if we're talking about TS. If we're talking about Open then why should we try to piss off a group of TS shooters to try and "help" Open. I'm pretty sure a fair amount of TS shooters have gone out an purchased C-Mags, Nordic, CA Comp, SureFire high cap mags. I know dang near all of them have muzzle brakes. I'm pretty sure from the USPSA side there's not a lot of desire to piss any more people off this month.

Does it weigh 3lbs? With what scale? If it covers Robbie's gigantic melon head it's got to weigh well over 3 pounds.

That is not what I see locally. Big matches...sure. That is a good point. How about L16 (+1) ? (not that I'd mess with the divisions.) As usual I agree with Kyle. My experience with L10 at the local level is seeing very few "Limited" guns. Most of them are Glock's some 40 some 45, Browning Hi Power, XD .45, M&P .45. Basically lots of .45 and some .40s that people don't want to shell out the money for a $100+ Über hi-cap .40 mag. I'm not planning on eliminating any divisions, but if I was Single Stack would be on the chopping block before the more inclusive L10.

Dude, don't blame me I heard you were behind the XDm which is the root of all that is evil in Production. (and for all the tinfoil hat folks this is complete sarcasm)

Just a side note for those that have contacted their AD and haven't heard back. Please remember it is the holidays and one or two of them actually have lives outside of USPSA. Found this out when I emailed one of them today. I was actually surprised he had a life, but hey what do I know. There's a long time before this takes effect. Plenty of time for you to get your message across.

I tried to word this poll as carefully as I could, and made sure to add the option to specify how often the respondent shoots Production. It is interesting that the ratio has remained remarkably consistent as the vote numbers have increased. I completely agree with you Paul. This is a pretty well worded poll. I can't think of anything that would have made the questions better. The only issue is what is it polling. It's polling Enos Forum members, which only make up a portion of USPSA. And even you have to admit the numbers responding to the poll are relatively low compared to the number of USPSA members on the forum. Chuck, I'll give you that the numbers are low, but you already made the argument that the folks who post and vote here are likely to be seriously committed to the game. Now I don't think my vote should count more than else's -- but I do have almost a decade's experience shooting the division, and eight years of experience running a monthly club match and four years experience running my section.... So, some of these responses are going to be representative of more than the single member's opinion that the poll will accept..... Just some food for thought.... The poll is going the way I want it to, don't get me wrong. Maybe I'm not making my point on this one though. The opinion of someone who is involved and knows WTF they are talking about is not necessarily the opinion of the average USPSA shooter. Looking at the Poll numbers there is a surprisingly (to me anyway) decent sized minority that wanted trigger pull limits. Yet I've had at least one very experienced individual say no one ever told him they wanted a trigger pull limit. Either our bias from being experienced is tempering what we see and hear or maybe it's just a regional thing. My guess is the desire for a trigger pull limit is probably greater among people newer to the sport than those that have been around the block. It's just a guess though. I'd rather keep one member for 10 years than 10 members for one year. I do believe your opinion is more important. But I can't ignore the new folks either.

Does that simply mean I can't stuff 2 magazines flat-side to flat-side in a mag pouch large enough to accommodate both? Or does that mean I can't use a single belt accessory to hold 2 or more magazines? Because if the latter, that declares illegal the old Davis-style leather double mag pouches I was using 25 years ago. And if I have to ask that, it means that this can be interpreted 10 different ways by 10 different people and that's NOT what you need at a match. It means the first. They must be contained individually in their own pouch. Not that the pouch can't contain multiple magazines. You're still losing me. The old leather double mag pouch was a single leather pouch with a tension screw in the middle and you stuck one magazine in front of the screw and the other behind it. Could I still use it? (I may actually still have 1 or 2 of these around here....) I see what you are asking: Come 2013, is it legal to have two magazines in this pouch for single stack? http://www.midwayusa.com/product/885536/uncle-mikes-double-magazine-belt-pouch-for-single-stack-magazines-paddle-kydex-black Or two magazines in this pouch that comes with XD's: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/2SPXD3508-1.html My strict reading of the BoD meeting minutes is that neither of the pouches are legal in 2013. I hope to hell that this gets clarified before 2013, as well. Both are fine. The pouch is what wraps around the magazine. You can have multiple pouches attached to a single point, Comptac Belt Feed, Double mag pouch whatever.

I tried to word this poll as carefully as I could, and made sure to add the option to specify how often the respondent shoots Production. It is interesting that the ratio has remained remarkably consistent as the vote numbers have increased. I completely agree with you Paul. This is a pretty well worded poll. I can't think of anything that would have made the questions better. The only issue is what is it polling. It's polling Enos Forum members, which only make up a portion of USPSA. And even you have to admit the numbers responding to the poll are relatively low compared to the number of USPSA members on the forum.

Does that simply mean I can't stuff 2 magazines flat-side to flat-side in a mag pouch large enough to accommodate both? Or does that mean I can't use a single belt accessory to hold 2 or more magazines? Because if the latter, that declares illegal the old Davis-style leather double mag pouches I was using 25 years ago. And if I have to ask that, it means that this can be interpreted 10 different ways by 10 different people and that's NOT what you need at a match. It means the first. They must be contained individually in their own pouch. Not that the pouch can't contain multiple magazines. You're still losing me. The old leather double mag pouch was a single leather pouch with a tension screw in the middle and you stuck one magazine in front of the screw and the other behind it. Could I still use it? (I may actually still have 1 or 2 of these around here....) Yes. The magazines have their own little pouch they are stuffed in with 4 other magazines, or held in place by a magnet. You're fine.

Does that simply mean I can't stuff 2 magazines flat-side to flat-side in a mag pouch large enough to accommodate both? Or does that mean I can't use a single belt accessory to hold 2 or more magazines? Because if the latter, that declares illegal the old Davis-style leather double mag pouches I was using 25 years ago. And if I have to ask that, it means that this can be interpreted 10 different ways by 10 different people and that's NOT what you need at a match. It means the first. They must be contained individually in their own pouch. Not that the pouch can't contain multiple magazines.

I don't see any reason it wouldn't be legal. Certainly wouldn't be an advantage to lighten the frame. I know a lot of people have had to lighten other makers frames under the grip panels to make weight. Canned answer though is to email Dnroi and ask.

While it is counter-intuitive, statistically speaking, you don't need a large sample size to get a good result, provided that you avoid sample selection bias and ballot box stuffing. Consider, for example, the expected outcome if everyone on the planet flips a coin heads or tails. The outcome is almost certainly going to be close to 50/50, following a classic binomial distribution of expected percentages. Now, consider the expected percentage of you have 100 people (an extremely miniscule percentage of the planetary population) flip a coin and calculate the percentage. Chances are overwhelming that you will have a result with a few points of 50/50. Without getting into Statistics 101, a class I never took. If you have a 2 choice option, and there is no outside influence, yeah it's gonna be 50/50. If you have a small sample size that doesn't reflect all of USPSA and many, many options it really isn't representative. OK, since the next question is gonna be why doesn't the poll represent USPSA as a whole. The Enos Forum really does have the most involved, active members of USPSA here. The majority of shooters will show up, shoot and go home. They aren't going to spend hours practicing or hours looking at various threads on Enos. The folks here do, and most, I believe, are better shooters because of it. But it doesn't change the fact that thousands of USPSA competitors will never come on Enos, and of the thousands that do, obviously only a small fraction of those will participate in this poll. Other wise we'd have 20,000 votes on it. The most passionate about the rule change will take the time to come to a poll and vote. And the most passionate of those will take the time to write why they voted the way they did. There are likely thousands of members, that just couldn't care less about this issue, and many more who care a little but not enough to vote in the poll. That's why I don't think this poll is presenting a valid result.

Dude, the Steel Challenge is coming to Frostproof in 2012. How much closer do you want it?

Not legal yet. I know Glock did a soft release on them sometime ago, but then they dried up. Not sure if they've hit 2K yet. If they have they haven't submitted the paperwork.

If they have houses visible downrange of the shooting area, that range will be shut down soon anyway. I wouldn't shoot there, even if it was legal. I also agree with the assessment that it's not safe to shoot with the muzzle over the berm, but it's not safe for any range related activity. I would mention to the club if they are planning to go outlaw that there are benefits to having rules in line with a Nationally recognized organization. Benefits that if they go Outlaw will probably be held against them if there is a problem.

Seriously? You don't have to name names, but I gotta wonder who this RO was??? And if this was at a major match??? Seems like some RO went into either "range nazi" or "hall pass monitor" mode to me to come up with something like that. To keep this on track I'll just send you a PM.

As has been mentioned previously, strain guages, which all electronic guages I know of are, are very dependent on how the pull is done. If you don't believe me, go put your guage on the trigger, pull very slowly, then give the next one a yank and tell me if they are the same. Not that I would expect the Chrono dude to give it a yank, but I've seen some pretty sketchy chrono guys as well. The other hitch is that, unlike a rifle which normally doesn't have stuff on it's trigger, most striker fired (and we really are just talking striker fired guns here) do have manual safeties contained in their triggers, Glock's, XD, XDm, M&P and I'm sure a couple others I'll think of later have varying designs of trigger safety. They also have significantly longer travel than rifle triggers. Something that makes it very difficult to keep the bar in the middle of the trigger. Go take your Glock and play around with the trigger pull gauge. Try it at the top, try it at the bottom, try it in the middle, fast and slow. If you come out with the exact same result. Well you won't so I won't bother with the rest of that. The seemingly best solution is the NRA weight system. It's a simple dead weight that hangs. Pick the gun up, slowly and if the gun lifts the weight it's golden. If it doesn't you're not. Even this has the issue of trigger safeties, placement and movement speed. One other thing I haven't seen come up, which I'm actually glad no one thought about. This would be a very easy test to cheat at. Even if we specified a procedure to be done at Chrono, blah, blah, blah. I can change the trigger pull weight of my Glock in less than 30 seconds. Pop the cover plate and drop in a new striker assembly with a standard weight FP spring. There, heading to Chrono I'm at 4 pounds. Next stage, quick trip to the safety area and I'm back at 2.5.

If you think USPSA Production is a mess you should see IPSC Production. Impossible to enforce rules, DA/SA dominant in a big way. I think I'll pass on that one.

Last year there were a few of us that shot both matches. It was a bit of a last minute thing. Travis filled from the wait list on both matches individually before he let anyone in to both. You can try, but I wouldn't count on any open spots this year. And speaking as someone who shot Trooper/Scoped Tactical and a side match at the end. I hurt for about a month afterwards.

Chuck, I'm sorry but I need to jump on this. In 2010 at the Nationals RO meeting we were told we would be using a new rule book partially titled "With Board Of Directors Approved Amendments Through July 2010". When questioned were this rule book was, we were told in our bucket. That was the first time I saw it because my rule book is extensively highlighted and I had to dig through the book to find the changes. In 2011 at the Nationals the RO's were handed 2 sheets of paper to be read to shooters about changes to a couple of rules. I know one was passed off as a clarification about when a shooter could have a magazine in their front pocket forward of the hip but that changed what was written in the rule book. The other was called a clarification regarding trapping. I don't recall reading either situation in FrontSight prior to implementation. Neither were rule changes per-se. They were issued as clarifications to prevent some of the confusion that happened at other matches. The magazine in the pocket came about because someone decided to try and bump a shooter to open because at ULSC he stowed his mag in his front pocket before clearing the gun. Not what the rule was ever intended to mean. The trapping thing...yeah.

Sorry to have been away from this for awhile. I've been busy on another thread. This is not a situation that USPSA has ignored or is not taking seriously. We have discussed it more than once since I've been on the BOD. Just because we don't agree that allowing local rules is in the best interests for the sport does not mean we haven't considered it. The most recent club I spoke with regarding this had some concerns. We didn't just say, it's USPSA or the Highway and tell them to pound sand. We pointed to the safety track record, the fact that a round over the berm is already a DQ, reloading with the finger in the triggerguard is already a DQ. We gave them our concerns about how difficult it would be to enforce and other likely concerns that would come up. Then offered assistance with obtaining grants for range improvements that could alleviate concerns such as raising berms or adding baffles. These have been successful in other venues. The hitch is this is only one of several things that people who don't like USPSA will use to dismantle the sport. Moving, drawing, shooting too darn fast, and reloading. Things that make this sport what it is. Allowing individual clubs to pick and choose what elements of the sport they like and don't like will not end well. For the folks that think it's easy to just not reload pointing over the berm. I shot a rifle match a couple weeks ago at my home range. They have a rule about reloading with the muzzle over the berm. (Not USPSA) None of the three stages required a reload, but every dang time I loaded the rifle to start I got a warning about my muzzle. And I was trying to comply. It's just thousands of reps have made that an unconscious action, just like taking my finger off the trigger when moving or loading. It's interesting that there are some people complaining (and rightly so I believe) about having to change out their Production trigger because they invested $100.00 in it, but they would be okay with invalidating hundreds of hours of training. As for the legal aspects of launching a round out of a range. It would be bad, no question. Any ND carries with it horrible possible consequences. But to immediately assume it would be the end of the range is nothing more than claiming the sky is falling. It might, or it might not. If it does, I really don't know what the legal consequences would be. No one really does. A good lawyer on either side could certainly make the case for or against negligence. My feeling is that our rules do an excellent job when it comes to safety. Is there anyone that can say that something bad would happen if the rules are actually followed? Setting up the argument that if someone violated this rule, then this rule, then a 1/100,000 shot happened something bad could happen would result in the end of our sport. If a shooter was doing an up range start, then drew facing uprange, then tripped and had an ND while turning because his finger was on the trigger and fired a round that landed in an orphanage a mile away is not a reason to ban uprange starts.

I might have brought that up already....something along the lines of using parliamentary procedure to table the trigger pull discussion and vote until the next BOD meeting. You are correct about the table motion. I think Chuck was trying to find STFU in Roberts Rules of Order about that time I thought Chuck had said somebody else, maybe the Prez???, gave him the STFU comment or look or both right before the vote. At least I thought I read that...I am probably wrong... No, you read it wrong. Before the vote it was a pretty decent dialouge. After the vote I got a bit heated resulting in the STFU. Not saying I didn't have it coming. I was interrupting another member and was certainly out of order. Just saying what happened.

First off, I do not carry a gun professionally so I will start with my lack of qualification in that regard. The policy statement said near out of box and suitable for carry. It is more the totality of marketplace offerings, rather than thoughts an opinions, that lead to my conclusion that sub 3lb triggers are not "Reasonably out of the box" features on guns sold as carry weapons by major manufacturers. Can you point to a gun where a sub 3lb trigger is "reasonably out of the box" for a gun marketed as a carry piece? But, as I have mentioned, I am willing to approach the trigger pull issue with an open mind, and I don't have to be convinced that major manufacturers are indeed selling 2.5lb triggers for carry in order to be convinced that a reversal of policy would be in the best interests of USPSA. I am confident that everyone on the board will understand that our job at this point is to do what is best for the membership and the organization, and not to get defensive about the recent vote. I offer my comments only to explain the logic I used to arrive at the vote I did and why, given the policy at the time, it was consistent with past board actions. Okay, I'll quit harping on it and follow my own advice. I know you voted with what you thought, honestly, was best for USPSA and everyone. I don't mean to keep picking on you in particular. As far as a gun marketed as a carry piece. The Glock 34/35 series was sold and marketed very heavily as a Law Enforcement gun. More were sold for that purpose than for Compeition. It has normally shipped with the - connector, which Glock originally said was a 3.5 pound connector (although they finally changed that and said it was 4.5) With a very minimum amount of effort and a $10.00 set of Wolff springs I can take that trigger well below 3 pounds. So yes, I would say $10.00 and 15 minutes is reasonably out of the box. Certainly more so than aftermarket barrels, stippling, milled sights etc. Rob, I honestly appreciate you taking the time to talk about this. Please don't quit posting because I'm being a douche. I get a bit...passionate at times.

The BOD is not going to wait around until new people take office. We have elections every year. Should we shut down for the last 3 months and not do anything? .. Well frankly yes you should. This wasn't an immediate pressing crisis that HAD to be resolved right now. You have 2 new AD's coming in and a new president. Your current configuration makes you a lame duck BoD and you might have gotten a different result with the new folks in place. All we can hope is that the next BoD will repeal this. They have a year to work on it. We as members need to encourage our 2012 AD's and president in no uncertain terms (but polite nonetheless) that we do NOT want this. So Bill, if we're a lame duck BOD, and shouldn't pass rules when all but one of the new people coming on board was at the meeting, when would it be permissible by you to pass rules? ... I'm saying that when you have something that can have such far reaching implications as this change (which you voted against and thank you for that) and it's not a pressing crisis (this one obviously wasn't since you set an implementation date of 13 months away) and you're within weeks of a major personnel change on the board, in my opinion you hand it off to the next board so there can be NO possibility of backlash because you're an out-going official. That's great, but we can't do that. The USPSA BOD doesn't have the money, or need to meet every couple months. The 13 month implementation date was simply because of the need to post this to members (which BTW Pat, is how USPSA is required to announce rule changes. That way everyone who gets the Official Newsletter has them.) The issue of Front Sight won't go out till another 2-3 months (we just missed the publishing deadline) and we need another 3 months before any new rule takes effect. That would put us mid season for the change which no one wanted. This way there is time for the membership to make choices. If we waited until July for the vote (which is the next scheduled meeting) we might not have had it in place until mid 2013. It just doesn't make sense to keep putting things off. Particularly in this case where there really wasn't that much of a change in the make up of the BOD. Sorry, I just think this was a really good meeting to get things done at. I wish we had done other things, like not pissing off half the membership, but to continue to wait does no one any good.