Rob Boudrie

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.

True, but the policy also said "near out of box". If the policy is wrong, it should be changed, not ignored.

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.

For the record, I never stated 3lbs was OK; just that the prevailing thought is that below 3lbs is too light for carry. Ok, but show me a major (or even minor) manufacturer selling box-stock guns with sub 3lb triggers suitable for carry. The standard stated "stock or nearly-stock guns can compete on a relatively level playing field". If my understanding that no manufacturer sells "stock" guns with sub 3lb triggers for carry, and getting one to that level is something people commonly spend over $100 for, then it's not what one would call "nearly stock". Simply put, carry guns are not sold with 2.5lb triggers and once a stock gun is modified to have one, it is no longer "nearly stock". Therein lies both the question and the answer. If it's a clean shoot it's irrelevant. The prevailing thought among many (though obviously not all) is that light triggers increase the risk of an unintentional or premature shot. I suspect that some of those involved in a rather embarrassing incident involving discharging an AR15 through the neck of a proned out and compliant subject senior citizen at a raid one town over from me might agree. This particular issue is a distraction. While the "not suitable for carry" in the 3/7/2009 document explains the motivation for at least one BOD vote, it is not a mandate that said position or policy cannot be altered.

If you're telling me that a 2.5lb trigger is fine on a carry gun, your the first LE professional to tell me so. In any case, it's going to be hard to convince me that a trigger under 3lbs is generally "suitable for carry", but I am of an open mind on making an alteration to the "suitable for carry" requirement.

First off, please pardon the long winded nature of this post. I've been thinking over the Production issue, and am convinced that the board should revisit this with a fresh look - making a careful effort to neither fall into the trap of attempting to justify the recent vote, or alternatively, to simply reverse it due to reaction from what may, or may not, be representative of general sentiment. Any of my comments regarding "why things were done" are my own impression of the circumstances, not official positions of the entire board. It's absolutely appropriate for members to push back if they don't like the direction the board takes, and it's our job on the board to take this sort of feedback seriously. I thank everyone who has posted comments and thoughts for the feedback. Please keep it coming. As I previously mentioned, since we already had a policy statement, the vote was just a matter of implementing that policy, not a change of direction. It appears that many members either were not familiar with the formally published board position statement of March, 2009, or felt that statement was fine as long as we didn't actually use it to guide our decisions. We should start by reviewing the goals of Production - accepting those premises if appropriate; altering them if necessary; and proceeding to implement rules that are congruent with the goals. In other words, change the goals if necessary - but don't handle the situation by choosing to ignore goals, or pretending they don't exist. I believe that an original intent of Production was to allow a "reasonably out of the box double action 9mm handgun" to be fully competitive. The "no single action" requirement was, indirectly, a de-facto trigger pull limit and the 10 round capacity not only accommodated the environment of hostile territories such as MA, NY and CA, but also leveled the field across a very wide variety of handgun models (since it precluded the "chasing of that extra round in the mag" effect). To that extent, the production rules were effective at creating an environment where someone could show up with their 9x19 from the local gun shop, unmodified, and be fully competitive. And then, competitors being what they are, the inevitable started. It became a game of "how much of an advantage (real or imagined) can I build into the gun while in compliance with the rules?" We saw efforts to push the limits on the Production requirements, and pushed back with the Board "Policy Notice" of March 7, 2009 that was an attempt to clarify and formalize the intent of production, and provide a fundamental guideline as to "what production is all about". One of the key components of that policy statement was "suitable for carry". Not a single member that I am aware of contacted the board and objected or claimed that "suitable for carry" was not appropriate in the production goal statement. This goal did not meet with any objection until December 2011 when a majority of the board actually voted in a manner consistent with the formal policy statement regarding Production published over 2 1/2 years ago. The following statements in the board's policy document of March 7, 2009 spell out the logic guiding production rules. Excerpts from that statement (available in full on www.uspsa.org -> member services -> board minutes -> in person minutes -> 2009 minutes) include: Summary: The broad intent of the Production Division remains intact; to provide an equipment category where stock or nearly-stock guns can compete on a relatively level playing field. Due to unsupported member assumptions, a wide variety of internal and external modifications have been seen in competition. USPSA’s intent, with this ruling, is to re-level the playing field, respectful of both members existing investments in guns and current modifications, and the desire to have the Division remain viable for typical carry-suitable guns. .... 1) Is there a minimum trigger-pull weight in USPSA Production Division? ANSWER: Not at this time. [My note: The implication of "not at this time" as opposed to "we will never have one" would appear to be rather obvious] ... 32) Is this the final and definitive set of interpretations for USPSA Production Division? ANSWER: No. NROI will continue to issue official interpretations as questions arise. In addition, the USPSA Board is committed to preserving the Production Division as a division for competing with “stock” or “nearly stock” guns, suitable for carry purposes. As a result, NROI and the USPSA Board of Directors will be monitoring the Production Division closely and if it appears that portions of these rulings are being abused or misinterpreted, or if the new rulings prove insufficient to preserve the desired attributes of the Division, further restrictions may be imposed at a later date. The statement "the USPSA Board is committed to preserving the Production Division as a division for competing with stock or nearly stock guns, suitable for carry purposes" pretty much sums up how we came to the recent decision. The statement "if the new rulings prove insufficient to preserve the desired attributes of the Division, further restrictions may be imposed at a later date" in the March, 2009 minutes further clarifies the intent established by the board at that time. This of course brings us the fundamental question: "Should USPSA remove "carry suitability" from the stated goal for a production gun, and replace it with something like "minimal modifications", or "Suitable for carry with the exception of trigger pull"? I don't believe it is reasonable to argue that a gun with a 2.5lb trigger job is a "nearly stock gun suitable for carry purposes" and, as such, conclude a 3lb limit is absolutely consistent with this stated goal - therefore, if a change is needed, the goal should be modified. On the other hand, from a "marketing" point of view, I don't expect that competitors who are new to the sport will be intimidated because they hear someone has had a trigger job done on their Production while they are shooting a box-stock version. George Jones said it nicely when he posted "I stand by my opinion that the Board did not clearly define and communicate the limitations they intended when they first introduced the Division. Everything after that was a band-aid.". The policy statement of March 7, 2009 was an attempt to properly "clean this up". In retrospect, I think the board did a fine job of defining the goals on March 7, 2009, but perhaps we should have done more to render the members cognizant as to the import of that position. Had we successfully communicated the full impact of the March 7 position statement 2 1/2 years ago, we may have received timely feedback that our members wanted a somewhat different direction for production. So, the question on the table is simply "What should production be?". Answer that question, and the specific implementation details will be straightforward. Rob Boudrie Area 7 Director .

If you get an unexpected stopover in NJ or NYC requiring rechecking your bag, do NOT attempt to check the bag with the gun at the airline counter. Find a Fedex box and ship it to yourself, or take a bus out of dodge. NY (and by some reports NJ) seems to have this unusual custom of summoning police for a "legality check" on any checked firearm, and even when FOPA86 applies, have a less than stellar record in properly understanding it. >They won't call you, they will just cut the locks. True, but TSA regulations also prohibit allowing a gun to fly in unlocked luggage creating an interesting catch 22 here.

The real issue is "should we redefine what production stands for?". Do we want it to be a division where out of the box guns are fully competitive - Yes or No? Everything is derived from the answer to that question. The fact that some people find the concept of the board continuing to reinforce this principle indicates that the answer may not be as clearly Yes and I had thought. The characterization of a sub 2.5lb trigger as being unsuitable for a carry gun as "my opinion" shows a misunderstanding of the prevailing standards for duty and defensive weapons. It may be "my opinion", but it is a very widely held one.

rob: i appreciate you asking the question. perhaps it should have been asked before the vote. in fact though, it was asked, a few years ago before one of the other production rules re-writes. and i believe the expressed feelings ran against a trigger weight limit by a pretty sizable margin. so maybe shoving it down our throats was the right way to get it done this time. My viewpoint was that the goal had been clarified by the board in 2009 with the standard specifically and explicitly being "suitable for carry", and that this was an implementation detail. In fact, the wording of that particular document was the deciding factor in my vote, with my reasoning being: Given the stated policy and goal of Production, is a sub 3lb trigger suitable and acceptable for carry and generally provided on out of the box for carry guns? If yes, allowable; if not no. So I didn't regard this as a change in direction, but an implementation of an already published and agreed policy. Prior to the document of March 7, 2009, there was some ambiguity as to exactly what niche production should fill - was it intended to be non-single action guns customized for competition; guns out of the box with no changes whatsoever, or somewhere in between. The magic words in that document that clarified the direction were "the desire to have the Division remain viable for typical carry-suitable guns." What I am hearing now is people on this forum advocating use of guns in production that are absolutely unacceptable for carry purposes by virtually all published training standards. Even the big manufacturer that sells guns with trigger pulls in the claimed (emphasis on claimed) 3lb range does so only on competition models, and won't even sell civilians the 3lb part for fear it will end up on a carry weapon. Treating guns unsuitable for carry as suitable for production would be a marked departure from the explicitly stated goal for production. So, is the advocacy for changing the goal of production or carving out an exception for trigger pull? There are no other choices with super light triggers - one cannot have a 2.5lb trigger and claim to be shooting a "carry suitable gun". Historically, the board has been known to reverse itself. We voted to treat the team as "pros hired to win" and select the World Shoot team on that basis a few years ago - but the top to dogs make it clear they really wanted it to be a competition for slots and the course was changed and we went to an objective criteria. (Thanks in large part to an excellent presentation by BJ Norris). Please remember the Enosverse is not an official survey medium - email your AD to make your opinion heard.

The BOD policy statement from March 7, 2009 sums it up nicely: The last sentence pretty much sums it up "viable for typical carry-suitable guns". We are arguing if guns that are not viable for carry should be allowed. (I'm going out on a limb claiming a 2.5lb trigger renders a gun unsuitable for carry, but I think that it's a pretty sturdy limb). The reason it was not included in the start was an underestimation of the extent to which competitors would go to work around the intent of the rules to gain a perceived advantage.

By all means, if you disagree, or agree - push back and let your AD know. I have an open mind on the merits of the decision itself, but I consider assertions that it is "impossible to test" a distraction from the real issue. I would also like to see how a standardized weight based measurement would do with the "out of the box" triggers claimed to be 2.5lbs (as I have frequently found manufacturer claims of light trigger pulls to be somewhat exaggerated). I personally doubt that many of these "2.5 lb guns" would fail a "3.0 test", especially if the test was designed to err on the side of caution with regards to an adverse finding for a shooter. If it's not an advantage, why do people pay big $$ for it, and why is it important? It seems to fall into the old "This is not an advantage and don't you dare take away the advantage I want to purchase" argument which, by its very nature, is oxymoronic. Can anyone name a production gun, not sold as a specialty competition only gun, that has a sub 3lb trigger? Remember, "real production guns", not "specialty competition guns" are what Production division was supposed to be all about. I think it's silly to conclude that it's fine to reload with a round in the chamber, the finger outside the trigger guard, and a muzzle pointed over a berm - but it's a safety violation to do a vertical trigger pull on a gun verified as unloaded by two people. That being said, one could also design a weight on a pully to apply the force horizontally, or a "containment box" to render vertical a safe direction. But, as I said before, this is a distraction from the real issue - should there be a trigger weight limit? This translates to "should competition guns in Production be servicible self defense guns, or should they be guns no one in their right mind would ever carry?". I based my vote on the answer to this question being the former but, if the overwhelming consensus is that Production should be specialty guns for match shooting, then the entire concept of what we claim production represents should be rethought.

First production, then accross all divisions. I would be surprised if anyone sitting on the board would vote for such a thing. I know I wouldn't. There is no representation that any other division represents "out of box general purpose guns" pressed into competition use. Therein lies the essence of the issue. Common objections will go like this: 1. A super-light trigger will not make you a winner, and someone with an actual production trigger has no disadvantage. 2. Don't you dare take away my ability to purchase an advantage with a 2lb trigger. And, amazingly, some people believe #1 and #2 can be concurrently valid statements.

With the proper gauge it is - provided the competitor is the one who conducts the measurement in the presence of the chrono officer. It's easy - "Lift this fixed weight off the table while the hook on the weight rests on your trigger". While I speak only for myself, I agree on the issue of "staff workers measuring the same way" - which is why I will push to either have the competitor do the actual measurement, or be given the opportunity to repeat the measurement (and pass) if it does not pass when the chrono officer does it.

I guided my vote on trigger pull for production based on the original intent of the division - a decision where bone stock general purpose defensive guns are FULLY competitive, and MINIMAL changes are allowed. If there were indeed general market production guns with < 3lb first shot triggers, I would have voted differently. Production guns are not made with sub 3-lb first shot triggers except, possibly, "specialty" guns designed and optimized for competition use. Allowing 2lb triggers in "Production" would take said division away from production and further its evolution into a division where anyone who wants to win will feel they have to get a special edition super-duper-production-gun-that-isn't-really-production in order to be fully competitive. The concept of someone buying a box stock Glock, XD or whatever and being "fully equipped to win any match, anywhere, without disadvantage due to equipment" would fade away if the prevailing standard becomes trigger jobs that are anything but "production". It will be very simple assuming a proper, fixed weight trigger pull tester is designed. The way I would it is a fixed weight with a ringer shaped "roller", and the shooter is given N tries to pick it up off the table using his gun. I expect that testing the triggers will take considerably less time than the chrono measurement itself.

Mnaufacturers can eventually declare a particular model obsolete; no longer in production with no parts available and therefore non-repairable. When there is a lifetime warranty, this is handled by giving the owner a new comparable unit. When there isn't a lifetime warranty, it's done by offering to sell the customer a new unit (often at a discount). In the TV/Monitor world, Visio is known for this - in warranty get a replacement; out of warranty gets a "sorry, we don't repair". It probably had more to do with the completely non-competitive market for replacement screens. They know they "gotcha" and you have no other options - just like car manufacturers that price a key transmitter that costs them $10 or so at $400+. Even 30 minutes of tech time, with overhead, can't reasonably account for more than $100 of a LCD replacement. We're not talking brain surgery here. Also considered in setting the price: How many other vendors have this part available for sale, and how many offer the service of replacing it?

How is the eye relief on the Vortex?

If I wrote the express checkout software, it would start to blink red when the customer was 2 items over the limit, and then refuse to process any more.

Some background on Sky Divers work: - He has "Read" access to the USPSA database, so his data is identical to that on the USPSA site - just analyzed and presented differently. One of the terms of this access was that he agreed to display only first character of the last name, since last name display on uspsa.org is limited to members only (but member number is still included for unambiguous access) - He is working with the data we already upload. This means that he is not only displaying the combined results, but actually reading all hit factors, figuring a combined high hit factor, and re-calculating results from scratch. The fact that he turned this around in a day has convinced me that is it worth my time to try to recruit him into working on official USPSA projects. - The site is not supported by USPSA. We are letting a member analyze results and prepare his own reports, but they have no official standing, and nobody should bother USPSA HQ with questions, support issues, etc. on this individual member's site. - Sometimes, I "just do stuff", and this (granting access) was one of those cases. Access to results data does not imply any decision or policy by USPSA. Any member can read results - I just made it a bit easier for Skydiver.

An absolutely beautiful scope, but I couldn't get past the fact that the $2000 Swarovski had a 2 year warranty and the $500 Vortex had a Dillon style lifetime warranty - something I consider a relevant decision factor on any scope with an electronic component. We like Vortex products, and the warranty, own some, but did not like the reticle on the 1-4 to purchase one...Otherwise they would be no brainers.... Is the two year really true, I have heard many stories about people sending back spotting scopes, binoculars and have them repaired no questions asked. Has anyone on the board had experience with Swarovski customer service? On another note, Just received a meopta ZD 2 hours ago, purchased from sportoptics and it says on it "lifetime transferable warranty", I like that. Just mounted it on Michele's ar, Wow, what nice glass and the reticle is bright, cant wait to take it out in the light and sight the gun in. Yes, it's true. They use the term "Limited Lifetime Warranty", but add weasel words that make it anything but. I noticed the Vortex warranty doesn't have any "except for the functionality that is most likely to fail" exclusion. Vortex also doesn't have the pesky requirement of "save your receipt so we can verify the proper middlemen got their cut before we give you warranty service".

An absolutely beautiful scope, but I couldn't get past the fact that the $2000 Swarovski had a 2 year warranty and the $500 Vortex had a Dillon style lifetime warranty - something I consider a relevant decision factor on any scope with an electronic component.

Just got off the phone ... That's exactly what they are going to do .. Send out a .40 conversion kit, plus Gary was nice enough to throw in some spare parts that I asked about, due to the inconvenience. And it is going out FedEx today so I should have it early next week. Still sucks, but hey, they are working to fix it right away. I got a chuckle when he said "well I wish I could say this was the first time it ever happened, but ..." Still sucks? I'll be there are a LOT of folks on this list who would gladly put up with the extra week or do delay in getting set up to get a free extra toolhead and dies (even if the dies aren't one you use, the toolhead itself has real value). Classy move on Dillon's part - lesser companies would respond with "we'll replace it once the incorrect part arrives".

Done

+1 on removing wooden parts (keeping in mind I do not know enough about bedded rifles to know if this is a good idea on such guns), but extend the recommendation to all grips. I've seen used guns that appear to be in pristine shape until the grip is removed, revealing either finish discoloration or corrosion. I've even seen pitting under the grips *(mino, but it's there) on a modern stainless S&W revolver.

Add - If you buy 2 seats, and the plane is overbooked, will they treat the vacant seat you purchased as the equal of any other seat? Specifically, if they do not get to you via their involuntary bumping procedures, will they allow the extra seat you bought to remain MT while passengers are left @ the gate? Also, when it comes to keeping the extra seat MT in the face of stranded passengers - will your rental of the extra seat be treated the same as the extra seat the famous person who does not want to sit next to a commoner purchased in first class? Yes, there are rich people who actually buy two first class seats so they don't rub elbows with the unwashed masses.

If you can connect to a MySQL database directly, please email me - rob at boudrie dot com. If so, would you be interested in hosting this as a "non-USPSA service?" We no longer use summary_match.dat, and those deprecated lines will eventually be removed from the upload file. The lines that start with a single letter followed by a space are the ones that are currently used. The change was put in place in October, 2010 when we switch from uploading flat files (denoted with $FILE lines), to a true database driven results system that captured the data in a form more suitable for enhanced reports. This change is also why the recently added stats in only available for matches shot under the new database driven system.