bgary

Yeah... the stage procedure in the diagram is correct (and has been the entire time PCC has existed, as far as I can tell). It's the WSB on the second page that is the issue. The WSB says "strong shoulder" and "weak shoulder"... terms that are not defined in the rules at all. I've raised it with DNROI and he says he's going to fix it. Bruce

I wonder if that's an old (?) version of the classifier diagram? The diagram on the USPSA site for 03-11 clearly says "strong hand only" and "weak hand only", which is consistent with the terms defined in the Rulebook appendix.... EDITED to add - the procedure on the diagram is correct. The procedure in the WSB (on the next page) is not consistent. I'll pass it along. Bruce

The thing that takes Lily out for me is that the camera is programmed to track the sensor. Put the sensor on your belt, you'll always be in frame. No other meaningful controls (if I understand it correctly, you can't re-orient the drone to point the camera another direction). makes it great for selfies, useless for pretty much any other kind of photo or video.

+1 on DJI. I bought a good but still-toy-level drone (a Blade QX-180) just to play with. Lots of fun, especially chasing the dog around the family room. But without a camera and without real auto-control integration, kinda boring. Upgraded to a Dromida Ominus (about $180). Better. Still have to constantly "fly" it, but it has a first-person view (FPV) camera that lets you see the world from its perspective in real-time, plus record 720p video. Then came into a "broken" DJI Phantom-2 "Vision". Previous owner had crashed it, broke the camera gimbal but everything else still worked. Flies great, camera works, records video and takes 12mp stills, everything is good except the camera is fixed in place rather than "staying level" as the drone moves. The major thing I love about the DJI, though, is that it is "smart". It has GPS and compass integrated into it so... it "hovers in place" when you take your hands off the controls, it "returns to home" if you screw up or it loses its connection. You can even pre-program GPS waypoints into it and it will take off, fly the route and land, all automagically. There are super deals on Phantom-2s now that the Phantom 3 is out. Highly recommend.

Yup. Since that vote (last September), my eyes got opened when I walked around the SHOT show and saw how many manufacturers are building optics-ready carry-suitable guns. Then learned that a variety of Federal LE agencies are experimenting with this. And learned about the Army's next-gen "Modular Handgun" proposal. Etc. Still not 100% sure a new division is the right thing to do.... but 100% convinced there's "something" here, and open to seeing where it leads.

Gosh, I hope not. The good news is that the Board is actively engaged in figuring out how to give this a try. That we haven't landed on a specific plan yet is not the same as "we're not going to do it".

There was discussion about allowing the addition of internal weight, in order to close the weight gap between (for example) a Glock and a CZ/Tanfo. I have two issues with that direction: One, we'd have to be really careful to ensure that there was clarity about how such mods could be made. I would *not* be in favor of relaxing Production-division rules around (for example) external mods in order to add weight. But, two, IMHO it wouldn't actually accomplish the goal of reducing a perceived competitive gap. The owner of a CZ/Tanfo could just as easily add weight, and you'd end up with [at least] as much disparity as before. $.02

Just FYI, the language that got posted in the minutes is not the language approved by the Board. We didn't actually land in as specific a spot as that statement would indicate, and there is currently no timeline or commitment. We *are* reviewing options and, if we can reach consensus on some of the bigger facets, *may* proceed to formulate a plan. Bruce

Thank you, Doug and Scott, for putting together some of the best matches in the country. Hope you'll be able to bring it back.

In case anyone's interested, the USPSA Board has published the 2014 "annual report".... http://uspsa.org/uspsa-announcements-details.php?Annual-Report-to-the-Membership-194 Feel free to contact your AD (or me, directly) if you have comments/questions/whatever... Bruce

Minor nit, but if you happen to talk with the author.... when he talks about shooting games, he says that Production is one of the two divisions that a single-stack 1911 can be competitive in. Someone should let him know that single-action guns can't play in Production...

That's where we are right now. NROI is evaluating a bunch of samples, since each manufacturer seems to have different dimensions. Once there is a "standard" set of dimensions, the next step will be to figure out which rules need to be updated to cover the use of reduced-size targets. And, obviously, change the appendix to include the new target.\ When that's done, there will be an announcement giving a green light to use them in matches....

Ah! It was supposed to be in the minutes, I'll reach out and see if we can add it back in. In the meantime, the language we adopted for the bylaws is: 10.5 Conflict of Interest: A Conflict of Interest (COI) occurs where an individual’s obligation to further the organization’s purposes is at odds with their own financial interest. Conflicts of Interest may exist for reasons other than a financial interest (e.g., a relationship or something which might affect a person's ability to act impartially in the best interests of the Corporation on a specific topic). A COI is not necessarily bad for business, as long as it is disclosed and appropriately managed. USPSA has adopted the IRS “Sample Conflict of Interest Policy”, as found in the instructions for IRS form 1023, in order to ensure that the organization’s definitions and practices in this area are and remain in conformance with IRS guidelines for tax-exempt organizations. A copy of the current IRS sample policy will be maintained as part of USPSA’s standing policy, and shall serve as USPSA’s standing policy for defining, disclosing, reviewing, reporting and managing any relationship deemed to be a Conflict of Interest. Each USPSA director and officer shall receive a copy of the USPSA Conflict of Interest policy and file an Annual Statement, using the form included in the Policy manual, prior to the first regular meeting of each calendar year, and shall revise that statement any time a circumstance changes which could affect the validity of their statement. The USPSA Board shall conduct a Periodic Review of these Annual Statements at the 1st in-person regular Board meeting of each year. The USPSA Executive Director shall review the USPSA COI policy language at the beginning of each calendar year in order to ensure that the USPSA policy accurately reflects the current language in the IRS sample policy. In the event that there is a conflict between USPSA’s documented COI policy and the current language of the IRS sample policy, the current IRS language shall prevail, subject only to applicable state and federal laws governing conflict of interest applicable to nonprofit and charitable organizations. The language for the policy manual is the IRS language, word-for-word, in the instructions on IRS form 1023. Bruce

Just to loop back on this, we finished work on a bylaw change that should prevent any sort of COI confusion in the future: USPSA has adopted the IRS's suggested COI policy for non-profits, word for word, as its own COI policy. Details in the minutes of last nights' phone meeting, at USPSA.org http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-announcements-details.php?USPSA-Phone-in-BOD-Meeting-Minutes-192 That should make things much clearer from now on... Bruce

More info, hot off the press.... http://uspsa.org/uspsa-announcements-details.php?USPSA-Board-Addresses-Website-Issues-191

Hot off the press... http://uspsa.org/uspsa-announcements-details.php?USPSA-Board-Addresses-Website-Issues-191

Sorry to be slow to respond, I'm one of the 8 votes and wanted to give you (at least) my own perspective. I don't know anything about PO other than what I've read here and in the proposal I was forwarded. So, I pinged the brain-trust of Area-1 10 SC's, ~60 club leaders, several RMs and past ADs, and a few other people whose opinions I have grown to value over the years. Not a single one of them came back and said "yeah, we want Production Optics." O_O Most of them came back with some flavor of "its an interesting idea, we'll keep our ears open, but for now we already have too many divisions at the club level". ... So, lacking any strong reason to support it, I "represented the Area" in that vote. Now, I *will* admit to having three opinions of my own on the matter. 1) I think we have too many divisions, too. But that's water under the bridge. and 2) I don't think it is good for the sport to have a separate division for every variant and sub-variant of gun that someone wants to use. Otherwise we'd have Revolver-8 as a stand-alone division.... and Open Single-Stack... and Open-10, and... whatever. Oh, and we'd separate striker-fired from DA-only and DA/SA into three different "production" divisions (that's already been requested), and ... at the end of all that, we'd end up with 20 divisions and no "competition". 3) but, being primarily an Open shooter I already "get" the value of optics, and having recently shot the Crimson Trace midnight 3gun match, I was totally impressed with the utility of having a laser on a handgun. Bottom line: I think PO is an interesting idea. I'm open to the discussion. But I don't see broad demand for it, and I worry about making another division work at all the levels of the org (club, section, area and nationals). ObNote, though, at the *club* level, there's no reason PO couldn't be recognized as a "special category".... the shooters would enter in Open, as the rules require for an optic, but have registration "flag" the shooters who are shooting Production/minor within that division, and give out awards based on performance within that subset. There's nothing to prevent a club-match from giving special awards for anything they want to.... there's also the possibility that USPSA would grant "recognized status" to a match designed around promoting PO, similar to "glocks-only" or 1911-only matches. Those kinds of things might give us all a better idea of whether there's a groundswell of interest... contact your AD if you want to pursue those? $.02 Bruce

Yes, but with subtension data. I'd like to know how much angle is subtended by each of the stadia in the diagram on page-33 of the manual. It must be out there somewhere. Strelok has it embedded in their app. I want it ;-)

Long-time mildot user, and sitting on the fence about whether to get the mildot reticle (TMR-D) or the 5.56 reticle (CMR-W 5.56). People I've talked to that use the 5.56 reticle really love it. I'm.... wanting more info. Does anyone out there have the spec that shows what the subtensions of the BDC hashmarks are? With those, I can figure out whether they are reasonably close to my dope, or whether they'd be weird (like, a "382-yard" stadia). Thanks!

^^^ like!

^^^ I'm thinking of switching to a Mk6 (especially after using a non-illuminated reticle at M3GI), and am curious.... I'm a longtime mildot user, *not* a fan of BDC reticles (because of the hassles of matching hash marks to particular loads), and generally run a 100-yard zero because... well, that's what I have to work with at my home range. I'm halfway along the way to talking myself into the TMR reticle, but... thought I'd ping here to get the other perspective. Is the CMR-W usable with a 100-yard zero? Would I have to try to remember "on the clock" that the 400-yard stadia really means 376 yards, and the 500 yard stadia really means 452 (or whatever)?

the sportsmans warehouse in Bend "normally" has cases of Winchester AA-HA, the "heavy target load" AAs (1-1/8oz of #7-1/2 or #8 running at 1250, IIRC) Might be worth a trip. If no joy, let me know and I'd be happy to throw an extra case in my truck when I head down on Wednesday.

2 quick questions: -- any slings? -- any slugs?

IMHO, for what we do, barrel break-in is more religion than science. Every stroke of a cleaning brush takes barrel life off the bore. I went with what JP told me - shoot 25, clean it really well and then go shoot. At this point, nothing goes through the bore but quality bullets, and an occasional bore-snake.

Yes, the JP barrel nut is different from a milspec barrel nut. About the only readily-available handguard that works with the JP nut is JP's "other" style, the RC (rapid configuration) handguard. They make a version that uses the original-style barrel nut. Beyond that... if you want to change handguards, you're looking at changing barrel nuts, too.