USPSA Nov BOD Meeting

[Flexmoney]

The HHF item is to review the policy of USPSA not releasing the HHF. This is releated to the existence of the classifier calculators.

I am guessing that means the discussion will be whether to release the HHF, since the info isn't hard to find now (with the internet)?

As the originator of the original Classifier Calculator, if you (BOD) have any questions that I might help to shed some light on, let me know.

[Corey]

The HHF item is to review the policy of USPSA not releasing the HHF. This is releated to the existence of the classifier calculators.

I am guessing that means the discussion will be whether to release the HHF, since the info isn't hard to find now (with the internet)?

As the originator of the original Classifier Calculator, if you (BOD) have any questions that I might help to shed some light on, let me know.

As you said, considering how easy it is for people to figure it out themselves, why not just post them and be done with it. I personally would like to see the times/points shot to make the 100% when someone gets there.

[MoNsTeR]

* 6" no-hole-hybrid barrels need to be allowed in Limited, and no-hole-hybrid barrels of all lengths need to be allowed on non-STI/SV frames.

Put another way, the current way the rules are interpreted is overly pedantic. It does not acknowledge the market reality that 1911 components are very modular and adaptable to different sizes and configurations. The idea that a 6" version and 5" version of a barrel or slide are materially different is silly. The idea that an STI framed gun and a Caspian framed gun should be allowed different subsets of top-end parts is silly.

* Either DoH-style holsters should be allowed in Single Stack, or prohibited from Production. The difference confuses a lot of people.

* It would be helpful if the rules more clearly addressed whether props are soft or hard cover by default (i.e. when not specified in the WSB).

* HHFs should be published

* EZWinScore should be modified to include some type of import function to more easily facilitate collection registrations online or through other systems. I am busy working around this missing feature right now but I would happily discard my work in favor of something official.

[JFlowers]

As much as it annoys me to have to wait on Nationals dates every year, I would actually be opposed to that one. I don't see a reason why this isn't doable, the problem is announcing a specific date gives venues too much leverage in negotiation regarding range fees. If you don't think clubs would do this, take a look at Bend for the Multigun a few years back. As soon as the dates were announced they tried to dramatically jack the price up, 2-4 times what they were supposed to be getting for a range that USPSA essentially paid to build. What I wouldn't mind seeing is a bonus included in the Presidents Salary package for completing tasks including timely (but not specific) announcenment of the Nationals match dates.

Having done Event negotiations, Chuck is right. If Range X knows that the USPSA President's salary or part of it is tied the completion of a contract, then they can use that to their benefit. Its just business. A better idea would to lower the salary and add an Annual Performance Bonus. Then any number of criteria could be taken into account when deciding on the Bonus Amount. The Nationals are announced in mid-Nov that's a positive criteria, the Nationals not announced but contract issues forced the delay that can be considered. Plus any number of other criteria can be used as well. This means that the Bonus is not tied to something Range X can bend to its benefit but improved performance by the President is rewarded.

[ima45dv8]

* It would be helpful if the rules more clearly addressed whether props are soft or hard cover by default (i.e. when not specified in the WSB).

I always thought that point was clearly addressed:

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”

[rgkeller]

The President should not receive a salary, only expenses related to duties of the office.

[Religious Shooter]

The President should not receive a salary, only expenses related to duties of the office.

-1

[Charles Bond]

IMO it would not be wise to amend the rules again since we just adopted a set this year. Without expressing an opinion on dry sight pictures with a loaded weapon, the fact is that changing the rules every meeting is going to wind up counterproductiive.

I agree that the BOD should adopt a rule book distribution policy that the BOD uses each time rather than revisit the policy each and every time we publish the rulebook. Up until this printing the BOD has always distributed a rule book to every member and as far as I am concerned that is the existing policy. But your AD may see this differently.

Locking in dates for the nationals even 2 years ahead can be done EXCEPT in World Shoot years when we an not plan a nationals until we have locked down the World Shoot dates. But even in World Shoot years, if could be done if we were just told what month it would be held. Accordingly, there needs to be an IPSC policy that addresses when at least the month of the event is announced.

AS to the vague agenda, I agree with the member who posted that it should be more specific.

Even if some of these ideas are not new, it is helpful for the BOD to be reminded of unresolved issues.

[Jim Norman]

With respect to nationals Dates, Negotiate the contract two years in advance and then announce the dates. We don't need to announce the dates until the venue and dates are set. We just need to do this two to three years in advance and keep doing it.

[Alan Meek]

In my opinion, when the contract is negotiated the dates should be set. Even taking in account the world shoot years where you could have tentative dates

[Sandro]

In my opinion, when the contract is negotiated the dates should be set. Even taking in account the world shoot years where you could have tentative dates

has the BOD ever consider buying a range?

[rgkeller]

In my opinion, when the contract is negotiated the dates should be set. Even taking in account the world shoot years where you could have tentative dates

has the BOD ever consider buying a range?

They tried to buy a HQ building once and that didn't work out too well.

[sperman]

IMO it would not be wise to amend the rules again since we just adopted a set this year. Without expressing an opinion on dry sight pictures with a loaded weapon, the fact is that changing the rules every meeting is going to wind up counterproductiive.

How about a policy on rules updates.

A: With the exception of safety issues that require immediate attention, the rulebook will only be updated every 2 years.

B: Rules updates will be announced on Oct. 1 for a 60 day review period. Dec. 1 rules will be finalized and published to go into effect on Jan. 1.

Edited October 21, 2010 by sperman

[JFlowers]

The other problem with buying a range, would be where? No matter where they bought it, some part of the country would be unhappy about the commute.

[High Lord Gomer]

One combined ruledbook for Multigun. It is rather difficult figuring out which rules to apply from several different rulebooks.

[badchad]

I shot IPSC Nationals this year in Production division. Call me crazy but I thought shooting a gun with 15 bullets was more fun than shooting a gun with 10 bullets. So I'd like to see the board talk about raising the Production magazine capacity limit from 10 to 15.

[Chuck Anderson]

I shot IPSC Nationals this year in Production division. Call me crazy but I thought shooting a gun with 15 bullets was more fun than shooting a gun with 10 bullets. So I'd like to see the board talk about raising the Production magazine capacity limit from 10 to 15.

You're crazy, boy that was easy. In all honesty, I don't think the BOD will be addressing division changes at this meeting. There is an awful lot that needs to be covered and changing around divisions is a big step. Personally I would be opposed to changing the capacity in Production. For IPSC it was a reduction in capacity from having no capacity limit. No guns were made obsolete by the change. If we were to up the capacity in Production in the US it would take a number of guns, particularly in .40 and .45 cal that are now Production legal and competetive and make them not competetive.

[Chills1994]

as far as a range goes, the IL DNR is letting us "rent" theirs at a cost of $3 per shooter (per day?per match?). It is the World Recreation and Shooting Complex in Sparta, IL, but the only catch is that folks would have to fly into Lambert International in St. Louis, then drive to Sparta, IL...plus, Illinois is the land of NO CCWing.

Rumor has it that at least a Wounded Warriors benefit major IDPA match will be held there in the spring, and then the Illinois state IDPA championship will be held some time later in 2011.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Chills1994

[Chills1994]

Corey wrote:

As you said, considering how easy it is for people to figure it out themselves, why not just post them and be done with it. I personally would like to see the times/points shot to make the 100% when someone gets there.

Yeah, what he said.

[CZinSC]

I shot IPSC Nationals this year in Production division. Call me crazy but I thought shooting a gun with 15 bullets was more fun than shooting a gun with 10 bullets. So I'd like to see the board talk about raising the Production magazine capacity limit from 10 to 15.

I agree, I was actually going to post this myself after reading all of the other posts first. Personally I think you should load up the mags to their limit in Production regardless of capacity, but I'd settle for loading to 15. There are already limits to length and overall size of the gun, so you couldn't get away with Big Sticks, but at least you can load to the max capacity of your production gun.

[badchad]

If we were to up the capacity in Production in the US it would take a number of guns, particularly in .40 and .45 cal that are now Production legal and competetive and make them not competetive.

I've heard that argument and think it's bogus. None of those short mag .40-.45 cal guns are "competitive" in Production. So no guns will be made obsolete that aren't obsolete already.

[bbbean]

I shot IPSC Nationals this year in Production division. Call me crazy but I thought shooting a gun with 15 bullets was more fun than shooting a gun with 10 bullets. So I'd like to see the board talk about raising the Production magazine capacity limit from 10 to 15.

I think we've hashed this one out before!

Q: You know what you call a production gun loaded with more than 10 rounds?

A: A limited gun

[High Lord Gomer]

I agree

I disagree. Even though I am glad I live in a free state , limitting Production to 10 rounds allows for a level playing field even for those poor saps that are stuck in places like CA. If you want to load 'em up...play in Limited.

[mhop]

If we were to up the capacity in Production in the US it would take a number of guns, particularly in .40 and .45 cal that are now Production legal and competetive and make them not competetive.

I've heard that argument and think it's bogus. None of those short mag .40-.45 cal guns are "competitive" in Production. So no guns will be made obsolete that aren't obsolete already.

i agree with this, in the past 3 years the top 16 i beat you wont find more than 2 that didnt use a 9mm, i think everybody in the top 16 used a 9mm this year at nationals, i would beat that all but 1 in the top 50 used a 9mm, so the capacity think is moot at this point

[ima45dv8]

Before this turns into an all-out "Upping The Round Count For Production Guns" thread, please stop.

The suggestion has been made to have the BoD discuss, but judging from Chuck's reply, they won't be doing so at thsi time. Feel free to PM your AD to reconsider if it's that important to you.

If anyone wants to start a separate thread on that topic, that's fine.