Division 'modification' discussion

[SJ]

In my view Production is a "really stock and no 1911s" division - serious competition for people who like stock guns, that happens to also be attractive to newcomers who can run whatever they have now without significant disadvantage.

My idea for Production:

- No mag restrictions

- Major/minor applies

- Minimum 500 units produced or whatever the manufacturer's restriction is set at now.

- External modifications limited to grip tape, stippling, and sights.

- Internal modifications allowed.

- No electronic sights or comps (I am torn on this point, I would like to see innovation like the FNP with mini red-dots as long as it fits in the box and meets minimum manufacturing, but I recognize this would be the real area for the arms race so I reluctantly restrict them).

- Pistol and magazine must fit into a box (box size approximates the size of a common service pistol, e.g. G17 or say USP .45 on the high end).

- Claimer rule - Upon demand, the match and class winners must sell their pistols at MSRP of the base gun to any other competitor. (e.g. you can run a slicked-up Glock with replacement frame and all new internals, but be prepared to sell it for $549)

This division discussion has largely run its course but I just wanted to get the idea of a Claimer rule out there, I think it would set a limit on the amount of modifications while allowing more freedom on the types of innovation.

[beltjones]

Mhop:

The current rulebook's Section 6.3 and Appendix A2 already outline categories that a MD may choose to recognize. Are you proposing that the wording "may" encoded therein to be changed to "must"? Or are you suggesting that a transgender category be added to Appendix A2? Or are you complaining about the recent nationals where some categories were recognized even though by the rulebook, they shouldn't have been because of insufficient numbers?

My personal stance used to be that if the rulebook says there aren't enough numbers, then the category shouldn't be recognized. I switched from that stance after seeing the inner working of how a match is put together. The trophies and plaques are ordered way in advance of the actual match based on pre-registration and the staff's best guess of who else maybe registering later. It's money that's already been spent. The trophies and plaques might as well be handed out, because the match isn't going to get refund from the trophy/plaque company for awards that were not given out. Additionally, sponsors for matches may stipulate how they want their donations to be distributed. Most MD's will not turn away a sponsor.

Hmmm. You mean sponsors that also happen to be clamoring to find new ways to expand their presence in the female demographic of the market?

[Corey]

So you want Production to be almost exactly like Limited, with the exception that you cant do a few external mods like slide lightening?

And I cant even begin to comprehend your Claimer idea? If I win a match with a gun, I HAVE to sell to someone else? WHy in the world would I want to get rid of a gun that Im comfortable with and clearly shoot well?

[beltjones]

In my view Production is a "really stock and no 1911s" division - serious competition for people who like stock guns, that happens to also be attractive to newcomers who can run whatever they have now without significant disadvantage.

My idea for Production:

- No mag restrictions

- Major/minor applies

- Minimum 500 units produced or whatever the manufacturer's restriction is set at now.

- External modifications limited to grip tape, stippling, and sights.

- Internal modifications allowed.

- No electronic sights or comps (I am torn on this point, I would like to see innovation like the FNP with mini red-dots as long as it fits in the box and meets minimum manufacturing, but I recognize this would be the real area for the arms race so I reluctantly restrict them).

- Pistol and magazine must fit into a box (box size approximates the size of a common service pistol, e.g. G17 or say USP .45 on the high end).

- Claimer rule - Upon demand, the match and class winners must sell their pistols at MSRP of the base gun to any other competitor. (e.g. you can run a slicked-up Glock with replacement frame and all new internals, but be prepared to sell it for $549)

This division discussion has largely run its course but I just wanted to get the idea of a Claimer rule out there, I think it would set a limit on the amount of modifications while allowing more freedom on the types of innovation.

These are all interesting ideas. However, I just keep coming back to the fact that the Production division - as it stands - just plain works. We're not talking about a division that is hurting for people to FINALLY start shooting in it, and that hasn't produced some of the very best shooters in the sport.

The claimer idea is a cool one, and it has worked well in amateur auto racing. However, guns are pretty sentimental, and I can't see a beginner willing to come out if he might be forced to sell his prized possession. Not to mention the fact that it sounds pretty damn illegal to force someone to sell a gun just because the buyer has cash on hand... "Hmmm, no background check, and although you barely speak English and seem shady as hell, I guess rules are rules. Here's my Glock. Do you need 6 magazines and some ammo for it as well?"

[Maksim]

In my view Production is a "really stock and no 1911s" division - serious competition for people who like stock guns, that happens to also be attractive to newcomers who can run whatever they have now without significant disadvantage.

My idea for Production:

- No mag restrictions

- Major/minor applies

- Minimum 500 units produced or whatever the manufacturer's restriction is set at now.

- External modifications limited to grip tape, stippling, and sights.

- Internal modifications allowed.

- No electronic sights or comps (I am torn on this point, I would like to see innovation like the FNP with mini red-dots as long as it fits in the box and meets minimum manufacturing, but I recognize this would be the real area for the arms race so I reluctantly restrict them).

- Pistol and magazine must fit into a box (box size approximates the size of a common service pistol, e.g. G17 or say USP .45 on the high end).

- Claimer rule - Upon demand, the match and class winners must sell their pistols at MSRP of the base gun to any other competitor. (e.g. you can run a slicked-up Glock with replacement frame and all new internals, but be prepared to sell it for $549)

This division discussion has largely run its course but I just wanted to get the idea of a Claimer rule out there, I think it would set a limit on the amount of modifications while allowing more freedom on the types of innovation.

Your comment of "really stock" does not represent what you typed in the rest of your post.

Claimer rule. HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously? And this would be enforceable how?

[Ronnie j]

Claimer rules work in racing were parts aren't regulated , but with firearms its a whole nuther ball game, your suggesting interstate transfers, waiting times for those states that have them and shooters trying to replace discontinued or superseded equipment. No thanks ,and like you I like in a free state.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Ronnie j

[beltjones]

Begin sarcasm:

I think that because Production division (class) has been an abject failure so far, and not one good shooter has ever come out of it, and it's only for beginners because it makes the game so easy, the following should be implemented:

- When a Production (class) shooter shows up to a match he must spin the wheel of destiny to determine what pistol he is to use for the match. In places where a wheel of destiny isn't available, a mystery bucket full of random guns should be used. Anyone caught saying "Not Hi-Point again!" will be bumped to Open and will be forced to shoot a Lorcin.

- Everyone else must roll a 20 sided die to determine his magazine capacity limit for the match. On one stage per match a shooter may invoke the spell of "Major Applewhite" in order to score major for that stage.

- The use of sports drinks, non-natural fabric, shade, chairs, wagons, those three wheeled stroller things, hats, sun screen, and shaded eye protection are prohibited.

- Match fees for Production shooters will be three times that of the other divisions (classes) in order to keep out the riff raff.

I think that might make everyone happy, and will finally allow Production division (class) to be a success. What do you guys think?

End sarcasm.

[Skydiver]

A---That is pretty much what I meant. I repeat myself , Prod 10 would satisfy all those who live and breath "Production must never change".

B Your argument doesn't make any sense if USPSA had Prod 10 and Production.

Which, unless we add new members just means we split up the existing 6 Divsions and turn it into 7 Divisions. Several have posted the reasons why adding Divisions just waters down the competition. I just don't see what it would add, other than another National Champion. Have you noticed that you are the only one proposing Prod-10 and Prod-Unl (I'm guessing the unlimited since you haven't specified any other round count) I'm guessing you want a Division for the SP-01, XDM and Grand Power to be able to run their 19+ round magazines? Because those would be the clearly dominant guns.

You would be guessing wrong.

I just "suggested" Prod -10. It seemed like a an easy compromise for all. Just because there are not additional posters in this thread agreeing, does not make it a bad suggestion. I don't see a lot of posters coming up with real reasons why it would be bad either.

It would be interesting if everyone just asked all those production shooters at local matches a simple question. Which would you rather do, Shoot this match with 10 rounds per mag or 15 rounds per mag" . I picked 15 because 15 is the figure most mentioned.

Okay, clearly I'm not understading your suggestion of Prod-10 and Production. Please explain what you are talking about. The way I've read your posts it appears that you want to create two Divisions where there is currently one. Prod-10, which would be what the current Division is, and a new Division Production which would allow...what. I can't follow your posts. Are you looking for Prod-15 or Prod Unl Capacity. We have Prod -10 now. Not seeing how that is a suggestion of anything new. It's what we have. By the last post it looks like your looking at Prod 15. I don't see a need to for two identical divisions, separated by 5 rounds of capacity. As to the comment about Limited, it's a direct parallel to what you're looking to do in Production. Limited has a capacity limit, albeit one measured by length of magazine, not number of rounds. Those looking for an increase to 15 are asking to increase that arbitrary capacity limit in Production to another arbitrary capacity limit. The same as taking the arbitrary capacity limit in Limited of 141.25 to another arbitrary limit of 161.25. As far as the handful of folks, yes, there are only a handful of people in this thread. Of the 20K members of USPSA, only a fraction are on Enos, only a fraction are on this thread and only a fraction agree that any change should be made to Production. Believe it or not, I do actually talk to people at matches. Part of the whole AD gig. I also have a lot of them, from my area and around the country email or call me with questions, requests, suggestions, angry demands, etc. Additionally I've shot Production since 2005, pretty much exclusively, and all around the country. I've had maybe, maybe two people ask me to change the limit to 15 outside of the Enos Forum. None of the new shooters I've brought into the sport have ever complained about the 10 round limit. Not one.

Prod -10 same rules as production is today.

Production -- same rules EXCEPT the 10 round mag limitation and those rules associated with it. I did mention in one of my earlier posts that a mag length restriction might be the answer, or 15 round limitation. A mag length restriction works quite well in another division (IMO).

I really think there is more support for being able to use HICAP mags than appears here. I also said in a previous post "I can see, understand, and support those reasons cited by members for USPSA to support all our competitors who are handicapped by a state law to 10 round limits. No way do I support the "go shoot limited minor" answer.

I don't believe this thread is an indicator for support or non-support of modifying or changing 10 round mag restrictions.

The current rules does state that the gun with an empty magazine must fit in the box. Are you saying that in addition to upping the limit to 15 (or going unlimited) for the update Production division that the box requirements also be dropped?

<tongue in cheek>

I propose that Production round limits be bumped up to 15, but Production Nationals MUST be hosted in Hawaii.

</tongue in cheek>

Seriously, though, I don't see what going up to 15 rounds (or more) for production buys us.

Is it the idea that we should be running the production guns as they were built to be run? Since production guns were built to run in a higher capacity configuration, and therefore the division should reflect that? Following that logic, the production guns were also built with their set of stock sights, trigger weights, and grip patterns. Shouldn't the guns also be run in with that stock configuration as well?

If the idea is the more rounds in the gun, the better to reflect the modern era of higher capacities, then shouldn't it apply equally across all the divisions that have round count limits to also have their capacities raised: 8 shot revolvers, 10 round 1911's shooting major, and just get rid of L10?

I think that Production at 10 rounds is fine where it is. On the surface, I think a division for non-comped guns but with optics would be interesting.

[Unregistered]

In my view Production is a "really stock and no 1911s" division - serious competition for people who like stock guns, that happens to also be attractive to newcomers who can run whatever they have now without significant disadvantage.

My idea for Production:

- No mag restrictions

- Major/minor applies

- Minimum 500 units produced or whatever the manufacturer's restriction is set at now.

- External modifications limited to grip tape, stippling, and sights.

- Internal modifications allowed.

- No electronic sights or comps (I am torn on this point, I would like to see innovation like the FNP with mini red-dots as long as it fits in the box and meets minimum manufacturing, but I recognize this would be the real area for the arms race so I reluctantly restrict them).

- Pistol and magazine must fit into a box (box size approximates the size of a common service pistol, e.g. G17 or say USP .45 on the high end).

- Claimer rule - Upon demand, the match and class winners must sell their pistols at MSRP of the base gun to any other competitor. (e.g. you can run a slicked-up Glock with replacement frame and all new internals, but be prepared to sell it for $549)

This division discussion has largely run its course but I just wanted to get the idea of a Claimer rule out there, I think it would set a limit on the amount of modifications while allowing more freedom on the types of innovation.

How is stippling and internal modifications a stock gun?

Stock gun = stock. Out of the box.

Claimer rules work when everyone is (supposedly) running the exact same setup. Does it not run on a swap basis - whereby the "claimer" claims the winner's (or top 3) motor, and swaps it for his/her own?

That would only work if EVERYONE shot the same gun, supposedly stock. No modifications would be allowed at all (sights, grip tape), since it should be a straight-across swap for my Glock 17 for the winner's Glock 17.

Which is not the case. So it will never work and is a rather daft idea at best.

[Nik Habicht]

We even have one poster on here that follows women around at major matches and writes articles about them (creepy).

If that is referring to me then allow me to respond.

I volunteer my time to help grow women's participation in USPSA by writing one/two articles per year on the USPSA Nationals. There are those that are working harder to promote Junior participation in USPSA, are they creepy too ?

I provide the women that I cover with free copies of all the photographs that I take of them so they can use them in Facebook, their own web-sites or to send to their sponsors.

I provide the women a free DVD of all the video that I take so they have a record of their match.

I provide my pictures free of charge to any Nationals/Shooter sponsor that requests them.

Are you insinuating that perhaps I have an ulterior motive for what I am doing? Perhaps you would like to clarify?

I may have met Paul once, though I'm not sure. I really know him only from his participation on this forum, and from reading his articles and looking at his images.....

From evaluating his work, I don't see how anyone can draw a conclusion regarding his coverage of the Women's supersquad, other than that he is a journalist following a specific story. Given that he is a volunteer, and given that USPSA already assigns paid staff to cover the men's super squad, what's the problem?

Should newspapers and magazines only assign female staffers to cover women's sports? Only assign men to cover men's sports? Or should they strive to hire the very best?

To label Paul's coverage of the women's supersquad "creepy" is as reprehensible as it is ignorant.

[mhop]

Mhop:

The current rulebook's Section 6.3 and Appendix A2 already outline categories that a MD may choose to recognize. Are you proposing that the wording "may" encoded therein to be changed to "must"? Or are you suggesting that a transgender category be added to Appendix A2? Or are you complaining about the recent nationals where some categories were recognized even though by the rulebook, they shouldn't have been because of insufficient numbers?

My personal stance used to be that if the rulebook says there aren't enough numbers, then the category shouldn't be recognized. I switched from that stance after seeing the inner working of how a match is put together. The trophies and plaques are ordered way in advance of the actual match based on pre-registration and the staff's best guess of who else maybe registering later. It's money that's already been spent. The trophies and plaques might as well be handed out, because the match isn't going to get refund from the trophy/plaque company for awards that were not given out. Additionally, sponsors for matches may stipulate how they want their donations to be distributed. Most MD's will not turn away a sponsor.

i think there are a couple different ways to do the category prize stuff. If there is enough create the prize stuff. if there is a question dont create the prize stuff and if they hit the magic number send it out after or do what the NFL does and create all the stuff assuming that the numbers will be meet and if not destroy the stuff if the numbers are not meet not hand out the stuff and let somebody go around gloating about winning something that shouldn't have this would just go into a match expense and no lose just make it into the budget

[JakeMartens]

why do we need to change anything?

is there anything wrong with what we have now?

have we not been attracting new shooters with what we offer now?

why don't we focus on having better matches and work on updating how USPSA operates and marketing better?

[beltjones]

why do we need to change anything?

is there anything wrong with what we have now?

have we not been attracting new shooters with what we offer now?

why don't we focus on having better matches and work on updating how USPSA operates and marketing better?

Emphasis added. I couldn't agree more.

[SJ]

Your comment of "really stock" does not represent what you typed in the rest of your post.

Claimer rule. HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously? And this would be enforceable how?

Stock as in a) factory guns that are in common usage, b ) looks stock so not intimidating, and c) you won't put much money into it since it could be claimed.

Enforceable like anybody else not following equipment rules. Refusing a claim would be shooting for no score, like going sub-minor. Repeated refusals but still signing up for Production would be unsportsmanlike conduct.

So you want Production to be almost exactly like Limited, with the exception that you cant do a few external mods like slide lightening?

And I cant even begin to comprehend your Claimer idea? If I win a match with a gun, I HAVE to sell to someone else? WHy in the world would I want to get rid of a gun that Im comfortable with and clearly shoot well?

I'm pretty sure Limited doesn't have holster restrictions, a box (and a tighter box than the current one, note), or a claimer rule. Other than those small things, it comes closer to Limited in that it does recognize the tradeoffs of gun design for capacity, and the whole "Vis" thing that we ignore a lot of times.

Claimer rule is not a gun swap, nor is it required. It takes a willing buyer/challenger too. It is just a means to naturally limit the gamer arms race to a given dollar value. Nobody is going to pay you $549 MSRP for that $350 used Glock unless you have added a ton of mods to it. Getting "claimed" means you have pushed the limits of Production too much. Kind of like chronographing, I doubt it would be applied much at local matches, but most people do follow it, and scrutiny at big matches would be tight. Instead of a big list of what is allowed or not, it is letting the market take care of it.

Edited December 8, 2011 by SJ

[Unregistered]

Claimer rule is not a gun swap, nor is it required. It takes a willing buyer/challenger too. It is just a means to naturally limit the gamer arms race to a given dollar value. Nobody is going to pay you $549 MSRP for that $350 used Glock unless you have added a ton of mods to it. Getting "claimed" means you have pushed the limits of Production too much. Kind of like chronographing, I doubt it would be applied much at local matches, but most people do follow it, and scrutiny at big matches would be tight. Instead of a big list of what is allowed or not, it is letting the market take care of it.

I would never sell a gun I was comfortable with - more importantly, I would not sell a gun that I then might need the following week and subject myself to wait for a new gun to come in.

Like I mentioned above, a swap would resolve both of these concerns - because in sports where a claimer rule is in place an d successful, the setup should be identical across competitors.

To put it into the context of our sport is frankly absurd.

[Thomas H]

Stock as in a) factory guns that are in common usage, b ) looks stock so not intimidating, and c) you won't put much money into it since it could be claimed.

... ...

[Unregistered]

Stock as in a) factory guns that are in common usage, b ) looks stock so not intimidating, and c) you won't put much money into it since it could be claimed.

... ...

You mean you don't modify your guns so they look more intimidating?

[MGMorden]

c) you won't put much money into it since it could be claimed.

Enforceable like anybody else not following equipment rules. Refusing a claim would be shooting for no score, like going sub-minor. Repeated refusals but still signing up for Production would be unsportsmanlike conduct.

What you're proposing would be a rule so unimaginably unpopular that it would likely kill Production division completely. Its not a good idea for an organization to implement rules that the vast majority of their membership would not like.

The stark truth is that production simply isn't that much of a gear race. Yes, you can trick out a Production gun A LITTLE - but right now Glocks are dominating Production with a few M&Ps and other guns thrown in. Try as you might you can't dump more than a few hundred dollars worth of improvements into those guns before you simply run out of stuff you can do with it.

The whole thing is a solution desperately looking for a problem.

[beltjones]

Your comment of "really stock" does not represent what you typed in the rest of your post.

Claimer rule. HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously? And this would be enforceable how?

Stock as in a) factory guns that are in common usage, b ) looks stock so not intimidating, and c) you won't put much money into it since it could be claimed.

Enforceable like anybody else not following equipment rules. Refusing a claim would be shooting for no score, like going sub-minor. Repeated refusals but still signing up for Production would be unsportsmanlike conduct.

So you want Production to be almost exactly like Limited, with the exception that you cant do a few external mods like slide lightening?

And I cant even begin to comprehend your Claimer idea? If I win a match with a gun, I HAVE to sell to someone else? WHy in the world would I want to get rid of a gun that Im comfortable with and clearly shoot well?

I'm pretty sure Limited doesn't have holster restrictions, a box (and a tighter box than the current one, note), or a claimer rule. Other than those small things, it comes closer to Limited in that it does recognize the tradeoffs of gun design for capacity, and the whole "Vis" thing that we ignore a lot of times.

Claimer rule is not a gun swap, nor is it required. It takes a willing buyer/challenger too. It is just a means to naturally limit the gamer arms race to a given dollar value. Nobody is going to pay you $549 MSRP for that $350 used Glock unless you have added a ton of mods to it. Getting "claimed" means you have pushed the limits of Production too much. Kind of like chronographing, I doubt it would be applied much at local matches, but most people do follow it, and scrutiny at big matches would be tight. Instead of a big list of what is allowed or not, it is letting the market take care of it.

Are we still trying to continue with this ridiculous idea? What do you think would have happened if this rule had been in effect when Ben won Prod nationals? "Well, there aren't many of these Beretta Elite IIs left, and this one sure has a ton of sentimental value to me considering I just won my first nationals with it, but rules are rules! These things went for $500 when they were still being sold so who's got 5 C notes? I'm sure I'll be able to replace it in a year or two when another goes up for sale or when I find someone else who uses one in this division."

Or what happens when a few dudes show up for their first match in El Paso and they promise to be Texas residents and they want to buy everyone's production pistols with cash? Rules are rules boys! Hand 'em over! Just promise us you won't shoot any Border Patrol agents, will ya?

In this sport it is a terrible, terrible idea. Let's let it die.

[MarkCO]

In this sport it is a terrible, terrible idea. Let's let it die.

Agreed. I loved the claimer rules I raced under in NASCAR. Engine is getting a little old, add some engine sealer, turn up the timing, win a race and get a new engine bought by my competitors, who is now running my old worn out engine. I was sponsored and got my engines at cost so I put $400 in my pocket on every claim. Happened more than once. Just a bad idea on so many levels with a firearm.

[LPatterson]

I am amazed at the amount of discord and bickering I has seen on a forum open to our enemies. It is as if we were all sitting in some back alley bar arguing about who the best sports star or team is or was. It is one thing to have decisions but it seems like this has degenerated; (from webster Definition of DEGENERATE

intransitive verb

1: to pass from a higher to a lower type or condition : deteriorate

2: to sink into a low intellectual or moral state

3: to decline in quality <the poetry gradually degenerates into jingles>

4: to decline from a condition or from the standards of a species, race, or breed

5: to evolve or develop into a less autonomous or less functionally active form <degenerated into dependent parasites>)

into a lot of name calling and mud slinging that appears to be beyond a discussion of divisions. I have an opinion but then everyone does but some are a dark and smelly place. The best thing to do is for the mods to close this as it is getting beyond the guidelines of an Enos post and into something that Brian might not want to support.

[SJ]

What you're proposing would be a rule so unimaginably unpopular that it would likely kill Production division completely.

This could be an unconscious result of me thinking Production as currently realized is pretty silly.

The stark truth is that production simply isn't that much of a gear race. Yes, you can trick out a Production gun A LITTLE - but right now Glocks are dominating Production with a few M&Ps and other guns thrown in. Try as you might you can't dump more than a few hundred dollars worth of improvements into those guns before you simply run out of stuff you can do with it.

This is true. If we remove one artifical and politically-motivated restriction, the mag capacity, then there is a potential that it could becomes more of an arms race. Remove another artifical restriction, minor power factor only, and you really do have Limited-Lite, that's not what we want. So, what is the way to make Production be realistic carry and service pistols? A tight box and a claimer rule. Let production guns compete on their real merits within broad ranges ("not too big" and "not too custom"), without the current artifical capacity limits and power factor nerf.

Or what happens when a few dudes show up for their first match in El Paso and they promise to be Texas residents and they want to buy everyone's production pistols with cash? Rules are rules boys! Hand 'em over! Just promise us you won't shoot any Border Patrol agents, will ya?

So the BATF or cartels are buying fewer pistols since they are paying MSRP rather than street prices? This is bad why?

(i.e. )

[Ben Stoeger]

There are those that are working harder to promote Junior participation in USPSA, are they creepy too ?

No. I don't think so anyway.

[Ben Stoeger]

I also have to ask, given the realities of sexual dimorphism and the importance of physical traits to supplement technique, do you really think it's fair to only reward female shooters if they can beat the men? I mean, it's not like women will one day grow into men ala the juniors (the boy ones anyway)...

Well... I don't think you read my posts very carefully. I did not state I do not wish to reward lady shooters. I believe that women should be recognized as a category... the same as the other categories.

That having been said… do I think that women can compete with men? Absolutely. I think someday we will see a woman that is on the super squad and competitive there.

[Ben Stoeger]

To label Paul's coverage of the women's supersquad "creepy" is as reprehensible as it is ignorant.

It may be reprehensible, but it is in no way ignorant. I will be happy to discuss it via PM if you would like.