USPSA BOD Meeting

[CZinSC]

If I was running chrono, I would. Just like I would flip over a CZ or Tanfoglio with the slide locked back and check if the FPB is installed and functioning.

And why would you be doing this?

As per C2.47.c, the chrono officer should check for compliance with division requirements. The former to see if the gun complies with D4 21.6 (e.g. no aftermarket triggers), and the latter to see if the gun complies with D4 21.1 (all external and internal safeties must remain functional).

Maybe I have a different rulebook, but I just can't find that. C2.47.a (P. 69 of the 2008 rulebook) states "Proper function of the handgun's primary safety mechanism."

D4.22 (P. 75 of 2008 rulebook) prohibits "Disabling of any external saftey or externally operated safety."

I can't find the rule you referenced where it says "internal safeties must remain functional." Can you give me the page number please?

2008 Rulebook with the 2010 revisions, on page 80 Appx D4, #22 is as follows:

Please note that the absence of an item in the list of prohibited modifications MAY NOT be construed to mean a modification is allowed. A modification is only allowed in Production Division if there is a rules clause or interpretation which specifically declares that it is allowed in the Division. Removing or disabling firing-pin blocks or any other factory safety mechanism in Production division is specifically prohibited.

I added the bold to point out the relevant part.

[LPatterson]

I agree that you have posted any appropriate ruling but why would you be picking on a particular brand/type of gun? Unless you remove the slide, only I know if the firing pin safety is in my Glock 34. I know it is not there in my 24 but then it doesn't have to be.

[Sarge]

Found this in less than 10 seconds.

D4

21.1

• ALL factory safety mechanisms, whether internal or

external, must remain functional.

• See 22.2 for specifics on external safeties.

[bigcraig]

Since we are on the "rules" topic.

The "new" production TP weight rule is just plain not needed. End of story.

Limited division has simple rules, if the gun falls into these rules is should be allowed. The BS of having certain production numbers and new technology should not have to be "approved". Remember, Limited is Open light, stifling innovation is bad for the sport. (I say this in regards to sight tracker configs or even weighted barrels and frames.) It is simple, no optics, no comps, specific mag demension, specific caliber and power factor, leave the rest open for innovation.)

Production mag carrier position, quite possibly one of the dumbest regulations in that division. This is especially true if the intent of the division is to be based on "real life" needs, as well as capacity of the gun itself. (That said, I stomach the capacity restriction because I understand the need for those sad folks in ban states.)

Production grip mods, should be allowed. Why having a gun fit the users hand better is a no-no is beyond my reasoning. Especially when there is no "advantage", like an optic, comp or mag capacity.

Magnetic mag carriers, should only be legal in Open and Limited. Use in any other division, IMHO, is not in the spirit of the "purpose or intent" of the division.

[atbarr]

Probably the next things 'our' BOD will stop in Production is stippling and F.O. sights.

[Sarge]

Careful AT. You know they are watching!

[George Jones]

I've been away from the forum for quite a while.

I appreciate the input from the participants in the last BOD meeting. I spent six years on the Board. When I left, I walked away with certain impressions with the way the Board operates. One was that it was way too common for motions to be brought on issues which had not been properly announced (agenda). Not pointing fingers here, but it appears that this has not changed. Part of the problem is/was that significant issues were not sufficiently discussed prior to the meeting where (hopefully) further discussion would have more clearly refined the subject. The other reason for this problem is that the meeting is simply not long enough to do the job right. Due to travel home schedules, the meeting is essentially only one day and a half. Most problematic issues tend to get tabled until Sunday morning and get voted on in a rush to "we have to get this done before we leave". Unfortunately, this sometimes resulted in less than ideal decisions.

As to this rule....

When Production was created ten years ago, it was apparently not foreseen that shooters would want to "race" in Production. It should have been. After all, USPSA had a "it's legal unless the rules say you can't" mindset. That's how shooters approached the Division. In 2007 2009 ,after I left the BOD, the Production rules were restated to a "if it's not specifically allowed it's illegal" approach. I didn't much care for that decision since it fundamentally changed the Division long after it has been established. The horse was out of the barn. This latest rule just adds to that problem and I fundamentally disagree with the "suitable for carry" argument. This is a game. We keep score. In any competition, the best results are expected to go to the man-woman/machine combination which performs the best. Good preparation of both elements should be rewarded by better performance and results. A trigger job has alsways been the first step to improving the equipment. It's not just about range practice or dry-fire. It's also about assuring the equipment is best suited for the task. It's no different for many weekend "athletes". Skiers will buy the best equipment they can afford to maximize their performance. And, if they do a better job of waxing their skis they might beat a better technical skier. I don't think it's any different in USPSA.

Production has proven to be a legitimate entry Division. I don't think it was ever officially defined that way but it certainly is the common perception. Membership has grown significantly over the years, but only partially due to the availability of Production. In most parts of the country, I have seen excellent grass-roots (club level) efforts to recruit members. Production was the logical first choice for these new shooters since many of them already owned a gun which would fit. If they own something else, than L-10 or SS are there.

Introducing a trigger pull weight will not attract or chase away new members. So what is the reason for this change? It looks like it's all about the "box stock" thing. What's wrong with maximizing what you own? Changing the rules now affects those who made their purchase decisions on the rules at the time. Introducing a "first shot" rule changes the playing field for those shooters. What is wrong with improving technology? If someone sees a market for a better product, so be it. Our sport has been all about that for years. Remember when electronic sights were universally branded as being "impractical"? The news channels reports from places overseas disapproved that opinion years ago. Why should innovations be restricted for Production guns? Just my opinion, but somehow I think our major sponsors would like that approach.

Lastly, this rule falls into the "how the devil will it be consistently enforced?" column. First shot? While you could try to measure a double-action trigger pull and a striker fired trigger pull, how do you measure the trigger pull on a first shot which can (in USPSA) be taken in any manner? That it was passed without a specific method of enforcement underlines the "rush to a decision" situation on the Board. Thank you to those who voted against it and thanks to those who look to be reconsidering not only the decision but also the process.

I do have to make one final comment on the viability of having a formal membership input into the rulemaking process. Yes, advance notice of significant rule changes should be made known - in general. That would give members opportunity to contact their ADs with their opinion prior to a formal BOD vote. But I disagree with with a formal membership "vote on the final product" process. First, you elected those folks to represent you. As long as they remember that the process should work. Second, a formal member vote is simply unworkable. It would simply take too much time. The necessity for formal notice, etc. would turn an already lengthy process into one an unmanageable one.

Ultimately however, in my opinion, the Board needs, and should demand, more extensive input prior to enacting new rules.

Edited December 27, 2011 by George Jones

[burningsquirrels]

eloquently well put, george!

[MarkCO]

2008 Rulebook with the 2010 revisions, on page 80 Appx D4, #22 is as follows:

Please note that the absence of an item in the list of prohibited modifications MAY NOT be construed to mean a modification is allowed. A modification is only allowed in Production Division if there is a rules clause or interpretation which specifically declares that it is allowed in the Division. Removing or disabling firing-pin blocks or any other factory safety mechanism in Production division is specifically prohibited.

Finally! Now do you see my point? There are a LOT of "new" Production rules in the rev 2010 rulebook that were not in place in 2008. So in 2008-2010, the only safety that had to work in a Glock, M&P or XD, was the trigger tab (yes, really!). Then in 2010, we added rules saying those could no longer be disengaged and or removed. We "Changed" the rules, which for those three pistol types meant an associated increase in trigger pull weight. Few anticpated that people would actually remove safeties in Production, but it WAS happening. The first 1.2 pound Glock trigger I had the scary realization of shooting had only a trigger tab safety, and that was non-functional. However this D class shooter (who had about 40% of all rounds fired miss the targets) was abeam with pride at his home gunsmithed trigger. Frankly, some of these rules can be considered safety rules and I am not sure the 3# Production rule is not in some way a good safety rule.

However, criticising the BOD won't help, it makes all of USPSA look bad as well. Since at least 4 of the 2012 BOD have posted here, and some have e-mailed back their postions to my inquiries, I think they got the point and learned a lesson. I have the confidence that they will do the right thing. These are guys who love to shoot, love the sport and want it to advance, not damage it and hurt the membership. If what you have read in this thread to this point makes you want to leave USPSA, then bay all means, exercise your right. OTOH, if you want to stay, write these guys and lady and tell then what you want. THEY DO LISTEN!

I was in "stock" NASCAR class one year where the next my competitor could buy my motor if I beat him becasue the cost of controlling by written rule and inspection was untenable. I ran in NHRA SuperGas, arguably one of the most popular divisions, and it is now gone. We might be headed in similar directions, but I sure as heck hope not.

As an MD/RM, I want to be able to have Chrono/ROs check guns simply and with a high confidence factor. As a competitor, I want the box in which I can play defined and static (as much as possible). If that includes "freestyle", or "permitted unless listed" or whatever, fine, but if the BOD writes new rules, I beleive they will take some time and really explore the implications. Are we at a point where the entire rulebook has to be re-written to gain that? Do we need to significantly modify the classes? If the answer is yes and/or yes, then a clear goal must be set before the process begins. If not, then, in some divisions, innovation may have to be kept out to some degree.

CZinSC, Thanks, and I hope you don't mind...

[atbarr]

Careful AT. You know they are watching!

Too old to care, like you, I say what I feel. Uh, not saying your old.

[Nik Habicht]

I've been away from the forum for quite a while.

I appreciate the input from the participants in the last BOD meeting. I spent six years on the Board. When I left, I walked away with certain impressions with the way the Board operates. One was that it was way too common for motions to be brought on issues which had not been properly announced (agenda). Not pointing fingers here, but it appears that this has not changed. Part of the problem is/was that significant issues were not sufficiently discussed prior to the meeting where (hopefully) further discussion would have more clearly refined the subject. The other reason for this problem is that the meeting is simply not long enough to do the job right. Due to travel home schedules, the meeting is essentially only one day and a half. Most problematic issues tend to get tabled until Sunday morning and get voted on in a rush to "we have to get this done before we leave". Unfortunately, this sometimes resulted in less than ideal decisions.

As to this rule....

When Production was created ten years ago, it was apparently not foreseen that shooters would want to "race" in Production. It should have been. After all, USPSA had a "it's legal unless the rules say you can't" mindset. That's how shooters approached the Division. In 2007,after I left the BOD, the Production rules were restated to a "if it's not specifically allowed it's illegal" approach. I didn't much care for that decision since it fundamentally changed the Division long after it has been established. The horse was out of the barn. This latest rule just adds to that problem and I fundamentally disagree with the "suitable for carry" argument. This is a game. We keep score. In any competition, the best results are expected to go to the man-woman/machine combination which performs the best. Good preparation of both elements should be rewarded by better performance and results. A trigger job has alsways been the first step to improving the equipment. It's not just about range practice or dry-fire. It's also about assuring the equipment is best suited for the task. It's no different for many weekend "athletes". Skiers will buy the best equipment they can afford to maximize their performance. And, if they do a better job of waxing their skis they might beat a better technical skier. I don't think it's any different in USPSA.

Production has proven to be a legitimate entry Division. I don't think it was ever officially defined that way but it certainly is the common perception. Membership has grown significantly over the years, but only partially due to the availability of Production. In most parts of the country, I have seen excellent grass-roots (club level) efforts to recruit members. Production was the logical first choice for these new shooters since many of them already owned a gun which would fit. If they own something else, than L-10 or SS are there.

Introducing a trigger pull weight will not attract or chase away new members. So what is the reason for this change? It looks like it's all about the "box stock" thing. What's wrong with maximizing what you own? Changing the rules now affects those who made their purchase decisions on the rules at the time. Introducing a "first shot" rule changes the playing field for those shooters. What is wrong with improving technology? If someone sees a market for a better product, so be it. Our sport has been all about that for years. Remember when electronic sights were universally branded as being "impractical"? The news channels reports from places overseas disapproved that opinion years ago. Why should innovations be restricted for Production guns? Just my opinion, but somehow I think our major sponsors would like that approach.

Lastly, this rule falls into the "how the devil will it be consistently enforced?" column. First shot? While you could try to measure a double-action trigger pull and a striker fired trigger pull, how do you measure the trigger pull on a first shot which can (in USPSA) be taken in any manner? That it was passed without a specific method of enforcement underlines the "rush to a decision" situation on the Board. Thank you to those who voted against it and thanks to those who look to be reconsidering not only the decision but also the process.

I do have to make one final comment on the viability of having a formal membership input into the rulemaking process. Yes, advance notice of significant rule changes should be made known - in general. That would give members opportunity to contact their ADs with their opinion prior to a formal BOD vote. But I disagree with with a formal membership "vote on the final product" process. First, you elected those folks to represent you. As long as they remember that the process should work. Second, a formal member vote is simply unworkable. It would simply take too much time. The necessity for formal notice, etc. would turn an already lengthy process into one an unmanageable one.

Ultimately however, in my opinion, the Board needs, and should demand, more extensive input prior to enacting new rules.

The world might come to an end today -- I agree with George (not that unusual) -- without reservations. (I don't think that's happened before)

[Flexmoney]

Ultimately however, in my opinion, the Board needs, and should demand, more extensive input prior to enacting new rules.

A great point. And, to bring that home... I don't think there was any mention or thought about the fact that a "first shot" could be a single-action first shot for the DA/SA guns.

That point of consideration came only after this thread was started and the collective wisdom of the hive had a look at it.

[David.Hylton]

I think it unnecessary and will be another burden for new shooters who want to compete above the local level.

When I shot my first match where I could expect to be chronographed at least I could find published loading data for a similar pistol and be reasonably assured of making power factor. Now I'll have to get a trigger scale to make sure the .25$ trigger job on my Glock makes weight.

I bought my Glock 34 from a police distributer so it came with a 5lb trigger pull. I could deal with the weight, but it was a rough pull with overtravel and lots of take up in it. A friend did the 25 cent trigger job and it is much smoother and lighter. After years of shooting and lots of practice it is even smoother. But is it 3lbs or more?

While many see production as the "entry" division I also see it as the "purist's" division. The field is leveled by the equipment restrictions but a 3lb TP is not going to make a significant difference for someone who has mastered all of the skills required for competition. As my wife said the National Champion did not win because of the difference between a 3lb and 2lb trigger pull. He won because he mastered all of the skills. I think it will impact casual or new shooters who may inadvertently fail to meet the 3lb minimum.

What will the practical minimum weight be? We tend to pad our power factor to make sure we meet the minimum based on different range conditions will we need to pad our trigger weight also?

This is an unnecessary rule that will next to impossible to enforce.

[outerlimits]

Amidon prints On this?

[ima45dv8]

I've noticed a theme running through this thread that I wanted to address. The notion that the Area Directors pulled this out of their butts without input from the members. It's just not true.

I believe that entirely. The Board as a whole doesn't sit around thinking of ways to disrupt the current membership. That often comes from individuals within the group.

But it's not the origin of these rulle changes ("out of someone's butt") that is at issue so much as the idea that an out-of-the-butt rule change can be passed with so little investigation.

Panic is no reason to vote "Yea".

ESCALATION. That's something I've tried to teach employees for many years. When in doubt -- escalate. Don't make a decision in the dark. Get input.

I would have been immensely satisfied to see the Board table this matter until more information was available.

Not blaming anything on anyone. And I think I've taken more than my share of the blame for the decision.

I think you have, too (sadly so). You voted against this change.

And just in case anyone missed that -- he voted against it.

Where you may be getting drug down into the ire felt for the vote is your defense of the process. In this case the process was flawed and should be accepted as such. A simple "move to table" would have prevented this turmoil.

Faced with the same immediate issue, would I have had the good sense to make such a motion? I don't know... I hope so...

It would be a tough situation.

I still agree with the trigger pull weight... Without bringing the skill to the table. Because if its truely the "Indian and not the arrow" analogy. The bad ass Indian can adapt to any trigger pull...

I'm in the minority on the voting because I agree to it... It levels the playing field when it comes to gear... Like I said before not all pistol on the approve list have the aftermarket support to even get the trigger pull close to the 3lb first shot. I know I bring up HK's because of my past experience... HK with a $120 dollar match trigger kit still only 4.5 to 5lb SA and 7.5lb DA ... To get it lower your have to spend considerably more to get to 3lbs SA.

Ripp, you made some posts that strongly stated that it is the Indian and not the Arrow that wins the day. That's a commonly held belief for good reason. Does it automatically discount the application of really good arrows? I don't think so.

The race to recruit the ever mythical new shooter ignores the fact that this sport is one of totally raw objective judgement of skillset. This type of competition appeals to very few people. Regardless of the hundreds of excuses they offer, the reality that it simply is not attractive to most people needs to be accepted rather than watering down the sport with the never ending effort to be all inclusive. It is a false assumption that by simply removing these false objections will result in more participants.

So well said.

I'm not concerned about about new shooters in this sport. They come. They go. Twas always thus.

What I am concerned about are the current (hopefully) dues-paying members of this sport. They make the matches we enjoy so much.

If this, or any other proposed rule change negatively impacts those people, it makes what's left of my hair stand on end and I will fight it (them) with all I have.

[ima45dv8]

I've been away from the forum for quite a while.

I appreciate the input from the participants in the last BOD meeting. I spent six years on the Board. When I left, I walked away with certain impressions with the way the Board operates. One was that it was way too common for motions to be brought on issues which had not been properly announced (agenda). Not pointing fingers here, but it appears that this has not changed. Part of the problem is/was that significant issues were not sufficiently discussed prior to the meeting where (hopefully) further discussion would have more clearly refined the subject. The other reason for this problem is that the meeting is simply not long enough to do the job right. Due to travel home schedules, the meeting is essentially only one day and a half. Most problematic issues tend to get tabled until Sunday morning and get voted on in a rush to "we have to get this done before we leave". Unfortunately, this sometimes resulted in less than ideal decisions.

As to this rule....

When Production was created ten years ago, it was apparently not foreseen that shooters would want to "race" in Production. It should have been. After all, USPSA had a "it's legal unless the rules say you can't" mindset. That's how shooters approached the Division. In 2007,after I left the BOD, the Production rules were restated to a "if it's not specifically allowed it's illegal" approach. I didn't much care for that decision since it fundamentally changed the Division long after it has been established. The horse was out of the barn. This latest rule just adds to that problem and I fundamentally disagree with the "suitable for carry" argument. This is a game. We keep score. In any competition, the best results are expected to go to the man-woman/machine combination which performs the best. Good preparation of both elements should be rewarded by better performance and results. A trigger job has always been the first step to improving the equipment. It's not just about range practice or dry-fire. It's also about assuring the equipment is best suited for the task. It's no different for many weekend "athletes". Skiers will buy the best equipment they can afford to maximize their performance. And, if they do a better job of waxing their skis they might beat a better technical skier. I don't think it's any different in USPSA.

Production has proven to be a legitimate entry Division. I don't think it was ever officially defined that way but it certainly is the common perception. Membership has grown significantly over the years, but only partially due to the availability of Production. In most parts of the country, I have seen excellent grass-roots (club level) efforts to recruit members. Production was the logical first choice for these new shooters since many of them already owned a gun which would fit. If they own something else, than L-10 or SS are there.

Introducing a trigger pull weight will not attract or chase away new members. So what is the reason for this change? It looks like it's all about the "box stock" thing. What's wrong with maximizing what you own? Changing the rules now affects those who made their purchase decisions on the rules at the time. Introducing a "first shot" rule changes the playing field for those shooters. What is wrong with improving technology? If someone sees a market for a better product, so be it. Our sport has been all about that for years. Remember when electronic sights were universally branded as being "impractical"? The news channels reports from places overseas disapproved that opinion years ago. Why should innovations be restricted for Production guns? Just my opinion, but somehow I think our major sponsors would like that approach.

Lastly, this rule falls into the "how the devil will it be consistently enforced?" column. First shot? While you could try to measure a double-action trigger pull and a striker fired trigger pull, how do you measure the trigger pull on a first shot which can (in USPSA) be taken in any manner? That it was passed without a specific method of enforcement underlines the "rush to a decision" situation on the Board. Thank you to those who voted against it and thanks to those who look to be reconsidering not only the decision but also the process.

I do have to make one final comment on the viability of having a formal membership input into the rulemaking process. Yes, advance notice of significant rule changes should be made known - in general. That would give members opportunity to contact their ADs with their opinion prior to a formal BOD vote. But I disagree with with a formal membership "vote on the final product" process. First, you elected those folks to represent you. As long as they remember that the process should work. Second, a formal member vote is simply unworkable. It would simply take too much time. The necessity for formal notice, etc. would turn an already lengthy process into one an unmanageable one.

Ultimately however, in my opinion, the Board needs, and should demand, more extensive input prior to enacting new rules.

Thanks George for offering your thoughts. This thread has enjoyed multiple BoD member (current and future) , the Prez-elect, and now a former member of the sausage grinder.

From your comments it seems a keener eye towards Parliamentary procedure might be in order. "One issue at a time", as it were. I understand time is at a premium in these meetings, but expedience in favor of an informed decision is a poor trade-off.

To your last comment about not having every member's vote solicited and weighed in these matters -- I agree.

I vote for representation at the Area-/BoD-level with the hope my representative(s) carefully weigh the decisions thay face.

I think many of the elected representatives failed in this instance.

[JThompson]

Hmmm,

Might be a good time to roll out the online voting for a proper test on rules before we use it for elections. No matter how good one person, or a small group are, they can not vet a new rule as 100 or 1000 can. We have seen this time and again with rules changes that we find holes in and then more changes are made to the rules to cover the holes created by the first change.

It would not be hard too, at least, implement a polling program to find out what the members of each Area think help guide their directors. Our directors have 20,000 members to call on now, why should a handful of people decide what is best for us all without even talking to us before making a decision?

At the very least, you guys need to make and agenda and stick to it, that way we all don't have to live with a snap decision that was given a total 10 mins thought.

As much as I thank you all for your service, and I do, sometimes I feel the sport is growing in spite of what the board does, not because of it.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

jt

PS I'd like to hear what the RMI think about it, but I hear there is a gag order regarding rules discussion here.

Also, I'd like to thank Gary for his years of service as my Area director. He's was very much in touch with the rank and file. I don't recall any decision he made which went against the wishes of Area five shooters. Welcome to Kyle as mt new AD I'm glad to see he was on the same page as Gary with this one too.

As an aside, I might have been able to get behind this if it were for safety concerns....

j

Edited December 26, 2011 by JThompson

[atbarr]

Hmmm, Might be a good time to roll out the online voting for a proper test on rules before we use it for elections.

So, we'll have Open, Limited, Limited 10, and Single Stack, deciding I need to use a > 3 lb. TP?

Edited December 26, 2011 by atbarr

[EkuJustice]

I agree, it should have been done when it was started not after people have investigated money in their guns. I think the intent was to prevent an arms race but that has alaredy been started to an extent. What It will do now is make a race to the CZ guns since only the first pull is effected not the second shots. If they want a trigger pull weight it should have been done years ago, before all the trigger jobs are out there and it should effect EVERY trigger pull not just the first one. If it ends up going into effect it looks like I will have a Glock 34 for sale in the next year.

While we are at it with making equiment that was allowed obsolete how about we say 9mm is allowed for major in limited and make the 40 obsolete as well

Edited December 26, 2011 by EkuJustice

[JThompson]

Hmmm, Might be a good time to roll out the online voting for a proper test on rules before we use it for elections.

So, we'll have Open, Limited, Limited 10, and Single Stack, deciding I need to use a > 3 lb. TP?

There are a whole lot of those in this thread that would not have voted for it. The key here is discussion of the membership... I shoot open, in fact went straight to it when I got in USPSA. I like speed and hate rules! hahah

All we can hope for is that our directors talk to the people shooting the division affected. Have a little faith there AT I would have voted down and I'm Open. Most of us do not want more rules for rules sake and I think there should be a "compelling" reason to change or add a rule. I do not see the need for this change, especially with the reasons I have heard here. Like I said, if it was having to do with ADs it might have made some sense. I have always been concerned with a 2lb trigger with no external safety. I think it's a bad idea and I would never run a striker gun that light. If I was going to do this for safety reasons, I would want to gather data on if it's really the cause of more Ads than the stock variety. I think that would be hard pressed to prove, so in the end, without compelling data, I would not vote for it even in that regard.

The problem is not so much on who is making the decision, but the lack of relevant data before a vote.

JT

Edited December 26, 2011 by JThompson

[EkuJustice]

If they wanted to pull the safety issue then they need to knock up the triggers across the board. I would argue it the safety aspect came up that that exact same gun can be shot in the same configuration in L10, Limited or open with the exact same trigger pull on it. If its safe in one its safe in the other.

[bgary]

When Production was created ten years ago, it was apparently not foreseen that shooters would want to "race" in Production. It should have been. After all, USPSA had a "it's legal unless the rules say you can't" mindset. That's how shooters approached the Division. In 2007,after I left the BOD, the Production rules were restated to a "if it's not specifically allowed it's illegal" approach. I didn't much care for that decision since it fundamentally changed the Division long after it has been established. The horse was out of the barn.

Not entirely accurate. Even from its inception in 2000, the Production division was "different". Where all the other divisions were formed as "if it isn't listed as illegal, it is fair game", the Production division - from the start - was formed as "modifications are strictly limited, and if it isn't specifically allowed, it is illegal". The Production division section in the 2000 USPSA rulebook is different from all the other divisions, in that it clearly says allowed modifications are 'strictly limited', and then lists a handful of things that are specifically allowed or prohibited.

The problem is that the rules did a crappy job of drawing the boundary in a clear place. When the rules said that "action work for reliability" was an allowed modification, people figured that meant that they could do anything they wanted to the action, including changing geometry and pivot-pin locations. When the rules said "external modifications not allowed", some people figured that meant they could do anything they wanted as long as it wasn't visible externally. Etc. So... even though the rules said modifications were "strictly limited", some people took holes in the language and made modifications that the rules didn't allow.

The "interpretation" that the Board published in 2009 was an attempt to make that boundary between "allowed" and "not allowed" clearer. Unpopular, perhaps to some, but totally valid (IMHO) given the charter - all the way back to inception in 2000 - that the Production division be for "stock guns" with "very limited modifications".

Before publishing the 2009 clarifications, the Board argued - for almost an entire in-person weekend, and for weeks afterward - about whether or not to enact a minimum trigger pull. There was considerable consensus *for* a trigger pull at that time, because it is an objective measure which would make the rules much easier to understand (and to write). With a trigger pull minimum, there would not have to be pages (literally) of sub-rules about what kinds of action work were "allowed" modifications and what was "illegal". The rule could be a very simple stated minimum, and if your trigger pull was at least that minimum, the rules didn't have to care what mods you had made.

The biggest arguments *for* a trigger pull minimum were pretty compelling. The arguments included parity with the world body, simpler rule language, rules that would be easy for new members to understand, rules that could be enforced objectively on the range, etc. The two arguments *against* a trigger pull minimum were that such a rule would pretty much dictate equipment choices depending on how it was implemented (if it was a minimum trigger pull on all shots, it would effectively eliminate DA/SA guns from being competitive; if it was on first-shot only, it would give a perceived advantage to DA/SA guns), and that the Board was reluctant to invalidate modifications that members had made to existing guns - despite its belief (in 2007-2008) was that those mods had been made in violation of the existing rules.

I was on the board from 2000-2009, and I'd have to dig out my notes but my recollection is that the quesiton of "fixing the production division rules" (so that the boundary was more clear) came up just about every year. I know there were at least 4 focused full-board discussions about how to solve the problem, with the most recent one resulting in the "interpretation" that was published in 2009. The interesting thing about the 2009 "intepretation" is that it didn't make anything "illegal" that had ever been "legal".... it just made clear that some of the things that had been "assumed to be legal" never had been.

Don't know if anything has changed for the Board since I left, I [obviously] am not involved in the discussions. I will say, though, that my belief remains that the problem is structural.... the "intent" of the USPSA Production division is and always has been different from all the other divisions, in that modifications have to be specifically allowed... but with a membership that loves to find the edges of "allowed", there's probably never going to be a rule-set that satisfies both sides.

Finally! Now do you see my point? There are a LOT of "new" Production rules in the rev 2010 rulebook that were not in place in 2008. So in 2008-2010, the only safety that had to work in a Glock, M&P or XD, was the trigger tab (yes, really!). Then in 2010, we added rules saying those could no longer be disengaged and or removed. We "Changed" the rules, which for those three pistol types meant an associated increase in trigger pull weight.

With respect, also not quite accurate. The rules *always* said that modifications were "strictly limited to [listed] items and their stated guidelines. See item 21 in the 2008 rulebook. And note that disabling internal safeties was *not* one of the items that was specifically allowed.

That's a perfect example of the "boundary" problem. The Board thought that was a perfectly clear statement in the rules - if it isn't in this short list of things you're allowed to do... you're not allowed to do it. But at the same time, some members looked only at the second bullet in item 22, where it says that disabling external safeties is "specifically prohibited"... and made the mental leap that if the rules said you can't disable internal safeties, it must be "okay" to disable internal safeties. It wasn't.

That's the problem the Board has been trying to solve with the Production division since it began in 2000. And it illustrates how, in some ways, a "measurable" rule like a trigger-pull minimum is the only way to objectively put limits on mods.

$.02, and back to lurking....

Bruce

[atbarr]

The problem is not so much on who is making the decision, but the lack of relevant data before a vote.

JT

Yes, yes, yes!

[atbarr]

If its safe in one its safe in the other.

[Sherwyn]

Well, I saw this a little late (been a little busy) and just went through the whole thing...now that I did, I wish I hadn't.

My vote was based on what I had heard at local club matches. No I don't shoot much production, usually shooting open, in fact my son and I are the majority of the open shooters in our club. Production is very often the most popular division at many matches I attend.

Did I ask the question "do you want a 3# trigger pull limit? No I did not, but know that I had many discussions that trigger work needed to be controlled in production. So I did feel that I was voting with information and with Handgun rules on the agenda, was not surprised that it came up. So far I have received 1 e-mail asking about this vote.

There are a lot of spots up for election on the BOD this year, after reading this I expect that there will be numerous candidates for each spot.

My e-mail and phone number are on the area 3 website if anyone wants to discuss this or anything else with me.

Sherwyn