USPSA BOD Meeting

[Strick]

The first e-mail I got back from the ECO section...

"I support the 3# minimum for the Production class, as well as the individual mag holders and no magnetic holders.... Keep the production class a production class."

Yeah but the air is real thin up there.

I kid, I kid.....lol

[Gary Stevens]

The first e-mail I got back from the ECO section...

"I support the 3# minimum for the Production class, as well as the individual mag holders and no magnetic holders.... Keep the production class a production class."

If they don't know it is a Division, I don't know how much weight (no pun intended) I would give that one.

[chemepharmd]

Rob one of the big problems, as I see it, with your "suitable for carry" falls into the beauty is in the eye of the beholder area. What you feel is not suitable, I might well feel that it is. As I posted much earlier, I have not seen a Production gun used that I would not be able to carry or would hesitate to carry.

Exactly. I carry a full size Springfield 1911 when I carry.

I agree with Gary & Grumpy. The problem is that "suitable for carry" is very subjective, and there are many different opinions.

[JThompson]

The first e-mail I got back from the ECO section...

"I support the 3# minimum for the Production class, as well as the individual mag holders and no magnetic holders.... Keep the production class a production class."

Interesting.... if his constituents feel that way then I support the decision 1000%, but if they do not, you need to leave your personal opinions at the meeting room door. Being an elected official means you put personal feeling or agenda aside and your represent what your people want. You are their voice, not dictators.

Best,'

JT

Edited December 27, 2011 by JThompson

[two shoes]

The first e-mail I got back from the ECO section...

"I support the 3# minimum for the Production class, as well as the individual mag holders and no magnetic holders.... Keep the production class a production class."

I had emailed Chris directly. He replied as well. All it takes is communication, but it has to go both ways.

[MarkCO]

The first e-mail I got back from the ECO section...

"I support the 3# minimum for the Production class, as well as the individual mag holders and no magnetic holders.... Keep the production class a production class."

Interesting.... if his constituents feel that way then I support the decision 1000%, but if they do not, you need to leave your personal opinions at the meeting room door. Being an electd official it is not what you thinkk is not the point, Your job is to vote the way of your people.

Best,'

JT

That was just a response from a local shooter to an email I sent the ECO section letting them know there were some rules votes with a link to the minutes and a recomendation to let the Area 2 Director know what they wanted with the ADs USPSA e-mail address. Nothing more.

[underlug]

Second point: During the discussion on the trigger weight there was a view that new shooters will not come into Production because of light triggers on other shooters guns, or that they will leave Production when they find out that other shooters have lighter triggers than they have. When I asked for a verified example of this, I received silence.

Gary

oh, and where are these imaginary shooters going when they leave production because of light triggers? limited? L10? Open? Single Stack? IDPA? nope...wouldn't they also fear the light triggers there????

they must be going to revolver. and i guess the fact that these people are purely imaginary explains why production is still typically 5-10 times the size of revo.

They all have 8 shot revolvers and will swell our revolver ranks when the Revolver rules are changed to allow them

[JThompson]

The first e-mail I got back from the ECO section...

"I support the 3# minimum for the Production class, as well as the individual mag holders and no magnetic holders.... Keep the production class a production class."

Interesting.... if his constituents feel that way then I support the decision 1000%, but if they do not, you need to leave your personal opinions at the meeting room door. Being an electd official it is not what you thinkk is not the point, Your job is to vote the way of your people.

Best,'

JT

That was just a response from a local shooter to an email I sent the ECO section letting them know there were some rules votes with a link to the minutes and a recomendation to let the Area 2 Director know what they wanted with the ADs USPSA e-mail address. Nothing more.

Yes, I find it disturbing when I hear, I feel or I want or I think... this is not the point, you are there for us not for you. If you can't deal with that then I submit you should make way for someone who is able to vote for their Area, not what they may feel personally.

Edited December 27, 2011 by JThompson

[MarkCO]

The first e-mail I got back from the ECO section...

"I support the 3# minimum for the Production class, as well as the individual mag holders and no magnetic holders.... Keep the production class a production class."

Interesting.... if his constituents feel that way then I support the decision 1000%, but if they do not, you need to leave your personal opinions at the meeting room door. Being an electd official it is not what you thinkk is not the point, Your job is to vote the way of your people.

Best,'

JT

That was just a response from a local shooter to an email I sent the ECO section letting them know there were some rules votes with a link to the minutes and a recomendation to let the Area 2 Director know what they wanted with the ADs USPSA e-mail address. Nothing more.

Yes, I find it disturbing when I hear, I feel or I want or I think... this is not the point, you are there for us not for you. If you can't deal with that then I submit you should make way for someone who is able to be vote for their Area.

I'm not on the BOD, so if directed at me, misplaced. If directed at the A2 Director, also misplaced. Chris has been very candid in his communications to me directly and here on BEnos as well. I have the utmost confidence that he will be represetning his constituents wishes.

[Coach]

Rob one of the big problems, as I see it, with your "suitable for carry" falls into the beauty is in the eye of the beholder area. What you feel is not suitable, I might well feel that it is. As I posted much earlier, I have not seen a Production gun used that I would not be able to carry or would hesitate to carry.

+1

[bbbean]

I don't believe it is reasonable to argue that a gun with a 2.5lb trigger job is a "nearly stock gun suitable for carry purposes" and, as such, conclude a 3lb limit is absolutely consistent with this stated goal - therefore, if a change is needed, the goal should be modified.

Why not? I put tens of thousands of rounds through guns with 1.5-2.5 lb triggers each year. I've been advised by my attorney that using a gun I compete and practice with (i.e., have proven I am safe with) is a strong defense against any presumed problems due to "modifications". If I were so inclined, I wouldn't hesitate to carry my M&P (with the AEK and 2.5 lb trigger) in an appropriate holster.

If someone else doesn't feel comfortable carrying anything less than 3, or 4, or 6, or 8, or 12 lbs, that's fine, but it shouldn't change how USPSA defines a popular and successful division, obsoleting competitor equipment in the process.

[Chuck Anderson]

Rob one of the big problems, as I see it, with your "suitable for carry" falls into the beauty is in the eye of the beholder area. What you feel is not suitable, I might well feel that it is. As I posted much earlier, I have not seen a Production gun used that I would not be able to carry or would hesitate to carry.

If you're telling me that a 2.5lb trigger is fine on a carry gun, your the first LE professional to tell me so.

In any case, it's going to be hard to convince me that a trigger under 3lbs is generally "suitable for carry", but I am of an open mind on making an alteration to the "suitable for carry" requirement.

Rob, you can add a second LEO to Gary's statement. If someone wants to carry a 2.5 lb trigger that's their own business.

I spoke to a representative of a major rifle manufacturer at SHOT a couple years ago. I was looking for a sutable replacement trigger for our agency AR's that would bring the trigger to 4-4.5 pounds. He explained to me that anything under 5 pounds on any gun was negligent and he would come testify against our agency if we installed anything under 5 pounds. I asked him if it was an otherwise clean shoot, what did the trigger matter. He was flat out going to testify we were negligent, regardless of the circumstances. I've never bought another product, or carried one, from that company, and I likely never will. The arrogance to tell someone that regardless of circumstances they are negligent reminds me immensely of someone (you) arbitrarily saying that 3 pounds is OK for carry, but 2.75 is not.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Chuck Anderson

[vluc]

I really do not want to see this piecemeal approach to production. We have this trigger pull issue, we have the subsequent vote to continue to review and evaluate production to see if it stays true to its intent.

As a shooter, I am kind of like a businessman who must make decisions based on knowing there is stability in rules, law, taxation, etc.

How can I make a solid decision about production when I am already being told that it will continue to be tweaked and I go through this roller coaster every few years? I love the division, absolutely love the mental and physical challenge of it. I am not so adamant that I would stop shooting if things changed, but I want to know that what I use now will be good 2-5-7 years down the road or I want to know it won't and how/why what will be.

Either start over or freeze it as it is. No additional mods, no changing what you already have done. Accept that it has become a hybrid or kill your baby and try to make a new one.

[justaute]

+1,000,000

I really do not want to see this piecemeal approach to production. We have this trigger pull issue, we have the subsequent vote to continue to review and evaluate production to see if it stays true to its intent.

As a shooter, I am kind of like a businessman who must make decisions based on knowing there is stability in rules, law, taxation, etc.

How can I make a solid decision about production when I am already being told that it will continue to be tweaked and I go through this roller coaster every few years? I love the division, absolutely love the mental and physical challenge of it. I am not so adamant that I would stop shooting if things changed, but I want to know that what I use now will be good 2-5-7 years down the road or I want to know it won't and how/why what will be.

Either start over or freeze it as it is. No additional mods, no changing what you already have done. Accept that it has become a hybrid or kill your baby and try to make a new one.

[bigfish]

While I agree with almost everyone on this thread and in no way in favor of a 3# trigger rule, I think that if they want to keep production guns close to stock there are better places to start. I could see if they wanted to not allow people to not have aftermarket match grade barrels that could give someone a clear advantage, but to regulate trigger wieght is uncalled for. If we start to regulate trigger pull, one of the most basic necessities of a target gun, where will it end? People will leave the division because they will fear that thier gun will not be legal the next season. Why destory the one of the most popular divisions in the sport?

Just my $.02

[Rob Boudrie]

The arrogance to tell someone that regardless of circumstances they are negligent reminds me immensely of someone (you) arbitrarily saying that 3 pounds is OK for carry, but 2.75 is not.

For the record, I never stated 3lbs was OK; just that the prevailing thought is that below 3lbs is too light for carry.

Rob, you can add a second LEO to Gary's statement. If someone wants to carry a 2.5 lb trigger that's their own business.

Ok, but show me a major (or even minor) manufacturer selling box-stock guns with sub 3lb triggers suitable for carry. The standard stated "stock or nearly-stock guns can compete on a relatively level playing field". If my understanding that no manufacturer sells "stock" guns with sub 3lb triggers for carry, and getting one to that level is something people commonly spend over $100 for, then it's not what one would call "nearly stock".

Simply put, carry guns are not sold with 2.5lb triggers and once a stock gun is modified to have one, it is no longer "nearly stock".

I asked him if it was an otherwise clean shoot, what did the trigger matter.

Therein lies both the question and the answer. If it's a clean shoot it's irrelevant. The prevailing thought among many (though obviously not all) is that light triggers increase the risk of an unintentional or premature shot. I suspect that some of those involved in a rather embarrassing incident involving discharging an AR15 through the neck of a proned out and compliant subject senior citizen at a raid one town over from me might agree.

This particular issue is a distraction. While the "not suitable for carry" in the 3/7/2009 document explains the motivation for at least one BOD vote, it is not a mandate that said position or policy cannot be altered.

[spanky]

Voight's response to my email

Hello Jeremy

I appreciate your message and will share it with the entire BOD.

The BOD has not wanted to place additional restriction on Production, but some competitor actions have mandated these additional restrictions.

There should be further changes to Production division that will reduce some of the technical inspection necessary now.

Production division was created to allow mainstream firearms and manufacturers to compete in USPSA.

Production division was designed for factory pistols with minimal modifications, not for highly modified pistols.

The trigger weight restriction has been discussed for many years as a way to inspect Production pistols quickly and consistently.

Seems his mind is made up.

[pjb45]

Why is USPSA responsible for the trigger weight on whatever I carry for CCW.

USPSA should not be involved in CCW issues.

The rationale, although perhaps good intentioned, in a non sequitur.

IPSC can do whatever they wish but once again the socialist countries of IPSC should not dictate American policy.

The BOD has overstepped it charge. It should put this to a vote of the membership.

[Strick]

Voight's response to my email

Hello Jeremy

I appreciate your message and will share it with the entire BOD.

The BOD has not wanted to place additional restriction on Production, but some competitor actions have mandated these additional restrictions.

There should be further changes to Production division that will reduce some of the technical inspection necessary now.

Production division was created to allow mainstream firearms and manufacturers to compete in USPSA.

Production division was designed for factory pistols with minimal modifications, not for highly modified pistols.

The trigger weight restriction has been discussed for many years as a way to inspect Production pistols quickly and consistently.

Seems his mind is made up.

In about 5 days that won't make a difference.

[MarkCO]

Voight's response to my email

SNIP

Seems his mind is made up.

His position as of January is that of a member.

[atbarr]

Seems his mind is made up.

It seems to me, in the recent elections, WE decided for USPSA to have a different President. In my opinion, this was a great move.

[smokshwn]

The first e-mail I got back from the ECO section...

"I support the 3# minimum for the Production class, as well as the individual mag holders and no magnetic holders.... Keep the production class a production class."

That has to be one of the most ill informed and ill conceived replies I have read. A section coordinator who doesn't know the difference between a division and a class, not to mention the complete ingnorance of the ruling changing Production rules rather than keeping them. OH MY!

[atbarr]

The first e-mail I got back from the ECO section...

"I support the 3# minimum for the Production class, as well as the individual mag holders and no magnetic holders.... Keep the production class a production class."

That has to be one of the most ill informed and ill conceived replies I have read. A section coordinator who doesn't know the difference between a division and a class, not to mention the complete ingnorance of the ruling changing Production rules rather than keeping them. OH MY!

+1

[BritinUSA]

That is NOT a reply from the Section Co-ordinator or an Area Director.... it is a response from a MEMBER of USPSA in the Eastern Colorado Section.

[RIIID]

"The trigger weight restriction has been discussed for many years as a way to inspect Production pistols quickly and consistently."

We already have a way to inspect Prod. guns it's at the chrono stage, we don't have to invent a way. Trigger work has been legal since day one, what would checking a pull weight do to find an illegally modified gun. A gun could pass the pull test but it could also be illegally modified. If nobody knows what to look for, the gun can continue to be used because it passed the pull test.

Rich