USPSA BOD Meeting

[glefos]

For me this isn't about the rule. It's about a fundamental concept.

"That government is best which governs least." -TP

Why is this true?

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - TP

This holds true for all elected bodies, not just those of cities, states or countries. I may be but one voice, but I will vote to remove those in power that do not share this belief. It doesn't matter if this BoD decision benefits me or not. It sets an ugly precedent for future decisions that more than likely won't be good for any of us.

[RIIID]

One thing that has been brought up is the BOD should post an agenda prior too, it was done in the past but seemed to have stopped. The next question should be who sets the agenda the Area Directors or the Pres.? I think it should be both.

Rich

[spanky]

IMO any issues to be brought up/proposed should be given notification in advance and anything not on the list/notification is barred from being brought up.

[pvhendrix]

One thing that has been brought up is the BOD should post an agenda prior too, it was done in the past but seemed to have stopped. The next question should be who sets the agenda the Area Directors or the Pres.? I think it should be both.

Rich

Rich,

Great idea! I would think that the President, any AD, or member could/should submit items to be discussed, to the ED and he could set the agenda for the BOD meetings. There would have to be a process for "placement" on the agenda, where if it was not discussed at the present meeting, it would not fall through the cracks and never make it to the agenda.

Edited December 27, 2011 by pvhendrix

[Nik Habicht]

Sorry guys, it is late and I read through the first 4 pages before realizing that there were 20 more! Can anyone tell me if the whole issue about applying this at the local level matches just does not make sense? I am the local club president and MD (and shoot Prod.) and have no idea how I would implement this rule. Leaving aside the cost of adding another piece of equipment and how to use it- where am I supposed to do this? I have 5 bays (and since we have to shut down the entire range we cannot set up until match morning) and one short one for a safe area. I do not have anyplace else to set up for testing the guns. Much less the time or people to do it. And as far as I can see there is NO level one exemption. Even if there was, would it be fair to not give club members a chance to check out their gear before going to a large (and expensive) match? Any thought about the majority of the matches out there- local level 1?

While there's no Level 1 exemption -- and there shouldn't be for a division equipment specific rule -- there's also no requirement that you include a chrono stage, which is where trigger pull inspection would occur.....

Whether you should do that to better prepare shooters for major matches is a different discussion....

[Nik Habicht]

Sorry guys, it is late and I read through the first 4 pages before realizing that there were 20 more! Can anyone tell me if the whole issue about applying this at the local level matches just does not make sense? I am the local club president and MD (and shoot Prod.) and have no idea how I would implement this rule. Leaving aside the cost of adding another piece of equipment and how to use it- where am I supposed to do this? I have 5 bays (and since we have to shut down the entire range we cannot set up until match morning) and one short one for a safe area. I do not have anyplace else to set up for testing the guns. Much less the time or people to do it. And as far as I can see there is NO level one exemption. Even if there was, would it be fair to not give club members a chance to check out their gear before going to a large (and expensive) match? Any thought about the majority of the matches out there- local level 1?

You have a year to do one of several options:

#1 wait and see what the BOD does at the next meeting, hoping(ahem) that they see the light, which I think is doubtful.

#2 Go outlaw and use USPSA targets and rules except that one pesky little one about trigger weight.

#3 Quickly generate and build a foolproof, safe way to test the trigger weight of every production gun.

#4 Call all Production shooters Limited 10 shooters.

And for those who think that having a new President will change this direction, remember he voted in favor of this rule and gave his explanation. It is up to the shooter to "prove" that his gun is legal not the other way around. That's an extra piece of equipment you need to buy and have in your range bag, just in case the RO thinks your trigger is a little light.

I have a tough time seeing that happening, unless you let an RO fondle your blaster, or there's some other visual indicator that is noticed by an RO running you.....

If I notice paint inside the magwell, or an extended barrel -- we'll have to talk about it....

I can't think of a way -- as an RO, other than working chrono -- that I would have any inkling that your trigger pull is too light....

And we don't pull competitors for random equipment inspection -- yet.....

[Nik Habicht]

One thing that has been brought up is the BOD should post an agenda prior too, it was done in the past but seemed to have stopped. The next question should be who sets the agenda the Area Directors or the Pres.? I think it should be both.

Rich

Rich,

Great idea! I would think that the President, any AD, or member could/should submit items to be discussed, to the ED and he could set the agenda for the BOD meetings. There would have to be a process for "placement" on the agenda, where if it was not discussed at the present meeting, it would not fall through the cracks and never make it to the agenda.

As I understand it, the avenue for members to get something on the agenda is via their area director or president......

Otherwise we'll quickly be paying for two week long board meetings....

[Sarge]

It is up to the shooter to "prove" that his gun is legal not the other way around. That's an extra piece of equipment you need to buy and have in your range bag, just in case the RO thinks your trigger is a little light.

Screw that! An RO wants to put a scale on my gun he better have his own! I don't carry a chrono in my bag I sure as heck am not going to carry a scale.

[Steve J]

Look, people have been using slightly irregular (illegal) equipment at local matches since the very first match was held following the first set of equipment rules. I dare say the vast majority of shooters at a local match don't know what the equipment rules are. Some ROs only have a general knowledge of many equipment rules. The onus is on the competitors entering major matches to make sure their equipment is legal.

[Skydiver]

One thing that has been brought up is the BOD should post an agenda prior too, it was done in the past but seemed to have stopped. The next question should be who sets the agenda the Area Directors or the Pres.? I think it should be both.

Rich

Rich,

Great idea! I would think that the President, any AD, or member could/should submit items to be discussed, to the ED and he could set the agenda for the BOD meetings. There would have to be a process for "placement" on the agenda, where if it was not discussed at the present meeting, it would not fall through the cracks and never make it to the agenda.

As I understand it, the avenue for members to get something on the agenda is via their area director or president......

Otherwise we'll quickly be paying for two week long board meetings....

Or if enough questions are sent to DNROI... I think that DNROI can also let the board know about "hot topics" with regards to rules.

[Skydiver]

Motion: Production and Single Stack Appendix will have the following added: Each magazine must be contained individually within the magazine pouch. Magazines may not be retained through magnetic means. Effective January 1, 2013

Moved: A4 Seconded A5 Passed

Another rule change question from the meeting. "Must be contained individually" does that mean that the mag dispensers like the SLMC 7 single stack mag holder will be illegal?

Don't use one myself but have seen a couple guys using 'em at local matches

Unfortunately, yes. With that wording in the minutes of the meeting, it looks like that magazine carrier would become illegal. Additionally, any revolver shooters shooting production who use the spring loaded equivalent for serving up moonclips will also have to change, unless in this "magazine" is not equivalent to "loading device".

[Chuck Anderson]

Motion: Production and Single Stack Appendix will have the following added: Each magazine must be contained individually within the magazine pouch. Magazines may not be retained through magnetic means. Effective January 1, 2013

Moved: A4 Seconded A5 Passed

Another rule change question from the meeting. "Must be contained individually" does that mean that the mag dispensers like the SLMC 7 single stack mag holder will be illegal?

Don't use one myself but have seen a couple guys using 'em at local matches

That's the specific picture Phil used when talking about something to exclude. I'd say it's not legal in 2013.

[spanky]

Motion: Production and Single Stack Appendix will have the following added: Each magazine must be contained individually within the magazine pouch. Magazines may not be retained through magnetic means. Effective January 1, 2013

Moved: A4 Seconded A5 Passed

Another rule change question from the meeting. "Must be contained individually" does that mean that the mag dispensers like the SLMC 7 single stack mag holder will be illegal?

Don't use one myself but have seen a couple guys using 'em at local matches

That's the specific picture Phil used when talking about something to exclude. I'd say it's not legal in 2013.

[Chuck Anderson]

Without dissecting the reasons (yes finger in trigger etc) PERHAPS with a heavier trigger pull the incident in question would not have happened...maybe it would have happened anyway but the investigation cited the lightweight trigger pull as a direct contributing factor.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the trigger on that gun was still heavier than 3 pounds?

[Chuck Anderson]

One thing that has been brought up is the BOD should post an agenda prior too, it was done in the past but seemed to have stopped. The next question should be who sets the agenda the Area Directors or the Pres.? I think it should be both.

Rich

President sets the initial agenda but AD's/interested parties (i.e. Executive Director, DNROI, Members attending the meeting) can request items be added to the agenda. I have not seen any of these refused yet, although it could happen. The agenda was published on the USPSA.org website. Admittedly it was a little sparse with details, i.e. "handgun rules".

[spanky]

In an adrenaline fueled fight for your life I would find it very hard to believe that that cop wouldn't have ND'd with a 15 pound trigger. This is a training issue not one of the equipment variety.

[driver8M3]

interesting article in today's WSJ on the recent decline in regulatory quality. Of course, the WSJ isn't concerned with our trigger pull rule, but this part seems relevant to our topic:

"Regulatory quality isn't the same as content—though bad rules are usually badly written, as seems to be the case here. Rather, quality refers to a deliberative process: defining the problem; measuring costs, benefits and risks; weighing alternatives, making trade-offs, avoiding duplication; and giving the public opportunity to comment."

[Justsomeguy]

I have no problem with manufacturers building a better gun. Don't think having to do it with a 3 pound trigger is going to affect them at all. Probably make their lawyers happy. The issue is what shooters are doing after they get their hand on them.

Actually, your vote insured producers that are interested in the USPSA Production market DO NOT search to improve their product past YOUR arbitrary point. You also insured that aftermarket producers limit the products they promote to USPSA shooters (IDPA shooters won't be affected) for Production division. You also are making sure that folks from IDPA won't come and play with their most similar gear in USPSA Production if they prefer to use a trigger with their preferred trigger weight that does not align with the weight you deem appropriate. You also are requiring people who do chose to mess with the pistols to go buy a trigger measuring system of some sort.

All this because you don't like how people mess with their guns within the rules that have been in place for many years?

+ 1 from me...

Plus: I'm sorry I don't get the trigger restrictions of any kind for similar reasons to Scott's objections. There are many types of production guns. Single action, double action, double action only, Single/double action. It's a gun, it was produced, it should be in production division. The type of trigger, the weight of the trigger, the color of the trigger, none of that should matter. Manufacturers have made all their guns more accurate in the last ten to fifteen years. They used better barrels, better machines, and careful assembly to do this. They improved reliability. They widened the feed ramps, left fewer tool marks or indeed polished them, and in general looked at the physics and tweaked things to make them more reliable. They also changed sights and added other sights to their catalogs to help shooters improve their confidence and their scores. Now, one of the few things left is the stock trigger. In most guns they are still abominable! I do not know anyone who shoots regularly who doesn't want a better trigger, whether it is the weight, pull length, reset, or smoothness. Regardless of the action type, any knowledgeable shooter wants the trigger HIS/HER way! I'm in Oregon. We carry, and all the people I know who carry improved or want to improve the triggers on their guns. Manufacturers can do this too, and some already have. But if they haven't, or it's not "good enough" there are aftermarket folks that will sell you some parts to make it just about as good as the particular mechanics of your gun will allow. Now say tomorrow Springfield, or Glock, or S&W has a sharp engineer and he figures out a way to replace the entire stock trigger parts in one of their guns with a new set of parts that will allow nice crispy, smooth trigger pulls to be user adjustable to 3# or below with the stock parts and still be absolutely safe like rifle triggers. A guy or gal goes out and buys this new gun with the new trigger which looks exactly like the gun did before except it has this new fangled trigger in it. You are telling not only the manufacturer, but the person who bought the gun "Uhm... Sorry, but your gun can't be used in Production". Even though it is box stock, not one iota of change was made to it from the factory, and everyone on God's green earth is trying to buy, or has already bought one, you can't take it to a USPSA match and shoot it without going up against heavily modified pistols in Limited, Open, etc., who will certainly have that mod plus others.

That's just wrong! And likewise it would seem to be wrong to not allow any gun produced with any action type to not compete in Production division. I can see the restrictions on adding weight. I can even sort of see the restrictions on adding grip tape to the slide from a safety point of view (you could get cut up or it could come off and fling somewhere and the factory does not have that option.). But I cannot see how any modifications to the trigger to make the gun better for the individual that owns it to be a viable restriction, except in cases where it is unsafe to handle at all, or such modification would make the gun go auto.

So my point is the limitations the Board of Directors came up with is just the opposite of what reasonable people would expect. If the point of Production is to allow people to "run what they brung", then any action type should have been allowed. If you allow any action type, you have to allow modifications to the trigger pull of one kind or another to make up for what one manufacturer or another does to their particular trigger assembly to make it better, because that is what any sane person who will shoot a gun with any knowledge will do to it. Seeing as how Production Division is limited to several action types (I mean really... Glocks and XD's are double action... Puuulllleeessse!), then what an owner does to the trigger parts should be nobody's business except if they are unsafe. I could understand the restriction of not allowing 1911/2011 types 11 years ago as they were very much better in the trigger department at that time. Given the factory and aftermarket parts available today for other types I don't see that anymore, and for the sake of progress and to encourage the use of any produced product and for the manufacturers to make them better as well, it seems arcane. Still, if you wish to exclude 1911/2011 types because you feel the others cannot compete, then they never will because there is no incentive to make a $500-$750 gun shoot as well as a $1200-$2500 gun, except that today they do if you allow trigger mods.

I also don't understand the 10 round restriction (which would have disallowed all the 1911 types anyway if the size restriction was in place and the magazine extends out from the gun), since the round limit is not federal anymore and you have Limited 10 anyway. Yes, I understand several States, notably California still has a 10 round restriction, but why use that in Production if not all the other divisions as well. It just doesn't seem to make sense anymore, but I can live with it even though all the major manufacturers make pistols with larger magazines. I suppose you can chalk it up to forced reloads to smooth out the differences in magazine capacity as it exists today and that's still ok with me.

So to review... Anyone would think it would be reasonable to make things better, not worse. Restrictions as to Division have to have some meaning indeed, but restrictions to trigger smoothness and weight, beyond being safe, do not seem to lend themselves to logical thought as they make things more competitive between types, not less so.

Also: The comparison before between shooting sports and auto racing was close, but rather should have been Production Division in shooting vs. IROC in auto racing. IROC cars looked stock, had stock displacement in the engines, but in all other ways were pretty much tuned up. Production Division guns are like that... smoothed, coddled, and tuned, but look pretty much stock. And, as in auto racing, the manufacturers had a keen interest in seeing that the thing that looked like the one in showroom ran like a champ!

Thanks for reading...

Edited December 27, 2011 by Justsomeguy

[Chuck Anderson]

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

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".

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.

Prevailing thought by who? Rob, no offense, but I've carried a gun professionally for quite a few years. I've trained well over a thousand individuals, through my agencies, Academy, USPSA and locally on the range. I've come to the albeit unscientfic conclusion that the trigger weight doesn't matter on a carry gun. Training does. If you want an example there's a nice video of a Las Vegas Metro officer pulling through the DA trigger on a Beretta and almost capping a suspect in the back of the head due to interlimb interaction. Unless you want Production to be a Division with the minimum pull over 20 pounds, there is no "safe" trigger pull.

You asked about a major manufacturer making guns with sub 3 pound triggers. There are several that make SA triggers sub 3 pounds. The rule that Mike proposed was 3 pounds for the first shot which for unloaded gun starts is going to be SA for the DA/SA crowd. I'm sure that's something that could be corrected later. It's the reason I wanted the additional motion passed about clarifying the Production rules. Not to add more restrictions, just to fix the abortion of a rule that was was already passed with less discussion than my wife has about ordering a pizza.

Beyond that, most of the striker fired guns have the capability to go well below 3 pounds for under $25.00 in their garage, with no machinery, no real skill. And they are modifications that could relatively easily be removed if the gun is sold, upgraded, whatever. I would say that would qualify more as nearly stock gun than milling a set of sights in a slide, adding an internal magwell made of epoxy or stippling the whole grip surface.

BTW, what was the trigger weight of that AR the officer had the ND with? I'm betting it's well over 5 pounds. You keep using examples that have absolutely nothing to do with your argument that we use 3 pounds. You know this one time somewhere, someone did something stupid with a gun we don't even use in USPSA pistol competition.

Finally suitable for carry is an extremely vague category. Suitable for defensive concealed carry to shoot other humans with in a life or death struggle? Or suitable for open carry while fishing? (I say that looking at a picture of me fishing with my Production Glock in a thigh rig), Carry on a farm, carry on the range when teaching? USPSA trying to state that one trigger weight is suitable for carry, and when we instituted that trigger pull requirement, that's exactly what we did, is just bad policy. BTW, I normally carry my Production gun when I'm out of town. Let's say I get in a shooting this summer in the parking lot of the Olive Garden when someone is trying to steal Dave Sevigny's guns. Do you think the fact that USPSA has a trigger pull limit for that gun making it illegal next year will help or hurt me. What about the shooter with his single stack gun? Now flip that around to the shooter who in 2013 has an ND and hurts someone. Lawyer says the trigger is too light and he turns to USPSA who says a gun with a 3 pound trigger and no external safety is suitable for every day carry. The whole thing just makes my head hurt.

BTW, Kyle...I know you were there when I asked for the motion regarding further clarification of Production rules. The whole motion was suggested on the stated premise that we passed a trigger pull requirement with no clue how to enforce it or other relevant rules that needed to be modified to support it (i.e. the ability to thumbcock on the first shot for the DA/SA crowd). I'm a bit surprised that you would now hint there was some darker Machiavelian purpose behind it.

Finally, Mark. I'll take my lumps for not stopping or tabling this decision. To be honest, I misread the BOD. When Mike proposed it I honestly thought it was a, "this is such a stupid idea, lets just vote on it so we can get it on the record there is no support for it," vote. You should have seen my face when your AD voted yes. Numbers wise she was the passing vote, 7 and 8 were just lumping on. I was completely stunned. I don't think it was a good idea to have voted for the trigger pull limit or to have voted at the time. My only defense of the action was that I know my fellow BOD members did not just pull this out of their butts without any member input. It absolutely could have done better (although I suspect if it had been done better it wouldn't have been done at all). Believe me, it's a weird place to be to support an action you completely don't agree with. But I will. If I continue to be in the minority on this and we have to institute a trigger pull limit, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure it's as workable as possible. Being on a BOD is an interesting job. You argue your point during the meeting, you can even argue it after, but if the vote doesn't go your way, you still need to support it.

[GrumpyOne]

It is up to the shooter to "prove" that his gun is legal not the other way around. That's an extra piece of equipment you need to buy and have in your range bag, just in case the RO thinks your trigger is a little light.

Screw that! An RO wants to put a scale on my gun he better have his own! I don't carry a chrono in my bag I sure as heck am not going to carry a scale.

Agree 1,000%. And if he decides to check my weapon, he'd better check everyone else's.

[Skydiver]

So my point is the limitations the Board of Directors came up with it just the opposite of what reasonable people would expect. If the point of Production is to allow people to "run what they brung", then any action type should have been allowed. If you allow any action type, you have to allow modifications to the trigger pull of one kind or another to make up for what one manufacturer or another does to their particular trigger assembly to make it better, because that is what any sane person who will shoot a gun with any knowledge will do to it. Seeing as how Production Division is limited to several action types (I mean really... Glocks and XD's are double action... Puuulllleeessse!), then what an owner does to the trigger parts should be nobody's business except if they are unsafe. I could understand the restriction of not allowing 1911/2011 types 11 years ago as they were very much better in the trigger department at that time. Given the factory and aftermarket parts available today for other types I don't see that anymore, and for the sake of progress and to encourage the use of any produced product and for the manufacturers to make them better as well, it seems arcane. Still, if you wish to exclude 1911/2011 types because you feel the others cannot compete, then they never will because there is no incentive to make a $500-$750 gun shoot as well as a $1200-$2500 gun, except that today they do if you allow trigger mods.

Following your the logic that any action type should allowed, and any modifications are allowed, then somebody can pick up a stock CZ-75B or Beretta 92FS which are DA/SA and on the approved list, and convert it to SA only without making externally visible changes, and it should still be legal in Production since the latest PDF of the rules has accidentally omitted the "No prototypes. No single action pistols." rule. Granted that there maybe a disadvantage with starting with the hammer down and having to manually cock the hammer for the first shot, but that's something that can't be overcome with training.

[NewColonial]

There are several that make SA triggers sub 3 pounds. The rule that Mike proposed was 3 pounds for the first shot which for unloaded gun starts is going to be SA for the DA/SA crowd. I'm sure that's something that could be corrected later. It's the reason I wanted the additional motion passed about clarifying the Production rules.

That to me is the telling point of this discussion. Such a loose term as "first shot" shows the BOD failed to put even modest thought into what they were doing. It's almost as if they think Production isn't worth their time. As I stated previously, I don't worry the rule will affect me, but I worry about the board's style of governing.

The minutes show NO vote, yay or nay from the Area 8 director. What's up with that?

[Rob Boudrie]

Prevailing thought by who? Rob, no offense, but I've carried a gun professionally for quite a few years. I've trained well over a thousand individuals, through my agencies, Academy, USPSA and locally on the range. I've come to the albeit unscientfic conclusion that the trigger weight doesn't matter on a carry gun.

First off, I do not carry a gun professionally so I will start with my lack of qualification in that regard.

The policy statement said near out of box and suitable for carry. It is more the totality of marketplace offerings, rather than thoughts an opinions, that lead to my conclusion that sub 3lb triggers are not "Reasonably out of the box" features on guns sold as carry weapons by major manufacturers. Can you point to a gun where a sub 3lb trigger is "reasonably out of the box" for a gun marketed as a carry piece?

But, as I have mentioned, I am willing to approach the trigger pull issue with an open mind, and I don't have to be convinced that major manufacturers are indeed selling 2.5lb triggers for carry in order to be convinced that a reversal of policy would be in the best interests of USPSA.

I am confident that everyone on the board will understand that our job at this point is to do what is best for the membership and the organization, and not to get defensive about the recent vote. I offer my comments only to explain the logic I used to arrive at the vote I did and why, given the policy at the time, it was consistent with past board actions.

[spanky]

Marketplace offerings have far more to do with potential litigation than true suitability, IMO.

[Justsomeguy]

^^^ you won't get DQ'ed, you'll just get bumped to open instead.

I don't get this either... If you have an open sight (iron sight) gun it would be reasonable to be bumped to Limited or Limited 10, but Open... WHY???