USPSA BOD Meeting

[tavman]

Thia is prime example why successful professional sports organizations like the NFL,MLB, NHL, NBA etc. have a rules committee. The commissioner and BoD don't have the power to arbitrarily change the rules without input form the stakeholders who are affected the most, those who play the game! These committees are made up of players, coaches, managers, owners, and BoD members so the voices of all are heard especially those who the rule impacts the most. From what i've gathered the majority of the BoD members who voted to change the rule don't even shoot production nor have much experience shooting the division all together. Ridiculous rules such as these are what drove me away from IDPA. I hope USPSA doesn't continue down this road as well. I guess as a member my only real course of action is to not renew my membership and shoot locally only since it is clear the BoD does not have the best interest it's membership at the forefront.

Tavis

[ima45dv8]

What I would like to see (as many have also suggested) is the BOD coming up with procedures to allow more membership input, especially for such issues as rule changes...as opposed to reasons for lack of it.

I agree in spirit, but the practicality of polling the general membership for input prior to a vote on something like this is questionable.

However, there is a resource that should be replied on heavily - the Range Master Instructor Corp (I believe Nik originally brought that up). That group is out there putting matches on the ground regularly, has a lot of interaction with the general membership, and represents a combined experience level in this sport that would be hard to rival.

I hope that if the Board considers a change in policy for how rule changes are decided and passed, some consideration is given to seeking the RMI's input.

[Nik Habicht]

....since it is clear the BoD does not have the best interest it's membership at the forefront.

Tavis

I'm thinking that might be a little harsh. Do I believe that the board made a bad decision in a less than optimal manner? Yes.

Do I believe that any of the members didn't want to do what was best for the membership? No, and this thread is a pretty good indicator of that. None of the Board members who have posted here have said "It's over, get used to it." They've been engaging in discussion -- and I sincerely believe that when some of them express opinions either for or against, that they are doing it in part to have the conversation and to figure out what the membership thinks.....

[XRe]

Check your rulebook. Failure to meet equipment requirements requires a move to Open Division if one is available.

Or, apparently, to Limited, if Open isn't available, you're at the Nationals, and the RM doesn't want to throw people out of the match for failure to meet equipment requirements for Production division...

[driver8M3]

Check your rulebook. Failure to meet equipment requirements requires a move to Open Division if one is available.

Or, apparently, to Limited, if Open isn't available, you're at the Nationals, and the RM doesn't want to throw people out of the match for failure to meet equipment requirements for Production division...

or for single stack.

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-display-match-results-detail.php?indx=1453&division=Open&guntype=Pistol

[atbarr]

I would personally rather see a state ban carry for everyone

The criminals would love this!

[wgnoyes]

What I would like to see (as many have also suggested) is the BOD coming up with procedures to allow more membership input, especially for such issues as rule changes...as opposed to reasons for lack of it. And when the BOD continues making missteps, like this 3lb rule change, it erodes the confidence membership has in USPSA's leadership and thus the feeling of actually being involved......and then we wonder why we only have a 30% response rate in elections.

Even government, from your local school board all the way up to the Fed, has been known to solicit input on "rules" (laws, regulations) changes.

I'm not saying hold hearings; no, of course not. But I did write something back in 2010 on my Area 6 Director Candidates' Q&A article (Question 8: "Name 3 things USPSA is doing wrong): "As the Board considers various rulebook changes, it should remember that USPSA has a vast resource available in the shooters, range officers, range masters & range master instructors, and match directors that frequent the various online forums, and they should have the opportunity to review and debate rules changes before they are implemented." I was specifically thinking of THIS forum when I wrote that.

And to be fair, would I have missed the opportunity to move to table or refer the matter to the rules committee? Chuck Anderson missed it so as a far less experienced member in a alternate reality in which none of would wish to be, it's very possible I would have missed it, too, so no blame to sling around there.

[wgnoyes]

I would personally rather see a state ban carry for everyone

The criminals would love this!

Now, now. Don't take it out of context. Play fair.

[Gary Stevens]

I would personally rather see a state ban carry for everyone

The criminals would love this!

Let's be fair now. There was more to that comment than just that.

Darn that Bill is quick

Edited December 27, 2011 by Gary Stevens

[JThompson]

....since it is clear the BoD does not have the best interest it's membership at the forefront.

Tavis

I'm thinking that might be a little harsh. Do I believe that the board made a bad decision in a less than optimal manner? Yes.

Do I believe that any of the members didn't want to do what was best for the membership? No, and this thread is a pretty good indicator of that. None of the Board members who have posted here have said "It's over, get used to it." They've been engaging in discussion -- and I sincerely believe that when some of them express opinions either for or against, that they are doing it in part to have the conversation and to figure out what the membership thinks.....

I agree, too harsh. I know a lot of these people and I do not think there was any malice here, just a lack of understanding as to what we want and perhaps, being influenced by others.

Polls are easy to do... politicians have been doing them for years to find out if their constituents approve of a proposed law. Granted in their case it's probably more about reelection than the will of the people, but at least it's done. It's very easy to set-up an informal polling program on the Area websites. I have done it for several A5 matches for things like stages and what not. It's also not that hard to register people for the website and verify membership. I would be happy to work with Kyle on this for Area 5.

I know our board is made of of good people and they want to do what's right for the sport and right for us. So they made a mistake,,, shit happens, rather than beating them anymore let's find a way to make sure are feelings are known BEFORE a vote is ever taken.

1) Post an agenda that is descriptive (not just "rules discussion")

2) Email the membership details of proposed rules changes and agenda. (cron jobs baby)

3) Have electronic polling to find out where people stand.

4) Remove the gag order from our RM/I so they may again discuss rules with us and help us to understand proposed rules.

There have been many times where I did not understand a need for something and they helped me get my mind around it. Also, it's invaluable for training RO to have the great resource available here on the forum.) This forum has some pretty knowledgeable people and I think even the RMIs can learn a thing or two here.

There are more, but I think this would be a good start to make sure this is unlikely to happen again. You know these people don't need the extra stress this kind of fur-ball creates. I also know they are all good people and want to do the right thing for us and the sport. Let's help them by suggesting the tools to make this an easier process where they don't feel like they are being drawn and quartered for an honest mistake.

I know the directors can't be feeling all warm and fuzzy right now and are probably thinking, "Why the hell did I ever take on this frigg'n job!" Well, don't let our passion dampen yours, we know shit happens, just correct it and move on.

My best to all of you!

JT

Edited December 27, 2011 by JThompson

[LPatterson]

That's great, but we can't do that. The USPSA BOD doesn't have the money, or need to meet every couple months. The 13 month implementation date was simply because of the need to post this to members (which BTW Pat, is how USPSA is required to announce rule changes. That way everyone who gets the Official Newsletter has them.) The issue of Front Sight won't go out till another 2-3 months (we just missed the publishing deadline) and we need another 3 months before any new rule takes effect. That would put us mid season for the change which no one wanted. This way there is time for the membership to make choices. If we waited until July for the vote (which is the next scheduled meeting) we might not have had it in place until mid 2013. It just doesn't make sense to keep putting things off. Particularly in this case where there really wasn't that much of a change in the make up of the BOD. Sorry, I just think this was a really good meeting to get things done at. I wish we had done other things, like not pissing off half the membership, but to continue to wait does no one any good.

Chuck, I'm sorry but I need to jump on this.

In 2010 at the Nationals RO meeting we were told we would be using a new rule book partially titled "With Board Of Directors Approved Amendments Through July 2010". When questioned were this rule book was, we were told in our bucket. That was the first time I saw it because my rule book is extensively highlighted and I had to dig through the book to find the changes.

In 2011 at the Nationals the RO's were handed 2 sheets of paper to be read to shooters about changes to a couple of rules. I know one was passed off as a clarification about when a shooter could have a magazine in their front pocket forward of the hip but that changed what was written in the rule book. The other was called a clarification regarding trapping.

I don't recall reading either situation in FrontSight prior to implementation.

[Chills1994]

JThompson wrote:

"Why the hell did I ever take on this frigg'n job!"

I thought it was for the huge paycheck and all the groupies.

[Chuck Anderson]

That's great, but we can't do that. The USPSA BOD doesn't have the money, or need to meet every couple months. The 13 month implementation date was simply because of the need to post this to members (which BTW Pat, is how USPSA is required to announce rule changes. That way everyone who gets the Official Newsletter has them.) The issue of Front Sight won't go out till another 2-3 months (we just missed the publishing deadline) and we need another 3 months before any new rule takes effect. That would put us mid season for the change which no one wanted. This way there is time for the membership to make choices. If we waited until July for the vote (which is the next scheduled meeting) we might not have had it in place until mid 2013. It just doesn't make sense to keep putting things off. Particularly in this case where there really wasn't that much of a change in the make up of the BOD. Sorry, I just think this was a really good meeting to get things done at. I wish we had done other things, like not pissing off half the membership, but to continue to wait does no one any good.

Chuck, I'm sorry but I need to jump on this.

In 2010 at the Nationals RO meeting we were told we would be using a new rule book partially titled "With Board Of Directors Approved Amendments Through July 2010". When questioned were this rule book was, we were told in our bucket. That was the first time I saw it because my rule book is extensively highlighted and I had to dig through the book to find the changes.

In 2011 at the Nationals the RO's were handed 2 sheets of paper to be read to shooters about changes to a couple of rules. I know one was passed off as a clarification about when a shooter could have a magazine in their front pocket forward of the hip but that changed what was written in the rule book. The other was called a clarification regarding trapping.

I don't recall reading either situation in FrontSight prior to implementation.

Neither were rule changes per-se. They were issued as clarifications to prevent some of the confusion that happened at other matches. The magazine in the pocket came about because someone decided to try and bump a shooter to open because at ULSC he stowed his mag in his front pocket before clearing the gun. Not what the rule was ever intended to mean. The trapping thing...yeah.

[Chills1994]

Chuck Anderson wrote:

...The magazine in the pocket came about because someone decided to try and bump a shooter to open because at ULSC he stowed his mag in his front pocket before clearing the gun. Not what the rule was ever intended to mean. The trapping thing...yeah.

Seriously?

You don't have to name names, but I gotta wonder who this RO was???

And if this was at a major match???

Seems like some RO went into either "range nazi" or "hall pass monitor" mode to me to come up with something like that.

[RickB]

Obviously, establishing a 3# minimum pull weight does nothing to help ensure that Production-legal guns are in anything like production condition, so what's the point? I'd like to see minimum pull weight as a means to encourage use of DAO and DA/SA pistols in Production, otherwise Production is little different from Single Stack/Minor. Let's combine SS, Production and L10 into a single division, 8+1/Major and 10+1/Minor, and create a new Production more like IPSC Production, where the guns are expected to be as produced.

[JKSNIPER]

Some guys have posted here lamenting the absence of an easy and fast way to measure a trigger pull.

I don't understand this...its really not that hard. Its done at NRA high-power matches and really does not take a whole lot of time.

You spend around 40-50$ (mine cost 49 bucks) and order a digital trigger pull gauge from any of the many sources out there....if USPSA wants standardization they can specify which model and brand can be used.

Put the batteries in, read the instructions and you're ready to go.

Guy walks up to the table with safe/empty weapon. Measurer takes it and measures the trigger pull doing the best he can to measure in the middle of the trigger if he can.

If it measures below 3 you fail...above 3 you're golden.

Maybe specify 3 tries ...just like baseball 3 strikes you're out.

If they want to do a 3 pull test for everyone then you take the average weight of the 3 pulls and thats the weight you go with.

The only time you're going to see problems is with guys trying to tweak their trigger right up to the point of failure....in other words guys trying to "get over" on the rules or overestimating just how much they can grind or stone away before its too much.

People really won't see any difference in a 3.5 and a 3 pound trigger so theres really no reason to play with it more than that.

Having said all that I agree with the "horse left the barn long ago" feeling that the division has been around for too long and guys already have X # of $ invested in their gun smithing to NOW put restrictions on it.

[Chuck Anderson]

Obviously, establishing a 3# minimum pull weight does nothing to help ensure that Production-legal guns are in anything like production condition, so what's the point? I'd like to see minimum pull weight as a means to encourage use of DAO and DA/SA pistols in Production, otherwise Production is little different from Single Stack/Minor. Let's combine SS, Production and L10 into a single division, 8+1/Major and 10+1/Minor, and create a new Production more like IPSC Production, where the guns are expected to be as produced.

If you think USPSA Production is a mess you should see IPSC Production. Impossible to enforce rules, DA/SA dominant in a big way. I think I'll pass on that one.

[JThompson]

JThompson wrote:

"Why the hell did I ever take on this frigg'n job!"

I thought it was for the huge paycheck and all the groupies.

Yes, let's not forget the great benefit package they all get too!

Like I said, think it's time to stop beating the hell out of them, it's obvious how we feel about it with a few exceptions.

All I can say is thank God for the Enos forums as a way for us to express our thoughts.

JT

[atbarr]

People really won't see any difference in a 3.5 and a 3 pound trigger so theres really no reason to play with it more than that.

Both of my Pro's have a legal 2 3/4 lb trigger. If this rule is not trashed, IMO, no one would go with a 3 lb. trigger. Who goes to a Level II or higher match, knowing there ammo has a 125 PF?

[Chuck Anderson]

Some guys have posted here lamenting the absence of an easy and fast way to measure a trigger pull.

I don't understand this...its really not that hard. Its done at NRA high-power matches and really does not take a whole lot of time.

You spend around 40-50$ (mine cost 49 bucks) and order a digital trigger pull gauge from any of the many sources out there....if USPSA wants standardization they can specify which model and brand can be used.

Put the batteries in, read the instructions and you're ready to go.

Guy walks up to the table with safe/empty weapon. Measurer takes it and measures the trigger pull doing the best he can to measure in the middle of the trigger if he can.

If it measures below 3 you fail...above 3 you're golden.

Maybe specify 3 tries ...just like baseball 3 strikes you're out.

If they want to do a 3 pull test for everyone then you take the average weight of the 3 pulls and thats the weight you go with.

The only time you're going to see problems is with guys trying to tweak their trigger right up to the point of failure....in other words guys trying to "get over" on the rules or overestimating just how much they can grind or stone away before its too much.

People really won't see any difference in a 3.5 and a 3 pound trigger so theres really no reason to play with it more than that.

Having said all that I agree with the "horse left the barn long ago" feeling that the division has been around for too long and guys already have X # of $ invested in their gun smithing to NOW put restrictions on it.

As has been mentioned previously, strain guages, which all electronic guages I know of are, are very dependent on how the pull is done. If you don't believe me, go put your guage on the trigger, pull very slowly, then give the next one a yank and tell me if they are the same. Not that I would expect the Chrono dude to give it a yank, but I've seen some pretty sketchy chrono guys as well. The other hitch is that, unlike a rifle which normally doesn't have stuff on it's trigger, most striker fired (and we really are just talking striker fired guns here) do have manual safeties contained in their triggers, Glock's, XD, XDm, M&P and I'm sure a couple others I'll think of later have varying designs of trigger safety. They also have significantly longer travel than rifle triggers. Something that makes it very difficult to keep the bar in the middle of the trigger. Go take your Glock and play around with the trigger pull gauge. Try it at the top, try it at the bottom, try it in the middle, fast and slow. If you come out with the exact same result. Well you won't so I won't bother with the rest of that. The seemingly best solution is the NRA weight system. It's a simple dead weight that hangs. Pick the gun up, slowly and if the gun lifts the weight it's golden. If it doesn't you're not. Even this has the issue of trigger safeties, placement and movement speed.

One other thing I haven't seen come up, which I'm actually glad no one thought about. This would be a very easy test to cheat at. Even if we specified a procedure to be done at Chrono, blah, blah, blah. I can change the trigger pull weight of my Glock in less than 30 seconds. Pop the cover plate and drop in a new striker assembly with a standard weight FP spring. There, heading to Chrono I'm at 4 pounds. Next stage, quick trip to the safety area and I'm back at 2.5.

[Chuck Anderson]

Chuck Anderson wrote:

...The magazine in the pocket came about because someone decided to try and bump a shooter to open because at ULSC he stowed his mag in his front pocket before clearing the gun. Not what the rule was ever intended to mean. The trapping thing...yeah.

Seriously?

You don't have to name names, but I gotta wonder who this RO was???

And if this was at a major match???

Seems like some RO went into either "range nazi" or "hall pass monitor" mode to me to come up with something like that.

To keep this on track I'll just send you a PM.

[LPatterson]

Check your rulebook. Failure to meet equipment requirements requires a move to Open Division if one is available.

Or, apparently, to Limited, if Open isn't available, you're at the Nationals, and the RM doesn't want to throw people out of the match for failure to meet equipment requirements for Production division...

Dave,

As one of the people who might have had to make a decision like that to start with, I'd like to know more. Since you were on the Super Squad, are you implying that someone on your squad was given a free pass from Production to Limited?

We did have the unannounced change for Production Division mag placement but we tried make that announcement after the walk through, of course based on the number of people who asked about starting position or Virginia/Comstock it seems some shooters have other things on their mind.

[Flexmoney]

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.

Sorry for any confusion there. Beyond intent/premise, when I look on it now, I see we end up with something that leaves the door open for more uncertainty. (see Gary's post on the last page or so)

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 ...

I was taken aback, as well.

[Chills1994]

Obviously, establishing a 3# minimum pull weight does nothing to help ensure that Production-legal guns are in anything like production condition, so what's the point? I'd like to see minimum pull weight as a means to encourage use of DAO and DA/SA pistols in Production, otherwise Production is little different from Single Stack/Minor. Let's combine SS, Production and L10 into a single division, 8+1/Major and 10+1/Minor, and create a new Production more like IPSC Production, where the guns are expected to be as produced.

I have said this before already, if not in this thread, then in the poll/survey thread....sorry for repeating myself.

As a guy who shoots a DA/SA Beretta 92 at first in production and now in Limited, I absolutely positively do NOT want to force people to have to buy or have to shoot a DA to SA gun in production.

At least for me, yeah, it took some getting used to, but I think I am proficient enough with it. If I get beat by some guy with a striker fired gun, it is not because his gun is striker fired. It is because I don't practice....like ever. I also don't get enough sleep right before going to local matches, but that is another thread entirely.

I think Ben Stoeger's performance at this past 2011 Production Nationals proves that DA to SA guns can be competitive.

I am sure over the course of 4 or 5 years he has heard a bunch of detractors..."Hey, MAN! You need to get rid of that Beretta. Get yourself a Glock or an M&P, MAN!"

[Strick]

Not that I want to add something for the BOD to think about regulating but.........I think length of pull is more to the point of what they were trying to control. Trigger weight is one thing but what makes a real good trigger, like in a 1911/2011 is the short over travel and reset. It seems that the "aftermarket" trigger parts that sparked this knee jerk ruling was designed to drastically reduce the travel (sure pull weight was probably the target as well).

I hope no one really reads this........