USPSA BOD Meeting

[GrumpyOne]

How would the trigger pull weight mechanism work with say, an XDM, which has the trigger safety and the grip safety? Grip safety has to be depressed to operate the trigger. Depressing it presses in the opposite direction the pull gauge is pulling..... Probably nothing, just wondering.....

[Chuck Anderson]

And let's beat on something else while we're at it:

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

Does that simply mean I can't stuff 2 magazines flat-side to flat-side in a mag pouch large enough to accommodate both?

Or does that mean I can't use a single belt accessory to hold 2 or more magazines?

Because if the latter, that declares illegal the old Davis-style leather double mag pouches I was using 25 years ago.

And if I have to ask that, it means that this can be interpreted 10 different ways by 10 different people and that's NOT what you need at a match.

It means the first. They must be contained individually in their own pouch. Not that the pouch can't contain multiple magazines.

You're still losing me. The old leather double mag pouch was a single leather pouch with a tension screw in the middle and you stuck one magazine in front of the screw and the other behind it. Could I still use it? (I may actually still have 1 or 2 of these around here....)

Yes. The magazines have their own little pouch they are stuffed in with 4 other magazines, or held in place by a magnet. You're fine.

[ong45]

Don't mean to drift off topic , but anyone here old enough to remember when .40 was legalized for limited? What kind of sh*tstorm did that cause ?

[38SuperDub]

LovestoShoot wrote:

Many of our gunsmith magazines, Vickers, Ayyoob, Weigand, Gunsmith guild, yada yada yada

just out of morbid curiosity....does anyone have the USPSA membership numbers for:

Vickers

Ayoob

and

Weigand

???

Just curious....

Shooter Information:  

Shooter Name: JACK W

Member Number: A3431

Joined USPSA: 8/17/86

Membership Expiry Date: 7/31/98

Membership Info Updated: 7/30/97

Data On Web Updated: 12/15/11

 

Shooter Information:  

Shooter Name: MASSAD A

Member Number: A25973

Joined USPSA: 1/19/94

Membership Expiry Date: 1/31/03

Membership Info Updated: 2/15/02

Data On Web Updated: 12/15/11

 

Shooter Name: LARRY A. V

Member Number: A13130

Joined USPSA: 10/17/89

Membership Expiry Date: 4/30/02

Membership Info Updated: 4/06/01

Data On Web Updated: 12/15/11

[38SuperDub]

FYI.

http://www.uspsa.org/lookup-by-name.php

Lookup by last name

[Skydiver]

And let's beat on something else while we're at it:

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

Does that simply mean I can't stuff 2 magazines flat-side to flat-side in a mag pouch large enough to accommodate both?

Or does that mean I can't use a single belt accessory to hold 2 or more magazines?

Because if the latter, that declares illegal the old Davis-style leather double mag pouches I was using 25 years ago.

And if I have to ask that, it means that this can be interpreted 10 different ways by 10 different people and that's NOT what you need at a match.

It means the first. They must be contained individually in their own pouch. Not that the pouch can't contain multiple magazines.

You're still losing me. The old leather double mag pouch was a single leather pouch with a tension screw in the middle and you stuck one magazine in front of the screw and the other behind it. Could I still use it? (I may actually still have 1 or 2 of these around here....)

I see what you are asking: Come 2013, is it legal to have two magazines in this pouch for single stack?

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/885536/uncle-mikes-double-magazine-belt-pouch-for-single-stack-magazines-paddle-kydex-black

Or two magazines in this pouch that comes with XD's:

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/2SPXD3508-1.html

My strict reading of the BoD meeting minutes is that neither of the pouches are legal in 2013. I hope to hell that this gets clarified before 2013, as well.

[Skydiver]

How would the trigger pull weight mechanism work with say, an XDM, which has the trigger safety and the grip safety? Grip safety has to be depressed to operate the trigger. Depressing it presses in the opposite direction the pull gauge is pulling..... Probably nothing, just wondering.....

Sounds to me like the XDM's will always pass the pull weight test even if they are sub 3 lbs, if the procedure doesn't require that the grip safety be depressed while testing.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

That RO could have been me the way I read the rule at the time. I am part German so I guess you could call me a range nazi but expect one hell of a fight. The rule as I read it said behind the hip so if the pocket was in front of the hip did not that person violate the rule. As an RO I do not get to make rules I try to apply what I read in the rule book. If you step across a fault line to get a really easy shot at an array, is that 1 procedural penalty or 1 per shot fired? Dislike us but please don't call us names.

that's why I put it in quotation marks.

EDIT: Es tut mir leid!

I said I was part German and I did spend 3 years there in the early 60's but I have no idea what your edited comment means. I guess I was kicked out of high school before the part of putting quotes around words means something other than reinforcing (quoting) what was written.

Es tut mir leid = German for I'm Sorry......

Yeah, Germans need at least four words for that....

[pjb45]

Significant drifting going on now:

Issues

1. BOD decision without eliciting input from membership

2. Measurement of trigger pull

1. BOD

a. BOD should have elicited input from the membership.

b. Posting of agenda items, the executive director should have done this

c. Meetings - I use Live Meeting all the time, there is no excuse why USPSA BOD cannot do the same. The BOD does not physically have to meet to conduct USPSA business

2. Measurement of Trigger Pull

a. This is almost impossible to execute with fairness and repeatability - My 1911 trigger pulls vary when I do it in the same setting

SIDE ISSUE: Out of the Box: This has no bearing in the decision making process. This is a distraction to the salient points.

[Nik Habicht]

And let's beat on something else while we're at it:

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

Does that simply mean I can't stuff 2 magazines flat-side to flat-side in a mag pouch large enough to accommodate both?

Or does that mean I can't use a single belt accessory to hold 2 or more magazines?

Because if the latter, that declares illegal the old Davis-style leather double mag pouches I was using 25 years ago.

And if I have to ask that, it means that this can be interpreted 10 different ways by 10 different people and that's NOT what you need at a match.

It means the first. They must be contained individually in their own pouch. Not that the pouch can't contain multiple magazines.

You're still losing me. The old leather double mag pouch was a single leather pouch with a tension screw in the middle and you stuck one magazine in front of the screw and the other behind it. Could I still use it? (I may actually still have 1 or 2 of these around here....)

I see what you are asking: Come 2013, is it legal to have two magazines in this pouch for single stack?

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/885536/uncle-mikes-double-magazine-belt-pouch-for-single-stack-magazines-paddle-kydex-black

Or two magazines in this pouch that comes with XD's:

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/2SPXD3508-1.html

My strict reading of the BoD meeting minutes is that neither of the pouches are legal in 2013. I hope to hell that this gets clarified before 2013, as well.

My strict reading doesn't agree with yours. Both examples are described as "double mag pouch." While they are referred to as pouch, not pouches, they also appear to be two magazine pouches that happen to be bolted/fused together and attached to the belt via common mounting hardware.....

I'm not seeing a problem....

[Chuck Anderson]

And let's beat on something else while we're at it:

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

Does that simply mean I can't stuff 2 magazines flat-side to flat-side in a mag pouch large enough to accommodate both?

Or does that mean I can't use a single belt accessory to hold 2 or more magazines?

Because if the latter, that declares illegal the old Davis-style leather double mag pouches I was using 25 years ago.

And if I have to ask that, it means that this can be interpreted 10 different ways by 10 different people and that's NOT what you need at a match.

It means the first. They must be contained individually in their own pouch. Not that the pouch can't contain multiple magazines.

You're still losing me. The old leather double mag pouch was a single leather pouch with a tension screw in the middle and you stuck one magazine in front of the screw and the other behind it. Could I still use it? (I may actually still have 1 or 2 of these around here....)

I see what you are asking: Come 2013, is it legal to have two magazines in this pouch for single stack?

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/885536/uncle-mikes-double-magazine-belt-pouch-for-single-stack-magazines-paddle-kydex-black

Or two magazines in this pouch that comes with XD's:

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/2SPXD3508-1.html

My strict reading of the BoD meeting minutes is that neither of the pouches are legal in 2013. I hope to hell that this gets clarified before 2013, as well.

Both are fine. The pouch is what wraps around the magazine. You can have multiple pouches attached to a single point, Comptac Belt Feed, Double mag pouch whatever.

[Vlad]

If one wants to be pedantic, the XD pouch is technically a single one as it is basically a large V, one single cavity.

[JThompson]

If one wants to be pedantic, the XD pouch is technically a single one as it is basically a large V, one single cavity.

Well Vlad, you know how I like being pedantical.... Especially with all the didactics here.

JT

Edited December 27, 2011 by JThompson

[Jim Norman]

So what we are saying is that two or more magazines may not inhabit the same hole. Only one Mag to a hole in other words. Have to be careful describing this here. No doubling up in one opening by two magazines. So that fancy magazine dispenser is out.

As for some of the trigger pull issue, I already have an XD I can't use in Production until I rebuild the trigger. It is really sweet, but I either use it in steel or Lim-10 or I spend more money to ruin a perfectly good and at the time legal trigger job. Hadn't even really thought about it since I haven't shot Production in three years, but that is when the last set of rule changes came about.

[RIIID]

Well I was on the USPSA site and got into the store section and guess what I found, USPSA is selling Production approved glock trigger kits. I guess that item will have to be removed come 2013, we wouldn't want the organization selling illegal items.

Rich

[Flexmoney]

Mag pouch:

The wording will reflect that the normal double mag pouches are legal and those new magazines for magazines are not.

Whatever it takes to get there, that is where those are going.

[GrumpyOne]

Flex, what is your position on the magnetic mag holder ruling as the incoming A5 director?

[bgary]

I think it is kind of funny that this thread is full of about 30 people saying over and over again "I don't like this rule and the BOD should have checked with me before enacting it."

My guess is that the 30 opinions here represent far less than 1% of the shooters who shot a Production classifier this year. Ignoring the fact that it is functionally impossible to really "poll" the members and include that polling in any sort decision-making, and the fact that if USPSA were to try to poll the membership in every issue it would bring the org skreaching to a halt... there are two sort of "bigger issues" that the voices here seem to be missing.

1. For every decision that the BOD makes, there is always going to be someone who doesn't like it. A poll won't help that. It means that no matter what decision the BOD makes, someone is going to stand up, say "I don't like this, they didn't check with me, I guess they don't care about the membership, I'm going to quit". So, clearly, "polling" isn't the answer.

2. What is the answer? It's bigger than "us". The BOD's job isn't to represent my and my individual wishes. The BOD's job is to make the decisions that they believe are for the good of the organization as a whole. That's all members, past, present and future, as well as sponsors, match directors, range operators, manufactureres, industry groups, and who knows what all else. They, have business and financial issues they have to address, they have operational issues to resolve, they have services they have to prioritize. Yes, they have to care about the individual member, and I think they do. But they have to make their decisions based on what they believe is best for the whole organization.

I don't like the 3lb rule. On the other hand, I totally get why it might be a viable choice for the BOD. Look at the facts:

>> 10 years ago they started a division where "everyday guns" could be competitive

>> there are already lots of divisions that are equipment races

>> they wanted this one to be "not an equipment race"

>> they also wanted it to be attractive to manufactureres and sponsors

So they set up a division that was different from the others, with rules that were supposed to keep it from being another "have a gunsmith build a custom gun" division. They said that there were only a few things you could do to the gun, to keep the division on a level playing field. This has turned out to be a really good thing - the proof is that it is the strongest division in many places, with lots of top competitors competing in it, and lots of manufactureres paying attention to it. So far, so good, right?

Except that, by their own description, there's no way the BOD can keep up wth all the modifications out there. They've tried to write rules that say "here's all the things you can't do", but someone always comes up with something new. And everytime something new comes along, the division gets a little closer to being just another "have a gunsmith build a custom gun" division.

So there's a fork in the road. Do they take their hands off, let Production guns be anything anyone wants them to be, and possibly ruin the very thing that made Production different? Or do they keep their hands on, keep trying to put rules in place that keep the division reigned-in on a relatively level playing field?

My own personal opinion is that if they take their hands off and let anyone do whatever they want to their guns, it will ruin Production division. It will become just like Limited-10, with all sorts of heavily customized guns (which may excite gunsmiths, but don't excite manufactureres) and I think that the thing that made it special will be lost forever.

So, I get what the BOD is trying to do. I get that a trigger pull is something that can be measured, where it is sort of impossible to tell whether internal parts have been modified or replaced. I don't like it, but I get it.

I guess what I'd say to the BOD is: see if you can find a better solution. There must be a way to keep Production "level" without a trigger pull minimum. But if that's what it takes, for the good of the division and the organization, I'd support it because I think USPSA needs to have at least one division where you don't have to have a super-custom gun to be competitive.

To my BOD member, I say this: don't worry about what's good for me, personally. please stay focused on making decisions that are good for the future of USPSA, and ALL members, present and future. Even if that's unpopular with a few.

[Greg Bell]

Tell me how a Glock 34 with $50 worth of parts is super custom?

[atbarr]

Tell me how a Glock 34 with $50 worth of parts is super custom?

Well,.... it shoots like one.

[George Jones]

I don't think you can ignore innovation and technological advances. If we did, Revolver Division would be using matchlock pistols. All the gamers would want a flintlock.

I'm intrigued by the various opinions/predictions concerning how a "race" Production Division will hurt/help the manufacturers or the aftermarket parts wizzards.

The OEM guys design guns for the division. The more effective designs sure seem to sell, so I don't see how "evolving" Production will hurt manufacturers. They just keep designing better guns.

Seems to me that the aftermarket guys make a living coming up with better widgets. Sometimes, those widgets are good enough to be purchased by an OEM and incorporated into their guns. Looks like a business plus to me.

If Production were to be absolutely controlled as "box stock" only - no modifications whatsoever - the aftermarket guys lose a market. Outside innovation ceases. The only ones who will gain are the OEMs who will still design guns for the division, but with less competition from the "kit parts" guys. I see higher prices due to reduced competiton.

In short, I don't think the flavor of Production hurts the OEMs a bit. Restricting the division helps them even more. I just don't think it a valid part of this discussion.

Edited December 28, 2011 by George Jones

[bgary]

Tell me how a Glock 34 with $50 worth of parts is super custom?

I'd say "the difference between a Glock-34 with $50 worth of parts, and a Glock 34 with $1000 worth of super-custom internal parts and gunsmithing work, is completely impossible to police. One belongs in Production (assuming the parts are legal for Production), the other completely changes the landscape of the division. That's the problem I think the BOD is trying to solve."

[atbarr]

Tell me how a Glock 34 with $50 worth of parts is super custom?

I'd say "the difference between a Glock-34 with $50 worth of parts, and a Glock 34 with $1000 worth of super-custom internal parts and gunsmithing work, is completely impossible to police. One belongs in Production (assuming the parts are legal for Production), the other completely changes the landscape of the division. That's the problem I think the BOD is trying to solve."

So before any match the MD will have to dismantle all guns in the Production Division, to look for the $1000.00 worth of parts? Nadda!

[SteveU]

So there's a fork in the road. Do they take their hands off, let Production guns be anything anyone wants them to be, and possibly ruin the very thing that made Production different? Or do they keep their hands on, keep trying to put rules in place that keep the division reigned-in on a relatively level playing field?

My own personal opinion is that if they take their hands off and let anyone do whatever they want to their guns, it will ruin Production division. It will become just like Limited-10, with all sorts of heavily customized guns (which may excite gunsmiths, but don't excite manufactureres) and I think that the thing that made it special will be lost forever.

So, I get what the BOD is trying to do. I get that a trigger pull is something that can be measured, where it is sort of impossible to tell whether internal parts have been modified or replaced. I don't like it, but I get it.

I guess what I'd say to the BOD is: see if you can find a better solution. There must be a way to keep Production "level" without a trigger pull minimum. But if that's what it takes, for the good of the division and the organization, I'd support it because I think USPSA needs to have at least one division where you don't have to have a super-custom gun to be competitive.

To my BOD member, I say this: don't worry about what's good for me, personally. please stay focused on making decisions that are good for the future of USPSA, and ALL members, present and future. Even if that's unpopular with a few.

But here is the false choice.

You have likened the already big list of things that are not allowed in production to be "letting production guns be anything they want to be"

Production is already different than L10. A 9mm can be competitive for one. Many modifications are disallowed. AND as is, it is the most popular division in USPSA, I have been told. But you are making it sound like it has been a slippery slope towards a LESS restrictive division when in reality it has become more so over the last few years. Sure you can stipple. Big deal. You can't lighten a slide which confers a much bigger advantage than a grip surface, just to use an example.

I don't understand why everyone who is saying a trigger pull limit is the way to "fix" production seems to think that there is just NOTHING different about the division as long as < 3 lb trigger pulls are allowed.

So that's one point.

The other is that the way ths went down is crazy. When people on the board are saying "what the heck just happened," as A5 noted, it usually means they missed the meetings before the board meeting when a select subgroup planned to set up a "sneak attack vote" to pass an unpopular agenda. The way it works is the positions are already staked out and the vote is a fait accompli - which means there wasn't even any point in the discussion except to give the semblance of deliberation before the "vote" was taken. Without prior collusion before the board meeting it never would have been brought up for a vote, since it had failed twice before. . I have no personal knowledge of THIS board but I recognize patterns in human nature and board behavior when I see it.

The self proclaimed "long winded" post that explained how everyone should have known it was coming only goes to show you that the fix was in way back when: this was going to happen one way or another as soon as a way to get it past the board was devised.

A board has a duty of faith, duty of obedience, and a duty of care. The duty of care requires the board to have a complete knowledge of an issue before voting it. As evident here, the board has failed.

We can only hope that pointing this out of the board will compel it to consider this issue as it vets further decisions in the future. (and maybe look up the fiduciary duties of boards)

I do agree with the last part of the post above: find another way. I would just add: re-evaluate the need to change anything. Can anyone answer that one intelligently without saying "because the intent says so"?

[bgary]

Tell me how a Glock 34 with $50 worth of parts is super custom?

I'd say "the difference between a Glock-34 with $50 worth of parts, and a Glock 34 with $1000 worth of super-custom internal parts and gunsmithing work, is completely impossible to police. One belongs in Production (assuming the parts are legal for Production), the other completely changes the landscape of the division. That's the problem I think the BOD is trying to solve."

So before any match the MD will have to dismantle all guns in the Production Division, to look for the $1000.00 worth of parts? Nadda!

yeah...except... that's exactly what the rules are right now, and they don't work. You can be asked to tear down your gun during a match, and you have to be able to "prove" that all the parts and modifications are legal for Production division, or you get an express ticket to Open.

How is that "better" than having a simple, objective test at Chrono?