USPSA BOD Meeting

[Chuck Anderson]

I figured by now someone would have corrected Rob, almost instantly when somebody new calls a Division a class they are jumped on about it.

I guess I have to be the one, Rob it is a DIVISION not a Class. We all know your old and set in your ways so try to keep up.

Rich

That's because Rob is TGO. He can call it whatever he wants. (shhh we don't listen to him anyway)

[Chuck Anderson]

Ipsc got this part right.

Which part, when they had it wide open, or when they arbitrarily limited it to 15?

[Chuck Anderson]

The last thing I want is a box stock class. IPSC tries to do this and the class sucks! It promotes cheating and leans hard towards one type of gun. IDPA is way better than that and we are better than IDPA. That should get some people fired up! However, it should be noted that IDPA is popular because they have kept the guns simple, not necessarily cheap, but easy to get up to speed. The guns still look like guns.

Be careful Rob, I wrote that the IPSC rules were unenforcable and within a couple hours had a nice little email from Vince Pinto explaining since I had never done an IPSC gun check, not that I hadn't gone through one, but I hadn't worked the table, I had no idea what I was talking about. He also asked me very politely to stop disparaging the glory that is IPSC (Okay, I might be paraphrasing him since I'm sure he's still reading). You wouldn't want that fancy award they gave you this year in Greece to be taken away because you have an opinion.

[beltjones]

The last thing I want is a box stock class. IPSC tries to do this and the class sucks! It promotes cheating and leans hard towards one type of gun. IDPA is way better than that and we are better than IDPA. That should get some people fired up! However, it should be noted that IDPA is popular because they have kept the guns simple, not necessarily cheap, but easy to get up to speed. The guns still look like guns.

Be careful Rob, I wrote that the IPSC rules were unenforcable and within a couple hours had a nice little email from Vince Pinto explaining since I had never done an IPSC gun check, not that I hadn't gone through one, but I hadn't worked the table, I had no idea what I was talking about. He also asked me very politely to stop disparaging the glory that is IPSC (Okay, I might be paraphrasing him since I'm sure he's still reading). You wouldn't want that fancy award they gave you this year in Greece to be taken away because you have an opinion.

Let's move the Production round count issue and any talk of V.P. to different threads. Better yet, let's just discuss V.P. at local matches per usual and never mention him here again.

[spanky]

And if the magnetic mag holders are being banned because of the so called "new shooters don't have all the money to buy the gear" argument, I submit that the magnetic holders are at least $15 cheaper than just about any mag pouch on the market today.

But no one would just have the mag holder. They'd have to buy a regular one, and a magnetic one. Then carry both around and swap based on the match stages. That's the hitch.

I must be the only guy who added one and left it where it was all the time.

[Skydiver]

And if the magnetic mag holders are being banned because of the so called "new shooters don't have all the money to buy the gear" argument, I submit that the magnetic holders are at least $15 cheaper than just about any mag pouch on the market today.

But no one would just have the mag holder. They'd have to buy a regular one, and a magnetic one. Then carry both around and swap based on the match stages. That's the hitch.

I must be the only guy who added one and left it where it was all the time.

My magnets are essentially free. I took the magnets out of a dead hard drive and have them zip-tied to my belt. I'm considering super gluing the magnets to my pouch in the future. Since the magnets are so thin, I just always run with them on the entire match. Granted that I'm shooting L-10 currently (sorry, Rob ), I was planning on doing the same mod to my production rig in terms of magnets. I guess superglue is out of the question now, and I'll be better off sticking with zip-ties so that I can remove the magnets come 2013.

Yeah, you must be the only one Spanky. I gently remind some shooters who twiddle with their belt setups during a match that the 3-gun rules that allow reconfiguration during a match, but USPSA pistol matches do not allow it.

[leas327]

I'm guessing we know what you wear to keep the sun out of your eyes at the range?

My tin foil hat isn't set up to block uv rays.

I had to buy a pair of Rudy's so I could fit in with the cool kids.

My point is that one company went after production shooters by making an aftermarket trigger an oem part. Somebody more important than me thought that was too close to cheating and passed a rule to try and stop it. Do we want the manufactuers to stop trying to make products that we actually want?

[Chuck Anderson]

I'm guessing we know what you wear to keep the sun out of your eyes at the range?

My tin foil hat isn't set up to block uv rays.

I had to buy a pair of Rudy's so I could fit in with the cool kids.

My point is that one company went after production shooters by making an aftermarket trigger an oem part. Somebody more important than me thought that was too close to cheating and passed a rule to try and stop it. Do we want the manufactuers to stop trying to make products that we actually want?

Actually the rule as passed wouldn't have any effect, one way or the other on Springfield Armory or any other competitor using a PRP trigger. The trigger (at least according to Scott Springer) only effects over or pre travel (can't remember which), it doesn't have anything to do with pull weight.

[Powder Monkey]

With the proper gauge it is - provided the competitor is the one who conducts the measurement in the presence of the chrono officer. It's easy - "Lift this fixed weight off the table while the hook on the weight rests on your trigger".

While I speak only for myself, I agree on the issue of "staff workers measuring the same way" - which is why I will push to either have the competitor do the actual measurement, or be given the opportunity to repeat the measurement (and pass) if it does not pass when the chrono officer does it.

So at the margin this becomes dependent on the skill or steadiness of the person lifting the weight. That the lifting may be done by the competitor does not change that fact.

[bobert1]

I figured by now someone would have corrected Rob, almost instantly when somebody new calls a Division a class they are jumped on about it.

I guess I have to be the one, Rob it is a DIVISION not a Class. We all know your old and set in your ways so try to keep up.

Rich

That's because Rob is TGO. He can call it whatever he wants. (shhh we don't listen to him anyway)

DITTO

[Skydiver]

With the proper gauge it is - provided the competitor is the one who conducts the measurement in the presence of the chrono officer. It's easy - "Lift this fixed weight off the table while the hook on the weight rests on your trigger".

While I speak only for myself, I agree on the issue of "staff workers measuring the same way" - which is why I will push to either have the competitor do the actual measurement, or be given the opportunity to repeat the measurement (and pass) if it does not pass when the chrono officer does it.

So at the margin this becomes dependent on the skill or steadiness of the person lifting the weight. That the lifting may be done by the competitor does not change that fact.

No problem: Point gun up. Put weak hand pinky finger behind trigger. Put hook on trigger. Lift gun.

Presumably there will be a "procedure" on how the gun and weight should be lifted.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Skydiver

[RIIID]

I figured by now someone would have corrected Rob, almost instantly when somebody new calls a Division a class they are jumped on about it.

I guess I have to be the one, Rob it is a DIVISION not a Class. We all know your old and set in your ways so try to keep up.

Rich

That's because Rob is TGO. He can call it whatever he wants. (shhh we don't listen to him anyway)

He's no Jackie Gleason or Wayne Gretzsky.

Rich

[lcs]

Most new shooters go to a USPSA match and all they see is the one guy shooting the loud goofy looking OPen and Mod guns. He doesn't even realize there is a place for him and his new stockish gun. Here at our club, new shooters show up with production legal equipment and then load the mags fully placing them in limited. They just want to get thru the stages and don't care about the score.

Rob

We shoot those "loud goofy looking OPen and Mod guns" because we can't see the iron sights clearly enough (anymore) to hit the broad side of a barn. You will be there one day.

[MarkCO]

I figured by now someone would have corrected Rob, almost instantly when somebody new calls a Division a class they are jumped on about it.

I guess I have to be the one, Rob it is a DIVISION not a Class. We all know your old and set in your ways so try to keep up.

Rich

Nope, that was just masterful wordsmithery. When he put "IPSC" and "IDPA" in the same paragraph, your brain subconscioulsy ignored the word "class".

[Neomet]

I am intrigued on why I keep coming back to swing at this issue over and over again. I rarely post this much on any thread. I guess it is because this really strikes me as a completely flawed proposed rule change (given that there has been no explanation from the BOD as to the specific issue which the proposed change hopes to address).

1. If this is an issue with Production shooters it has to have been the stealth issue of all time. We have a large number of Production shooters here in Phoenix and I travel to several Area matchs and the Nats every year. In four years I have heard this issue come up exactly zero times.

2. I am not sure what perceived issue the rule is attempting to address.

3. See #1 above.

4. I can not even come up with any situation that this rule will effectively address other than people who have had triggers done at 3.25 lbs who think Rob is beating them because he has a 2.25 or whatever it is. If you want to try to beat Rob you are better off arguing for a rule that does not allow total knee replacements. i think I said it in the other thread but someone with a 10lb trigger is not going to be any more or less competitive against a 3lb trigger than they were against a 2 lb trigger.

5. See #1 above.

6. Rob says it sucks.

7. See #1 above.

8. Production to me frankly appears to be working fine thank you very much. As Rob noted it is the most diverse division and the one that seems to be growing the most.

[MarkCO]

I am intrigued on why I keep coming back to swing at this issue over and over again. I rarely post this much on any thread. I guess it is because this really strikes me as a completely flawed proposed rule change (given that there has been no explanation from the BOD as to the specific issue which the proposed change hopes to address).

If you e-mail your AD (Chris Endersby), I am sure he will tell you what his percpetions were w.r.t. your comments above. He has already returned several e-mails of explanation to shooters in Area 2. He has also stated that he will support the wishes of the shooters in his area.

While I agree there are some worthwhile topcis of discussion brought about by the 3# Production trigger vote, I am pretty sure that come 2013, there will not be a 3# Production Trigger rule going into effect.

As a guy who just dumped all of his competition Glocks, got an M&P and was on the path to building a 2011, the various votes have resulted in putting some plans on hold to see what shakes out.

[Chills1994]

Neomet wrote:

If you want to try to beat Rob you are better off arguing for a rule that does not allow total knee replacements...

That's non-OEM also.

(Just kidding Rob.)

[MarkCO]

Neomet wrote:

If you want to try to beat Rob you are better off arguing for a rule that does not allow total knee replacements...

That's non-OEM also.

(Just kidding Rob.)

Maybe just a 30% penalty for non-OEM body parts...oh wait, he'd still kick my tail, better go with at least 50%.

[de03x7]

Neomet wrote:

If you want to try to beat Rob you are better off arguing for a rule that does not allow total knee replacements...

That's non-OEM also.

(Just kidding Rob.)

Maybe just a 30% penalty for non-OEM body parts...oh wait, he'd still kick my tail, better go with at least 50%.

I think you will lose this argument.INTERNAL parts: This clause is NOW interpreted

to mean that a broad range of INTERNAL parts may

be modified or replaced – either with OEM or aftermarket

parts.

[SteveU]

I think Rob pretty clearly stated the reasons for the rule in the "long winded post"

However that rationale seems at odds with the popularity and growth of the production division as is.

So when there is conflict, re-examine the premises (in this case the statement of intent of the production division)

[GrumpyOne]

And if the magnetic mag holders are being banned because of the so called "new shooters don't have all the money to buy the gear" argument, I submit that the magnetic holders are at least $15 cheaper than just about any mag pouch on the market today.

But no one would just have the mag holder. They'd have to buy a regular one, and a magnetic one. Then carry both around and swap based on the match stages. That's the hitch.

Excuse me, but where does it say that swapping them out is a requirement? If someone wants to run all magnets on their belt, let them....we are supposed to be freestyle, right? And by the current rules, you don't have to have the first mag holder....shove all your mags in your back pocket. But with the new rule, put more than one mag in your back pocket (or it could be construed that putting any mag in your back pocket, since the new rule I think says "mag holder") will put you into open, because if your back pocket is considered a mag holder and you put 2 into one pouch......hello open..... I run one magnet on my production belt, at all times. It rarely gets used, but it is always there. What's next? The BOD telling us what type of shoes we can wear out of fear that someone will say that they are race shoes and provide an advantage or that a newbie won't be able to afford them, or they'll have to go out and buy new shoes to compete? The no magnets rule opens up all kinds of issues if you are saying they are "race equipment".

Edited December 29, 2011 by GrumpyOne

[Resjudicata]

I think Rob pretty clearly stated the reasons for the rule in the "long winded post"

However that rationale seems at odds with the popularity and growth of the production division as is.

So when there is conflict, re-examine the premises (in this case the statement of intent of the production division)

Which one is "the long winded post?"

Chris

[Sarge]

OK we are closing in on 1000 posts. How about a little comic relief?

How do you know when you have reached the pinnacle of this sport?

When you can use the word class to describe a division in USPSA and not get flamed within 10 seconds of hitting send?

[Chuck Anderson]

And if the magnetic mag holders are being banned because of the so called "new shooters don't have all the money to buy the gear" argument, I submit that the magnetic holders are at least $15 cheaper than just about any mag pouch on the market today.

But no one would just have the mag holder. They'd have to buy a regular one, and a magnetic one. Then carry both around and swap based on the match stages. That's the hitch.

Excuse me, but where does it say that swapping them out is a requirement? If someone wants to run all magnets on their belt, let them....we are supposed to be freestyle, right? And by the current rules, you don't have to have the first mag holder....shove all your mags in your back pocket. But with the new rule, put more than one mag in your back pocket (or it could be construed that putting any mag in your back pocket, since the new rule I think says "mag holder") will put you into open, because if your back pocket is considered a mag holder and you put 2 into one pouch......hello open..... I run one magnet on my production belt, at all times. It rarely gets used, but it is always there.

Alright, I'm done. You guys can beat up another AD for awhile.

[Thomas H]

And if the magnetic mag holders are being banned because of the so called "new shooters don't have all the money to buy the gear" argument, I submit that the magnetic holders are at least $15 cheaper than just about any mag pouch on the market today.

But no one would just have the mag holder. They'd have to buy a regular one, and a magnetic one. Then carry both around and swap based on the match stages. That's the hitch.

I must be the only guy who added one and left it where it was all the time.

Considering this: http://shootersconnectionstore.com/Ghost-Magazine-Pouch-and-Magnetic-System-P2287.aspx

...which I already bought to try out, but now apparently can't use in Production...

...I'm thinking it isn't a big deal for either price, placement, or any "switching" issues. [sigh] Ah well. My wife is probably going to shoot L-10 this year, instead of Production, so I guess I'll give it to her to use.