Nik Habicht Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 What is the chance that this all gets reversed / deleted or modified ? See here. Makes me somewhat optimistic..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EkuJustice Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Rob one of the big problems, as I see it, with your "suitable for carry" falls into the beauty is in the eye of the beholder area. What you feel is not suitable, I might well feel that it is. As I posted much earlier, I have not seen a Production gun used that I would not be able to carry or would hesitate to carry. If you're telling me that a 2.5lb trigger is fine on a carry gun, your the first LE professional to tell me so. In any case, it's going to be hard to convince me that a trigger under 3lbs is generally "suitable for carry", but I am of an open mind on making an alteration to the "suitable for carry" requirement. It is sutible for carry if the person carrying it is able to carry it correctly. The typical LEO logic is make the gun safe for the biggest idiot on the force. Someone sets it off early, jack the trigger pull up to 8+ pounds. Looked over my brother's MP he is issued after their "idiot mods were done". They had a couple people ND one, so they upped the trigger pull quite a bit. Some people were dropping mags with the stock MP release so what did they do, install a short release in everyone's gun to prevent it from happening. So now the gun is harder to shoot well, and good luck dropping the mag easily if you need to as you really have to twist the gun around to do so. Point being, LEO decisions should have no effect on the sutibility of a gun for carry as I would bet the vast majority of the shooters here are better capable to use a gun safely than probibally 90 percent or more of the officers out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) I thought you were a brain surgeon or was that a short order cook. Carry the naught, Rich that's brain surgeon, fry cook, or double naught spy. Just out of curiousity, how many people have actually weighed their production triggers and found them < 3 pounds? BTW, the NRA Bullseye, International, Bianchi, and real International guys use trigger weights all the time. It is very reproducible. I'm not arguing whether or not to do it, just that it can be done fairly. Edited December 31, 2011 by Rotwang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPCHead Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) What is the chance that this all gets reversed / deleted or modified ? I'm still waiting for a taker on the bet that this all goes away shortly. -William Daugherty Edited December 31, 2011 by MrPCHead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matgyver Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 What is the chance that this all gets reversed / deleted or modified ? I'm still waiting for a taker on the bet that this all goes away shortly. -William Daugherty Reversed. After reading this thread I'm thinking (Hoping) 60/40. Deleted...never...this cluster will not be forgotten. Modified...question is not if, but when, and how often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Texas Granny Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Well someone has to make a decision and the sooner the better. The integrity of USPSA is at stake. How you say? Well It's the " classifiers" at level 1 matches. The local clubs will be charged with implementing this TP rule. Of course they are going to ask USPSA to furnish the equipment and of course USPSA will not only have to provide the equipment but the training too. Its the only way to ensure that the standard is applied equally ( theoretically ) at every single club that holds a level 1. Even if that happens the integrity of the classifier system will become a joke. Charges and counter charges of illegal guns. Then there is the time involved. At 5 minutes per test you are talking a significant amount of time added to the length of the match. Even at 3 minutes per test that's an awful amount of time. The BOD cannot wait to mull over this rule at their leisure. This rule must be deleted. The longer they wait the greater the number of people who will just decide that they've had enough and walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Well someone has to make a decision and the sooner the better. The integrity of USPSA is at stake. How you say? Well It's the " classifiers" at level 1 matches. The local clubs will be charged with implementing this TP rule. ... Charges and counter charges of illegal guns. Then there is the time involved. At 5 minutes per test you are talking a significant amount of time added to the length of the match. Even at 3 minutes per test that's an awful amount of time. No more so than not chronoing ammo at Level 1 matches affects the integrity of the classification system. FWIW, every IPSC match I've been to checks the trigger weight at the chrono station. World Shoots also check at the equipment check. Takes way less than 3 minutes per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKSNIPER Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 DO I agree with the rule change? Yes and no. Should have been done at the beginning of establishing the production division. Now its kind of late. But to raise arguments that it "can't be done because its too difficult to measure trigger pulls" is ignorant. TP measurement , despite what some have said , IS easily accomplished....ask your high-power shooters about it and it takes less than 3 min per weapon. Make it an average of 3 pulls. If the pistol pulls average out less than 3# then it fails. Don't want it to fail? Take it to your gunsmith and tell him you want it to average more than 3#. Do I want to see you have to do that? No....but the TP measurement difficulty argument is invalid....pick something else to argue because anyone who's been around and done it can tell you its not that hard and yes I've read the posts claiming the sky falls every time they try to measure a TP. I'm throwing the BS flag on that. I HAVE seen TP's measure weird....had a gunsmith who donated his services at a match and he dealt with any stuff guys wanted help with and EVERY time there was an inconsistent pull it was due to a condition that should NOT have been present....like spring problems and overly dirty weapons. Will there be disputes and unhappy campers? Absolutely will if this rule stays....but just like rule changes in any sport there will be a period of adjustment and then it will carry on. To say I will no longer shoot production because of a TP rule IMHO is ludicrous. I understand it will place a $ burden on people to adjust their weapons , and that some say that placing of the $ burden is totally unfair (which I somewhat agree with) but if the rule stays I'm sure they'll make a decision to either change to another aspect of this sport or change their weapon/equipment to comply with the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driver8M3 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 To say I will no longer shoot production because of a TP rule IMHO is ludicrous. i don't think it's ludicrous at all. i know of at least one life member considering quitting altogether because of this. and it's not necessarily the rule itself...it's the way this was rammed through the BOD (with as much discussion as would be expected for a discussion on whether to serve coke or pepsi at the next BOD meeting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 DO I agree with the rule change? Yes and no. Should have been done at the beginning of establishing the production division. Now its kind of late. But to raise arguments that it "can't be done because its too difficult to measure trigger pulls" is ignorant. TP measurement , despite what some have said , IS easily accomplished....ask your high-power shooters about it and it takes less than 3 min per weapon. Make it an average of 3 pulls. If the pistol pulls average out less than 3# then it fails. Don't want it to fail? Take it to your gunsmith and tell him you want it to average more than 3#. Do I want to see you have to do that? No....but the TP measurement difficulty argument is invalid....pick something else to argue because anyone who's been around and done it can tell you its not that hard and yes I've read the posts claiming the sky falls every time they try to measure a TP. I'm throwing the BS flag on that. I HAVE seen TP's measure weird....had a gunsmith who donated his services at a match and he dealt with any stuff guys wanted help with and EVERY time there was an inconsistent pull it was due to a condition that should NOT have been present....like spring problems and overly dirty weapons. Will there be disputes and unhappy campers? Absolutely will if this rule stays....but just like rule changes in any sport there will be a period of adjustment and then it will carry on. To say I will no longer shoot production because of a TP rule IMHO is ludicrous. I understand it will place a $ burden on people to adjust their weapons , and that some say that placing of the $ burden is totally unfair (which I somewhat agree with) but if the rule stays I'm sure they'll make a decision to either change to another aspect of this sport or change their weapon/equipment to comply with the rule. Have you ever tried to consistantly measure a TP on a Glock or any other pistol with a trigger safety? It's quite a bit different than rifles with nice smooth triggers. To say it is easy to be consistant with these types of triggers shows ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 What is the chance that this all gets reversed / deleted or modified ? Pretty good if we direct all the energy we're expending here at the BoD. There are a few of them watching; we just need to make sure the others who aren't here get their inboxes filled on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Rolling over for this new rule will open the door for all kinds of ridiculous new rules in the future. We need stability, not whim.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGO Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 DO I agree with the rule change? Yes and no. Should have been done at the beginning of establishing the production division. Now its kind of late. But to raise arguments that it "can't be done because its too difficult to measure trigger pulls" is ignorant. TP measurement , despite what some have said , IS easily accomplished....ask your high-power shooters about it and it takes less than 3 min per weapon. Make it an average of 3 pulls. If the pistol pulls average out less than 3# then it fails. Don't want it to fail? Take it to your gunsmith and tell him you want it to average more than 3#. Do I want to see you have to do that? No....but the TP measurement difficulty argument is invalid....pick something else to argue because anyone who's been around and done it can tell you its not that hard and yes I've read the posts claiming the sky falls every time they try to measure a TP. I'm throwing the BS flag on that. I HAVE seen TP's measure weird....had a gunsmith who donated his services at a match and he dealt with any stuff guys wanted help with and EVERY time there was an inconsistent pull it was due to a condition that should NOT have been present....like spring problems and overly dirty weapons. Will there be disputes and unhappy campers? Absolutely will if this rule stays....but just like rule changes in any sport there will be a period of adjustment and then it will carry on. To say I will no longer shoot production because of a TP rule IMHO is ludicrous. I understand it will place a $ burden on people to adjust their weapons , and that some say that placing of the $ burden is totally unfair (which I somewhat agree with) but if the rule stays I'm sure they'll make a decision to either change to another aspect of this sport or change their weapon/equipment to comply with the rule. HMMMMM... makes me think about something! I wonder if it will be like Bullseye Service pistol, which allows the Beretta to have a trigger shoe installed that makes DA fire all but impossible , but the trigger shoe itself is designed to position the device used to test trigger pull up against the frame near the pivot point. Then a trigger that will pick up the 4 lb. weight, will only need about 3 lbs. to fire the gun when measured at the point further down the trigger where it is physically possible to place your finger! So now we just do that on guns like M&P, Glock, XD/XDM, Beretta, CZ, Sphinx, STI, Taurus.... wait a minute, on practically everything that is currently being used in the class! We will start an aftermarket to make what will be legal, low leverage triggers just to pass the mandated weight test. See Scott, this is going to be great for the aftermarket. You guys will be able to make all sorts of expensive parts for almost every gun being used that will be perceived by the shooters to be absolute necessity! The process of weighing the trigger, while technically easy, has problems and will cause more problems than it could possibly be worth. That's why we don't do it in USPSA. If it's safe it's legal. Still haven't figured out why this is even on the table. Must be Mike leaving Phil with a little nightmare to come into office with. Like whatever Obama hopefully is leaving someone, as a little welcome to the party gift! Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGO Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Yea I know, division not class. Don't care... Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Yea I know, division not class. Don't care... Rob And nor should you care... Rob, you have done more to advance this sport than just about anyone else I can think of at the moment. Call it whatever you want, we know what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGO Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Yea I know, division not class. Don't care... Rob And nor should you care... Rob, you have done more to advance this sport than just about anyone else I can think of at the moment. Call it whatever you want, we know what you are talking about. That's very nice of you to say! BTW, What is a NUCLEAR bomb! Like W, I just like the way nucular rolls off the tongue. Nucular, nucular, rocket surgeon, strategery... Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I have no doubt that it would increase sales of specialty new part to pass the "test" but actually feel lighter to the shooter. I don't want sell parts just to pass that stupid test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Burtchell Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I just posted on Phil Strader's facebook page a polite request for the BOD to reverse this ruling. USPSA has a Facebook page too ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Well someone has to make a decision and the sooner the better. The integrity of USPSA is at stake. How you say? Well It's the " classifiers" at level 1 matches. The local clubs will be charged with implementing this TP rule. Of course they are going to ask USPSA to furnish the equipment and of course USPSA will not only have to provide the equipment but the training too. Its the only way to ensure that the standard is applied equally ( theoretically ) at every single club that holds a level 1. Even if that happens the integrity of the classifier system will become a joke. Charges and counter charges of illegal guns. Then there is the time involved. At 5 minutes per test you are talking a significant amount of time added to the length of the match. Even at 3 minutes per test that's an awful amount of time. The BOD cannot wait to mull over this rule at their leisure. This rule must be deleted. The longer they wait the greater the number of people who will just decide that they've had enough and walk. Why would/should USPSA have to provide anything other than rules. They aren't providing the magazine check gauge or chronograph but they do check at Level III matches. If a club is just letting their shooters on the range without guidance then the club is at fault. Is the club checking equipment positioning for Production and Single Stack shooters? If not the club is at fault. To demand the BOD correct this immediately is what got the BOD in trouble to begin with. The rule doesn't go in effect until 2013 so let's let the BOD get up off the floor after the beating we are giving them and give them a chance to at least have a telecon and for the new electees to take their position. [thread drift] How about the idea of term limits of say 8 years or 2 terms eeems to work for the state of Montana. [/thread drift off] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) Yea I know, division not class. Don't care... Rob And nor should you care... Rob, you have done more to advance this sport than just about anyone else I can think of at the moment. Call it whatever you want, we know what you are talking about. +1. While the BOD may not listen to us as shooters, the fact that Rob is entering the conversation should tell them plenty. Rob, many thanks for getting involved! Edited December 31, 2011 by vluc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Well someone has to make a decision and the sooner the better. The integrity of USPSA is at stake. How you say? Well It's the " classifiers" at level 1 matches. The local clubs will be charged with implementing this TP rule. Of course they are going to ask USPSA to furnish the equipment and of course USPSA will not only have to provide the equipment but the training too. Its the only way to ensure that the standard is applied equally ( theoretically ) at every single club that holds a level 1. Even if that happens the integrity of the classifier system will become a joke. Charges and counter charges of illegal guns. Then there is the time involved. At 5 minutes per test you are talking a significant amount of time added to the length of the match. Even at 3 minutes per test that's an awful amount of time. The BOD cannot wait to mull over this rule at their leisure. This rule must be deleted. The longer they wait the greater the number of people who will just decide that they've had enough and walk. Why would/should USPSA have to provide anything other than rules. They aren't providing the magazine check gauge or chronograph but they do check at Level III matches. If a club is just letting their shooters on the range without guidance then the club is at fault. Is the club checking equipment positioning for Production and Single Stack shooters? If not the club is at fault. To demand the BOD correct this immediately is what got the BOD in trouble to begin with. The rule doesn't go in effect until 2013 so let's let the BOD get up off the floor after the beating we are giving them and give them a chance to at least have a telecon and for the new electees to take their position. [thread drift] How about the idea of term limits of say 8 years or 2 terms eeems to work for the state of Montana. [/thread drift off] We already have term limits -- they're called elections...... I'm not a fan of the whole concept -- since it undermines elections/the will of the population.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Texas Granny Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I thought you were a brain surgeon or was that a short order cook. Carry the naught, Rich that's brain surgeon, fry cook, or double naught spy. Same hours. On your feet all day. People complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Well someone has to make a decision and the sooner the better. The integrity of USPSA is at stake. How you say? Well It's the " classifiers" at level 1 matches. The local clubs will be charged with implementing this TP rule. Of course they are going to ask USPSA to furnish the equipment and of course USPSA will not only have to provide the equipment but the training too. Its the only way to ensure that the standard is applied equally ( theoretically ) at every single club that holds a level 1. Even if that happens the integrity of the classifier system will become a joke. Charges and counter charges of illegal guns. Then there is the time involved. At 5 minutes per test you are talking a significant amount of time added to the length of the match. Even at 3 minutes per test that's an awful amount of time. The BOD cannot wait to mull over this rule at their leisure. This rule must be deleted. The longer they wait the greater the number of people who will just decide that they've had enough and walk. Why would/should USPSA have to provide anything other than rules. They aren't providing the magazine check gauge or chronograph but they do check at Level III matches. If a club is just letting their shooters on the range without guidance then the club is at fault. Is the club checking equipment positioning for Production and Single Stack shooters? If not the club is at fault. To demand the BOD correct this immediately is what got the BOD in trouble to begin with. The rule doesn't go in effect until 2013 so let's let the BOD get up off the floor after the beating we are giving them and give them a chance to at least have a telecon and for the new electees to take their position. [thread drift] How about the idea of term limits of say 8 years or 2 terms eeems to work for the state of Montana. [/thread drift off] We already have term limits -- they're called elections...... I'm not a fan of the whole concept -- since it undermines elections/the will of the population.... I voluntarily term limited myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 We already have term limits -- they're called elections...... I'm not a fan of the whole concept -- since it undermines elections/the will of the population.... I voluntarily term limited myself Gary, congratulations on being hours away from a well deserved retirement, and Thank You for your many years of service to the organization! I particularly appreciate all of the ways in which you've improved individual member's and R.O.'s understanding of the rules, while working as an R.M., with one of the nicest demeanors..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EkuJustice Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 The trigger safety on the glock makes measuring it harder than other triggers without it. Also, where are you going to measure the trigger from on the pivoting trigger. Unlike a 1911, the location of the trigger pull scale can affect the pull quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts