USPSA BOD Meeting

[Outsydlooknin75]

So if it takes a 3 pound trigger to be a carry gun and used in production are dropped and offset holsters next on the list? They aren't used for carry. The price of a trigger job in my Glock cost me 25 bucks for springs and the rest I did myself. I don't know the weight of it, since I never measured it but I like the way it feels and am happy with it where it is.

I guess I might just leave it the way I have it for 3 gun and shoot limited minor.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Outsydlooknin75

[bobtorre]

Also if you think you need a lighter trigger to shoot better you better get your ass to the range and get more trigger time.

Sorry, I call BS on this. I said it before, I'll say it again. A lighter, smoother trigger will help all competitors. How much it helps depends on how good the shooter is in the first place. At the top tier maybe it's not so much. But all I can say is the best shooters in this area have damn light triggers.... and I've yet to try a Limited or Open gun with anything less that 2.5 lbs!

We have some great shooters on this thread alone and I don't think the ONLY reason they are squawking is because of the money they spent on their triggers and the way the decision went down!

Truer words were never spoken.

[bobert1]

BE members are a small percentage of the total overall uspsa membership.

The percentage of the membership that voted was, what, like 17%? Do we expect that a poll of the membership will be any less participated in? Why even have elections? We cant just have a pure democracy and vote on everything.

Elections are what give the elected officials power to make these decisions. If we poll about trigger jobs and only 20% respond to the questionnaire? Should those 20% be the only ones who the area director votes in accordance with?

...

A56079

But every member HAD the chance to know who the candidates were and to vote.Not so on this issue.

[The Antichrome]

I'll add another twist to this.

Let's say I'm shooting Production with my CZ and I forget to chamber a round at make ready.

The beep goes off and I have to rack the slide to chamber a round. Now my first shot is below 3#. Am I now in Open?

The same goes for unloaded starts.

The language of the rule will be pretty important.

It's not common, but I have seen CZ shooters thumb the hammer to avoid the DA first shot. I have also seen them NOT chamber a round during 'make ready' intentionally, so they rack the slide after the start...once again, to avoid the DA first shot. There are times when it is an advantage to do so, even with the extra time required. This is also why CZ shooters think unloaded starts are awesome;-)

This is within the rules now, but these rules may also have to be changed.

[Loves2Shoot]

Also if you think you need a lighter trigger to shoot better you better get your ass to the range and get more trigger time.

Sorry, I call BS on this. I said it before, I'll say it again. A lighter, smoother trigger will help all competitors. How much it helps depends on how good the shooter is in the first place. At the top tier maybe it's not so much. But all I can say is the best shooters in this area have damn light triggers.... and I've yet to try a Limited or Open gun with anything less that 2.5 lbs!

We have some great shooters on this thread alone and I don't think the ONLY reason they are squawking is because of the money they spent on their triggers and the way the decision went down!

Truer words were never spoken.

How about these words?:

CZ Custom tricked out competition guns are MORE "carry worthy" that the guns they banned with their yes votes.

[beltjones]

Any elected official is supposed to represent the wishes of the people who voted them in. Sounds to me like a lot of members aren't too happy with this new rule. Rob, you are my area director and I don't like this rule.

Maybe he is. Do all members agree with you in regards to this?

Have you read this post? and how would he know? Was the membership ever polled to find out of this is what they wanted?

BE members are a small percentage of the total overall uspsa membership.

The percentage of the membership that voted was, what, like 17%? Do we expect that a poll of the membership will be any less participated in? Why even have elections? We cant just have a pure democracy and vote on everything.

Elections are what give the elected officials power to make these decisions. If we poll about trigger jobs and only 20% respond to the questionnaire? Should those 20% be the only ones who the area director votes in accordance with?

its just like the general election; Phil Strader and the area directors will be representing all the members; not just their local shooting buddies, not just the ones that voted, not just the ones who, responded to a poll.

They were elected; and not one of them are dummies; they are around shooters ALL across their area as well as Country. They voted on this, they took a vote, and it passed.

They very well may ruminate on their decision, and decide to put it back up for a re-vote. Whatever they do is cool by me, I know it will suck for some, but it might be fun for others. Heck, it might shift some money away from gunsmiths to firearms trainers; and I think thats a VERY good thing. I have not formed my own opinion about this, and to be honest, I dont have the time to mull it over; which is fine. And why I voted for someone that will do all that stuff for me.

The point isn't to poll the members to see which way the wind is blowing. The point is to poll the members, prospective members, MDs, sponsors, etc to get data on how this will effect the sport from a business perspective. This is how smart people make decisions. Guess work, snap decisions, and conjecture are for those who want to be surprised by the results of their plans.

As a production shooter (who won't be effected by the new rule) I have a vested interest in seeing my division continue to grow and attract (and retain) top competition. The BOD has no idea what this change will do from a perspective of existing shooters, new shooters, and sponsors. It could be great, it could be terrible. Without data we just don't have a sense of what will happen (though so far it sure doesnt seem popular).

[ima45dv8]

This has been an interesting read. Not too surprising, but...interesting.

Thanks to the BoD members who have posted here, especially Rob since his position has not been overtly welcomed.

I'd like to respond to a point Phil Strader, the new USPSA President made in post #196:

- It will be VERY difficult to re-structure a 10 year-old division without alienating a large group of shooters.

And therein lies the rub. If any rule implemented causes heartburn for existing members...people who attend, support, design, build,and produce USPSA matches...it better be for a v-e-r-y good reason. These same people donate personal time, energy, absence from family and even money to ensure we have a place to play this weekend. If even one is negatively affected by this change it is one too many.

**At the risk of being controversial, I'll state what I believe to be a fact -- this sport is not nor will it ever be "mainstream". I for one hope it nevers reaches that point.

What we do here is unique in terms of expectation and execution. It's not something for everyone. I'm cool with that. I like the folks who find us and decide to put forth the effort to get aboard.

It seems the intent of this rule change is to construct a platform for absolutely everyone ("no child left behind!") to play in Production. A high ideal but a severely misguided one. I could care less about attracting people who would not have found a creative way to be successful on their own, within the existing guidelines of the division. "Dumbing it down" to attract the unknown shooter is an insult to the residing membership.

[chendersby]

Wow, don't even know where to start. Just read every post and I do consider it input from the membership. Don't let that stop you from sending me an email on the subject as I do value that more because no screen names means less snarky comments

I am getting from this thread that you guys don't buy into the "entry level division" arguement that we (BOD) have assumed was productions purpose and it's greatest draw. To be honest I am begining to agree. To use a racing analogy, open is F1, Limited is NASCAR, we were trying to make production a teenager drag racing their parents car. It appears what you guys want is a SUPER STOCK racer.

We made this vote now because of the timeline needed to make equipment changes which includes a member input period. This is not a done deal by strech of the imagination. If member feedback says leave it alone that is how I will vote.

To answer the question of what production gun I shoot? I don't.

[justaute]

DA/SA vs Striker guns -- a bunch of twaddle. Each as its issues.

Let's focus on the task at hand and keep emotions and self-interest out of this. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

[Strick]

I am not sure where the idea that Prod is a beginner shooters class. Some of the most talented shooters in the world shoot Prod almost exclusively. It is one of the most challenging divisions because you can't rely on mag capacity or points for C's. You have to get your hits as fast as you can, reload quickly as possible, and have a good solid plan and stick to it (even when 11 rounds wasn't enough). That doesn't sound like a beginner class.

More than a few new shooters in this area skip right over Prod and start out shooting Limited minor just so they don't have to worry about limited rounds per mag and they don't have to have such a well thought out plan. That is not a guess, that is what new shooters I talk to at local matches tell me.

While I think this rule was the complete wrong thing to do, I do thank those that voted in favor for sharing their view.

[Brandt9913]

Quick observation. If a perp, either breaking into my house or confronting me on the street, is worth shooting once with a 3# trigger pull, what is another 2 or 3 rds gonna do. Isn't this the point of production division, to be practical. If I'm going to smash a trigger when my life is in danger, I don't think it matters if the trigger is 2#, 3# or 7#.

[leadslinger275]

I am not sure where the idea that Prod is a beginner shooters class. Some of the most talented shooters in the world shoot Prod almost exclusively. It is one of the most challenging divisions because you can't rely on mag capacity or points for C's. You have to get your hits as fast as you can, reload quickly as possible, and have a good solid plan and stick to it (even when 11 rounds wasn't enough). That doesn't sound like a beginner class.

More than a few new shooters in this area skip right over Prod and start out shooting Limited minor just so they don't have to worry about limited rounds per mag and they don't have to have such a well thought out plan. That is not a guess, that is what new shooters I talk to at local matches tell me.

While I think this rule was the complete wrong thing to do, I do thank those that voted in favor for sharing their view.

+1

[Jeff9mmM&P]

We made this vote now because of the timeline needed to make equipment changes which includes a member input period. This is not a done deal by strech of the imagination. If member feedback says leave it alone that is how I will vote.

Chris,

Thanks for your response. The proposed 3# production trigger rule will affect many of the members. With Production being one of USPSA's more successful divisions, what factors were involved in putting the issue on the table?

From what you said, it sounds like the BOD will vote on the proposal again at a later date, is this true?

Thank you

[Thomas H]

Wow, don't even know where to start. Just read every post and I do consider it input from the membership. Don't let that stop you from sending me an email on the subject as I do value that more because no screen names means less snarky comments

I am getting from this thread that you guys don't buy into the "entry level division" arguement that we (BOD) have assumed was productions purpose and it's greatest draw. To be honest I am begining to agree. To use a racing analogy, open is F1, Limited is NASCAR, we were trying to make production a teenager drag racing their parents car. It appears what you guys want is a SUPER STOCK racer.

We made this vote now because of the timeline needed to make equipment changes which includes a member input period. This is not a done deal by strech of the imagination. If member feedback says leave it alone that is how I will vote.

To answer the question of what production gun I shoot? I don't.

I'm thinking that you aren't going to be making any friends with the statement in bold.

"Teenager drag racing their parent's car" ---- really? What an interesting idea. So, according to what you are saying, Production is the beginner's teenybopper edition, with kids just playing at grownup games, and once they grow up they'll start playing with real adults in Limited or something else? Not a real division, just something newbies can try before they are ready for the real thing?

Wow.

If this is actually what members of the BoD were thinking----then I wonder if you shoot the same matches I do. Seriously. Have you seen who shoots Production? Perhaps paid attention to what sponsors serve the Production shooters?

I guess if Production is seen as the "beginner's division" that explains the lack of caring about member's opinions for the rule. After all, who asks the kids about what rules they get to operate under?

Tell me you are kidding.

Production is certainly the easiest division for a new shooter to start with. How that in any way leads to an idea that it is easier to compete in, and something people do until they are ready for serious shooting---I have no idea. The BoD does understand that a "light trigger" doesn't suddenly put us in racegun status? And that "light triggers" don't exactly cause a make-or-break difference in match wins? Sure, it is easier to learn to shoot well with a lighter trigger. Duh. How this translates to "you can't win without putting a WHOLE $150 into your gun!" I'm not sure.

I'm still waiting to see a board member come up with an answer to these simple questions:

1) In the end, what problem does this solve? What issue does this fix? (Are there new shooters who will not come into Production because of light triggers on other shooter's guns, or that will leave Production when they find out that other shooters have lighter triggers than they have? ---did ANYONE have any data showing that either of those things are a problem in Production division? Because on a local level here, it has never been any sort of issue whatsoever. So---who has any data on this? I recall a board member saying that when asked, NO ONE on the BoD had any data on it at all.)

2) How will their affect our current membership---you know, the people who have been shooting for years in Production division? How many will have to change their Production rigs?

It seems that a decision was made based on a non-existent issue ("Production is the "carry division" and these light triggers just aren't right") to solve a non-problem ("new people won't shoot Production against those scary light-trigger guys") that will cause issues for current shooters (who may have to change a rig that has been perfectly legal for years).

[Loves2Shoot]

I missed the memo on Production as a training wheels division also. I think it is more challenging than Open or Limited for me.

People will be passionate and act in their own self interests, especially when they have given much of their time and treasure to see more people enjoy the sport they love. My self interest is having folks on the range to shoot with who love shooting as much as I do, and to add stress to shooters and staff about making trigger weight in ONE division doesn't compute to me (I am a simple minded man though.) It won't in any way effect my shooting, I can deal with it whichever way it falls.

If you want a beginner division, make it Limited Minor and limit participation to C Class shooters max with a 2 year time limit, no awards or prizes awarded, shoot for score only combined results. (not that we really need more divisions)

K.I.S.S.

[ima45dv8]

Wow, don't even know where to start. Just read every post and I do consider it input from the membership. Don't let that stop you from sending me an email on the subject as I do value that more because no screen names means less snarky comments

I am getting from this thread that you guys don't buy into the "entry level division" argument that we (BOD) have assumed was productions purpose and it's greatest draw. To be honest I am beginning to agree. To use a racing analogy, open is F1, Limited is NASCAR, we were trying to make production a teenager drag racing their parents car. It appears what you guys want is a SUPER STOCK racer.

We made this vote now because of the timeline needed to make equipment changes which includes a member input period. This is not a done deal by stretch of the imagination. If member feedback says leave it alone that is how I will vote.

To answer the question of what production gun I shoot? I don't.

Chris, thanks for checking in. I know for a fact we don't comprise the majority of USPSA shooters on this forum, but I can argue that we are some of the most involved and well-connected.

You said it appears to you that we don't want SUPER STOCK. Maybe we do. Maybe that's a great fit for a new division.

But, what we don't want is a retroactive replacement for that "teenager drag racing their parents car" division you equated to the current Production division in USPSA. That TDRTPC division is a mature, expanding division...popular with existing members.

I truly understand and appreciate the desire to consider the as-yet-member, but let's not throw current members to the wayside in favor of unknown, unproven growth potential. Singlestack's proposed numbers notwithstanding, I don't think 'how small a percentage' of currents members could be adversely affected should be the break-point for the decision. That any are faced with undoing, even free of charge, what has been an approved action for 11 years would not be free of charge to USPSA.

The other, currently-unmeasurable costs could include a disenchantment of spirit for and within, the USPSA membership. I don't think any prediction of new shooter participation resulting from the proposed change was given at the BoD meeting. If I'm wrong, can you share that with us? I'd like to know the projected gains that swayed 6 people.

Mission Count fees paid to USPSA are a good thing, but only a portion. Elective membership and/or donations are also a significant amount.

I don't dispute you Area Directors are elected to represent us in a Republic-fashion. I've had faith in every vote I've ever cast for an AD.

What I would have hoped for from a Majority of that Board, hit with such a huge issue on such short notice, was a motion to table, pending some sort of investigation/fact finding/discussion.

And especially, if a member of the Board felt out of their element with that call. . . .that's even more the reason to postpone a vote on the matter.

*No charge for snarky comments. They're a free service and when opportunity presents, delivered face-to-face (hopefully with a handshake and a cold adult beverage).

[shootingchef]

I've read the whole thread, some good information here. One of my fears as a MD is how to get more people to come to my match, after reading this, I don't think I'll be putting on any more major matches. Why bother, I'll just go shoot 3 gun. USPSA has slowly been going down the IDPA road by over legislating. Now I have a sour taste in my mouth and most certainly regret my last vote.

It was not the topic of production trigger weight, it was the fact that the BOD voted on an issue that was buried in the agenda, kinda like a line item, a major issue without any input. And if you read the minutes, they pushed off most of the agenda items to another meeting, and to think we paid for this trip to dallas for all parties. We should be talking about growth, attrition and 3 gun. What actions were taken to promote USPSA in 3 gun? What are we as a group doing to drive membership?

[CHARLES D]

Darn it. I knew I should of kept my 8.5 New york trigger for my Glock. I am new to USPSA compared to many of you. However I have competed with the other guys since the beginning. Once they changed the rules concerning revolvers, holsters, etc there was a mass exoudus from that organazation. Many, like myself, began enjoying USPSA. The point is at least the AD's are listening to your concerns. Many have already posted acknowledging how WE feel.

God bless America and USPSA.

[ima45dv8]

I've read the whole thread, some good information here. One of my fears as a MD is how to get more people to come to my match, after reading this, I don't think I'll be putting on any more major matches. Why bother, I'll just go shoot 3 gun. USPSA has slowly been going down the IDPA road by over legislating. Now I have a sour taste in my mouth and most certainly regret my last vote.

It was not the topic of production trigger weight, it was the fact that the BOD voted on an issue that was buried in the agenda, kinda like a line item, a major issue without any input. And if you read the minutes, they pushed off most of the agenda items to another meeting, and to think we paid for this trip to dallas for all parties. We should be talking about growth, attrition and 3 gun. What actions were taken to promote USPSA in 3 gun? What are we as a group doing to drive membership?

I hear you, Ken. But you aren't quitting for the same reason I'm not. We love this stuff too much.

I hadn't noticed they tabled a number of issues. They should have added this one to the list.

[RippSpeed]

Wait does this mean... I can have a 6" sight tracker in Limited ; now that they'll get rid of the 500 minimum units ???

[ihatepickles]

I want to race.

[RippSpeed]

on the 3lbs trigger pull ... I say this will level the playing field because alot of other pistol out there dont have enough after market support to keep up with the Glocks and the CZ's...

One example is HK's ... I use to shoot production with my USP and I moved to Limited 10 to Limited (when I got my Edge). I can get my HK USP to a clean and crisp 3.5 to 4lbs trigger pull but anything lower would require sending it to GrayGuns for work. And thats a $500 trigger job because of the overnight shipping ( @ $90 a pop each way).

I say with the minimum requirement thats definitely a plus for the pistols that dont have enough aftermarket support. Either way for a DA/SA CZ its work and will also work with certain Glock triggers ( like the EDGE from GlockTriggers.com)...

So I say I agree with the rulling ... Plan on going back to production once I find myself some cash to buy a G34...

[justaute]

Ken...nicely said. I'm just a first-year USPSA production shooter and am starting to further question the viability of this organization.

It was not the topic of production trigger weight, it was the fact that the BOD voted on an issue that was buried in the agenda, kinda like a line item, a major issue without any input. And if you read the minutes, they pushed off most of the agenda items to another meeting, and to think we paid for this trip to dallas for all parties. We should be talking about growth, attrition and 3 gun. What actions were taken to promote USPSA in 3 gun? What are we as a group doing to drive membership?

[ima45dv8]

on the 3lbs trigger pull ... I say this will level the playing field because alot of other pistol out there dont have enough after market support to keep up with the Glocks and the CZ's...

One example is HK's ... I use to shoot production with my USP and I moved to Limited 10 to Limited (when I got my Edge). I can get my HK USP to a clean and crisp 3.5 to 4lbs trigger pull but anything lower would require sending it to GrayGuns for work. And thats a $500 trigger job because of the overnight shipping ( @ $90 a pop each way).

I say with the minimum requirement thats definitely a plus for the pistols that dont have enough aftermarket support. Either way for a DA/SA CZ its work and will also work with certain Glock triggers ( like the EDGE from GlockTriggers.com)...

So I say I agree with the rulling ... Plan on going back to production once I find myself some cash to buy a G34...

Not an HK?

[Skydiver]

Wait does this mean... I can have a 6" sight tracker in Limited ; now that they'll get rid of the 500 minimum units ???

Yes, in 2013, you can have a 6" sight tracker. You can even make your own variation of the new fixed front sight/partial slide thingie (assuming you want to face any patent infringement issues).

For me the elimination of the 500 unit requirement also gets rid of any lingering questions I have about one-off barrels, frames, magwells, slides, grips, etc. that seem to be custom made, but to me used to be in the gray area of "where there 500 units of that barrel/frame/magwell/slide/grip/etc, or was it an aftermarket modification of an existing legal component?"

Edited December 24, 2011 by Skydiver