USPSA BOD Meeting

[Chills1994]

did whoever invented this sight tracker dealie-oh actually go out and get a patent on it?

if you make one for yourself, that's okay and AFAIK doesn't infringe on anyone's patents. selling them does, and that's when you will run into trouble.

[Chills1994]

RippSpeedd wrote:

....And thats a $500 trigger job because of the overnight shipping ( @ $90 a pop each way)....

Is that a California law or something?

I think FFL's can ship directly to other FFL's via the United States Postal Service and it doesn't necessarily have to be overnight, either.

[RippSpeed]

RippSpeedd wrote:

....And thats a $500 trigger job because of the overnight shipping ( @ $90 a pop each way)....

Is that a California law or something?

I think FFL's can ship directly to other FFL's via the United States Postal Service and it doesn't necessarily have to be overnight, either.

Not a California Law...

Gray Guns (last I check) will only accept Fedex OverNight ... And that $90 each way ... Kinda expensive for a 3lb trigger pull and some nickel plate parts... Not to take away from Mr. Gray just alittle expensive for my wallet...

[beltjones]

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?

+2

[RippSpeed]

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?

Nope I sold them all ... I only have a few STI's now... And want to get back into shooting production.

The reasoning for me choosing a Glock is, its something I can easily find here in California and its on the stooopid roster and it can serve a duel purpose ; a Production Pistol and a Home Defense pistol.

And I need something I call a "throw away gun" ... Something that wont make me and my wallet cry; when the cops take it away when I have to use it in a home defense situation. Ala "Throw Away Gun" because guaranteed that you'll never see it again or it'll come back in pieces and rusted up... Imagine that for one of your Custom Pistols...

[ima45dv8]

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?

Nope I sold them all ... I only have a few STI's now... And want to get back into shooting production.

The reasoning for me choosing a Glock is, its something I can easily find here in California and its on the stooopid roster and it can serve a duel purpose ; a Production Pistol and a Home Defense pistol.

And I need something I call a "throw away gun" ... Something that wont make me and my wallet cry; when the cops take it away when I have to use it in a home defense situation. Ala "Throw Away Gun" because guaranteed that you'll never see it again or it'll come back in pieces and rusted up... Imagine that for one of your Custom Pistols...

TAG...

I'd be thrilled to hand over a $3,500 blaster if it saved my bacon. Truly.

If it only cost $75 bucks, I'd be in love with that, too.

What I can afford to lose to law enforcement is not an overriding factor in why I sometimes shoot Production.

[RippSpeed]

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?

Nope I sold them all ... I only have a few STI's now... And want to get back into shooting production.

The reasoning for me choosing a Glock is, its something I can easily find here in California and its on the stooopid roster and it can serve a duel purpose ; a Production Pistol and a Home Defense pistol.

And I need something I call a "throw away gun" ... Something that wont make me and my wallet cry; when the cops take it away when I have to use it in a home defense situation. Ala "Throw Away Gun" because guaranteed that you'll never see it again or it'll come back in pieces and rusted up... Imagine that for one of your Custom Pistols...

TAG...

I'd be thrilled to hand over a $3,500 blaster if it saved my bacon. Truly.

If it only cost $75 bucks, I'd be in love with that, too.

What I can afford to lose to law enforcement is not an overriding factor in why I sometimes shoot Production.

Getting off topic ... sorry

Its what I came up with after weight in all the factors... My STI's are alittle hard to get here in California. So thats why I'm reluctant to give them up... Which is why I chose Glocks for my dual purpose pistol. One of the major factors reliability...

[Skydiver]

did whoever invented this sight tracker dealie-oh actually go out and get a patent on it?

if you make one for yourself, that's okay and AFAIK doesn't infringe on anyone's patents. selling them does, and that's when you will run into trouble.

The "thingie" I was referring to was the AGM/Cominolli front block that was approved a few months ago for Limited guns. Here a link to the discussion thread about it: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=122034&hl=nroi%20approved&st=0

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of patent law in the US is that infringement includes simple use . I don't know if Cominolli has a patent for that front block thingie, but he does have a patent on safeties for striker fired pistols.

[Skydiver]

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.

Scott makes an interesting point that I'd like to build on. It would be nice if there was a one paragraph "elevator pitch" for each of the divisions stating perhaps why the division exists, it's philosophy, what it's goals are for the future, and what are the hallmarks that distinguish it from the other divisions. Having this available would probably aid RM's who may have to make a on the spot call whether a particular feature/modification is legal or appropriate for a division.

For example, with the idea of the 500 unit rule for Limited/L10, the idea was that prototypes wouldn't make it into the division. With the 500 unit rule going away, presumably prototypes will now be legal for Limited/L10, unless the philosophy of these two divisions is still "no prototypes allowed".

Having these "elevator pitches" will then let us identify which division is considered the "beginner" division.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Skydiver

[Pat Miles]

.

We made this vote now because of the timeline needed to make equipment changes which includes a member input period.

Too bad the member input period didn't come BEFORE the vote!

Not trying to be snarky but that line sounds like a certain politician who said "We have to pass this bill to see what's in it"

Pat

[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.

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).

When I used the racing analogy I was refering to the equipment not so much the driver. OK so it was not a good analogy.

Question one

The last go aroung with the rules and the statement about our intent should have been pretty self explanitory. http://www.uspsa.org/bodminutes/20090307_production_1of3.html We were trying to keep production the place for well, PRODUCTION guns. You know out of the box stock. We were also at the time trying to extract USPSA rules from IPSC rules.

We were not trying to make it beginers Division but definately we wanted it to be a place for them and their current equipment to compete. Also we wanted a place for more manufacturers products to fit in. What we have now is turning into limited 10 minor with double action triggers. And every day someone is coming up with a new trigger system that beats the no exturnal mods restrictions. The rules are becoming uninforceable. So in order to try to stop this trend we saw a trigger pull weight as an enforceable way to do this. We did not just pull it out of thin air to screw with everyone.

Question 2

The smart ass in me would like to say, if you are shooting an actual production gun your trigger won't be anywhere close to 3 pounds so what is the problem? But I won't (oh did I type that out loud?) In reality, because we as a group will modify our equipment as much as possible and push the rules as far as we can to gain a competitive advantage there will probably be a large affect on many members. What I am now struggling with is it worth it? Not so sure anymore.

So my question to you is how do we enforce the rules we now have and should we change the "intent" of the division? Or do we just let it go until production really does become limited with double action triggers?

[ihatepickles]

So my question to you is how do we enforce the rules we now have and should we change the "intent" of the division? Or do we just let it go until production really does become limited with double action triggers?

Production rules are completely arbitrary.

I've heard the factory stock idea mentioned before and it can't be reconciled with the allowance of trigger work, guide rods, stippling, checkering, sights, and spring swaps. These are just a few people's arbitrary thoughts on how much leeway shooters should have for modifications before the pistol is no longer stock. Also, if the intent is the emphasize the quality of a factory stock pistol, why wouldn't people be allowed to load magazines to the factory capacity?

The idea that Production is a landing spot for carry guns also fails to get traction. Half of my gun friends carry a 1911 daily and of those every one has a sub-3 lbs trigger. But Production doesn't allow SA guns. Still, I have first hand evidence that people do carry pistols with sub-3 lbs triggers. What about the number of lasers on guns now? Again, not allowed in Production. The limits placed on practical gear used everyday for carry are just a line in the sand, and really USPSA is old fashion in it's ideas about what is carried daily.

Who daily-carries 5 magazines downloaded to 10 rounds on their belt? How does a DoH fit into "suitable for everyday use"? Is there anything other than a guess involved in why 2 oz was decided to be the maximum over-weight limit for a Production gun? Minor PF only?

I've attempted to explain these things to potential new members and I feel ridiculous. I can't do it with a straight face, I know the rules make no sense. To me, it doesn't greatly matter because I'm fine with letting it just be a game. To a new shooter, it's just ponderous and has no basis. Production is way over-regulated. The idea that it's a great place for a basic carry pistol to fall into can't overcome the torrent of incongruous rules. We're at 5 pages in Appendix D4 plus a holster/magazine diagram. This trigger rule will easily add a page to Appendix plus an additional diagram to explain the weighing procedure. These rules are way too complex to hope a new shooter would feel comfortable showing up, at best each one shows up in spite of the reservations they have.

Adding new boundaries has failed time after time in Production, as evidenced by the continuous stream of NROI rulings and rule tweaks. I'd be interested in hearing how to make the rules simpler while preserving the fun. The death of one thousand cuts approach is part of the reason you see this kind of thread grow into a firestorm. This motion from the BoD minutes: "BOD will continue to clarify Production rules to support the purpose of the division" gives me chills.

Please don't feel singled out by my rhetorical questions. I'd hope nothing would come across as disrespectful, because I certainly don't mean it that way.

[SDM]

If you have a 3# limit why not allow single action triggers in production? Make all the Hi Power folks happy.

[vluc]

What we have now is turning into limited 10 minor with double action triggers. And every day someone is coming up with a new trigger system that beats the no exturnal mods restrictions. The rules are becoming uninforceable.

How is production become L10 with da triggers? I still can't lighten the slide, I can't put grip tape on the slide to aid in racking it, I can't put a dot in my magwell, I have position restrictions for my magazines and holster. I still can't do a host of other things save to a trigger and that must be internal.

[vluc]

So my question to you is how do we enforce the rules we now have and should we change the "intent" of the division? Or do we just let it go until production really does become limited with double action triggers?

Production rules are completely arbitrary.

I've heard the factory stock idea mentioned before and it can't be reconciled with the allowance of trigger work, guide rods, stippling, checkering, sights, and spring swaps. These are just a few people's arbitrary thoughts on how much leeway shooters should have for modifications before the pistol is no longer stock. Also, if the intent is the emphasize the quality of a factory stock pistol, why wouldn't people be allowed to load magazines to the factory capacity?

The idea that Production is a landing spot for carry guns also fails to get traction. Half of my gun friends carry a 1911 daily and of those every one has a sub-3 lbs trigger. But Production doesn't allow SA guns. Still, I have first hand evidence that people do carry pistols with sub-3 lbs triggers. What about the number of lasers on guns now? Again, not allowed in Production. The limits placed on practical gear used everyday for carry are just a line in the sand, and really USPSA is old fashion in it's ideas about what is carried daily.

Who daily-carries 5 magazines downloaded to 10 rounds on their belt? How does a DoH fit into "suitable for everyday use"? Is there anything other than a guess involved in why 2 oz was decided to be the maximum over-weight limit for a Production gun? Minor PF only?

I've attempted to explain these things to potential new members and I feel ridiculous. I can't do it with a straight face, I know the rules make no sense. To me, it doesn't greatly matter because I'm fine with letting it just be a game. To a new shooter, it's just ponderous and has no basis. Production is way over-regulated. The idea that it's a great place for a basic carry pistol to fall into can't overcome the torrent of incongruous rules. We're at 5 pages in Appendix D4 plus a holster/magazine diagram. This trigger rule will easily add a page to Appendix plus an additional diagram to explain the weighing procedure. These rules are way too complex to hope a new shooter would feel comfortable showing up, at best each one shows up in spite of the reservations they have.

Adding new boundaries has failed time after time in Production, as evidenced by the continuous stream of NROI rulings and rule tweaks. I'd be interested in hearing how to make the rules simpler while preserving the fun. The death of one thousand cuts approach is part of the reason you see this kind of thread grow into a firestorm. This motion from the BoD minutes: "BOD will continue to clarify Production rules to support the purpose of the division" gives me chills.

Please don't feel singled out by my rhetorical questions. I'd hope nothing would come across as disrespectful, because I certainly don't mean it that way.

What he said!

[sperman]

It would be nice if there was a one paragraph "elevator pitch" for each of the divisions stating perhaps why the division exists, it's philosophy, what it's goals are for the future, and what are the hallmarks that distinguish it from the other divisions.

I personally could care less what the BOD "thinks" each division should be. The rules define the division. If production was supposed to be a "box stock" or a "carry" division, that's something they should have addressed 11 years ago.

[sperman]

So my question to you is how do we enforce the rules we now have and should we change the "intent" of the division? Or do we just let it go until production really does become limited with double action triggers?

I've never understood this approach: We can't enforce the laws/rules we have now, so let's create new ones.

[vluc]

Good points, sperman. This notion of "intent". We rip on it constantly in a sport that emphasizes that you cannot know intent in the WSB's. How many times has that come up in thread's over the years on this forum?

Let's use the stage analogy and not the race car one. Intent cannot be divined, it has to be spelled out in the written stage briefing (substitute rules if you like). If you do not want something done, you have to specifically state it at the beginning. Using the stage analogy, some shooters found a better way to run your cof. That upsets you and you want to fix it, but almost every squad has run that stage and you cannot get them all back to re-shoot it.

Everybody shot it under the WSB, just not how you thought it should be done. Nothing illegal was done so you can't throw the stage out. So you recognize you were not as thorough as you could have been and vow to do better on the next stage you design, maybe by asking some other shooters what they think of your design before you set it up for a match.

Freestyle, baby. Not all of us look at it the same way and getting input from others is valuable, especially if they don't have any problems saying you are wrong in certain ways of doing things. Now if those you ask are afraid to say something because you may come back and not like an idea of theirs they are pitching to you, that is another issue.

[Jim Norman]

I will admit to NOT having shot in Production in about 3 years. I was busy getting my act together sort of, in Limited. Now I need to pull up all my other percentages to where they match my classification. So this decision may affect me, I haven't checked on my TP weights in a long time. My thoughts on this are along this line.

What problem does this solve?

What problems does this create?

One word comes to mind, "MANY"

As for the actual weight requirement, a good 3# TP is better than a crappy gritty 2# TP. So what will the new accomplish? A new arms race, now we need to spend money to get our TP to 3#, clean and crisp instead of 2.5#. Your NYC Glock trigger still won't be appreciated by anyone that has had the opportunity to try a decent trigger. SO what did the rule accomplish? Apparently nothing. We tick off those that are already here and do really NOTHING for the new shooter.

Harry will be getting a note from me asking for his vote AGAINST implementation of this new rule.

As for the elimination of the 500 rule in limited I think I am in favor, Limited has a set of rules as to what is allowed and what is not, the 500 rule skewed this in favor of one MFG or another as only that mfg could sell that particular combination of parts effectively stifling innovation and perhaps unfairly affecting competition. Limited has been described often as Open Light. Mag length restricted, No comps and no Optics. The removal of the 500 rule makes this more true.

[MrPCHead]

Hello everyone,

I would like to express my thought process as it related to my vote (as A4 Director).

At the time of the meeting, I was rallying behind the philosophy that Production division should be that of a true “stock” class pistol, with a minimal amount of specialized gunwork and accessories needing to be performed or purchased to be competitive. The trigger limit discussion (and eventually motion) was spawned from Production mag pouch discussions, replacement triggers, etc. As some of you may know, I shot an M&P9 Pro for nearly 3 years that was totally stock (besides grip tape and sights). I think my vote was motivated by my rationale that if I could remain competitive with a 6-7lb trigger, most could. Plus new shooters would not be intimidated by the extra amount of trigger work needed to be “competitive.” In short, I voted based on my personal experience and viewpoints.

I can honestly say that I began to question my decision only days after the meeting. I came to grips with the fact that although some sort of restriction on excessive trigger work may comfort some new shooters, many of our current Production shooters would need to spend more money to even the playing field regarding their equipment. This was what I was trying to avoid in the first place.

Do I still PERSONALLY believe that Production Division should be shot with stock internals and triggers? YES

Do I think that adjusting one’s trigger pull to pick up an NRA 3lb weight (which most will do) would negatively, substantially, or permanently affect anyone’s shooting? NO

Do I think this was a worthwhile motion? YES

Do I think we presented the motion and voted pre-maturely? PROBABLY

(Here’s the important question) Do I think that raising the trigger pull would grow the division? I’M NOT SURE.

Here’s what I am sure of:

- Production division has been around for over 10 years, and has truly changed our sport for the better.

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

- It will be very difficult to ensure that triggers are weighed consistently regardless of what method could be used.

- It is in our nature to “improve” our gear, whether it is our guns, holsters, cars, golf carts...hell, everything.

- Members should contact their Area Directors to voice their opinions. I would ask that you please keep things polite and professional without personal feelings being interjected.

- The BOD will meet twice more in person with several special meetings during the year before this possible rule change would take effect in 2013.

Thanks to everyone for your comments.

Your candor is refreshing. I sincerely hope your presumed change in position will help relegate this incident to the history books.

Production Division is by far the most popular at matches I shoot. The majority of Production shooters I meet have tweaked their pistols in some way that makes the experience more fun for them. For the vast majority of USPSA shooters our only motivation is to 1) perform at our personal best and 2) have a good time doing it. So at the end of the day, does it really help if we make these pistols less fun to shoot? Another argument I keep hearing here, one with which I expect you agree, is that the light trigger doesn't help you competitively. If that's true then there's absolutely no reason to block it, right? I on the other hand do see it as an advantage but one that is easily within reach of essentially everyone that wants it. If these triggers cost thousands of dollars I could understand the desire to keep them out of Production but you can easily get under 3 lbs for less than $100. New shooters aren't going to see this as an obstacle but rather an upgrade path that coincides with their advancing skills.

-William Daugherty

[MrPCHead]

Hello everyone,

of you may know, I shot an M&P9 Pro for nearly 3 years that was totally stock (besides grip tape and sights). I think my vote was motivated by my rationale that if I could remain competitive with a 6-7lb trigger, most could. Plus new shooters would not be intimidated by the extra amount of trigger work needed to be “competitive.” In short, I voted based on my personal experience and viewpoints.

.

Thanks for the explanation and reasoning.

Although I would say rules born out of extraordinary personal experience rarely are beneficial to those that are just ordinary

;

Wait, did I read that right? "M&P9 Pro" and "totally stock" in the same breath? It seems to me that the Pro is already a purpose-built pistol for Production Division, yes? I can't imagine it being described as a "carry/duty" pistol. Seems we are now on the other side of the argument.

-William Daugherty

[RIIID]

"Intent" is meaningless after eleven years, in that time frame Production has become a great success. It did so from the participation of the membership and that brought in the manufactures. The combination of the two has benefited USPSA greatly. Do you think Production would be as successful as it is today if from day one it was held to "box stock"? I could understand after the first year if the BOD wanted to rein in the drifting away from the "intent" but after eleven years it is way too late.

If Production is left as it is today I can see it over take Limited in participation in the next couple of years. The idea that a 3# trigger rule is going to make it even more successful is ridiculous in my mind. Just think Open and Limited would be even more successful with a 3.5# trigger pull rule.

Rich

Edited December 24, 2011 by RIIID

[beltjones]

Hello everyone,

of you may know, I shot an M&P9 Pro for nearly 3 years that was totally stock (besides grip tape and sights). I think my vote was motivated by my rationale that if I could remain competitive with a 6-7lb trigger, most could. Plus new shooters would not be intimidated by the extra amount of trigger work needed to be “competitive.” In short, I voted based on my personal experience and viewpoints.

.

Thanks for the explanation and reasoning.

Although I would say rules born out of extraordinary personal experience rarely are beneficial to those that are just ordinary

;

Wait, did I read that right? "M&P9 Pro" and "totally stock" in the same breath? It seems to me that the Pro is already a purpose-built pistol for Production Division, yes? I can't imagine it being described as a "carry/duty" pistol. Seems we are now on the other side of the argument.

-William Daugherty

Exactly - especially if you consider that the mods they added for the pro model were born in the crucible of competition. Smart gun makers pay attention to what we do to our pistols and improve their product accordingly. Do we really want to stifle that relationship?

[bobert1]

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.

GREAT, I wish I could express my thoughts as well. Since I can't all I have to add is DITTO

[Nemo]

Production rules are completely arbitrary.

I've heard the factory stock idea mentioned before and it can't be reconciled with the allowance of trigger work, guide rods, stippling, checkering, sights, and spring swaps. These are just a few people's arbitrary thoughts on how much leeway shooters should have for modifications before the pistol is no longer stock. Also, if the intent is the emphasize the quality of a factory stock pistol, why wouldn't people be allowed to load magazines to the factory capacity?

The idea that Production is a landing spot for carry guns also fails to get traction. Half of my gun friends carry a 1911 daily and of those every one has a sub-3 lbs trigger. But Production doesn't allow SA guns. Still, I have first hand evidence that people do carry pistols with sub-3 lbs triggers. What about the number of lasers on guns now? Again, not allowed in Production. The limits placed on practical gear used everyday for carry are just a line in the sand, and really USPSA is old fashion in it's ideas about what is carried daily.

Who daily-carries 5 magazines downloaded to 10 rounds on their belt? How does a DoH fit into "suitable for everyday use"? Is there anything other than a guess involved in why 2 oz was decided to be the maximum over-weight limit for a Production gun? Minor PF only?

I've attempted to explain these things to potential new members and I feel ridiculous. I can't do it with a straight face, I know the rules make no sense. To me, it doesn't greatly matter because I'm fine with letting it just be a game. To a new shooter, it's just ponderous and has no basis. Production is way over-regulated. The idea that it's a great place for a basic carry pistol to fall into can't overcome the torrent of incongruous rules. We're at 5 pages in Appendix D4 plus a holster/magazine diagram. This trigger rule will easily add a page to Appendix plus an additional diagram to explain the weighing procedure. These rules are way too complex to hope a new shooter would feel comfortable showing up, at best each one shows up in spite of the reservations they have.

Adding new boundaries has failed time after time in Production, as evidenced by the continuous stream of NROI rulings and rule tweaks. I'd be interested in hearing how to make the rules simpler while preserving the fun. The death of one thousand cuts approach is part of the reason you see this kind of thread grow into a firestorm. This motion from the BoD minutes: "BOD will continue to clarify Production rules to support the purpose of the division" gives me chills.

Please don't feel singled out by my rhetorical questions. I'd hope nothing would come across as disrespectful, because I certainly don't mean it that way.

This is a very good post. Thanks Mr. Smith.

Good morning everyone! It's Christmas Eve!