USPSA BOD Meeting

[vluc]

how many people that are complaining about the new rule have actually weighed there guns triggers (only 2 people did on this tread so far) i would be surprised if just polishing lowered your trigger below 3lbs. those that are for sure below are custom trigger jobs sent to a shop that cost at least $150

Until we know what the official method would have been (optimistically speaking), it does not matter what your trigger weighs now.

Edited December 24, 2011 by vluc

[Skydiver]

Anyway, it doesn't matter since the Vaneck trigger is illegal in production: http://www.uspsa.org...ils.php?indx=22

that refers to the original vanek trigger modification. he currently makes production-legal drop-in triggers.

I did not know that... I guess I need to plunk down $220 to be competitive with my Glock in Production in 2012.

[driver8M3]

Anyway, it doesn't matter since the Vaneck trigger is illegal in production: http://www.uspsa.org...ils.php?indx=22

that refers to the original vanek trigger modification. he currently makes production-legal drop-in triggers.

I did not know that... I guess I need to plunk down $220 to be competitive with my Glock in Production in 2012.

i'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. nobody is claiming anyone "needs" an expensive trigger to be competitive with a glock...i think sevigny and vogel (and others) have proven you don't. but some people decided they wanted it, and paid for it. and now the BOD is potentially telling them to take it out.

[Chills1994]

Soooo...

are there actually any DA/SA guns that have a trigger pull below 3 pounds for the second shot?

If so, which ones?

[chendersby]

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.

You are correct. The question is what we do now?

[Strick]

Soooo...

are there actually any DA/SA guns that have a trigger pull below 3 pounds for the second shot?

If so, which ones?

CZ, well at least mine might be close based on a quick test using the 3lb hanging weight method.

[chendersby]

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.

What is hard to understand about trying to have enforceable rules. If the present rules are not enforceable then you make the point something needs to be fixed.

[vluc]

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.

You are correct. The question is what we do now?

In my opinion, nothing. Except vote this down. (thanks justaute!)

Over the years you had a host of break points or defining moments, places where you could have drawn the line in the sand and said "NO". You did not, despite having the "intent" as the guiding principle. Now you want a trigger pull limit to get back to the stock intent, but forget all of the other mods you approved that moved you away from it.

Once you allowed a modification that could not be undone (stippling), all bets were off. At that point the notion of box stock was gone, never to be returned to. The BOD could have made rulings that caused parts to be replaced/returned so that you could use the "intent" clause to get you back to the stock notion, but with stippling you absolutely will force shooters to either buy a new gun or be FORCED to move to a different division, or just quit the game altogether.

Edited December 24, 2011 by vluc

[Gary Stevens]

Been shooting a Glock with a $50 home trigger job for a long time, it's pretty light I hate to think I have to go backwards on that gun.

The thing that is disturbing is that at least one AD didnt know this was coming and from outward appearances was rammed through. What was the rush, crisis, etc?

Make that two AD's. This is an idea that has been just below the surface for some time now. The trigger weight idea has been voted on at least once and maybe twice, losing both times. This time it reared its head during a discussion of the XDM trigger system and shazzam it was passed 7-2.

Any follow-up on that trigger system discussion? If I buy the trigger from Springfield, then it's OEM and therefore legal under D4 21.6, but if I buy it directly from supplier for Springfield will it be considered aftermarket and therefore illegal under the same rule?

I asked this exact question, and if I remember correctly, in 2013 it will not matter what you do to your trigger as long as it weighs 3 lbs minimum.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Gary Stevens

[justaute]

Vince... actually, the BOD needs to do something, instead of "nothing." It needs to conduct another voting process and reverse the discussed decision.

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.

You are correct. The question is what we do now?

In my opinion, nothing.

Over the years you had a host of break points or defining moments, places where you could have drawn the line in the sand and said "NO". You did not, despite having the "intent" as the guiding principle. Now you want a trigger pull limit to get back to the stock intent, but forget all of the other mods you approved that moved you away from it.

Once you allowed a modification that could not be undone (stippling), all bets were off. At that point the notion of box stock was gone, never to be returned to. The BOD could have made rulings that caused parts to be replaced/returned so that you could use the "intent" clause to get you back to the stock notion, but with stippling you absolutely will force shooters to either buy a new gun or be FORCED to move to a different division, or just quit the game altogether.

[chendersby]

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?

I have no problem with manufacturers building a better gun. Don't think having to do it with a 3 pound trigger is going to affect them at all. Probably make their lawyers happy. The issue is what shooters are doing after they get their hand on them.

[burningsquirrels]

wow, just spent 2 hours trying to catch up on this thread.

thanks to the ADs who chimed in and continue to follow this thread. and, i'm feeling pretty good about voting for phil!

about me: yes i shoot production almost exclusively with a CZ SP-01 with firing pin block. my only mods are sights, grips, and a hammer and recoil spring. i've been measured at 7/3 with no trigger work. any limited entries in the past 2 have been me shooting my carry gun, a CZ compact with fully loaded 14 round mags. i firmly believe that the benefits of trigger work is inversely related to skill. the better you are, the less of an effect it will have on shooting. yes, it can really help a new shooter. but do we really need a rule to enforce a weight? if we are trying to welcome new shooters, will a minimum trigger pull make it more attractive? would they even bother or care?

my concerns are mainly:

1. consistency in testing. it's hard enough traveling around the country and finding ROs who follow the rulebook consistently. we have a year to figure it out, maybe a standardized tool like the big hook with weights mentioned before.

2. people who have to raise their trigger pull weights to reach 3# in 2013. sucks for most every striker fired shooter with a drop-in kit in their gun.

3. parity is lost between DA/SA and striker. you can try to band-aid the parity by saying all pulls need to be 3#, but i can say that even factory CZs may need extra power trigger return springs lol. talk about a real pain. my stock sp-01 gets 3# DA, but i'm feeling others and especially shadows (again, bone stock) that are rolling out the box with sub-3# already.

4. the bump to open - what's the verbage going to look like? if my first round is a dud, will i have to manually decock again? same with table starts?

i agree with some of the other posts in this thread.

1. i think it's an answer to a question that wasn't asked, and is going to introduce more problems for shooters and match staff.

2. a light trigger has nothing to do with ADs, the shooter's finger on a trigger is what does it. fix the shooter.

about super light triggers:

1. all guns have a breaking point, in terms of when they work and when they stop working. make a trigger too light on a DA/SA and the primer won't go off. make it too light on a striker and it too might not go off. i would like to continue seeing reliability be the determining factor of how light a trigger goes.

not the right thread for this one but since the ADs are reading:

1. if you're going to play with production rules, i'd rather see effort being spent not on creating grey areas, but rather disambiguating existing ones. how about working on a better way to regulate holster and pouches on production/SS belts than using the hipbone? i have an idea for that one that would be pretty easy.

[burningsquirrels]

Soooo...

are there actually any DA/SA guns that have a trigger pull below 3 pounds for the second shot?

If so, which ones?

CZ. mine bone stock was 3# already with a lyman gauge, and mine all have firing pin blocks. the shadows are lighter out of the box.

[vluc]

Vince... actually, the BOD needs to do something, instead of "nothing." It needs to conduct another voting process and reverse the discussed decision.

Fixed. Thanks!!!!

[vluc]

Soooo...

are there actually any DA/SA guns that have a trigger pull below 3 pounds for the second shot?

If so, which ones?

CZ. mine bone stock was 3# already with a lyman gauge, and mine all have firing pin blocks. the shadows are lighter out of the box.

Thanks. Good to hear from the other side of the production platform!

Edited December 24, 2011 by vluc

[jar]

As far as never having talked to anyone in person, I'll give you that. But I'm pretty sure you've read this thread. Where people say they are good with the pull requirement. To then say no one has ever said that? Really?

There's a difference between being OK with the change because it doesn't affect them personally and actually wanting it and thinking it makes things better.

We have limited, open, etc, etc to play in. I think the best option, for the sport, would be if the only alterations permitted in production are changes to the sights, and grip tape - possibly, not even grip tape.

I think that would make it the most valuable to the manufacturers.

I don't think it would be that valuable to the manufacturers because people would leave production in droves. If I was stuck with an out of the box trigger, I'd never shoot production again.

What is hard to understand about trying to have enforceable rules. If the present rules are not enforceable then you make the point something needs to be fixed.

What's not enforceable about the present rules? If this change is to make them more enforceable, how come it was made without any discussion of how to enforce it?

I asked this exact question, and if I remember correctly, in 2013 it will not matter what you do to your trigger as long as it weighs 3 lbs minimum.

So in 2013 I can take out my $40 apex sear + $20 spring and put in a $160 apex Forward Set Sear kit that totally changes how the trigger works as long as I tweak the springs to just over 3lbs?

Edited December 24, 2011 by jar

[Loves2Shoot]

For liability reasons, I doubt any of those manufacturers will ever sell a gun below a 3# trigger pull. Measuring it could be complicated.

We have limited, open, etc, etc to play in. I think the best option, for the sport, would be if the only alterations permitted in production are changes to the sights, and grip tape - possibly, not even grip tape.

I think that would make it the most valuable to the manufacturers.

You would be mistaken, Springfield does it, just ask Robbie. But you head down the path that if you are a sponsored shooter, you can get thing the average Joe can't. Anyone remember the issue with Adam at the WS a few years back?

[Skydiver]

For liability reasons, I doubt any of those manufacturers will ever sell a gun below a 3# trigger pull. Measuring it could be complicated.

We have limited, open, etc, etc to play in. I think the best option, for the sport, would be if the only alterations permitted in production are changes to the sights, and grip tape - possibly, not even grip tape.

I think that would make it the most valuable to the manufacturers.

You would be mistaken, Springfield does it, just ask Robbie. But you head down the path that if you are a sponsored shooter, you can get thing the average Joe can't. Anyone remember the issue with Adam at the WS a few years back?

Were 2000 of these 3# trigger pull guns manufactured and submitted to NROI for approval?

[Loves2Shoot]

I have no problem with manufacturers building a better gun. Don't think having to do it with a 3 pound trigger is going to affect them at all. Probably make their lawyers happy. The issue is what shooters are doing after they get their hand on them.

Actually, your vote insured producers that are interested in the USPSA Production market DO NOT search to improve their product past YOUR arbitrary point. You also insured that aftermarket producers limit the products they promote to USPSA shooters (IDPA shooters won't be affected) for Production division. You also are making sure that folks from IDPA won't come and play with their most similar gear in USPSA Production if they prefer to use a trigger with their preferred trigger weight that does not align with the weight you deem appropriate. You also are requiring people who do chose to mess with the pistols to go buy a trigger measuring system of some sort.

All this because you don't like how people mess with their guns within the rules that have been in place for many years?

[Loves2Shoot]

For liability reasons, I doubt any of those manufacturers will ever sell a gun below a 3# trigger pull. Measuring it could be complicated.

We have limited, open, etc, etc to play in. I think the best option, for the sport, would be if the only alterations permitted in production are changes to the sights, and grip tape - possibly, not even grip tape.

I think that would make it the most valuable to the manufacturers.

You would be mistaken, Springfield does it, just ask Robbie. But you head down the path that if you are a sponsored shooter, you can get thing the average Joe can't. Anyone remember the issue with Adam at the WS a few years back?

Were 2000 of these 3# trigger pull guns manufactured and submitted to NROI for approval?

They don't have to be, as the rules have NEVER stated such a thing for Production, internal modifications are legal. I know we have done way over 2k XD/XDM's with trigger jobs.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Skydiver]

Been shooting a Glock with a $50 home trigger job for a long time, it's pretty light I hate to think I have to go backwards on that gun.

The thing that is disturbing is that at least one AD didnt know this was coming and from outward appearances was rammed through. What was the rush, crisis, etc?

Make that two AD's. This is an idea that has been just below the surface for some time now. The trigger weight idea has been voted on at least once and maybe twice, losing both times. This time it reared its head during a discussion of the XDM trigger system and shazzam it was passed 7-2.

Any follow-up on that trigger system discussion? If I buy the trigger from Springfield, then it's OEM and therefore legal under D4 21.6, but if I buy it directly from supplier for Springfield will it be considered aftermarket and therefore illegal under the same rule?

I asked this exact question, and if I remember correctly, in 2013 it will not matter what you do to your trigger as long as it weighs 3 lbs minimum.

So the OEM vs. aftermarket part distinction in D4 21.6 will be removed as well in 2013? I can start putting in aftermarket mag releases, slide stops, thumb safeties?

[rmerritt]

My opinion is that the bod voted on a solution to a problem that dont exsist, it sounds like it was done in such a way

that not much thought was put into it. New shooters will not be affected, all they will do is piss off most of the older production shooters, who will then have to have a NEW trigger job, or change divisions. I find in our club that new production shooters, after they gain experance, want an improved trigger (who doesnt!), and the price of a trigger job is not an issue. This reminds me of senators who pass a bill, because THEY KNOW BEST, and we find out about it after the fact. Merry Christmas, Ray

[Skydiver]

For liability reasons, I doubt any of those manufacturers will ever sell a gun below a 3# trigger pull. Measuring it could be complicated.

We have limited, open, etc, etc to play in. I think the best option, for the sport, would be if the only alterations permitted in production are changes to the sights, and grip tape - possibly, not even grip tape.

I think that would make it the most valuable to the manufacturers.

You would be mistaken, Springfield does it, just ask Robbie. But you head down the path that if you are a sponsored shooter, you can get thing the average Joe can't. Anyone remember the issue with Adam at the WS a few years back?

Were 2000 of these 3# trigger pull guns manufactured and submitted to NROI for approval?

They don't have to be, as the rules have NEVER stated such a thing for Production, internal modifications are legal. I know we have done way over 2k XD/XDM's with trigger jobs.

I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that a sponsored shooter could ask the manufacturer to make a custom gun that the average Joe cannot get. I was under the impression that the 2000 unit requirement was to prevent this from happening. If there is a custom gun made, then there will be at least another 1999 other copies made as well.

On re-reading, what I understand now is that a person can ask a manufacturer to modify an approved Production stock gun with custom tweaks before the gun leaves the factory.

[Gary Stevens]

Been shooting a Glock with a $50 home trigger job for a long time, it's pretty light I hate to think I have to go backwards on that gun.

The thing that is disturbing is that at least one AD didnt know this was coming and from outward appearances was rammed through. What was the rush, crisis, etc?

Make that two AD's. This is an idea that has been just below the surface for some time now. The trigger weight idea has been voted on at least once and maybe twice, losing both times. This time it reared its head during a discussion of the XDM trigger system and shazzam it was passed 7-2.

Any follow-up on that trigger system discussion? If I buy the trigger from Springfield, then it's OEM and therefore legal under D4 21.6, but if I buy it directly from supplier for Springfield will it be considered aftermarket and therefore illegal under the same rule?

I asked this exact question, and if I remember correctly, in 2013 it will not matter what you do to your trigger as long as it weighs 3 lbs minimum.

So the OEM vs. aftermarket part distinction in D4 21.6 will be removed as well in 2013? I can start putting in aftermarket mag releases, slide stops, thumb safeties?

Yes, no, maybe, well perhaps, depends on a lot of variables, Hell I don't know. Calling Kyle, calling Kyle your seat is ready:devil:

[aztecdriver]

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

-3

I'm catching up on the thread and have a couple of pages to read here - but I don't question the viability of the organization. The reason I don't is because the organization is us, the shooters. The board's move may have been unpopular, and possibly ill-conceived because of how it went down - but in the end it may have been a simple mistake. We've all made mistakes, and I'm sure when you've made a mistake - you'd appreciate the chance to learn and correct it. I'm not willing to throw in the towel over one mistake or even a few of them.

Think about this for a second - you've already had contributions to this discussion, not only from 5 board members (either leaving or entering) and the president elect. We have a say. It's the cooler heads that will prevail and allow the right discussion to resolve the solution I'm counting on.