USPSA BOD Meeting

[Chills1994]

/thread drift/

At the Nationals I happened to be in a bay with 2 Virginia count stages. One stage had metric targets, the other had classic targets. There were full and partial targets on both stages. My observation was that approximately 90% of the DA/SA shooters drew to a full target whereas striker equipped shooters drew to which ever target they wanted to. So maybe the current Production division should be disbanded and replaced with a carry/stock/production division separated into DA/SA and striker fired divisions. With some even crazier rules.

/thread drift off/

for steel challenge type stages with the Beretta, I always pick the closest target to hit first.

I haven't shot a 1911 in steel challenge type stuff in a while, so I don't necessarily recall if my plan for which target to engage first changes???

[Sarge]

wonder how long it will be before we read about the motion to eliminate metric targets.

That's what scares me! Isn't that position supported by a prominent member of the new BOD already?

[BritinUSA]

wonder how long it will be before we read about the motion to eliminate metric targets.

That's what scares me! Isn't that position supported by a prominent member of the new BOD already?

If you are referring to Phil Strader then this web-site may interest you : www.straightersolutions.com

[Sarge]

Talking about this quote?The President can't make these types of ultimate and arbitrary decisions. The USPSA Board of Directors runs USPSA...period. All of the President's responsibilities are exercised under the "ultimate authority of the Board of Directors."

Not very reassuring considering the reason for this thread in the first place. I think it's pretty clear that the BOD is capable of making ARBITRARY decisions.

Unfortunately politics is very unforgiving. The comments initially made regarding targets were indeed on my mind when I voted.

The website neither interested me nor convinced me of anything.

I won't say any more because I want to see this thread continue to grow exponentially in order to show those that are entrusted to run our organization know exactly how disappointed we are in this decision.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Sarge

[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

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.

I certainly have no problem with them building better guns either, but the logic behind the new rule (as stated here by those directly involved) was to try and steer Production back to the "duty/carry" model concept. How can you square that with using a purpose-built competition model like the G34, M&P Pro or the new XDm? Seems to be a supremely arbitrary move that hurts a lot of folks already in the game.

-William Daugherty

[ErichF]

Nevermind...

Edited December 25, 2011 by ErichF

[hitman]

All I can say is thanks for the no vote Gary & Chuck.

[open17]

Does anyone have a link to the USPSA by-laws? I can't seem to find them from the main USPSA site...

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-bylaws.php

"Member support" drop-down, right column bottom.

[ErichF]

This is from the USPSA By-Laws, Section 16.2:

16.2 Competition Equipment Rules Modifications:

Changes to U.S. Division rules affecting personal competition equipment shall be adopted for a specific Division no more frequently than every two years except as may be required to comply with federal laws. Those changes must be published in the corporate newsletter three months prior to effective date.

That is all I could find regarding rule changing. No procedures, no requirement for a quorum, no requirement for membership comment periods. The BOD does in fact have full authority to make, change, or repeal any rules - so long as there is 3 months notice in the newsletter.

EDIT: I should note that the By-Laws doesn't actually give ANYONE specific rulemaking authority - only how often such changes can be made and the notification period...talk about vague...

Seems that a change in the by-laws regarding rule making is in order, given the environment seen in this thread...

Edited December 25, 2011 by ErichF

[GrumpyOne]

This is from the USPSA By-Laws, Section 16.2:

16.2 Competition Equipment Rules Modifications:

Changes to U.S. Division rules affecting personal competition equipment shall be adopted for a specific Division no more frequently than every two years except as may be required to comply with federal laws. Those changes must be published in the corporate newsletter three months prior to effective date.

That is all I could find regarding rule changing. No procedures, not requirement for a quorum, no requirement for membership comment periods. The BOD does in fact have full authority to make, change, or repeal any rules - so long as there is 3 months notice in the newsletter.

Seems that a change in the by-laws regarding rule making is in order, given the environment seen in this thread...

Nice find, Erich!

[smokshwn]

Sure, but then you have no way to explain open guns and magazine placement in all but production and 1911 SS. Practical lost meaning years ago.

Please expound on practical magazine placement if you will.

I assume you have an issue with magazines in front of the hip bone.

When I pull a shift on patrol my magazines reside in the first space to the left of my center line buckle. In this configuration they are not only in a very practical position for reloads but are also accessible to either hand should I have to fight with only one hand on the gun. I find it hard to come up with an argument that weak side magazine placement is the only "practical" possibility as you seem to propose.

With respect to the trigger ruling, I can't for the life of me find a reason to disenfranchise several thousand existing members who have already shown their loyalty and commitment to the organization by voting with their money. A business that poorly treats its existing customers in an effort to chase a new customer with unknown commitment will not last very long.

The race to recruit the ever mythical new shooter ignores the fact that this sport is one of totally raw objective judgement of skillset. This type of competition appeals to very few people. Regardless of the hundreds of excuses they offer, the reality that it simply is not attractive to most people needs to be accepted rather than watering down the sport with the never ending effort to be all inclusive. It is a false assumption that by simply removing these false objections will result in more participants.

Edited December 25, 2011 by smokshwn

[CZinSC]

I have an SP01, Comp hammer and trigger done by Angus, measures out around 6.5#/3#.

I shoot Production almost exclusively. And yes, I think the rule is bogus and how it was voted on/approved is even more bogus. And my gun would be legal no matter how you slice it. Still just a dumb rule.

Comp hammer?

Be extra weary of the motion that was pasted just after the trigger pull motion. (The more I think about that one , the more I think it hurts USPSA and it's members.)

Motion: BOD will continue to clarify Production rules to support the

purpose of the division

Moved: A4 Seconded A1 Passed

That one leaves the back door open. ??

Funny you should say that Flex, while I was typing that...the thought crossed my mind. Luckily that part is still legal per the current rules. I certainly don't want to run afoul of any other rules in the "Beginners" Division....I'm sorry, I meant "Carry Division"....oh shoot, what's it called again? Oh yeah...Production.

[atbarr]

What we have here is a 'Cluster F*#K'! Damn people, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it!

[Steve J]

Sure, but then you have no way to explain open guns and magazine placement in all but production and 1911 SS. Practical lost meaning years ago.

Please expound on practical magazine placement if you will.

I assume you have an issue with magazines in front of the hip bone.

When I pull a shift on patrol my magazines reside in the first space to the left of my center line buckle.

Compare your duty belt and holster to an open / limited race rig if you have a question. My statement stands on it own.

[smokshwn]

Sure, but then you have no way to explain open guns and magazine placement in all but production and 1911 SS. Practical lost meaning years ago.

Please expound on practical magazine placement if you will.

I assume you have an issue with magazines in front of the hip bone.

When I pull a shift on patrol my magazines reside in the first space to the left of my center line buckle.

Compare your duty belt and holster to an open / limited race rig if you have a question. My statement stands on it own.

Your statement does not. I asked specifically what your issue is with magazines placed forward of the hipbone on the midline of the body. If you still believe that is not a practical position you clearly are working from dated information.

I also clearly gave a situation where centerline magazine placement was infinitely more practical than your traditional 9 o'clock location. Instead of discussing that you reply with a quip which leads me to believe your argument isn't so much about practicality, but more about dogma.

If you care to throw holsters in the mix I can almost guarantee your SS holster is completely out of place on my duty belt as well as any race holster.

Edited December 25, 2011 by smokshwn

[Skydiver]

Must be the eggnog, but for some reason whenever I think about the trigger pull measuring procedure what comes to mind is the

. Edited December 25, 2011 by Skydiver

[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#.

That's not competition, that's survival. In competition, the difference between shooting a target in the eye socket or the chin is 2 points. Now increase the range to 15 yards and trigger pull can mean the difference between winning and losing the match. As you are smashing the trigger are you absolutely positive that any missed shot is not going to hit one of your children. Aim small, miss smaall.

Point taken.

[twodownzero]

This is the best news I've heard in a while.

[Nik Habicht]

...

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.

...

(emphasis mine)

CZ shooters: I haven't handled a CZ in a while - am I reading this correctly? Is this correct? DA trigger pull under 3# ?

What about other platforms' DA pull? How low do they go?

Thanks,

ac

After S&W tuned my 910, the SA was right at 4 lbs -- but it got smoother and lighter, the more I shot it. I sold it a few years ago, so have no idea how low it might have gone....

[Skydiver]

I can't find it now, but I thought there was a rule against electronic triggers, as well as triggers that fire when you release rather than when you squeeze.

Anyway, chances are that it would be classed as an illegal modification to convert a production gun to one of these trigger systems even if it can all be contained internally.

ETA: And before people ask what the point is: With an electronic trigger, one can set the weight to fractions of an ounce. And for triggers that fire when released the incoming rule is about trigger pull weight, not release weight. Testers they can pull all they want and the gun won't fire.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Skydiver

[Skydiver]

If I was running chrono, I would. Just like I would flip over a CZ or Tanfoglio with the slide locked back and check if the FPB is installed and functioning.

And why would you be doing this?

As per C2.47.c, the chrono officer should check for compliance with division requirements. The former to see if the gun complies with D4 21.6 (e.g. no aftermarket triggers), and the latter to see if the gun complies with D4 21.1 (all external and internal safeties must remain functional).

[ihatepickles]

....centerline magazine placement was infinitely more practical than your traditional 9 o'clock location...

Yep, I agree. The best place for a magazine is where I can access it quickly. There's nothing practical about tucking it away behind the hipbone. The holster and mag placement rules in Production (and Single Stack) are completely arbitrary.

[Chills1994]

not in the context of drawing or marketing to IDPA shooters, and having them crossover to USPSA production division or Single Stack division.

it's all about capturing or holding onto USPSA's market share of the available shooters.

in my opinion...

YMMV.

[CZinSC]

If I was running chrono, I would. Just like I would flip over a CZ or Tanfoglio with the slide locked back and check if the FPB is installed and functioning.

And why would you be doing this?

As per C2.47.c, the chrono officer should check for compliance with division requirements. The former to see if the gun complies with D4 21.6 (e.g. no aftermarket triggers), and the latter to see if the gun complies with D4 21.1 (all external and internal safeties must remain functional).

Exactly as Skydiver says. As a Chrono officer, all you have to do is lock back the slide, turn the gun over, and you will see clear as day if the shooter has removed the FPB. Since Chrono is also a safety check, that is the time to do it, and takes a grand total of about 5 seconds to do it.

[MarkCO]

If I was running chrono, I would. Just like I would flip over a CZ or Tanfoglio with the slide locked back and check if the FPB is installed and functioning.

And why would you be doing this?

As per C2.47.c, the chrono officer should check for compliance with division requirements. The former to see if the gun complies with D4 21.6 (e.g. no aftermarket triggers), and the latter to see if the gun complies with D4 21.1 (all external and internal safeties must remain functional).

Maybe I have a different rulebook, but I just can't find that. C2.47.a (P. 69 of the 2008 rulebook) states "Proper function of the handgun's primary safety mechanism."

D4.22 (P. 75 of 2008 rulebook) prohibits "Disabling of any external saftey or externally operated safety."

I can't find the rule you referenced where it says "internal safeties must remain functional." Can you give me the page number please?

Edited December 25, 2011 by MarkCO