USPSA BOD Meeting

[George Jones]

Not entirely accurate. Even from its inception in 2000, the Production division was "different". Where all the other divisions were formed as "if it isn't listed as illegal, it is fair game", the Production division - from the start - was formed as "modifications are strictly limited, and if it isn't specifically allowed, it is illegal". The Production division section in the 2000 USPSA rulebook is different from all the other divisions, in that it clearly says allowed modifications are 'strictly limited', and then lists a handful of things that are specifically allowed or prohibited.

The problem is that the rules did a crappy job of drawing the boundary in a clear place. When the rules said that "action work for reliability" was an allowed modification, people figured that meant that they could do anything they wanted to the action, including changing geometry and pivot-pin locations. When the rules said "external modifications not allowed", some people figured that meant they could do anything they wanted as long as it wasn't visible externally. Etc. So... even though the rules said modifications were "strictly limited", some people took holes in the language and made modifications that the rules didn't allow.

Not entirely inaccurate....

Hi Bruce,

Your oomments illustrate that the Division was not introduced clearly. A major part of that problem is that the membership as a whole was in a "It's legal if it's not specifically illegal" mindset. That concept is a significant part of our sport and anything fundamentally different should have been clearly communicated. It was not. Fixing that problem after the fact did result in outlawing (now specifically rather than by insinuation) things that shooters did to their guns in good faith.

The one consideration missing from your recounting of the creation of the Production is that it was created to be a non-SAO division. Eliminating those guns was to level the playing field for all other types of actions. That was the general understanding of the reason for Production, much more so than a "you can't do this" division.

IMO, it's a bit late to fix it retroactively and I don't have a particular problem with Production pushing the equipment envelope like other Divisions have. It's progress.

Good shooters will still be good shooters.

[GrumpyOne]

Either way, we as shooters, need to let this be known to all of the shooters at our local matches, as many of them are not members here. When you do this, have a slip of paper with that AD's name, phone number, and email wrote on it. I personally am very disappointed in my AD for helping pass this ridiculous rule (along with the magnet rule), and in the fact that the AD has not even once shot a production classifier, and as far as I can tell, not even shot in a match since Feb of this year (and it was an all classifier match in which they shot open). My AD will be getting an email from me expressing my disappointment. I urge everyone to email or call your AD and let them know your position on this matter.

No taxation without representation. I don't believe they were representing us, the members of USPSA, when this was passed.

[BritinUSA]

I've said this before; The root cause of this problem is the fact that the agenda for these meetings is not fixed and published in advance so that the members can provide input into the process. The poll (although a small sampling) is hovering at a 2:1 ratio against the proposal from those that actually shoot the division. Including all respondents the number is 3:1 against.

I think the BOD has made an error in judgement, not so much in the rule that was passed but in the manner that all BOD meetings are held; If an agenda had been published then the members could have responded in advance of the vote and (if the AD's had listened to those concerns) the vote would most likely have failed to pass.

I think the first order of business for the new BOD in 2012 s to write some rules on the BOD meetings to ensure that this problem does not re-occur.

[bgary]

Hi Bruce,

Your oomments illustrate that the Division was not introduced clearly. A major part of that problem is that the membership as a whole was in a "It's legal if it's not specifically illegal" mindset. That concept is a significant part of our sport and anything fundamentally different should have been clearly communicated. It was not.

Hi, George! Long time no talk...

I don't disagree with what you've said, but I don't think it is that "cut and dried". Recall that in 2000 (which predates both of us on the Board), the USPSA/IPSC relationship was strained. IPSC passed a bunch of rules and created new divisions, and USPSA had a very short time to implement them under threat of being thrown out of IPSC. So, the 2000 USPSA rulebook (remember the "toilet-paper rulebook") was rushed into member hands without, perhaps, the most careful process.

Even with that, though, the Production division was - from its very beginning - subject to much more stringent restrictions than the other divisions. IIRC, there were articles in Front Sight and elsewhere talking about how this "new" division was specifically intended for "stock" guns, and modifications were very limited. The US Production Division page from the 2000 rulebook says it this way:

No other division - before or since - has included that "very limited [modifications] clause"... *that* (along with no SAO guns) is what makes production different from all the others.

The one consideration missing from your recounting of the creation of the Production is that it was created to be a non-SAO division. Eliminating those guns was to level the playing field for all other types of actions. That was the general understanding of the reason for Production, much more so than a "you can't do this" division.

Errrr, not really. See above. The Production division was never "intended" to be a place for tricked-out, "do-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-the-the-first-shot-isn't single-action" guns. The rules have always made it clear that Production was a "you can't do this" division. Recall that the first Nationals in which Production division was recognized was called the "Factory-gun Nationals"... indicating USPSA's intent that it was for... uh... guns the way they came from the factory. Unfortunately, that "intent" hasn't ever become part of the "general understanding".

IMO, it's a bit late to fix it retroactively and I don't have a particular problem with Production pushing the equipment envelope like other Divisions have. It's progress.

I don't really have a dog in the hunt, other than to note that Production has become [perhaps] the most popular division in no small part because it doesn't have to be an equipment race. Stock or nearly-stock factory-produced guns can be competitive. I'd hate to see that growth stifled by allowing "progress" to turn into just-another equipment race division. USPSA already has plenty of those.

B

[JWGlock26]

My problem with this rule is that it goes against what many have said the intent was. To make it more competitive for new people with box stock guns. The problem is that it only affects the striker fired guns. How many people show up to their first match with a custom tuned CZ. None that I've ever seen. They show up with their glocks, m&p's and xd's. Now there is even more of an advantage to ditching the polymer framed striker fired guns in favor for the metal framed DA/SA guns. That is assuming that they will be allowed to fire their first shot single action from unloaded starts. I for one would much rather show up to my first match with my Glock and see a bunch of other people shooting similar guns no matter what the trigger weight is than show up with my Glock to find 90% of the production shooters with CZ's straight from the custom shop.

[JThompson]

With all these pages and pages of this and that, for me, it really boils down to this. Production is healthy and growing.... leave it be and let it alone!

It's a fact that you can compete with a stock trigger, so that leaves it up to the shooter whether they want to work on it or not, spend money or not. Don't take all the cash the guys have spent and throw it out the window because of some perceived inequity to shooters that wouldn't know a 3 from an 8.

JT

[two shoes]

As a newer shooter (just got 4 classifiers in) I don't know if I feel more enlightened or dumber for reading all of this tonight. I run a bone stock G34. I was considering the $.25 polish job and a spring/connector kit. I have spoken with some GM Production shooters and they said those items were all that was needed... but if I had to spend more than $40, then ammo or dry fire practice would be money and time better spent. I have demonstrated the ability to miss targets at 4.5# (stated stock) that any trigger work would not have helped me with.

I don't care for the way this was brought to US. I will comply with the final ruling, but not without letting my AD know how I feel. I have no intentions of changing divisions based on this rule, whichever way it goes. I enjoy this GAME. If you are keeping track of points, it is just a game. I play because I enjoy it but also because I enjoy most of the people I have come in contact with.

[RIIID]

"The rules have always made it clear that Production was a "you can't do this" division. Recall that the first Nationals in which Production division was recognized was called the "Factory-gun Nationals"... indicating USPSA's intent that it was for... uh... guns the way they came from the factory. Unfortunately, that "intent" hasn't ever become part of the "general understanding"."

BG

Bruce the problem is from day one the rules NEVER made it CLEAR( It may have been clear in your mind) it was a "you can't do this" Division. You have to remember when a new person joins USPSA all the info USPSA sends on this sport comes in the form of the Rule Book. There is no "Intent", "Spirit of", and "supposed to be" written in the Rule book. They don't have access to past copies of the Front Sight magazine nor would they go back and read past BOD meetings minutes(back in the beginning a lot of people didn't have computer access). USPSA has always had poor word choices for naming things, "Factory Gun" was a poor choice since most of the Lim-10 guns were tricked out Limited guns and revolvers are pretty much worked over in the trigger area also. So there was a mixed message Revo and Lim-10 had fully custom guns so Prod. must be the same. We shoot competitions and everyone is trying to do their best so we naturally seek out the best equipment.

Rich

[Gary Stevens]

Hmmm, Might be a good time to roll out the online voting for a proper test on rules before we use it for elections.

So, we'll have Open, Limited, Limited 10, and Single Stack, deciding I need to use a > 3 lb. TP?

Not from this Single Stacker

[tulsashooter45]

I've been away from the forum for quite a while.

I appreciate the input from the participants in the last BOD meeting. I spent six years on the Board. When I left, I walked away with certain impressions with the way the Board operates. One was that it was way too common for motions to be brought on issues which had not been properly announced (agenda). Not pointing fingers here, but it appears that this has not changed. Part of the problem is/was that significant issues were not sufficiently discussed prior to the meeting where (hopefully) further discussion would have more clearly refined the subject. The other reason for this problem is that the meeting is simply not long enough to do the job right. Due to travel home schedules, the meeting is essentially only one day and a half. Most problematic issues tend to get tabled until Sunday morning and get voted on in a rush to "we have to get this done before we leave". Unfortunately, this sometimes resulted in less than ideal decisions.

As to this rule....

When Production was created ten years ago, it was apparently not foreseen that shooters would want to "race" in Production. It should have been. After all, USPSA had a "it's legal unless the rules say you can't" mindset. That's how shooters approached the Division. In 2007,after I left the BOD, the Production rules were restated to a "if it's not specifically allowed it's illegal" approach. I didn't much care for that decision since it fundamentally changed the Division long after it has been established. The horse was out of the barn. This latest rule just adds to that problem and I fundamentally disagree with the "suitable for carry" argument. This is a game. We keep score. In any competition, the best results are expected to go to the man-woman/machine combination which performs the best. Good preparation of both elements should be rewarded by better performance and results. A trigger job has alsways been the first step to improving the equipment. It's not just about range practice or dry-fire. It's also about assuring the equipment is best suited for the task. It's no different for many weekend "athletes". Skiers will buy the best equipment they can afford to maximize their performance. And, if they do a better job of waxing their skis they might beat a better technical skier. I don't think it's any different in USPSA.

Production has proven to be a legitimate entry Division. I don't think it was ever officially defined that way but it certainly is the common perception. Membership has grown significantly over the years, but only partially due to the availability of Production. In most parts of the country, I have seen excellent grass-roots (club level) efforts to recruit members. Production was the logical first choice for these new shooters since many of them already owned a gun which would fit. If they own something else, than L-10 or SS are there.

Introducing a trigger pull weight will not attract or chase away new members. So what is the reason for this change? It looks like it's all about the "box stock" thing. What's wrong with maximizing what you own? Changing the rules now affects those who made their purchase decisions on the rules at the time. Introducing a "first shot" rule changes the playing field for those shooters. What is wrong with improving technology? If someone sees a market for a better product, so be it. Our sport has been all about that for years. Remember when electronic sights were universally branded as being "impractical"? The news channels reports from places overseas disapproved that opinion years ago. Why should innovations be restricted for Production guns? Just my opinion, but somehow I think our major sponsors would like that approach.

Lastly, this rule falls into the "how the devil will it be consistently enforced?" column. First shot? While you could try to measure a double-action trigger pull and a striker fired trigger pull, how do you measure the trigger pull on a first shot which can (in USPSA) be taken in any manner? That it was passed without a specific method of enforcement underlines the "rush to a decision" situation on the Board. Thank you to those who voted against it and thanks to those who look to be reconsidering not only the decision but also the process.

I do have to make one final comment on the viability of having a formal membership input into the rulemaking process. Yes, advance notice of significant rule changes should be made known - in general. That would give members opportunity to contact their ADs with their opinion prior to a formal BOD vote. But I disagree with with a formal membership "vote on the final product" process. First, you elected those folks to represent you. As long as they remember that the process should work. Second, a formal member vote is simply unworkable. It would simply take too much time. The necessity for formal notice, etc. would turn an already lengthy process into one an unmanageable one.

Ultimately however, in my opinion, the Board needs, and should demand, more extensive input prior to enacting new rules.

Very well said Mr. Jones!

[spanky]

"The indian and not the arrow" argument is completely invalidated if you agree with the proposed rule change.

If you think so then why do you care if my trigger pull is 2.5 versus 4.5? It obviously shouldn't matter if you're a better indian than me.

[Gary Stevens]

"The indian and not the arrow" argument is completely invalidated if you agree with the proposed rule change.

If you think so then why do you care if my trigger pull is 2.5 versus 4.5? It obviously shouldn't matter if you're a better indian than me.

You will get nowhere using logic

[George Jones]

Hi, George! Long time no talk...

I don't disagree with what you've said, but I don't think it is that "cut and dried". <snip>

B

I don't disagree with what you have presented either. You are recounting it from the Board's perspective. Yes, it progressed as you say. I'm seeing it from the membership's perspective. I stand by my opinion that the Board did not clearly define and communicate the limitations they intended when they first introduced the Division. Everything after that was a band-aid.

I worked the first Nationals with the new divisions. Most of the staff had no clue how do deal with those guns. Many did not know they had to count rounds. I could give you more examples, some humourous, some not. But that's water under the bridge.

[vluc]

Thanks George for offering your thoughts. This thread has enjoyed multiple BoD member (current and future) , the Prez-elect, and now a former member of the sausage grinder.

From your comments it seems a keener eye towards Parliamentary procedure might be in order. "One issue at a time", as it were. I understand time is at a premium in these meetings, but expedience in favor of an informed decision is a poor trade-off.

To your last comment about not having every member's vote solicited and weighed in these matters -- I agree.

I vote for representation at the Area-/BoD-level with the hope my representative(s) carefully weigh the decisions thay face.

I think many of the elected representatives failed in this instance.

A keener eye towards Parliamentary procedure is probably in order given that one BoD member quotes here he was told by the President to "shut the f up." Don't recall that in Robert's Rules of Order.

And ditto on not needing members to vote on every issue. We do elect our AD's to do that, with the understanding that they would solicit feedback from their members. I said it before and it bears repeating - "Decide in haste, repent at leisure." Seems some are repenting.

[Coach]

Once the ability to vote in elections electronically is secured we should have some referendums by the members. Let the people decide the major rule changes and maybe even major purchases. If there is bitching then the answer could be the people have spoken. It would remove blame from the board and place it on the membership.

In general we need less rules. The BOD needs to remember that they do not need to pass more rules or make changes to be doing their job. We have a lot of good things happening in USPSA. Sometimes leaving things alone is the best course.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Coach

[sdm74]

Here's a simple fix 3# trigger for all divisions, except guns with thumb safeties ..

[Henry625]

As a member of an "outlaw shooting club", we mimic USPSA matches adopting their safety rules but creating our own divisions so as not to exclude anyone (which has been very successful), We are discussing going 100% USPSA as a club adopting all their rules and divisions. This ruling makes me second guess that decision. I shoot "production" division with a Glock 34, I have added after market sights, Glockworx Production trigger, 3-1/2# connector and a spring kit. I do not know the actual trigger weight, I honestly do not believe it's 3 lbs.. My Glock 17 which has the stock trigger and a 3-1/2 lb. connector and my polishing job is actually a smoother trigger.

All that being said, I really do not like USPSA ammending the rules once the rule has been in effect for so long. Production division was appealing to me due to the fact I could do it and feel competitive without an expensive pistol. It's a whole lot easier to add legal modifications than it is to take them off. They will be money wasted when this rule goes into effect.

Thanks USPSA, this sport is already expensive to some.

[LPatterson]

Here's a simple fix 3# trigger for all divisions, except guns with thumb safeties ..

How about without the exception. But what division would you move the Open shooter to for less than 3#. No Score.

[Coach]

Why do we feel the need to control what other shooters are doing beyond safety? If Production is to be a stock division then say no modifications at all. If it is not a stock division then leave it alone and stop weighing guns and trigger pulls and so forth. I cannot get me head around the folks who want to control others and their gear.

[chendersby]

A keener eye towards Parliamentary procedure is probably in order given that one BoD member quotes here he was told by the President to "shut the f up." Don't recall that in Robert's Rules of Order.

Since I was there I would be really curious to know when that happened and to who?

[Mokken]

+1 subscribed

[ChuckS]

A keener eye towards Parliamentary procedure is probably in order given that one BoD member quotes here he was told by the President to "shut the f up." Don't recall that in Robert's Rules of Order.

Since I was there I would be really curious to know when that happened and to who?

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=142216&view=findpost&p=1598391

[SteveU]

Why change anything?

Leave production because it's fun, good for 9mm, and add another division called "Box Stock"

Change the "intent" station for production to be what it is. A popular division where minor doesn't matter, and limited modifications are allowed as specified.

That way you don't add by subtracting. Easy peasy.

Box Stock can be this Holy Grail introductory division where everyone can compete until they modify their gun into another division.

[Chuck Anderson]

A keener eye towards Parliamentary procedure is probably in order given that one BoD member quotes here he was told by the President to "shut the f up." Don't recall that in Robert's Rules of Order.

Since I was there I would be really curious to know when that happened and to who?

I was. There were three conversations going on at once. I was telling Dave that the price of $20 he told the BOD for the NRA trigger pull kit was just for a weight. The actual price was $120 for anything usable. Mike told me to shut the f*#k up. I remember it very well.

[JThompson]

Here's something that occurred to as I was chewing over this thread. This rule might actually do the reverse of what is intended. Let me float this out there. At the local level we all know that most of this stuff is academic, we have neither the staff or time to go around measuring trigger pulls, weighing rounds and the like. Furthermore, most of the new people coming in will not go to a Nat in their first couple of years. These are the people you want to retain. They are local shooters....

So we pass this rule that says you have to have a 3lb trigger and most guys adhere to the new rule, but some will not, especially those that never shoot majors. They will be happy to smile and say, "whatever." So now you have a group of people that are doing the right thing and those that are not. This creates mistrust in that people will "feel" that others may not be legal and that creates dissension and further alienates people from our sport. So what do we do at the local level, do we have a deal like racing where you can put up a match fee and have a guys gun tore down and inspected? Ya, that will make for warm fuzzy feeling out there...

I can tell you this, for the hours I put in on the range and help with this stuff I will not be taking a trigger gauge to every gun before local match.

Now you have one group calling the other cheaters and you have exacerbated the issue to the point you will lose more than you ever did because someone chose to throw more money at their gun.

You may or may not agree here, but one thing is clear and that is the big picture is not always as clear as it may seem at first glance, or even the 500th.

JT

Edited December 26, 2011 by JThompson