USPSA BOD Meeting

[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.

You will get nowhere using logic

My mistake.

[Supermoto]

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...

No different then people not making power factor at local matches. If people need to do that to help them do better, they are only cheating themselves.

[Strick]

Production is very often the most popular division at many matches I attend.

Did I ask the question "do you want a 3# trigger pull limit? No I did not, but know that I had many discussions that trigger work needed to be controlled in production. So I did feel that I was voting with information and with Handgun rules on the agenda, was not surprised that it came up. So far I have received 1 e-mail asking about this vote.

Sherwyn

But we are being told the rule was passed so that new shooters will flock to USPSA and populate the PRod division. Seems by your above statement that the rule was not needed to achieve that goal. Production shooters, that by your admission are the majority at your matches, didn't let the fact that one shooters trigger may be lighter than their's stop them from competing.

[JThompson]

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...

No different then people not making power factor at local matches. If people need to do that to help them do better, they are only cheating themselves.

I agree 100% and that is a point of dissension as well... Who hasn't discussed this with another shooter when hearing a mouse fart on the range? Why add another such point of contention?

JT

Edited December 26, 2011 by JThompson

[two shoes]

"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.

I am not feeling "called out" but do feel a desire to respond. I do not care what your trigger is, so long as it does not pose a safety risk to those around you. I can make my trigger sub 3# with not much money and little work on my part. I will spend my efforts on practice, a book or 2 and ammo. If I put in the effort, time and proper training, I'll beat you at some point. Maybe not all the time, maybe only once, and the only thing that holds me back is me, not my gun, my ammo or my equipment, within my division and classification. This last match I did great on the classifier, my best ever. It wasn't because of my setup, it hasn't changed. Something 'clicked' for me on that stage. I wish I could tell you the entire day was like that, but it wasn't and it had nothing to with my trigger either way.

[Flexmoney]

...

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.

That is spot on, from my perspective. I can't find a nicer way of putting it.

[JThompson]

"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.

I am not feeling "called out" but do feel a desire to respond. I do not care what your trigger is, so long as it does not pose a safety risk to those around you. I can make my trigger sub 3# with not much money and little work on my part. I will spend my efforts on practice, a book or 2 and ammo. If I put in the effort, time and proper training, I'll beat you at some point. Maybe not all the time, maybe only once, and the only thing that holds me back is me, not my gun, my ammo or my equipment, within my division and classification. This last match I did great on the classifier, my best ever. It wasn't because of my setup, it hasn't changed. Something 'clicked' for me on that stage. I wish I could tell you the entire day was like that, but it wasn't and it had nothing to with my trigger either way.

That's a good point and one that most of us totally agree with. In fact, I shoot open and have been thinking about taking my trigger back to around 3lbs from 1.5lbs. I have a hunch that is will be more accurate on those far targets where more prep is needed. The way it is now you really have to watch it or you will let one go before properly prepping the trigger.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

I was brought into the sport in May of 2001, by folks with some experience -- Dave Olhasso, Bucky Pollard, Dave Marques and Jim Norman among them. They all had experience competing at the Area and National level, and had served as match directors. I didn't get a sense from them that "the intent of production is to be close to box stock" was well communicated. Everyone at the time was discussing whether a proposed modification would be legal.....

Really, if the board at the time thought that they could flip that division 180 degrees from USPSA normal -- that probably wasn't too well thought out, if y'all thought those phrases in the rule book would get the job done. My communications classes taught me that it is incumbent upon the sender to ensure that his message is properly delivered and understood. So it's all well and fine to insist that the the board made it clear at the time, but the reality has proven something different, no?

I don't think you knew your customers/members all that well......

[Nik Habicht]

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...

No different then people not making power factor at local matches. If people need to do that to help them do better, they are only cheating themselves.

I agree 100% and that is a point of dissension as well... Who hasn't discussed this with another shooter when hearing a mouse fart on the range? Why add another such point of contention?

JT

We have actually run surprise chrono at matches at CJ and Old Bridge in recent years.......

.....and CJ decided to leave the chrono section on their master scoresheet, which still begets questions during sign-up. (Are we running a chrono today? Nope, not today, but possibly next month.)

Although the results were interesting: The only folks who had trouble making minor were shooting factory 9mm ammo out of short-barreled (3.5-4") carry guns....

So not as much cheating going on as we might have thought....

[JKSNIPER]

Strick...and guys...I can't prove a negative...meaning that I can't prove to you statistically that there are people staying away from USPSA matches because of production becoming (in anthers words) a "Race division" but I KNOW theres some guys/gals who are intimidated and have a perception (whether its correct or not) that they can't compete in USPSA or IPSC matches because their equipment wouldn't be "competitive" enough.

I HAVE listened to guys at my old job say they wouldn't come to a match because of that reason.

BUT I also agree with a prior poster (Flex?) who said something to the effect that people use that "reason" as an excuse.

I agree with that statement but NOT all of them are using it as an excuse...some truly believe it.

I had a guy who is and was at the time a super gun guy. ALways at the range shooting and has some skills but NEVER had competed before.

HE did say it to me then I "dragged" him out to a match and he watched one C.O.F. and the guys shooting it....I could almost see the bubble over his head saying "If THAT guy can do this then I damm sure can do this."

He wound up paying the entry fee and shooting in it.

Now he calls me to see if I'm going to be shooting in an upcoming match.

I agree with guys being upset over a rule change that then takes the hundreds if not thousands of $ and throws them out the window after they have competed in that division for X # of years.

But I also feel that some of these things guys do to their weapons are unnecessary but thats one man's opinion for another thread.

I agree with guys who have stated that If the BOD truly intended this division to be out of the box then they should have specified that right from the start.

But I also agree with the BOD people who basically have felt that they were elected to represent their particular area.

In a climate where you get around 20% participation in any election should they have had to ask everyone their opinion prior to voting on what seems to have been an issue that was raised prior to this meeting?

WHo would reply? 20% of their constituents?

Then they make a change and some guy shows up to a match with stuff thats now...crap and is pissed that no one asked him his opinion.

I had a guy once in a hockey league DEMAND I change the games schedule to accommodate his schedule.

When I informed him I had polled the players prior to this and the majority wanted the current schedule he then said "Well if it doesn't change then I won't play." Without missing a beat I said "Thats too bad...we could have used you...well maybe next season they'll vote for your scheduling."

He wound up paying and playing the games he could and admitted about halfway through the season that he just threw his hissy fit to see if he could get it his way.

I wanted to punch him in the nose.

Seems to me that a simple rule at the beginning of this division like "firearms in Production division have to be used in their original configuration with NO modifications allowed" would have prevented a lot of heartache and now headaches.

Now with the horse out of the barn with guys having spent a lot of $ on trigger lightening already perhaps the BOD should reconsider their decision.

But one director here said he had received ONE e-mail about this issue from his area people....maybe not a lot of people are concerned about this issue.

Maybe after the holidays are over....

JK

[Gary Stevens]

I believe a true "Box Stock" Division would be a nightmare to enforce. What mortal among us can look at every part in every gun and tell with authority that it is truly box stock?

[chemepharmd]

What bothers me is that a shooter who has no intent to push or break any rules might be told his gun is no longer legal in Production because the drop-in trigger kit, which was listed as "USPSA Production Legal" when he purchased it, is no longer allowed. I've recommended production-legal trigger kits to several new shooters over the past couple of years, and this rule would make me look/feel like the bad guy for recommending something to new shooters that might soon be outlawed.

[Strick]

But one director here said he had received ONE e-mail about this issue from his area people....maybe not a lot of people are concerned about this issue.

Maybe after the holidays are over....

JK

Do you think that would change if this was actually announced to every USPSA member? The only reason we knew about it here is that a member here was also at the meeting where the vote happened. Maybe USPSA should send out a mass email to every member to inform them of a pretty drastic change in the rules. I wounder if more feedback would be given

[Chills1994]

jksniper wrote:

...I had a guy once in a hockey league DEMAND I change the games schedule to accommodate his schedule.

When I informed him I had polled the players prior to this and the majority wanted the current schedule he then said "Well if it doesn't change then I won't play." Without missing a beat I said "Thats too bad...we could have used you...well maybe next season they'll vote for your scheduling."

He wound up paying and playing the games he could and admitted about halfway through the season that he just threw his hissy fit to see if he could get it his way.

I wanted to punch him in the nose....

I have several different responses running through my head, probably none of them suitable of posting on this forum, publicly.

[Chills1994]

But one director here said he had received ONE e-mail about this issue from his area people....maybe not a lot of people are concerned about this issue.

Maybe after the holidays are over....

JK

Do you think that would change if this was actually announced to every USPSA member? The only reason we knew about it here is that a member here was also at the meeting where the vote happened. Maybe USPSA should send out a mass email to every member to inform them of a pretty drastic change in the rules. I wounder if more feedback would be given

and maybe provide a link to a poll survey here on this forum or the USPSA forum (if it is even still around since the website changed).

Have you thought about running for office?

That just makes too much sense.

[MarkCO]

But one director here said he had received ONE e-mail about this issue from his area people....maybe not a lot of people are concerned about this issue.

We have 2 matches in the ECO almost every weekend, we have at least 7MDs and probably 150 "regular" competitors and maybe 50 or so who shoot a few a year. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut no more than 10 have even read this thread. There are maybe 20 or so total that are even members here on Enos.

Maybe I have been remiss, but I am going to plan to inform the shooters at the matches I run what is happening on the local and national level at the shooters meetings. Maybe that is part of the disconnect. I guess based on the way I was introduced to the sport by NickJ and MikeO, the national implication stuff was conveyed by the MD. Have we maybe become too entrenched by setting up, saying "Stay Safe" and then doing walk-throughs?

I'll keep reading the posts on the thread, but I think it was an overall benefit what happened less than a month ago. It illustrated some pitfalls, elicited a good discussion (for the most part) and shone light on several areas that can be improved upon w.r.t. communication at all levels. I now have some answers on how I can be part of the solution.

[de03x7]

I believe a true "Box Stock" Division would be a nightmare to enforce. What mortal among us can look at every part in every gun and tell with authority that it is truly box stock?

It would not be a nightmare at all. Make it a division for new shooters to start in with no national championship, no area championship and only award at a local match at the director’s discretion. There would be no need for a classification system as shooters in this division would be competing with other new shooters getting their feet wet. Their scores could be included with the unofficial overall results and when they feel that they are competitive and want to move to a recognized division they could. Being that it would be “Box Stock” shooters could load their magazines to capacity as they came from the box so the people who only have 2 or 3 magazines wouldn’t have to compete in limited division to have enough ammo to complete the course. They wouldn’t have to compete in production against those dreaded sub 3# triggers. Everyone could be scored major so they wouldn’t have the minor scoring disadvantage. This division is just a place for new shooters after all so experienced shooters shouldn’t have any problem with any of this. It looks to me like a win-win for everybody. USPSA would still get their buck fifty shooter fee, the local club still gets their match fee and the new shooter competes against other new shooters yet they can see how they stack up with the others. No one would stay here long but it would give them a chance to learn the rules of the game and decide where they would like to play.

[Gary Stevens]

I believe a true "Box Stock" Division would be a nightmare to enforce. What mortal among us can look at every part in every gun and tell with authority that it is truly box stock?

It would not be a nightmare at all. Make it a division for new shooters to start in with no national championship, no area championship and only award at a local match at the director’s discretion. There would be no need for a classification system as shooters in this division would be competing with other new shooters getting their feet wet. Their scores could be included with the unofficial overall results and when they feel that they are competitive and want to move to a recognized division they could. Being that it would be “Box Stock” shooters could load their magazines to capacity as they came from the box so the people who only have 2 or 3 magazines wouldn’t have to compete in limited division to have enough ammo to complete the course. They wouldn’t have to compete in production against those dreaded sub 3# triggers. Everyone could be scored major so they wouldn’t have the minor scoring disadvantage. This division is just a place for new shooters after all so experienced shooters shouldn’t have any problem with any of this. It looks to me like a win-win for everybody. USPSA would still get their buck fifty shooter fee, the local club still gets their match fee and the new shooter competes against other new shooters yet they can see how they stack up with the others. No one would stay here long but it would give them a chance to learn the rules of the game and decide where they would like to play.

How would you know their guns were "box stock"? The reason they would be at a USPSA match would be to compete or at least to learn how to compete. Egos being what they are, would there not still be bragging rights among the group and a reason to seek an advantage?

[bgary]

Again, I don't disagree that it was poorly communicated. It took place before any of the current- and former-Board members in this discussion were involved in the Board, in fact part of the reason I decided to run for the Board was because I thought some of the decisions were poorly formed.

As I said before, though, I think this was a "fail" on the part of the Board, but I don't think it was entirely the Board's fault. I think part of the issue is - and always has been - our "culture" of looking for creative ways to "game a stage". The "fail" of Production has not been solely about rules, it has been about convincing the US shooter that *these* rules are different, there are no angles, treat them as black-and-white as written.

Case in point?

I was brought into the sport in May of 2001, by folks with some experience -- Dave Olhasso, Bucky Pollard, Dave Marques and Jim Norman among them. They all had experience competing at the Area and National level, and had served as match directors. I didn't get a sense from them that "the intent of production is to be close to box stock" was well communicated. Everyone at the time was discussing whether a proposed modification would be legal.....

If the red is true, it means that shooters "got" the communication that modifications were limited, and that they were already looking for the angles.

NTTAWWT, but... it illustrates the issue. For at least 11 years, Board members have thought that "modifications are strictly limited" was a clear way of saying exactly that, and for at least 11 years, USPSA members have been looking for hidden loopholes in that statement. So it goes.

[Pat Miles]

I have sent a mass email to the members of my club, Rio Grande Practical Shooting Club, regarding this change of rules. I also directed them to the Area 2 website where they could find the AD's contact info. Now it's up to them to respond or not.

That being said, with just that one action I have done more than USPSA has done to inform it's members.

Pat

[Henry625]

I am going to shoot "Production" with all the after market parts I have added till I am told at some match somewhere that it is illegal and I am DQ'd from the match. At that moment I will have a decision to make,....comply or shoot ICORE only, and just for the record, I like shooting my revolver more,....oh yeah, it's an eight shot with a dot, so it's not legal in USPSA.

[Chills1994]

^^^ you won't get DQ'ed, you'll just get bumped to open instead.

[MarkCO]

I have sent a mass email to the members of my club, Rio Grande Practical Shooting Club, regarding this change of rules. I also directed them to the Area 2 website where they could find the AD's contact info. Now it's up to them to respond or not.

That being said, with just that one action I have done more than USPSA has done to inform it's members.

Pat

Oh Crap Pat, I did the same thing. Chris is going to be busy! FWIW, I was impressed with his answers and candor, he will do the right thing for us.

[vluc]

I have sent a mass email to the members of my club, Rio Grande Practical Shooting Club, regarding this change of rules. I also directed them to the Area 2 website where they could find the AD's contact info. Now it's up to them to respond or not.

That being said, with just that one action I have done more than USPSA has done to inform it's members.

Pat

Oh Crap Pat, I did the same thing. Chris is going to be busy! FWIW, I was impressed with his answers and candor, he will do the right thing for us.

Good job, both of you!

Western PA Section will be getting one out as well to all members whose email addresses we have - about 175 at last count.

[beltjones]

NTTAWWT, but... it illustrates the issue. For at least 11 years, Board members have thought that "modifications are strictly limited" was a clear way of saying exactly that, and for at least 11 years, USPSA members have been looking for hidden loopholes in that statement. So it goes.

Wait a second, you can't be making the argument that for 11 years the BoD has been silent on these issues, and that DNROI hasn't been culpable in the expansion of allowable modifications (oh, and that BoD couldn't have reigned in DNROI at any time...).

Shooters asked if they could stipple their grips. The answer came back YES.

Shooters asked if they could put an externally visible piece of plastic in the grips of their Glocks. The answer came back YES.

Shooters asked if they could put a hunk of epoxy into their magwells to create a "Sevigny Speedway" and the answer came back YES.

Most recently shooters asked if they could use different barrel lengths than what came with their CZs and the answer came back YES (with an update to the list of approved guns as well).

So can you really blame the competitors for pushing the envelope if, when they ask if something decidedly not "stock" is allowed, the answer is frequently yes? All it would have taken is a "No" from DNROI and / or the BoD and those issues wouldn't be issues at all.