USPSA BOD Meeting

[MarkCO]

That is NOT a reply from the Section Co-ordinator or an Area Director.... it is a response from a MEMBER of USPSA in the Eastern Colorado Section.

YES!!! ECO Section means "Eastern Colorado Section." NOT Area 2 Director.

[smokshwn]

The arrogance to tell someone that regardless of circumstances they are negligent reminds me immensely of someone (you) arbitrarily saying that 3 pounds is OK for carry, but 2.75 is not.

For the record, I never stated 3lbs was OK; just that the prevailing thought is that below 3lbs is too light for carry.

Rob, you can add a second LEO to Gary's statement. If someone wants to carry a 2.5 lb trigger that's their own business.

Ok, but show me a major (or even minor) manufacturer selling box-stock guns with sub 3lb triggers suitable for carry. The standard stated "stock or nearly-stock guns can compete on a relatively level playing field". If my understanding that no manufacturer sells "stock" guns with sub 3lb triggers for carry, and getting one to that level is something people commonly spend over $100 for, then it's not what one would call "nearly stock".

Simply put, carry guns are not sold with 2.5lb triggers and once a stock gun is modified to have one, it is no longer "nearly stock".

I asked him if it was an otherwise clean shoot, what did the trigger matter.

Therein lies both the question and the answer. If it's a clean shoot it's irrelevant. The prevailing thought among many (though obviously not all) is that light triggers increase the risk of an unintentional or premature shot. I suspect that some of those involved in a rather embarrassing incident involving discharging an AR15 through the neck of a proned out and compliant subject senior citizen at a raid one town over from me might agree.

This particular issue is a distraction. While the "not suitable for carry" in the 3/7/2009 document explains the motivation for at least one BOD vote, it is not a mandate that said position or policy cannot be altered.

So Rob, I suspect those saddled with a heavy "suitable for carry" trigger pull involved in rather embarassing incident involving a missed hostage taker shot resulting in a dead hostage one town over might disagree with you.

Your stance is one that continues to focus on only the trigger pull yet ignores hundreds of other factors involved in a lethal force scenario. The one certain thing we have learned from the myriad trigger solutions to AD's in the LE arena is they are an incredibly poor solution. That might be due to the fact that regardless of the weight of trigger pull, it cannot compensate for a lack of skillset and judgement.

[beltjones]

Voight's response to my email

Hello Jeremy

I appreciate your message and will share it with the entire BOD.

The BOD has not wanted to place additional restriction on Production, but some competitor actions have mandated these additional restrictions.

There should be further changes to Production division that will reduce some of the technical inspection necessary now.

Production division was created to allow mainstream firearms and manufacturers to compete in USPSA.

Production division was designed for factory pistols with minimal modifications, not for highly modified pistols.

The trigger weight restriction has been discussed for many years as a way to inspect Production pistols quickly and consistently.

Seems his mind is made up.

Once again, then why did they allow so many modifications? Any major modification that people have made is only because someone at USPSA said it was ok.

If they didn't want stippling, Sevigny Speedways, sight milling, and so on why on earth did they approve them?

[Gary Stevens]

I really do not want to see this piecemeal approach to production. We have this trigger pull issue, we have the subsequent vote to continue to review and evaluate production to see if it stays true to its intent.

As a shooter, I am kind of like a businessman who must make decisions based on knowing there is stability in rules, law, taxation, etc.

How can I make a solid decision about production when I am already being told that it will continue to be tweaked and I go through this roller coaster every few years? I love the division, absolutely love the mental and physical challenge of it. I am not so adamant that I would stop shooting if things changed, but I want to know that what I use now will be good 2-5-7 years down the road or I want to know it won't and how/why what will be.

Either start over or freeze it as it is. No additional mods, no changing what you already have done. Accept that it has become a hybrid or kill your baby and try to make a new one.

One of the things we tried to get in our rulebook was stability. Statements such as "not at this time" lead to instability not stability. The trigger issue has been voted down at least once, if not twice. Is it going to be USPSA policy that if you lose this time to just keep making votes until we get a BOD make up that will go against previous votes.

How can the membership ever feel confident that anything will not be changed on a whim? There was no reason to institute this rule change, except some felt that that is the way it should be. Not safety, not a tidal wave of protest from the membership, simply that a majority felt that was the way they wanted it. No other reason. It is legal, but IMO it is not right.

I hate to feel this way, but I am glad that in 5 more days I won't have to fight these battles.

[atbarr]

I hate to feel this way, but I am glad that in 5 more days I won't have to fight these battles.

Gary, you have done us Proud!

[atbarr]

I hate to feel this way, but I am glad that in 5 more days I won't have to fight these battles.

Gary, you have done us Proud!

Done - Did, whatever.

[driver8M3]

Simply put, carry guns are not sold with 2.5lb triggers and once a stock gun is modified to have one, it is no longer "nearly stock".

so what? why is trigger work such a sticking point for you strict out-of-the-box advocates? considering the list of things the BOD and amidon have expressly allowed over the years, this obsession with trigger work is almost comical. i could probably spend close to a thousand dollars legally replacing parts on or modifying a $400 glock...and you're ok with all that. but a 2.9 lb trigger pull is somehow destroying the division.

[bbbean]

Ok, but show me a major (or even minor) manufacturer selling box-stock guns with sub 3lb triggers suitable for carry. The standard stated "stock or nearly-stock guns can compete on a relatively level playing field". If my understanding that no manufacturer sells "stock" guns with sub 3lb triggers for carry, and getting one to that level is something people commonly spend over $100 for, then it's not what one would call "nearly stock".

"Box stock" is a flawed concept.

FWIW, the NYPD considers 7.5 lbs too light for trained officers to use on duty, and insists on a 12+ lb trigger pull (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-12-12/news/30509585_1_pistol-discharges-nypd-brass-kahr-arms). Should we re-define production accordingly?

[atbarr]

Ok, but show me a major (or even minor) manufacturer selling box-stock guns with sub 3lb triggers suitable for carry. The standard stated "stock or nearly-stock guns can compete on a relatively level playing field". If my understanding that no manufacturer sells "stock" guns with sub 3lb triggers for carry, and getting one to that level is something people commonly spend over $100 for, then it's not what one would call "nearly stock".

"Box stock" is a flawed concept.

FWIW, the NYPD considers 7.5 lbs too light for trained officers to use on duty, and insists on a 12+ lb trigger pull (http://articles.nyda...brass-kahr-arms). Should we re-define production accordingly?

You can damn bet, those rule makers are NOT Cops on the street!

[pjb45]

The President and BOD should support the wishes of the membership, not dictate policy to the membership.

The BOD should have exercised its responsibility to address their respective memberships and elicit their comments and desire.

Quite frankly, the collective wisdom of the President and BOD does not exceed that of the membership.

[Ray_Z]

Has anyone heard of Production Division referred to as the "right out of the box" division? We have many new members because they wanted to shoot our matches but couldn't afford the bucks for a limited or open gun. The way I look at it production class put some of the practical back into practical pistol.

[beltjones]

I think we've hit on some really meaningful things in this thread. The idea of publishing an agenda prior to BoD meetings is a good one. A clearly defined process for rule changes is a good one. Having Section Coordinators email their members about important updates is a good idea as well. It all comes down to running the sport in a more professional manner.

I would like to add to that the following: How about a little due diligence and a little data to support the need for rule changes. If a demonstrable safety concern exists I'm sure the members will be more willing to support changes to the rules. Likewise if USPSA's partners organizations (sponsors, range owners, media outlets, etc) have a compelling reason for a change that would be interesting to know as well. Finally, if data exists that a certain number of new shooters will be more likely to join (without sacrificing existing members) that would be helpful as well. This is the way good decisions are made, and I hope the next BoD (and the volunteer assistance they will need from other members) will go through the rigor when it comes to introducing new rules that our sport deserves.

[Loves2Shoot]

Rob one of the big problems, as I see it, with your "suitable for carry" falls into the beauty is in the eye of the beholder area. What you feel is not suitable, I might well feel that it is. As I posted much earlier, I have not seen a Production gun used that I would not be able to carry or would hesitate to carry.

Yea, Rob's opinion of suitable doesn't match a lot of people's opinion who actually carry guns that HE doesn't consider suitable.

Since factory custom shops like Springfield do sell lots of customized guns to customers that are "out of the box" with the upgrades currently legal for USPSA Production, there is zero chance that RO's will know if the gun came that way or if it was upgraded by an independent shop unless the have very specific knowledge.

Do you want to start a Production arms race? Make the custom shop like SA the ONLY ones who can make the modifications and watch the prices rise. I know they have done enough XD/XDM's with trigger jobs to make the quantity requirements.

This might be why NROI said internal mods that aren't prohibited are allowed, as there is no way for an RO to know how or where modifications were made.

[justaute]

The javelin I threw in college was not quite "box-stock" in that I re-wrapped the handle part of it, but NCAA did approve my modification. The javelin, as a whole, did meet the various criteria set by the NCAA Track & Field rules committee. I tried to use that javelin as a CCW, but I had a difficult time concealing it. Also, I noticed my javelin looked a lot different from the ones I saw on the History channel. I think the modern Olympic games have modified this ancient weapon -- though still can be used as one in a "Practical" application -- to be a sporting event instrument.

:devil:

[Gatekeeper]

Motion: Production and Single Stack Appendix will have the following added: Each magazine must be contained individually within the magazine pouch. Magazines may not be retained through magnetic means. Effective January 1, 2013

Moved: A4 Seconded A5 Passed

Another rule change question from the meeting. "Must be contained individually" does that mean that the mag dispensers like the SLMC 7 single stack mag holder will be illegal?

Don't use one myself but have seen a couple guys using 'em at local matches

[Loves2Shoot]

I want someone pro "out of the box" point of view to address the fact that a out of the box Glock and out of the box factory custom CZ, Sphinx, XD ect are not very close in handling or performance, but you want them in the same division for the simple fact they are out of the box.

Now under the current rules, you can take a $300 trade in Glock, and do basic trigger, sight and grip work and now you can be on level ground with the ultra expensive "out of the box guns." For a simple guy like me, that made sense. The current BOD ensured there WILL BE a perceived "arms race," (the thing they stated they are looking to "fix") if they MUST compete with the stock gun, when there are some super expensive alternative stock guns that they can not afford.

[JThompson]

The first e-mail I got back from the ECO section...

"I support the 3# minimum for the Production class, as well as the individual mag holders and no magnetic holders.... Keep the production class a production class."

Interesting.... if his constituents feel that way then I support the decision 1000%, but if they do not, you need to leave your personal opinions at the meeting room door. Being an electd official it is not what you thinkk is not the point, Your job is to vote the way of your people.

Best,'

JT

That was just a response from a local shooter to an email I sent the ECO section letting them know there were some rules votes with a link to the minutes and a recomendation to let the Area 2 Director know what they wanted with the ADs USPSA e-mail address. Nothing more.

Yes, I find it disturbing when I hear, I feel or I want or I think... this is not the point, you are there for us not for you. If you can't deal with that then I submit you should make way for someone who is able to be vote for their Area.

I'm not on the BOD, so if directed at me, misplaced. If directed at the A2 Director, also misplaced. Chris has been very candid in his communications to me directly and here on BEnos as well. I have the utmost confidence that he will be represetning his constituents wishes.

No buddy.... just a general statement not even directed at any specific AD.

JT

Edited December 27, 2011 by JThompson

[Nik Habicht]

Rob one of the big problems, as I see it, with your "suitable for carry" falls into the beauty is in the eye of the beholder area. What you feel is not suitable, I might well feel that it is. As I posted much earlier, I have not seen a Production gun used that I would not be able to carry or would hesitate to carry.

If you're telling me that a 2.5lb trigger is fine on a carry gun, your the first LE professional to tell me so.

In any case, it's going to be hard to convince me that a trigger under 3lbs is generally "suitable for carry", but I am of an open mind on making an alteration to the "suitable for carry" requirement.

Rob,

when it comes to trigger pull weight I've talked to multiple attorneys -- some have echoed Massad Ayoob (modify a carry gun at your won peril), others have dismissed his assertions. While my "specific for carry guns" are set with triggers heavier than 3 lbs (and other options like night sights, flashlights, lasers), I wouldn't feel uncomfortable carrying one of my game guns, if it was all that was available.....

I have no idea what the trigger pulls measure for any of my game guns.....

Suitable for carry, as far as I'm concerned, is the gun I'm carrying at the time -- and that is typically dictated by situation and attire....

[Loves2Shoot]

Nik,

Actually Mas backed away from that stance when confronted with informed arguments. The thread is over on XDTalk and he basically said there is zero case law supporting that assertion that he previously made, but what really mattered is the gun was safe and would not go off accidentally.

[Nik Habicht]

Nik,

Actually Mas backed away from that stance when confronted with informed arguments. The thread is over on XDTalk and he basically said there is zero case law supporting that assertion that he previously made, but what really mattered is the gun was safe and would not go off accidentally.

Must have happened sometime after I stopped reading gun magazines regularly, about ten years ago.....

Glad to hear it....

[JKSNIPER]

Rob,

Agree with you 100% on your opinion on trigger weight for carry guns and base it on 25+ years LE experience of which about 20 of those was with ESU.

Gary....I don't think that Rob's saying YOU couldn't carry it safely but that a weapon like it shouldn't be for everyone and most depts now have policies that mandate "one gun for everyone".

Our dept. had a guy who UNDER STRESS accidentally killed someone he was arresting in a parking lot of a major local shopping mall years ago.

Bad guy was unarmed and struggling with an officer on the ground who had taken his weapon out of the holster and now was fighting with the B.G. and trying to maintain control of his weapon at the same time and he had an A.D.

Without dissecting the reasons (yes finger in trigger etc) PERHAPS with a heavier trigger pull the incident in question would not have happened...maybe it would have happened anyway but the investigation cited the lightweight trigger pull as a direct contributing factor.

USPSA is a GAME as most guys here would acknowledge played under strictly controlled and monitored conditions and does NOT mirror in any way shape or form what happens on the street....nor should it.

You guys have to realize that most cops nowadays are NOT "gun guys". They go to the range when they're told to, shoot the requisite # of rounds, score a qualifying score and then clean (as fast as they can) their firearm and go home to pursue pastimes that they DO care about.

Not how I operated and not the way I think it should be but when I'm king of the world I can change that.

Until then we must accept it as it is in reality and not what we all wish for.

Giving a guy like I described a light trigger pull weapon as his duty weapon is an accident waiting to happen.

I hated the NY Trigger in my Glock like other gun guys but it was mandated that we carry it that way.

I learned to cope with it and I still have it in my Model 17.

JK

[Shadowrider]

.....snipped

This of course brings us the fundamental question: "Should USPSA remove "carry suitability" from the stated goal for a production gun, and replace it with something like "minimal modifications", or "Suitable for carry with the exception of trigger pull"?

I don't believe it is reasonable to argue that a gun with a 2.5lb trigger job is a "nearly stock gun suitable for carry purposes" and, as such, conclude a 3lb limit is absolutely consistent with this stated goal - therefore, if a change is needed, the goal should be modified.

"Should USPSA remove "carry suitability"?

My personal belief is that they should. It's too broad of a statement and over time it has aided in the degradation the quality of firearms produced. Let me explain.

Just for the sake of discussion let's compare a time period of 1940 to 1980. What was the primary carry gun used by law enforcement? It was a double action revolver, S&W and Colt for the most part. And this revolver had a single action trigger of what? 2.5lbs? How many police officers carried a S&W K frame that they probably had tuned a bit and had this capability? Would it be considered unsuitable for carry? The DA trigger by today's standard had it covered in spades, but the gun still had the capability for a sub 3 lb trigger if the officer wanted to use it. (The 3 lb number isn't germain to my point but it's handy to use)

Recently NYPD has instructed it's officers to stop carrying the Kahr K9 as an off-duty gun because the “light” trigger is leading to officers having NDs while off duty. I'm sure you know how utterly ludicrous this is. Instead of addressing admitted crappy officer training they look to equipment.

My point is that over time we have morphed into such a litigious society that the gun manufacturers are just flat afraid to produce and sell quality that was once normal and expected. We have politically correct, agenda driven, large city PDs, plus corporate and trial attorneys defining what is "suitable for carry". I just hate to see USPSA fall in line with this mentality. I saw a post early on in the thread that referenced this idea and it's been bugging me since.

[Tim/GA]

Sorry guys, it is late and I read through the first 4 pages before realizing that there were 20 more! Can anyone tell me if the whole issue about applying this at the local level matches just does not make sense? I am the local club president and MD (and shoot Prod.) and have no idea how I would implement this rule. Leaving aside the cost of adding another piece of equipment and how to use it- where am I supposed to do this? I have 5 bays (and since we have to shut down the entire range we cannot set up until match morning) and one short one for a safe area. I do not have anyplace else to set up for testing the guns. Much less the time or people to do it. And as far as I can see there is NO level one exemption. Even if there was, would it be fair to not give club members a chance to check out their gear before going to a large (and expensive) match? Any thought about the majority of the matches out there- local level 1?

[ihatepickles]

And as far as I can see there is NO level one exemption.

Tim, I've read the whole thread and your question is a fresh one. Thanks for commenting.

[shootingchef]

Sorry guys, it is late and I read through the first 4 pages before realizing that there were 20 more! Can anyone tell me if the whole issue about applying this at the local level matches just does not make sense? I am the local club president and MD (and shoot Prod.) and have no idea how I would implement this rule. Leaving aside the cost of adding another piece of equipment and how to use it- where am I supposed to do this? I have 5 bays (and since we have to shut down the entire range we cannot set up until match morning) and one short one for a safe area. I do not have anyplace else to set up for testing the guns. Much less the time or people to do it. And as far as I can see there is NO level one exemption. Even if there was, would it be fair to not give club members a chance to check out their gear before going to a large (and expensive) match? Any thought about the majority of the matches out there- local level 1?

You have a year to do one of several options:

#1 wait and see what the BOD does at the next meeting, hoping(ahem) that they see the light, which I think is doubtful.

#2 Go outlaw and use USPSA targets and rules except that one pesky little one about trigger weight.

#3 Quickly generate and build a foolproof, safe way to test the trigger weight of every production gun.

#4 Call all Production shooters Limited 10 shooters.

And for those who think that having a new President will change this direction, remember he voted in favor of this rule and gave his explanation. It is up to the shooter to "prove" that his gun is legal not the other way around. That's an extra piece of equipment you need to buy and have in your range bag, just in case the RO thinks your trigger is a little light.