USPSA BOD Meeting

[Chills1994]

So I've been lurking and reading a lot. I do not shoot production but have a question.

What happens to all the current classifiers? Is if fair that the 100% mark for the specific classifiers were maybe made with a gun and trigger that I'm not allowed to have? Although it may have not made a difference I wouldn think to be fair you have to get new standards for production classifiers.

Just my .02

You might be onto something there....

or you might not???

[Vlad]

I'm so divided on this issue .. on one hand I would have been ok with this rule if it was introduced 10 year ago on the other hand introducing now basically tells me the board has no idea idea what they are doing, and those are the softest kindest words I can think to use. It seems to me the current board has decided that they own the sport and the rules and that the shooters opinions on the subject are unimportant.

As a production shooter who has no idea what his trigger pull is but is fairly confident is far above the limit, it means I'm not shooting any major matches anymore. It is just not worth the money for the trip to find out some exotic measuring procedure, operated by some tiered RO/chronoman makes my gun no longer legal.

As a match director I'm simply not going to enforce it because I can't. I do not consider myself qualified to take this measurement on the variety of available trigger designs out there not am I turning away new shooters who have had triggers worked on long before they came to USPSA because some "wise" council decided they know better. If you want to yank my club affiliation over it, go right ahead. We all have to draw our lines somewhere and this is mine.

[smokshwn]

....since it is clear the BoD does not have the best interest it's membership at the forefront.

Tavis

I'm thinking that might be a little harsh. Do I believe that the board made a bad decision in a less than optimal manner? Yes.

Do I believe that any of the members didn't want to do what was best for the membership? No, and this thread is a pretty good indicator of that. None of the Board members who have posted here have said "It's over, get used to it." They've been engaging in discussion -- and I sincerely believe that when some of them express opinions either for or against, that they are doing it in part to have the conversation and to figure out what the membership thinks.....

I'll disagree on the harshness assessment. I don't take the initial quoted statement as a personal judgement as much as I read it as a pragmatic interpretation of the result of the vote.

While I understand how the vote went down and my knowledge of the board members who voted yes does not lead me to believe there was any hint of malicious intent, there is still ample evidence that this does not serve the interest of production shooters.

Current Production shooters (even those at the local level) have voted with their time, participation, and money to prove their commitment to the organization. And while I can see some of the newer shooters with few mods to their guns, after 3 or 4 matches we start seeing sight and trigger changes, along with many other performance improvements. When the board voted to negate the improvements/investmenst of these existing members they certainly did not serve their best interest (intended or not).

[z40acp]

Some keep thinking Production should be a stock gun division. One of the troubles with a stock gun div. is it would be an equipment race. Whatever gun currently comes with the best trigger and sights would be the one everybody has to have. Plus it would shift even more advantage to the DA/SA guns. This is just my opinion but when I started shooting USPSA back in 95/ 96 around here it was rare to see anything but a 1911 style gun at the local matches. I think USPSA seen this and Production was the way to tap into the huge market of gun owners { which was swelling at the time } of the "other guns". It was never intended for stock or concealed carry, it was intended to introduce the game to the owners of the "other guns". Therefore helping USPSA become larger. And that it did. I think the theme of the other two huge threads earlier this month was Production is good the way it is, don't mess with it. I don't think anyone actually thought Prod. was going to be as popular as it is. Locally it has the largest turnout. And not just from new shooters, lots of us old guys bought "other guns" to play too. I have a stock M&P Pro9 and the trigger pull probably would not effect me. I think someone said 6 out of the top 10 shot DA/SA at the Nationals. I think this new rule might effect the top ten more than local matches. Just so I am clear, I am not in favor of this new change.

[Henry625]

I am going to say something as an example of questionable thinking by the USPSA authorities, here it goes;....Do you remember a few years ago when USPSA bought the Steel Challenge? There was alot of talk back and forth whether this was a good decision and also a spirited discussion of how it was handled. I personally know shooters that did not renew with USPSA because of that decision.

OK, it's a done deal I said, so let's go make lemonade out of the lemons. I personally like shooting steel and thought that maybe this would be the vehicle to have more steel matches closer to my area and maybe the Steel challenge would leave California and move to a more central location.

Fast forward to today, the Steel Challenge is no closer to me than it was years ago, in fact I do not know of an official Steel Challenge club in my state or surrounding states, so basically, who was helped by the decision to buy the Steel Challenge? Definitely not the general membership of the USPSA.

I use this example to illustrate what I would call a lack of input from the membership on decisions that are handed down from the authorities in charge.

This new rule, if made official, will cost the general membership who shoot "production" division wasted money due to upgrades and work that was put into their pistols previously and legally by the way, to compete in this division at the highest level.

If it was a chronic safety issue, I might understand it more. A 2-1/2lb. Glock trigger is no more unsafe than a 2-1/2lb. Open or Limited trigger, in fact, I have seen more AD's from these two divisions than any other. So what is the basis for this ruling? Like I said, if it's a safety issue and competitors are removing the safety plunger or the trigger safety, I can understand the concern, but because someone puts a spring kit in and polishes the trigger bar, what's the difference from any other division?

[LPatterson]

Chuck Anderson wrote:

...The magazine in the pocket came about because someone decided to try and bump a shooter to open because at ULSC he stowed his mag in his front pocket before clearing the gun. Not what the rule was ever intended to mean. The trapping thing...yeah.

Seriously?

You don't have to name names, but I gotta wonder who this RO was???

And if this was at a major match???

Seems like some RO went into either "range nazi" or "hall pass monitor" mode to me to come up with something like that.

That RO could have been me the way I read the rule at the time. I am part German so I guess you could call me a range nazi but expect one hell of a fight. The rule as I read it said behind the hip so if the pocket was in front of the hip did not that person violate the rule. As an RO I do not get to make rules I try to apply what I read in the rule book. If you step across a fault line to get a really easy shot at an array, is that 1 procedural penalty or 1 per shot fired? Dislike us but please don't call us names.

[Chills1994]

a slight thread tangent....

at one point I was thinking of putting on a major match of some sort at Sparta.

while doing my research on what all was involved, I had PM'ed/emailed a few section coordinators and guys who had MD'ed major matches.

What I got back from the SC's was that there was definitely a rift or chasm between upper management (aka the Area Directors and the BOD) and the middle management (the SC's).

To call some of the SC's I talked to jaded or cynical about the direction of USPSA HQ would be an understatement.

Maybe, in the future, going forward, if the BOD could get more involved with soliciting input from their SC's this gap between upper and middle management could get closed.

[Loves2Shoot]

Obviously, establishing a 3# minimum pull weight does nothing to help ensure that Production-legal guns are in anything like production condition, so what's the point? I'd like to see minimum pull weight as a means to encourage use of DAO and DA/SA pistols in Production, otherwise Production is little different from Single Stack/Minor. Let's combine SS, Production and L10 into a single division, 8+1/Major and 10+1/Minor, and create a new Production more like IPSC Production, where the guns are expected to be as produced.

1. So you want to take a stab at "as produced" comparing a Glock to a fancy International ultra expensive purpose built competition legal International Production division pistol?

2. Where do people who want to shot a 9mm minor play? I can do a lot of things to my L10 pistol I can't do in Production, and both SS and L10 can score major. I don't think a lot of folk understand how many people shoot Production because of ammo cost and the challenges of minor scoring. Shooting Production major is a WHOLE NEW GAME, as Production, where all shots score minor, forces you to be accurate because of the amount of penalty for non A zone hits.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Loves2Shoot

[Chills1994]

Chuck Anderson wrote:

...The magazine in the pocket came about because someone decided to try and bump a shooter to open because at ULSC he stowed his mag in his front pocket before clearing the gun. Not what the rule was ever intended to mean. The trapping thing...yeah.

Seriously?

You don't have to name names, but I gotta wonder who this RO was???

And if this was at a major match???

Seems like some RO went into either "range nazi" or "hall pass monitor" mode to me to come up with something like that.

That RO could have been me the way I read the rule at the time. I am part German so I guess you could call me a range nazi but expect one hell of a fight. The rule as I read it said behind the hip so if the pocket was in front of the hip did not that person violate the rule. As an RO I do not get to make rules I try to apply what I read in the rule book. If you step across a fault line to get a really easy shot at an array, is that 1 procedural penalty or 1 per shot fired? Dislike us but please don't call us names.

that's why I put it in quotation marks.

EDIT: Es tut mir leid!

Edited December 27, 2011 by Chills1994

[Chills1994]

LovestoShoot wrote:

Many of our gunsmith magazines, Vickers, Ayyoob, Weigand, Gunsmith guild, yada yada yada

just out of morbid curiosity....does anyone have the USPSA membership numbers for:

Vickers

Ayoob

and

Weigand

???

Just curious....

[vluc]

That mag issue came up months ago as a result of a listing in Front Sight (at work now with no access to it). At least I am aware of it from local matches and a major I worked.

A literal interpretation of the rules. Surely not the intent but that was how it was interpreted by many RO's, and the front sight comment reinforced it. Cannot start with magazines in front of the hipbone. Seems simple enough until a SS shooter comes to the line with a mag tucked in the front of his belt as his barney mag or in his hand.

See, such a simple wording, but with various ramifications that were never thought of, but of such a magnitude that a clarification had to be issued.

Like Lpatterson, I cautioned people about starting with a mag in hand or front until after that clarification.

This is why the notion of "intent" is so vague. When half of a group of RO's sees it one way and the other half the other way, intent takes a back seat to what exactly do you mean.

Edited December 27, 2011 by vluc

[Flexmoney]

As I previously mentioned, since we already had a policy statement, the vote was just a matter of implementing that policy, not a change of direction. It appears that many members either were not familiar with the formally published board position statement of March, 2009, or felt that statement was fine as long as we didn't actually use it to guide our decisions.

We should start by reviewing the goals of Production - accepting those premises if appropriate; altering them if necessary; and proceeding to implement rules that are congruent with the goals. In other words, change the goals if necessary - but don't handle the situation by choosing to ignore goals, or pretending they don't exist.

... did not meet with any objection until December 2011 when a majority of the board actually voted in a manner consistent with the formal policy statement regarding Production published over 2 1/2 years ago.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">

A very important point is that the policy in place specifically went out of it's way to say that there was NOT a trigger pull limit in Production. And, THAT policy has been run that way for a while now.

The notion that the membership should have saw this coming just doesn't hold water for me. And, having been at the meeting, it's my opinion that most of the members of the BOD didn't have that document/policy in the forefront of their mind either. (Rob, I believe you dug up the file for reference.)

In my opinion, the BOD didn't vote to be consistent with that policy. They actually, and specifically, voted against that policy...knowingly or not.

The policy, instead, served as a means to invoke a change at any time...since it had a back door clause in it.

[Flexmoney]

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".

1. Frankly, none of that interests me in the least. I bought my first Glock over 20yrs. ago (before Desert Storm). If I could have improved the trigger pull on that gun then, I would have. I didn't even hear about USPSA type shooting until a decade later...so that was not a factor.

2. Spending $100 dollars on a trigger job? Come on now...a trigger pull limit doesn't do anything to stop that !!! If anybody believes that it does...check your premise. All it does is move the parameters around. It is simply adjusting the margins.

3. The whole concept of this particular discussion point flies out the window when you look at it through Angus' CZ, no? Most of the shots here will take in a match will be sub-2lbs.

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.

Again...

What a bunch are missing, and I certainly didn't catch while at the BOD meeting, is that that same document set the standards already. It literally spells out that there will NOT be a trigger pull limit. So, I find it...ironic...that that document keeps getting weight in one are, but not so much in another.

[LPatterson]

Chuck Anderson wrote:

...The magazine in the pocket came about because someone decided to try and bump a shooter to open because at ULSC he stowed his mag in his front pocket before clearing the gun. Not what the rule was ever intended to mean. The trapping thing...yeah.

Seriously?

You don't have to name names, but I gotta wonder who this RO was???

And if this was at a major match???

Seems like some RO went into either "range nazi" or "hall pass monitor" mode to me to come up with something like that.

That RO could have been me the way I read the rule at the time. I am part German so I guess you could call me a range nazi but expect one hell of a fight. The rule as I read it said behind the hip so if the pocket was in front of the hip did not that person violate the rule. As an RO I do not get to make rules I try to apply what I read in the rule book. If you step across a fault line to get a really easy shot at an array, is that 1 procedural penalty or 1 per shot fired? Dislike us but please don't call us names.

that's why I put it in quotation marks.

EDIT: Es tut mir leid!

I said I was part German and I did spend 3 years there in the early 60's but I have no idea what your edited comment means. I guess I was kicked out of high school before the part of putting quotes around words means something other than reinforcing (quoting) what was written.

[Loves2Shoot]

NROI's response to asking about aftermarket parts was if it matches factory OEM spec is that it is good to go. That is why I don't get the whole issue that led us here, regardless of who sold it once SA made it and OEM part if it matches OEM it is legal.

[Chuck Anderson]

OK, it's a done deal I said, so let's go make lemonade out of the lemons. I personally like shooting steel and thought that maybe this would be the vehicle to have more steel matches closer to my area and maybe the Steel challenge would leave California and move to a more central location.

Dude, the Steel Challenge is coming to Frostproof in 2012. How much closer do you want it?

[spanky]

NROI's response to asking about aftermarket parts was if it matches factory OEM spec is that it is good to go. That is why I don't get the whole issue that led us here, regardless of who sold it once SA made it and OEM part if it matches OEM it is legal.

That was my interpretation as well.

[wgnoyes]

And let's beat on something else while we're at it:

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

Does that simply mean I can't stuff 2 magazines flat-side to flat-side in a mag pouch large enough to accommodate both?

Or does that mean I can't use a single belt accessory to hold 2 or more magazines?

Because if the latter, that declares illegal the old Davis-style leather double mag pouches I was using 25 years ago.

And if I have to ask that, it means that this can be interpreted 10 different ways by 10 different people and that's NOT what you need at a match.

[Chuck Anderson]

And let's beat on something else while we're at it:

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

Does that simply mean I can't stuff 2 magazines flat-side to flat-side in a mag pouch large enough to accommodate both?

Or does that mean I can't use a single belt accessory to hold 2 or more magazines?

Because if the latter, that declares illegal the old Davis-style leather double mag pouches I was using 25 years ago.

And if I have to ask that, it means that this can be interpreted 10 different ways by 10 different people and that's NOT what you need at a match.

It means the first. They must be contained individually in their own pouch. Not that the pouch can't contain multiple magazines.

[Chills1994]

Pictures added to the rule book would be nice....like this is NOT legal for Single Stack:

and then show some picture or pictures.

slight thread drift ahead....kinda like our long discussions about what is inside the box versus what is outside the box.

whewie...now that was a thread!

[XRe]

As one of the people who might have had to make a decision like that to start with, I'd like to know more. Since you were on the Super Squad, are you implying that someone on your squad was given a free pass from Production to Limited?

Leroy, I forget which Nationals it was (2007, maybe?), at the Limited/Production Nationals, a number of Production shooters had equipment that didn't meet the division requirements (for instance, one shooter I know had grip tape under their trigger guard). They were moved into Limited division.

I haven't shot a Nationals where Open and Production were on the same ticket in quite a while :-) I don't know of this happening at this past year's match at all...

[Henry625]

OK, it's a done deal I said, so let's go make lemonade out of the lemons. I personally like shooting steel and thought that maybe this would be the vehicle to have more steel matches closer to my area and maybe the Steel challenge would leave California and move to a more central location.

Dude, the Steel Challenge is coming to Frostproof in 2012. How much closer do you want it?

I would have hoped for a more central state. I see you are from Oregon, Frostproof, Florida is at the end of the world for you. Yes, it is better than California, but it still does not address the fact of a lack of clubs to grow the sport for all the money they spent. How do you get classified with no clubs to shoot at monthly to get a classification?

Don't they already shoot the U.S. Steel Nationals there as well?

[wgnoyes]

And let's beat on something else while we're at it:

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

Does that simply mean I can't stuff 2 magazines flat-side to flat-side in a mag pouch large enough to accommodate both?

Or does that mean I can't use a single belt accessory to hold 2 or more magazines?

Because if the latter, that declares illegal the old Davis-style leather double mag pouches I was using 25 years ago.

And if I have to ask that, it means that this can be interpreted 10 different ways by 10 different people and that's NOT what you need at a match.

It means the first. They must be contained individually in their own pouch. Not that the pouch can't contain multiple magazines.

You're still losing me. The old leather double mag pouch was a single leather pouch with a tension screw in the middle and you stuck one magazine in front of the screw and the other behind it. Could I still use it? (I may actually still have 1 or 2 of these around here....)

[Sarge]

Chuck Anderson wrote:

...The magazine in the pocket came about because someone decided to try and bump a shooter to open because at ULSC he stowed his mag in his front pocket before clearing the gun. Not what the rule was ever intended to mean. The trapping thing...yeah.

Seriously?

You don't have to name names, but I gotta wonder who this RO was???

And if this was at a major match???

Seems like some RO went into either "range nazi" or "hall pass monitor" mode to me to come up with something like that.

That RO could have been me the way I read the rule at the time. I am part German so I guess you could call me a range nazi but expect one hell of a fight. The rule as I read it said behind the hip so if the pocket was in front of the hip did not that person violate the rule. As an RO I do not get to make rules I try to apply what I read in the rule book. If you step across a fault line to get a really easy shot at an array, is that 1 procedural penalty or 1 per shot fired? Dislike us but please don't call us names.

that's why I put it in quotation marks.

EDIT: Es tut mir leid!

I said I was part German and I did spend 3 years there in the early 60's but I have no idea what your edited comment means. I guess I was kicked out of high school before the part of putting quotes around words means something other than reinforcing (quoting) what was written.

I spent enough time in Germany getting drunk and falling over the locals to know it means "I'm sorry"

[Chills1994]

Henry625 wrote:

.....How do you get classified with no clubs to shoot at monthly to get a classification?....

(insert sound of needle skipping across an LP here)

As of yet, there is NO classification system in Steel Challenge.

There is a ranking list, currently, but no USPSA-like classification system.

And good gawd! MAN! I hope there never is a classification system in Steel Challenge either.

The problem with Steel Challenge, especially trying to spin up a new club from scratch is the initial cost of the steel, especially if it is AR400/450/500 steel.

There are probably some clubs in your area that are shooting "steel challenge" like matches using "steel challenge" like rules, but they just don't see the need or logical behind affiliating with the for real Steel Challenge Association. And I can't say I blame them.

I watched the Power Factor show interview with Dave Thomas and I was just a little put off by the "Shhh....we're keeping it on the down low....we'll unveil it in 2012 or 2013" type of responses that the two Power Factor Show hosts were getting out of Dave Thomas.

My initial gut and yes, knee jerk reaction is whatever "they" have in mind for Steel Challenge, it must not be good.

I know I am not the only one whose spidey sense got all tingley while listening to Dave Thomas's responses.