USPSA BOD Meeting

[bgary]

So there's a fork in the road. Do they take their hands off, let Production guns be anything anyone wants them to be, and possibly ruin the very thing that made Production different? Or do they keep their hands on, keep trying to put rules in place that keep the division reigned-in on a relatively level playing field?

My own personal opinion is that if they take their hands off and let anyone do whatever they want to their guns, it will ruin Production division. It will become just like Limited-10, with all sorts of heavily customized guns (which may excite gunsmiths, but don't excite manufactureres) and I think that the thing that made it special will be lost forever.

But here is the false choice.

You have likened the already big list of things that are not allowed in production to be "letting production guns be anything they want to be"

Nope. You've cleverly left out the previous statement, where I say that it has proven impossible for USPSA to keep on top of all the new gadgets and modifications that get invented every year.

But you are making it sound like it has been a slippery slope towards a LESS restrictive division when in reality it has become more so over the last few years.

Exactly. See above. Every time a rule is created that says some-thing-or-other is illegal for the division, someone else invents something different. It has been a slippery slope from day one, and every new invention that doesn't get caught changes the division.

The rules aren't any more restrictive now than they were 10 years ago. They're just 10 pages longer because they have to spell out all the hundred's of things that are prohibited, that people have "thought" were okay.

Which brings us back to the original point. I think it is stupid for the BOD to have to keep writing more and more stuff to keep the lid in a good place on the Production division. The only real choices they have are to come up with a better way to police the situation, or stop trying. Of the two, I think the first one is MUCH better for the sport.

Without prior collusion before the board meeting it never would have been brought up for a vote, since it had failed twice before. . I have no personal knowledge of THIS board but I recognize patterns in human nature and board behavior when I see it.

Mmm, yeah, I love conspiracy theories, too.

[SteveU]

Hmm. Maybe. You have valid points that I respect.

See - honest disagreement and discussion on the relative merits of a major division change. It would be good for the board to note that this takes place and valid points can be made.

Too bad it was already voted on and passed. Conveniently. (I see your and raise you a )

[smokshwn]

Tell me how a Glock 34 with $50 worth of parts is super custom?

I'd say "the difference between a Glock-34 with $50 worth of parts, and a Glock 34 with $1000 worth of super-custom internal parts and gunsmithing work, is completely impossible to police. One belongs in Production (assuming the parts are legal for Production), the other completely changes the landscape of the division. That's the problem I think the BOD is trying to solve."

So in your mind it is a problem to allow a new shooter to purchase a $550 G34, and as funds allow, install a $150 Vanek Trigger and Dawson/Sevigny/Tripp/Heinie sights. Yet perfectly OK for them to shoot a box stock Springfield XDM 5.25 or a CZ Shadow.......

All this ruling will accomplish is to punish thousands of EXISTING production shooters and move the equipment race from the home workbench to the manufacturers and the gunshop. Ultimately your new shooter will then find that they need a whole new gun to be competitive rather than simply modifying their own for a fraction of the cost.

Most certainly one of two things will happen if this line of rulings continues and restricts Production guns to "box stock" models.

1) Production will see a large decline in participation or

2) The factories will begin to churn out $1000 + dollar production guns

Either option would not be good for USPSA

[bgary]

When people on the board are saying "what the heck just happened," as A5 noted,

Maybe the discussion happened during Gary's nap-time?

(Hi, Gary! )

[Vlad]

I say that it has proven impossible for USPSA to keep on top of all the new gadgets and modifications that get invented every year.

Well there's your problem. You think USPSA should. I think it shouldn't and the rules should be sufficiently flexible to keep up with ever changing market while maintaining a competitive environment. Freezing a division to a particular frame of time in respect to innovation is just bad policy as far as I'm concerned. You probably don't want to know my opinion on the poorly named single stack division.

My mind set is that we should be the crucible in which new ideas are tested, new equipment tested to failure, and beneficial technologies adopted.

You can say that a 3lb rule means one can do whatever they want to the internals and the chronoman only has to test trigger pull, but it is an entirely arbitrary number. Why not 5? 2? 2.753lb? The argument about carry guns holds no water to me, this is not a game about carry guns. What we have here is a completely arbitrary number pulled out a hat in as a theoretically convenient way out of the corner the board and NROI have worked themselves in by allowing all sorts of deviations from the "box stock" initial plan. Instead of actually making sense of the of problems brought by the looser standards in a comprehensive and well stated way, they chose the "simple" way of saying 3lb without actually asking the shooters what the want.

Lets put it this way: I really like my area director. I know the guy and encouraged him to run and helped any way I could along the way. He voted yes. He has some explaining to do or he lost my vote.

[atbarr]

When people on the board are saying "what the heck just happened," as A5 noted,

Maybe the discussion happened during Gary's nap-time?

(Hi, Gary! )

Nadda! Gary voted no.

[Chuck Anderson]

Just a side note for those that have contacted their AD and haven't heard back. Please remember it is the holidays and one or two of them actually have lives outside of USPSA. Found this out when I emailed one of them today. I was actually surprised he had a life, but hey what do I know. There's a long time before this takes effect. Plenty of time for you to get your message across.

[Sterling White]

Most certainly one of two things will happen if this line of rulings continues and restricts Production guns to "box stock" models.

1) Production will see a large decline in participation or

2) The factories will begin to churn out $1000 + dollar production guns

Either option would not be good for USPSA

Why is this bad news for USPSA?

[Chills1994]

because it'll be good news for IDPA.

[Dale Rader]

The intent is to resemble carry guns?

That is fine, I will not have a light trigger but my carry gun holds 16 rounds from the factory, so why can't I use all of them?

The trigger weight is not that much of an advantage in my opinion but I still suck so take it for what it is worth.

Dale

[smokshwn]

Most certainly one of two things will happen if this line of rulings continues and restricts Production guns to "box stock" models.

1) Production will see a large decline in participation or

2) The factories will begin to churn out $1000 + dollar production guns

Either option would not be good for USPSA

Why is this bad news for USPSA?

How can damaging the fastest growing division be good? Do you think telling thousands of production shooters that their existing legal equipment will be illegal is good for USPSA? Do you think that disenfranchising existing, committed members is good for USPSA?

Rather than the mere perception that USPSA is an equipment race, it would guarantee that a new shooter would need to invest $1500 plus to be competitive in a division where formerly they could be competitive for less than $1000.

[TGO]

Interesting? I propose we also have a fixed weight limit for all guns (total Mass) and limit the trigger pull weight to ANY SHOT fired, not just the first. It is specifically this rule in the World Match that makes the heavy, lighter kicking D/A guns so favored. Those guns have sub 2 lb triggers after the first shot, and are so heavy that they kick half as much as the lighter guns in the class. This makes a big difference. If this is based on making the guns more street worthy, tell me who is looking for a 44 ounce 9mm for defensive or duty use?

The concept that this is easy to test is also fallacy. This will be a big pain in the ass for the match officials to test and, mark my words, is going to cause major headaches and controversy. I can weigh the trigger on my XDm and make it weigh anywhere you want from 2.75 to 4 lbs. I do not think this is coming from the shooters. Or maybe it is, but lets have you step forward and explain what the problem is.

This looks to be just another move by the USPSA BOD to appease a discontent faction. Is there a problem and if so what is it? Lets have a little full disclosure. Maybe I wouldn't get so worked up if I knew why this was happening. I sure do not think our BOD is infallible or benevolent but why do they do things the way they do? I think this has not been thought out. Who was consulted on this? Just the BOD?

If rules like this actually come to pass, it may vary well make production a spec class like all the others. Production is the only one that allows nearly all the manufacturers to compete heads up. With the level of modification now permitted you can build a competitive gun with nearly every platform. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. This is only true in production.

Now I am of course biased. It is easy for me to believe that this is the work of some one who is unhappy that some triggers can be improved to a degree that I can only assume they feel is unfair. Maybe it is the XD/XDm? I hope I'm wrong, but I sat around and didn't voice my opinion when rules in the past were changed by what appeared to me at the time to be very biased individuals. I have to say something this time.

Production has the capacity to be the most important class in our sport. Every manufacturer has an interest in it. But we could have more. If we start limiting the process to allow all guns in the category to be made competitive, we may end up with a problem like that which exists in Limited and Open. Or worse we encourage cheating. That is not now the case as the rules are pretty good.

I guess I'm just this fired up because I see us taking steps backwards again. My Production trigger can be made 4 ounces heavier and then no matter how you weigh it it will make 3 lb. But why should it. Can I then make the gun weigh a pound more to make it kick less like others being used in competition? Nobody is complaining about that..... It isn't for me that I care, it is just that I want to know who is behind this and why was it done all sneaky like.

Rob

[BritinUSA]

I guess I'm just this fired up because I see us taking steps backwards again. My Production trigger can be made 4 ounces heavier and then no matter how you weigh it it will make 3 lb. But why should it. Can I then make the gun weigh a pound more to make it kick less like others being used in competition? Nobody is complaining about that..... It isn't for me that I care, it is just that I want to know who is behind this and why was it done all sneaky like.

Rob

Sound decisions can only be made with the full knowledge of all available facts. To get as much information as possible requires the gathering of data. There are many people in this sport with opinions on these and other matters. The rules affect all of us, divisional changes more so. Rule and Division changes should be described on the agenda in as much detail as possible and far enough in advance that members have an opportunity to provide feedback.

That was not done in this case and everything that has followed is a direct consequence of that.

I don't think there's a conspiracy here, I think there was just a need to step back and see the big picture and that was not done, the issue here was a rush to judgement.

If we remove the ability to make any minor changes to Production guns then the manufacturers will do the tweaking, the arms race will move from the shooter to the gun manufacturer, the prices will rise and the shooter trying to get into the sport will find themselves priced out of it.

Production is growing, if we make significant changes to something that is working we run the risk of breaking it unnecessarily.

A first shot trigger pull will penalize striker fired guns and benefit traditional hammer guns (like CZ and Sphinx), right now the field is leveled up in USPSA... I think it needs to stay that way...

[justaute]

"...step back and see the big picture and that was not done, the issue here was a rush to judgement."

I am very much in agreement with the above words. Based on what I have read thus far, I would speculate that no board members were trying to be pernicious. However, I am of the mind-set that the level of effort and intent is at hand.

I guess I'm just this fired up because I see us taking steps backwards again. My Production trigger can be made 4 ounces heavier and then no matter how you weigh it it will make 3 lb. But why should it. Can I then make the gun weigh a pound more to make it kick less like others being used in competition? Nobody is complaining about that..... It isn't for me that I care, it is just that I want to know who is behind this and why was it done all sneaky like.

Rob

Sound decisions can only be made with the full knowledge of all available facts. To get as much information as possible requires the gathering of data. There are many people in this sport with opinions on these and other matters. The rules affect all of us, divisional changes more so. Rule and Division changes should be described on the agenda in as much detail as possible and far enough in advance that members have an opportunity to provide feedback.

That was not done in this case and everything that has followed is a direct consequence of that.

I don't think there's a conspiracy here, I think there was just a need to step back and see the big picture and that was not done, the issue here was a rush to judgement.

If we remove the ability to make any minor changes to Production guns then the manufacturers will do the tweaking, the arms race will move from the shooter to the gun manufacturer, the prices will rise and the shooter trying to get into the sport will find themselves priced out of it.

Production is growing, if we make significant changes to something that is working we run the risk of breaking it unnecessarily.

A first shot trigger pull will penalize striker fired guns and benefit traditional hammer guns (like CZ and Sphinx), right now the field is leveled up in USPSA... I think it needs to stay that way...

Edited December 28, 2011 by justaute

[West Texas Granny]

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.

1. Please explain the reasoning behind the exclusion of magazines being retained by magnetic means.

2. "Each magazine must be contained individually within the magazine pouch." so this means 1 and only 1 mag per individual mag pouch.

[West Texas Granny]

Suitable for carry? Interesting as the only restriction for carry in my experience is the size of my purse. If the gun fits it's suitable for carry. As far as trigger pull limits the triggers on my pistols have been set to fit my circumstances which is arthritis and the tendency of my right trigger finger to dislocate if too much pressure is applied to it. That said a few suggestions.

1. Publish the rule ( web site, here, the official mag ) and provide a 90 day comment period for members to provide input on any Rule Change prior to the vote.

2. Set a lame duck policy if there is not one already that prevents a vote on a rule change within 45 days of a change in Member/s of the BOD.

3. Don't wait several years after deciding on a policy before voting on it.

4. Get rid of the term suitable carry as what is suitable is solely determined by the owner of the weapon.

4.1 Define what the intent is. Put it in writing.

5. Think before acting.

[vluc]

Well there's your problem. You think USPSA should. I think it shouldn't and the rules should be sufficiently flexible to keep up with ever changing market while maintaining a competitive environment. Freezing a division to a particular frame of time in respect to innovation is just bad policy as far as I'm concerned. You probably don't want to know my opinion on the poorly named single stack division.

My mind set is that we should be the crucible in which new ideas are tested, new equipment tested to failure, and beneficial technologies adopted.

You can say that a 3lb rule means one can do whatever they want to the internals and the chronoman only has to test trigger pull, but it is an entirely arbitrary number. Why not 5? 2? 2.753lb? The argument about carry guns holds no water to me, this is not a game about carry guns. What we have here is a completely arbitrary number pulled out a hat in as a theoretically convenient way out of the corner the board and NROI have worked themselves in by allowing all sorts of deviations from the "box stock" initial plan. Instead of actually making sense of the of problems brought by the looser standards in a comprehensive and well stated way, they chose the "simple" way of saying 3lb without actually asking the shooters what the want.

Lets put it this way: I really like my area director. I know the guy and encouraged him to run and helped any way I could along the way. He voted yes. He has some explaining to do or he lost my vote.

Well said, Vlad. My comment of freezing it was a poor choice of words to reflect what you said. If we get back to intent, let's get back to why practical shooting was founded - to see what limits handguns could be pushed to.

[vluc]

...but I sat around and didn't voice my opinion when rules in the past were changed by what appeared to me at the time to be very biased individuals. I have to say something this time.

Thank you!

To paraphrase Edmund Burke: 'The only thing necessary for the triumph [of X] is for good men to do nothing.'

Note: I am not in any way implying X was done. Just a part of the quote. When good men do/say nothing, less than ideal things can happen.

[vluc]

oops, double tap.

Edited December 28, 2011 by vluc

[Glshooter]

This whole argument about what is "suitable for carry" is ridiculous. A BOD of a shooting sports organization has no more right to answer this question than "what is the best make of car" or "which is prettier, blondes, brunettes or redheads". What is suitable for carry is up to the person carrying it. There will be thousands of opinions and will differ depending on who you ask. I have met a least a dozen people who feel no striker fired or cocked and locked pistol is safe to carry and only think revolvers are suitable. On the other hand there is growing support among tactical firearms trainers for carry guns with slide mounted optics such as Doctor, J-point or STS sights. Can we have those? They are suitable for carry to many people.

[Henry625]

Then what did we (USPSA) buy? No new clubs, no new matches......what did they spend all that money on? You are correct, there ARE "Outlaw" clubs that make up courses using available steel the club has. My club bought 2 complete sets of steel, a couple of us did the final welding together to save money.

My example using the Steel Challenge purchase was only to illustrate the lack of complete thought that goes into some USPSA decisions.

[dqshooter]

Can the BOD pick on another division for awhile. I would ask them to find any Production GM with a stock production gun. Whats next?

[Chills1994]

Then what did we (USPSA) buy? No new clubs, no new matches......what did they spend all that money on? You are correct, there ARE "Outlaw" clubs that make up courses using available steel the club has. My club bought 2 complete sets of steel, a couple of us did the final welding together to save money.

My example using the Steel Challenge purchase was only to illustrate the lack of complete thought that goes into some USPSA decisions.

well, I am glad I am not the only one who is ....hmmmn....a little upset by the purchase of the Steel Challenge.

[Flexmoney]

Can the BOD pick on another division for awhile. I would ask them to find any Production GM with a stock production gun. Whats next?

They need only look around the table at the BOD meeting to find a Production GM (or 3) that run stock guns. Mine is. (other than grip tape and sights...which I do sometimes run without, as well)

There are a number of others.

[Flexmoney]

well, I am glad I am not the only one who is ....hmmmn....a little upset by the purchase of the Steel Challenge.

What kills me is that the BOD could be working on SC at this moment...instead of dealing with this mess. Talk about a time suck that wasn't needed.

While I'm not on the SC committee (it was pretty full), I've been chomping at the bit to help with SC. I planned on spending quite a bit of time on it over the holidays, which are now half over and have been filled with this trigger pull fiasco.