Sarge Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 One thing is certain. This will be a record breaking thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strick Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 The more you legislate Production division the more you kill it. That is a fact. It has been working up to this point, why on earth would you continue to mess with it? My question for the BOD, and the one that I will be sending to my area director, is this: What data did you use to make this decision? Did you poll new shooters? Existing shooters? New shooters who are hesitant to try USPSA? What on earth told you that the thing that is holding Production division back is the lack of a minimum trigger pull weight? Does data matter to anyone, or are people content to just guess and hope they are right? Or did anyone actually measure any existing shooters triggers? A big match where all the top shooters are present.........say like Nationals for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 The more you legislate Production division the more you kill it. That is a fact. It has been working up to this point, why on earth would you continue to mess with it? My question for the BOD, and the one that I will be sending to my area director, is this: What data did you use to make this decision? Did you poll new shooters? Existing shooters? New shooters who are hesitant to try USPSA? What on earth told you that the thing that is holding Production division back is the lack of a minimum trigger pull weight? Does data matter to anyone, or are people content to just guess and hope they are right? If trigger pull weight is an issue, I would think it would be an issue across all Divisions. Unscientifically, I have seen more DQ's for ND/AD in non-production guns than I have in production. So if safety was the issue, one Division would not be targeted. I think part of this is coming from the erroneous notion that Production is an introductory division. It may be easier to start in production, but then it is just as easy to start in single stack or limited, and they have no trigger pull restrictions. Maybe back in the day, the "intention" was for people to start in production then move into another division. A silly notion, but one that may permeate the thought of what Production was supposed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 The more you legislate Production division the more you kill it. That is a fact. It has been working up to this point, why on earth would you continue to mess with it? My question for the BOD, and the one that I will be sending to my area director, is this: What data did you use to make this decision? Did you poll new shooters? Existing shooters? New shooters who are hesitant to try USPSA? What on earth told you that the thing that is holding Production division back is the lack of a minimum trigger pull weight? Does data matter to anyone, or are people content to just guess and hope they are right? Or did anyone actually measure any existing shooters triggers? A big match where all the top shooters are present.........say like Nationals for example. And if the reason is ostensibly "competitive equity," my question is, equity among whom? Are we so naive that we think this will allow shooters of lesser skill to compete more favorably? Do they really think this will allow the new guy bringing his box stock Sig P229 to have a chance to beat the local Ms and GMs? Please. Or is it to level the playing field among the top shooters? Top shooters, by the way, shoot whatever they want and therefore could easily switch to a gun that will never run afoul of this new rule. None of it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justaute Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 No meaningful input here. Just want to increase the post-count of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 The more you legislate Production division the more you kill it. That is a fact. It has been working up to this point, why on earth would you continue to mess with it? My question for the BOD, and the one that I will be sending to my area director, is this: What data did you use to make this decision? Did you poll new shooters? Existing shooters? New shooters who are hesitant to try USPSA? What on earth told you that the thing that is holding Production division back is the lack of a minimum trigger pull weight? Does data matter to anyone, or are people content to just guess and hope they are right? If trigger pull weight is an issue, I would think it would be an issue across all Divisions. Unscientifically, I have seen more DQ's for ND/AD in non-production guns than I have in production. So if safety was the issue, one Division would not be targeted. I think part of this is coming from the erroneous notion that Production is an introductory division. It may be easier to start in production, but then it is just as easy to start in single stack or limited, and they have no trigger pull restrictions. Maybe back in the day, the "intention" was for people to start in production then move into another division. A silly notion, but one that may permeate the thought of what Production was supposed to be. Sevigny said once that Production is a great place to start, and it's a great place to stay. I think he's right. The investment to get into Production is low (comparatively), and once you're in you see how challenging of a division it is. The reloads, stage planning, and accuracy requirement make it a challenge for virtually any shooter. However, I think the actions of the board, if making it a "beginners" division is the goal, will work. I can tell you right now that I won't shoot Production in 2013 if this is the rule, and I think a lot of people will join me. Another quick question: If this causes shooters to defect from Production - and doesn't encourage new shooters to join - then what will this do to already slim corporate sponsorships from companies that don't make custom Limited and Open guns? Will this encourage them to contribute to our sport? Is this something the board considered at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I just weighed my two Production legal Glocks. One is a stock G34 with only a reduced striker spring. The 35 has the same spring, and a Lone Wolf connector. The 34 fails by about an ounce. The 35 makes it by about 6 ounces. Neither of those have had more than 5 minutes of "gunsmithing" done to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlmiller1 Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 It looks to me like an attempt to push the M &GM shooters out of the "beginner" division. I dont think you should do something like this to something that has been around for this long. If you have to make a trigger pull rule, why would it only be for the first shot? Wish i could have heard the justification used during the meeting that convinced several reasonable people to make an unreasonable decision. MLM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justaute Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Circumspect (adj.): Heedful of circumstances and potential consequences; prudent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 It looks to me like an attempt to push the M &GM shooters out of the "beginner" division. I dont think you should do something like this to something that has been around for this long. If you have to make a trigger pull rule, why would it only be for the first shot? Wish i could have heard the justification used during the meeting that convinced several reasonable people to make an unreasonable decision. MLM As a Glock shooter, all of my shots will be at the same trigger pull, so whatever poundage is set, I have to live with it for every shot. But a non-striker fired shooter may end up with his first shot pull being lowered from his standard while his second and subsequent shots can (and probably will) be lower than the threshold set for the first shot. So Glock would be 3,3,3,3 while a CZ may be 3,2,2, etc. (Numbers used for illustrative purposes as I don't know how low you can take it down). So what then is the logic behind setting a trigger pull limit for the first shot only? How do you level the playing field when you just tilted it by the ruling that you made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Another reason why I love Open. Love Love Love Love Love First production, then accross all divisions. Yeah, that probably did not come out like I meant it to. What I was trying to say was the equipment rules for Open have been and are like to be stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 It looks to me like an attempt to push the M &GM shooters out of the "beginner" division. I dont think you should do something like this to something that has been around for this long. If you have to make a trigger pull rule, why would it only be for the first shot? Wish i could have heard the justification used during the meeting that convinced several reasonable people to make an unreasonable decision. MLM As a Glock shooter, all of my shots will be at the same trigger pull, so whatever poundage is set, I have to live with it for every shot. But a non-striker fired shooter may end up with his first shot pull being lowered from his standard while his second and subsequent shots can (and probably will) be lower than the threshold set for the first shot. So Glock would be 3,3,3,3 while a CZ may be 3,2,2, etc. (Numbers used for illustrative purposes as I don't know how low you can take it down). So what then is the logic behind setting a trigger pull limit for the first shot only? How do you level the playing field when you just tilted it by the ruling that you made? Maybe the board wanted to give a boost to the inferior DA/SA guns ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centermass Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 That was one thing left open, and we have some time. My thought is to use the IPSC trigger pull strategy they detail in the appendix of their rule book. Anyone have any experience with how well it works? Unbelievable... if this is how the BOD continues to enact change I will not renew for 2012 or beyond. How can the BOD claim to be acting in good faith to promote the sport and protect its integrity when implementing a rule without knowledge of how to neither measure nor enforce it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) Maybe the board wanted to give a boost to the inferior DA/SA guns ? Hehe...think about that. If we have a light primer strike in a Glock, we have to rack the slide and get another round in there. DA/SA just has to pull the trigger again. Competitive advantage, playing field not level, let's get a ruling that there can only be one trigger pull per round in the chamber. No need for discussion, just vote on it. The law of unintended consequences is sitting out there waiting to give us a procedural on this one. Edited December 23, 2011 by vluc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old506 Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 It seems intent may have been present but thought on the follow through wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justaute Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If DA/SA guns were inferior, how can there be any competitive advantage? Maybe the board wanted to give a boost to the inferior DA/SA guns ? Hehe...think about that. If we have a light primer strike in a Glock, we have to rack the slide and get another round in there. DA/SA just has to pull the trigger again. Competitive advantage, playing field not level, let's get a ruling that there can only be one trigger pull per round in the chamber. No need for discussion, just vote on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 That was one thing left open, and we have some time. My thought is to use the IPSC trigger pull strategy they detail in the appendix of their rule book. Anyone have any experience with how well it works? Unbelievable... if this is how the BOD continues to enact change I will not renew for 2012 or beyond. How can the BOD claim to be acting in good faith to promote the sport and protect its integrity when implementing a rule without knowledge of how to neither measure nor enforce it? Decide in haste, repent at leisure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If the trigger pull weight rule isn't enough to scare you away from Production, this should do it: "Motion: BOD will continue to clarify Production rules to support the purpose of the division Moved: A4 Seconded A1 Passed" Please, please, please. Just leave it alone for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 My opinion is that any change to the division specifications that could invalidate previous expenditure or cause additional expenditure to comply with those changes must be proposed to the membership followed by a minimum 3 month discussion period where the members can express their opinion to their representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If DA/SA guns were inferior, how can there be any competitive advantage? Ask waktasz, he thinks they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If the trigger pull weight rule isn't enough to scare you away from Production, this should do it: "Motion: BOD will continue to clarify Production rules to support the purpose of the division Moved: A4 Seconded A1 Passed" Please, please, please. Just leave it alone for a while. Trigger pull motion made by the outgoing President, this one by the incoming president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 My opinion is that any change to the division specifications that could invalidate previous expenditure or cause additional expenditure to comply with those changes must be proposed to the membership followed by a minimum 3 month discussion period where the members can express their opinion to their representative. Nice idea, but what stick does the membership have? Do we vote and is it binding or do we just express an opinion? If this discussion took place without input from the members, and we asked in 2007 that such discussions on these far reaching rule changes at least get some input from membership before discussion by the BOD and that was either ignored or forgotten, then what? I agree with your notion, just getting a heady sense of deja vu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If DA/SA guns were inferior, how can there be any competitive advantage? Ask waktasz, he thinks they are. If they weren't, we'd see more of them in Production here in the US, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justaute Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If you say so. If DA/SA guns were inferior, how can there be any competitive advantage? Ask waktasz, he thinks they are. If they weren't, we'd see more of them in Production here in the US, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Why don't we see more then? Because they are expensive? Or because people don't like that first heavy trigger pull? Furthermore...why does this new minimum trigger weight only apply to the first trigger pull and not all trigger pulls? Seriously...I've always wondered that about IPSC. I thought it was to balance the DA/SA guns out with the consistent trigger pulls from the striker fired guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts