Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

USPSA BOD Meeting


Chuck Anderson

Recommended Posts

If DA/SA guns were inferior, how can there be any competitive advantage?

Ask waktasz, he thinks they are. :roflol:

If they weren't, we'd see more of them in Production here in the US, right?

Let's end this thread drift and its ignorance of historical trend and its failure to acknowledge that half of the top 16 shooters at Nationals this year shot DA/SA guns (including the winner).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In terms of total numbers, the striker fired guns are overwhelming. In competitive terms, 6 of the top 10 (including the champion) Production shooters used DA/SA pistols at the 2011 USPSA Nats. Saying DA/SA aren't competitive is misinformed, they are the majority of this years top 10 Nationals competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's get back to the point at hand, which is the result of the new BOD meeting.

I'm really excited to hear from the BOD members or anyone else in attendance what factors were considered in making this decision other than wanting more "carry" guns to be competitive in the division (as if that's even possible...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hoped to see the Production rules become simpler. This just makes them more ponderous. This vote adds another two pages to the Production rulebook to be interpreted by thousands of clubs without a single positive element for the membership (or potential new members). I'm glad to see Chuck and Gary voted against this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first I've heard of allowing the competitor to do the trigger pull test themselves and I would strongly oppose that. Way too many variables and the way Rob described it would be violating the vertical 180 in the hands of a competitor. I don't see a reason to compromise safety rules for this. Does anyone have any other ways of doing it?

Chuck,

but it's perfectly safe for an RO to do that, because after all the gun is definitely unloaded, right? Better run that one past USPSA's legal counsel -- and find out what the liability might be if the gun goes off during testing, in a position that our rules prescribe as being a safety concern....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, as I said before, this is a distraction from the real issue - should there be a trigger weight limit?

rob: i appreciate you asking the question. perhaps it should have been asked before the vote.

in fact though, it was asked, a few years ago before one of the other production rules re-writes. and i believe the expressed feelings ran against a trigger weight limit by a pretty sizable margin.

so maybe shoving it down our throats was the right way to get it done this time.

My viewpoint was that the goal had been clarified by the board in 2009 with the standard specifically and explicitly being "suitable for carry", and that this was an implementation detail. In fact, the wording of that particular document was the deciding factor in my vote, with my reasoning being: Given the stated policy and goal of Production, is a sub 3lb trigger suitable and acceptable for carry and generally provided on out of the box for carry guns? If yes, allowable; if not no. So I didn't regard this as a change in direction, but an implementation of an already published and agreed policy.

Prior to the document of March 7, 2009, there was some ambiguity as to exactly what niche production should fill - was it intended to be non-single action guns customized for competition; guns out of the box with no changes whatsoever, or somewhere in between. The magic words in that document that clarified the direction were "the desire to have the Division remain viable for typical carry-suitable guns."

What I am hearing now is people on this forum advocating use of guns in production that are absolutely unacceptable for carry purposes by virtually all published training standards. Even the big manufacturer that sells guns with trigger pulls in the claimed (emphasis on claimed) 3lb range does so only on competition models, and won't even sell civilians the 3lb part for fear it will end up on a carry weapon. Treating guns unsuitable for carry as suitable for production would be a marked departure from the explicitly stated goal for production.

So, is the advocacy for changing the goal of production or carving out an exception for trigger pull? There are no other choices with super light triggers - one cannot have a 2.5lb trigger and claim to be shooting a "carry suitable gun".

Historically, the board has been known to reverse itself. We voted to treat the team as "pros hired to win" and select the World Shoot team on that basis a few years ago - but the top to dogs make it clear they really wanted it to be a competition for slots and the course was changed and we went to an objective criteria. (Thanks in large part to an excellent presentation by BJ Norris). Please remember the Enosverse is not an official survey medium - email your AD to make your opinion heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of new EPA regulations. Just going to cost Clubs more money.

What is going to be the "blessed" trigger pull testing tool.

How do make sure every chrono staff worker measures the same way.

Weighing a gun and putting it in the box is a no brainer. Trigger testing=Not!

Very easy. Hang a 3# weight on the trigger just like they hang a 5# weight on it in IPSC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, as I said before, this is a distraction from the real issue - should there be a trigger weight limit?

rob: i appreciate you asking the question. perhaps it should have been asked before the vote.

in fact though, it was asked, a few years ago before one of the other production rules re-writes. and i believe the expressed feelings ran against a trigger weight limit by a pretty sizable margin.

so maybe shoving it down our throats was the right way to get it done this time.

My viewpoint was the goal had been clarified by the board in 2009 with the standard specifically and explicitly being "suitable for carry", and that this was an implementation detail. In fact, the wording of that particular document was the guiding factor in my vote, with my reasoning being: Given the stated policy and goal of Production, is a sub 3lb trigger suitable and acceptable for carry and generally provided on out of the box for carry guns? If yes, allowable; if not no. So I didn't regard this as a change in direction, but an implementation of an already published and agreed policy.

What I am hearing now is people on this forum advocating use of guns in production that are absolutely unacceptable for carry purposes by virtually all published training standards. Even the big manufacturer that sells guns with trigger pulls in the claimed (emphasis on claimed) 3lb range does so only on competition models, and won't even sell civilians the 3lb part for fear it will end up on a carry weapon. Treating guns unsuitable for carry as suitable for production would be a marked departure from the current goals.

So, is the advocacy for changing the goal of production or carving out an exception for trigger pull? There are no other options - one cannot have a 2.5lb trigger and claim to be shooting a "carry suitable gun".

Historically, the board has been known to reverse itself. We voted to treat the team as "pros hired to win" and select the World Shoot team on that basis a few years ago - but the top to dogs make it clear they really wanted it to be a competition for slots and the course was changed and we went to an objective criteria. (Thanks in large part to an excellent presentation by BJ Norris). Please remember the Enosverse is not an official survey medium - email your AD to make your opinion heard.

So you're changing the rules to be more in line with your opinion of what a carry gun should be, regardless of how the current or prospective membership feels about it?

If you did take into account the effect of this change on current and prospective members (not to mention sponsors), I'd really love to see your data.

I'm holding my breath starting... Now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're changing the rules to be more in line with your opinion of what a carry gun should be, regardless of how the current or prospective membership feels about it?

If you did take into account the effect of this change on current and prospective members (not to mention sponsors), I'd really love to see your data.

The real issue is "should we redefine what production stands for?". Do we want it to be a division where out of the box guns are fully competitive - Yes or No?

Everything is derived from the answer to that question. The fact that some people find the concept of the board continuing to reinforce this principle indicates that the answer may not be as clearly Yes and I had thought.

The characterization of a sub 2.5lb trigger as being unsuitable for a carry gun as "my opinion" shows a misunderstanding of the prevailing standards for duty and defensive weapons. It may be "my opinion", but it is a very widely held one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're changing the rules to be more in line with your opinion of what a carry gun should be, regardless of how the current or prospective membership feels about it?

If you did take into account the effect of this change on current and prospective members (not to mention sponsors), I'd really love to see your data.

The real issue is "should we redefine what production stands for?". Do we want it to be a division where out of the box guns are fully competitive - Yes or No?

Everything is derived from the answer to that question. The fact that some people find the concept of the board continuing to reinforce this principle indicates that the answer may not be as clearly Yes and I had thought.

The characterization of a sub 2.5lb trigger as being unsuitable for a carry gun as "my opinion" shows a misunderstanding of the prevailing standards for duty and defensive weapons. It may be "my opinion", but it is a very widely held one.

Honest question:

At what point did USPSA get into the business of determining what should be a proper carry gun via mandate by the rules as opposed to what comes out of "the crucible of competition?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we want it to be a division where out of the box guns are fully competitive - Yes or No?

I think Dave answered that question years ago, so what is the real point?

Since when was USPSA in the business of defining appropriate for carry guns? Production division being turned into a carry division? You going to ban the G34 since it really isn't the optimum length for carry?

You would be astonished I'd bet to find out how many people carry guns with light triggers. Light triggered guns work the same as heavy ones when done properly, they don't go bang until you put your booger picker on them and move the trigger.

Back to reality, here is a photo of El Ex Pres' girl's production gun:

3000_CompetitionProduction_normal.png

Now with a straight face, repeat the "intent" for the division. Out of the box is only dependent on the contents of the box and not the box itself.

Edited by Loves2Shoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think gun enthusiasts are tinkerers, always looking for the best; whats going to get them better. Newbie uspsa shooters want the same darn thing, i think a lot of them will initially pass over production and play elsewhere, but after a year or so, the new shooters will be bonker over looking to get a springer or Canyon Creek Ultimate Production Legal trigger".

I think it would be nice to have a true stock division, but, from what i see, gun owners have money, theyre willing to spend it, and they want to spend it. They dont want to shoot a gun their uncle Bob the cop carries, they want something different, something personalized. I think youll see triggers in Production worked no lighter than 3.75 pounds, which is still cool, but Im with Rich, theyre a bear to properly measure.

Also, consideration should have been given to the industry that supports the sport and fosters new shooters.

no big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we want it to be a division where out of the box guns are fully competitive - Yes or No?

I think Dave answered that question years ago, so what is the real point?

Since when was USPSA in the business of defining appropriate for carry guns? Production division being turned into a carry division? You going to ban the G34 since it really isn't the optimum length for carry?

You would be astonished I'd bet to find out how many people carry guns with light triggers. Light triggered guns work the same as heavy ones when done properly, they don't go bang until you put your booger picker on them and move the trigger.

Back to reality, here is a photo of El Ex Pres' girl's production gun:

3000_CompetitionProduction_normal.png

Now with a straight face, repeat the "intent" for the division. Out of the box is only dependent on the contents of the box and not the box itself.

That's a sweet $3000 carry gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Chuck,

I am from the other side of the fence.

What we use here in our region and at the last AustralAsia Level IV Match, we purchased the certified 5lb trigger weights that you can get from NRA. Over 175+ PD firearms were tested using the this weight with no problems at all with the testing procedure. No one complained and everyone knew that Trigger weight would be tested.

So for the next WS at Frostproof, at least it will be 5lb for PD.

Cheers ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BOD decided, and whether I agreed at the time or not the majority voted the rule change in. It wasn't even a close vote, which really did surprise me. As much as I would love to see it go away I don't think it will. Instead, how about some ideas on how to implement it. 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?

This is the first I've heard of allowing the competitor to do the trigger pull test themselves and I would strongly oppose that. Way too many variables and the way Rob described it would be violating the vertical 180 in the hands of a competitor. I don't see a reason to compromise safety rules for this. Does anyone have any other ways of doing it?

At the World Shoot the RO's did the pull test, not the shooter. I didn't pay too much attention (having a trigger that would easily pass) but I got the impression that they set it up to favor the shooters gun passing the test.

I also am surprised that this rule was passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do they measure a Glock or CZ trigger, for example?

I've never seen one in bullseye but for Action Pistol matches they hang the weight from the trigger and rotate the gun backwards far enough to keep the weights hanging in the middle of the trigger. So the barrel's not vertical but it is somewhat standardized. They'll lift the pistol as slowly as they can to get it to pass. All the weight has to do is clear the table.

1911s are easy, a lot of the international pistols have a groove across the trigger to hold the weight in the center.

My Bulls eye gun was tested with this

l_678650000_1.jpg

I don't have a dog in this fight because I shoot a DA/SA and because of no feeling in my fingers all my triggers are over 3# except my Bulls eye gun which was 2.25

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets face it when the 3 new Divisions were created there was very little support given to implement these except a "Factory Gun Nationals" by USPSA. The first year L-10 was scored within the Limited Div. and classification percentages were not used from major matches. USPSA just dropped these Div. on the membership and said have fun. Now after eleven years you want to go back to the original intent, it is way too late for that. Production evolved into what it is today, if the BOD doesn't like it they should have done a better job from day one. "Supposed to be" and "intent" can't exist now after eleven years of neglect from the BOD. I would say the membership like the way Prod. is right now by making it the third largest Div. we have by their participation.

Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real issue is "should we redefine what production stands for?". Do we want it to be a division where out of the box guns are fully competitive - Yes or No?

Everything is derived from the answer to that question. The fact that some people find the concept of the board continuing to reinforce this principle indicates that the answer may not be as clearly Yes and I had thought.

The characterization of a sub 2.5lb trigger as being unsuitable for a carry gun as "my opinion" shows a misunderstanding of the prevailing standards for duty and defensive weapons. It may be "my opinion", but it is a very widely held one.

Please define what all the divisions stand for from how you interpret it, particularly Single Stack which as I see it is Production with a 1911. If no mods are appropriate for Production, the same should hold true for Single Stack.

It seems to be a "widely held opinion" that messing with this topic is not acceptable by a majority of the membership, but I don't see you hanging your hat on that statement as a reason to support not doing it.

The fact that you are seeing this response on this issue shows that nothing was learned from the last attempt to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky me, I have several local matches close by. I'll just pass on the Majors. It just takes the FUN out of it. That's all I was there for anyway.

Don't local USPSA matches also have to enforce the same trigger weight rule in 2013 as well? Or is it just that the local matches are less likely to check?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it have been easier to start a new production division if they are so worried about getting back to iits original intent? Could have called it production stock or something. Just like limited and L-10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky me, I have several local matches close by. I'll just pass on the Majors. It just takes the FUN out of it. That's all I was there for anyway.

Don't local USPSA matches also have to enforce the same trigger weight rule in 2013 as well? Or is it just that the local matches are less likely to check?

They don't chrono either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...