USPSA BOD Meeting

[beltjones]

First point: I carry a 1911 with a 2 lb trigger every day working or not working. If I shoot someone the issue will be was I justified in doing so, not the weight of my trigger. This only comes up when someone calaims "it just went off".

Second point: During the discussion on the trigger weight there was a view that new shooters will not come into Production because of light triggers on other shooters guns, or that they will leave Production when they find out that other shooters have lighter triggers than they have. When I asked for a verified example of this, I received silence.

Third point: I recently talked to a new shooter, who based on his gun (Glock) would probably shoot Production. One of the first things he asked was about getting a trigger job. When I told him he didn't need one to compete in Production, he said he was asking because he wanted one and knew that we would know who could do a good job. This matches my experience that most shooters want a good trigger on guns they shoot.

Gary

Emphasis on the text above is my own.

Does anyone know how easy it is to get data on a thing like this? You just start a poll here and on the USPSA.org website. Maybe you put a blurb in Front Sight asking for emails. Maybe you spend an afternoon calling the section coordinators asking them to ask their club Presidents about their anecdotal experience with local Production shooters. Easy.

The reason this kind of due diligence isn't done is that the people who have power like to wield it, and one way to do that is to conduct business in secret without any input from those "below" you. Either that or it's laziness. Neither is reassuring. I hate to compare USPSA to IDPA yet again - especially considering I don't shoot IDPA any more - but IDPA is undergoing a massive change to their rulebook right now. They assembled "Tiger Teams" comprised of leadership AND shooters, and the findings of the teams will be presented to the membership before any action is taken. What a way to run a volunteer sport! The USPSA board should take note.

[lugnut]

So does a lighter trigger give an advantage or not? Saying it is advantage just because a shooter my not be very skilled starts leading down a path to shooting socialism.

All triggers are equal, some are just more equal than others.

All triggers are equal, some shooters are just more equal than others. Trigger weight will never change that.

True, but the socialism comment was too good to pass up!

Yeah... thanks. Any post applied towards me that infers any kind of socialism makes me either LMAO (in this case) or gets me extremely annoyed.

[Avezorak]

If the BOD is intent on a carry gun division, lets do it all the way. Stock triggers, stock sights, no grip tape, carry type holster, no extended anything. Because everyone knows that ALL carry guns are dead stock.

[vluc]

If the BOD is intent on a carry gun division, lets do it all the way. Stock triggers, stock sights, no grip tape, carry type holster, no extended anything. Because everyone knows that ALL carry guns are dead stock.

Except Gary Stevens' carry gun, the only one in North America.

Edited December 23, 2011 by vluc

[Avezorak]

If the BOD is intent on a carry gun division, lets do it all the way. Stock triggers, stock sights, no grip tape, carry type holster, no extended anything. Because everyone knows that ALL carry guns are dead stock.

Except Gary Steven's carry gun, the only one in North America.

EXACTLY

[Skydiver]

Second point: During the discussion on the trigger weight there was a view that new shooters will not come into Production because of light triggers on other shooters guns, or that they will leave Production when they find out that other shooters have lighter triggers than they have. When I asked for a verified example of this, I received silence.

Gary

now they just need to solve the problem of those same imaginary shooters not coming into production (or leaving it) because some guns have very light triggers for all shots after the first one..

They don't need to. One of the "principles" of the Production division as I understand it is that the first shot is supposed to be double action. This is why the IPSC rules give you a procedural if you hand cock for the first shot. Fortunately, in USPSA we don't have an equivalent rule. After the first shot, the current rules don't care. This opens it up for shooters to decide. Do they want a consistent trigger pull for each and every shot? Or do they want a heavy first pull, and lighter succeeding pulls?

Anyway, I'm glad that my AD voted against the 3# trigger restriction. Too bad that the rule passed anyway.

[Nik Habicht]

Was this proposed change to the division requirements made public prior to the BOD meeting, so that the opinion of the members could be taken into account by their respective BOD representatives?

From what I have heard, it was simply introduced at the meeting, discussed, and then voted upon.......

I truly wish, now that the board doesn't have the input of members of the RMI instructor group in their midst, that they would draft proposed rules, send them to the RMI Group for input, and then discuss them again/vote on them once they've received and considered what the RMIs had to say, in a subsequent meeting. To not avail themselves of that experience, strikes me as folly.....

And yes, I know that Amidon is on the Board -- but the rest of the RMI group may have something to contribute/may spot something that he might misss.

[Gary Stevens]

If the BOD is intent on a carry gun division, lets do it all the way. Stock triggers, stock sights, no grip tape, carry type holster, no extended anything. Because everyone knows that ALL carry guns are dead stock.

Except Gary Stevens' carry gun, the only one in North America.

Proudly advancing the 1911 into the 21st century

[Nik Habicht]

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

This translates to "should competition guns in Production be servicible self defense guns, or should they be guns no one in their right mind would ever carry?". I based my vote on the answer to this question being the former but, if the overwhelming consensus is that Production should be specialty guns for match shooting, then the entire concept of what we claim production represents should be rethought.

Gee, Rob -- did you intend for that last sentence to read as a threat? As in "you production shooters will stop rocking this boat if you know what's good for you? Because if we need to review this decision, then we'll just to totally rethink the division in retaliation, because after all we know better, even though we don't shoot Production." That doesn't jive with past experiences, interacting with you, but it does give me a little pause.....

(Side note: Out of all of the members of the BOD who voted for the change, only one actually shoots Production -- Phil Strader. Sherwyn Greenfield holds an A card, based on what looks like a single classifier special. I can find no record of any of the other members of the Board who voted in favor, having even shot a match in Production.)

For the record I shoot in Production almost exclusively. My carry guns are identical to my game guns, except for three items: They tend to be smaller relatives of the Glock 34s I shoot in competition, they tend to have heavier triggers, and they tend to be equipped with lasers. I wouldn't be terribly uncomfortable leaving the house with one of my competition guns as a carry piece though.....

The horse has left the barn long ago, on "what production should be." The answer from its success is "something different" from the race gun divisions. Stop screwing around with the fastest growing division in USPSA......

[Flexmoney]

... the people who have power like to wield it, and one way to do that is to conduct business in secret without any input from those "below" you. Either that or it's laziness. Neither is reassuring.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't the former. It may have been a form of the latter.

I'll share my perspective of how I viewed it (as a guest at the BOD meeting).

[Nik Habicht]

I didn't know you had to have a classification in every division to be on the BOD...Can you point me to where that requirement is written?

There is no such requirement -- and there shouldn't be. However, I see a problem, when the majority of the BOD is not competing in the division, is not administering local matches where the division is growing, and chooses to introduce, discuss and vote on a major rule change in a matter of hours, without availing themselves of the input of either the RMI corps, or their Section Coordinators or Match Directors.......

[Nik Habicht]

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

Fixed it.

USPSA

If we honestly think that, then it really applies to all the divisions, except for Open..,right?

Well, if we're going to base decisions on the value of "practical" guns, then clearly Open needs to be eliminated -- since no one's carrying one of those spaceguns......

What to replace it with? Oh, Modified -- now those might be open guns suitable to concealed carry.....

[Nik Habicht]

First point: I carry a 1911 with a 2 lb trigger every day working or not working. If I shoot someone the issue will be was I justified in doing so, not the weight of my trigger. This only comes up when someone calaims "it just went off".

Second point: During the discussion on the trigger weight there was a view that new shooters will not come into Production because of light triggers on other shooters guns, or that they will leave Production when they find out that other shooters have lighter triggers than they have. When I asked for a verified example of this, I received silence.

Third point: I recently talked to a new shooter, who based on his gun (Glock) would probably shoot Production. One of the first things he asked was about getting a trigger job. When I told him he didn't need one to compete in Production, he said he was asking because he wanted one and knew that we would know who could do a good job. This matches my experience that most shooters want a good trigger on guns they shoot.

Gary

Hmm, the part in bold doesn't my experience in running and more than doubling the monthly attendance at a club match during the last 8 years.....

Production has always been popular around these parts: Partly because of legislation, but also partly because it's where the competition was 7-8 years ago, with a GM and a couple of masters setting a good benchmark to measure yourself against. In my experience people leave production division because they get bit by the crazy notion that a Limited or Open blaster is more fun to drive......

....or in the case of one crazy soul (Hi Ron!) Caron's cookies made him gravitate to Revolver! :P

[Nik Habicht]

If the BOD is intent on a carry gun division, lets do it all the way. Stock triggers, stock sights, no grip tape, carry type holster, no extended anything. Because everyone knows that ALL carry guns are dead stock.

And a much smaller box, and an allowance for lasers and flashlights.....

[Loves2Shoot]

If the BOD is intent on a carry gun division, lets do it all the way. Stock triggers, stock sights, no grip tape, carry type holster, no extended anything. Because everyone knows that ALL carry guns are dead stock.

And a much smaller box, and an allowance for lasers and flashlights.....

We are doing a lot more carry guns with DeltaPoints. Does anybody want to go there? I'll tell you for many people, a good optic is VERY practical.

[Nik Habicht]

If the BOD is intent on a carry gun division, lets do it all the way. Stock triggers, stock sights, no grip tape, carry type holster, no extended anything. Because everyone knows that ALL carry guns are dead stock.

And a much smaller box, and an allowance for lasers and flashlights.....

We are doing a lot more carry guns with DeltaPoints. Does anybody want to go there? I'll tell you for many people, a good optic is VERY practical.

AS an added division, it might be a hoot.....

[Gary Stevens]

I can't see where a Production gun set up for competition and a Production gun for everyday carry are mutually exclusive. There are no dots, comps, or 170 mm magazines in Production. Every Production gun I have seen shot could easilly have been a carry gun and may well have been. I currently have two Production guns, an XD and an XDM Competition model, which will probably be banned because of its name

There is nothing on either gun that would preclude them from being a carry gun. Sights, grip tape, a good trigger are all things that enhance the guns usefullness not disqualifies them, IMO.

[justaute]

This is my one, and only, serious post in this thread. I shared something similar with the IPSC (Irritable) crowd on Facebook. Generically, an organization should examine the below-listed operating principles.

1. "who" do you want to be?

2. Is the over-arching idea of the "who" congruent with that shared by the collective body of constituents and not with that of every individual member. Can't cater to everyone's fastidious desires.

3. Hire/elect capable management/individuals to execute the "how" to achieve the "who" and further refine the idea of "who."

4. This is an iterative approach.

*** If hired/elected management/individuals can't seem to competently execute, then re-elect/re-hire. If, for whatever reason, they can't be removed (e.g. IPSC), then capable individuals have the option of creating a new entity (e.g. IDPA), which may be better or worse than its preceding entity. Although a capable organization comprises, or is composed of, many dynamic elements, managerial individuals usually dictate the overall experience of its constituents. Ok -- my pedantic rant is finished.

[joseywales]

Gary (A5) & Chuck (A1) - "THANK YOU for your vote to shoot this in the head and throw it in the ditch", so to speak.

Seems this 3# rule has been idling quietly for a while - here are my notes from the one BoD meeting I attended SEVERAL years ago.

http://www.brianenos...joseywales&st=0

Area 4 director will get an earful from me on this one.

Edited December 24, 2011 by joseywales

[Flexmoney]

I attended the meeting as an invited guest (Area 5 Director Candidate). By the time of the meeting/discussion, we knew that I would be the Area 5 Director (in January) and that Phil would be the Prez. I didn't really have a voice...though I did manage to sounds off.

Regardless, Gary (current AD5) and I (AD5-elect) would have voted in exactly the same way. I believe Gary's words in the vote were "Hell NO."

OK...so, it was a public meeting and I was a guest. I'll share my perspective of how I saw things. Keep in mind that I'm not yet acclimated to how things run on the BOD. So, take my perspective with a grain of salt.

As I recall, the schedule gave the floor to DNROI (Amidon). Amidon brought an issue to the floor about aluminum replacement triggers in Production guns (like a Glock). I kinda found that odd, as the current rules are pretty clear that they aren't legal (external modification).

So, that was on the floor and being discussed, when AD4 (Phil) brought up something about trigger pull weight. I thought that was odd too, as there was a different issue (in my mind) on the floor.

The discussion of trigger pull weight went around the room a bit. In my view/opinion, the arguments for the trigger pull limit were mostly of the circular type that we have all heard before. I don't mean to be overly blunt about it, but...well..I've been here and there and everywhere..hearing this discussions for a decade or so. I'm pretty good at ferreting our a position vs. an argument (especially on issues exactly like this one). For example, AD7 (Rob) has a position...where those that say we will scare off new shooters have an argument.

AD1 (Chuck), AD5 (Gary) and I (AD5-elect) and I made pretty strong points during the discussion. I really thought the idea was done with, when the Prez (MV) made a motion for a vote. That surprised me. I was was then surprised when it was seconded. ..and, floored when it completely passed.

At least one BOD member was hung up on the name "Production". The opinion there was that it ought to be like it comes off the production line. (so...lets change the name)

Some didn't see Production division as being as popular as it really is. (It's #1 in the Ohio Section, and likely in the surrounding sections.)

Another conveyed to me that I hadn't been around on the BOD enough to know. Which I truly believe was the REAL ISSUE.

I could be wrong here, so take it with that grain of salt that I mentioned...My take-away was that Production brings up issues that the BOD has to deal with...and, as mentioned, there really aren't that many BOD members that shoot the division. I'm not saying there is a purposeful bias. There is just a lot going on that needs to get covered in a short couple of days at these meetings (and the online/phone meetings). I'd feel the same way about 3gun/MG if it required a large chunk of my time. On a side note, I do plan to shoot more MG than I have been lately. Until then, I'll likely defer to those that are shooting it all the time.

Again, I found the chain of events odd. DNROI brought an issue to the floor that I didn't see as needing brought to the BOD. Then, with that issue still holding the floor, another issue was introduced...which lead to time spent on discussion...and a vote being called for. (so, I guess the BOD allowed this to pull on it's time/resources)

By procedure, I think the discussion and the vote were out of order (with another issue holding the floor). But, I don't know if that is anything or not, really.

If I had another take away it would be that this was a bit of a whirlwind discussion and vote.I'd suggest getting in touch with your Area Directors...right now...and letting them know your thoughts on this. (Sounding off here won't get their ear).

[driver8M3]

I attended the meeting as an invited guest (Area 5 Director Candidate)...

thanks for that information. it's good to know how (if not necessarily why) it went down.

[MrPCHead]

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:

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.

This is my favorite post so far. Perfectly encapsulates the flawed logic of "The Decision" and the Animal Farm mentality of (some of) the decision makers. Yes, I shoot Production almost exclusively. Yes, my gun's trigger is below 3#. Yes, my gun works better than when it came out of the box, as does everyone else's that I've seen. No, this rule will not improve Production.

I am taking bets now from anyone who believes this rule will ever be implemented.

-William Daugherty

[ChuckS]

I'd suggest getting in touch with your Area Directors...right now...and letting them know your thoughts on this. (Sounding off here won't get their ear).

Done.

Later,

Chuck

(And you thought you would be able to get off to a smooth start as DA5, didn't you?)

[Flexmoney]

I am taking bets now from anyone who believes this rule will ever be implemented.

Well that is the problem! It has already been implemented.

[bobtorre]

Opprobrious