USPSA BOD Meeting

[waktasz]

How often to big rules changes like this happen? Is there a new rulebook printed every time?

Reason I ask is because not everyone spends all their time on the internet like I do. If not for this thread, I would never have heard of this change.

[sdm74]

When people first come to the sport they don't even now the rules of what u can and can't do. So the idea of a light trigger will "scare" people away from production is ludicrous

[Chuck Anderson]

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).

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).

Correct me if I'm wrong but this isn't quite how it arose. Amidon was asking the BOD about a trigger that Springfield is including on Custom Shop guns as OEM. The trigger is made by Powder River, sold to Springfield Armory who is branding it as OEM. OK to there. Powder River, or someone requested they be able to buy the identical trigger from Powder River and use that as OEM. That's where the hitch came. That started a discussion of how to objectively determine whether a trigger had been modified. Someone brought up trigger pulls as a way to determine that, along with the argument that we could just let them do whatever with their trigger, as long as it was 3 lbs. I said the next set of modifictions we'd need to address would be shortening pre and overtravel. People would just spend the same amount of money on a 2.5 pound short trigger and put it towards a short 3.5 pound trigger and we wouldn't have "fixed" anything. I'm pretty sure that all the arguments raised in this thread were raised during the meeting. I was as equally shocked...no probably more so than Kyle. In fact I acted a bit like a whiny b!tch afterwards and probably didn't impress our visiting member very much. I even managed to get a shut the f up out of the Pres. Oops.

The second Production related agenda item came the second day and was requested by me. Mainly addressing the issue that we put a trigger pull requirment in, but no clue how to implement it.

Rob/Nik, as far as whether an RO or competitor breaks the vertical 180 is an issue for me. I don't want either to do it (hell I don't want the pull limit in the first place but that's my fault for not arguing my points better) That said, all the sports that I know of that have trigger pull tests, and admittedly it is only IPSC and NRA AP have the RO do them vertically. I think there is safe precedent for staff to do it, none whatsoever for the competitor to do so. There is also precedent that we don't DQ staff for something that otherwise might be a DQ on the part of the competitor (not talking special treatment I'm talking about an AD by Chronoman, or an RO picking up a dropped gun).

Rob, sorry but your argument regarding the Glock - connector and being not carry friendly is completely off base. Since they don't sell those to "civilians" who do you think they sell them to. Law Enforcement. And not for toys, for carry guns. Great point, just supports the opposite of your position. BTW, the original designation of the Glock 34/35 series was Practical/Tactical. They were designed for IPSC competition (Standard, pre Production Division, to fit in the IPSC box) and Law Enforcement open carry.

[MarkCO]

How often to big rules changes like this happen? Is there a new rulebook printed every time?

Reason I ask is because not everyone spends all their time on the internet like I do. If not for this thread, I would never have heard of this change.

NROI rulings (not all of which are in the current printed rulebook): http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-NROI-rulings-listing.php

USPSA BOD minutes: http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-board-mtgs-home.php

We are currently under the 2008 book for pistol WITH BOD amendments through July 2010, plus 6 more NROI rulings. It is more frequent than I would like meaning you should really check the rules before any major match.

[Chuck Anderson]

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.

It has been approved and made a rule, but it won't be implemented until 2013.

[MarkCO]

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

Done. My AD provided me his rationale for his vote and then asked for my thoughts, which are now back off to him. If you don't like it, you have about a year to make your argument.

[bobert1]

Should I reinforce my thoughts to my outgoing A5 director, or to my incoming A5 director ???

[waktasz]

How often to big rules changes like this happen? Is there a new rulebook printed every time?

Reason I ask is because not everyone spends all their time on the internet like I do. If not for this thread, I would never have heard of this change.

NROI rulings (not all of which are in the current printed rulebook): http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-NROI-rulings-listing.php

USPSA BOD minutes: http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-board-mtgs-home.php

We are currently under the 2008 book for pistol WITH BOD amendments through July 2010, plus 6 more NROI rulings. It is more frequent than I would like meaning you should really check the rules before any major match.

Thanks !

[Pat Miles]

Should I reinforce my thoughts to my outgoing A5 director, or to my incoming A5 director ???

Both!

The outgoing for the decision made. The incoming for the "possible" change, but don't hold your breath.

Pat

[sdm74]

No one cared about our thoughts to begin with. Maybe will see some outlaw pistol matches popping up like with 3 gun

[Supermoto]

The BOD policy statement from March 7, 2009 sums it up nicely:

Quote

The broad intent of the Production Division remains intact; to provide an equipment category where stock or nearly-stock guns can compete on a relatively level playing field. Due to unsupported member assumptions, a wide variety of internal and external modifications have been seen in competition. USPSA’s intent, with this ruling, is to re-level the playing field, respectful of both members existing investments in guns and current modifications, and the desire to have the Division remain viable for typical carry-suitable guns.

Let just remove this principle behind Production. It is not a carry division. it is a production division. None of the gear we use nor the way we shoot are "typically carry-suitable". If the carry philosophy is what you are looking for, there are games whose philosophy is more in line

[BritinUSA]

Those on the BOD that voted against this decision need to get a by-law passed into USPSA stating that;

NO RULE CHANGES BE PERMITTED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH THE MEMBERSHIP.

"Prior Consultation" to imply a minimum 90 period where the BOD can solicit responses from the membership and pass information back and forth to ensure that all affected parties have an opportunity to respond.

So there....

[MarkCO]

No one cared about our thoughts to begin with. Maybe will see some outlaw pistol matches popping up like with 3 gun

Your AD, Voight and Amidon told you they did not care about what you thought? I find that hard to beleive. My AD has been very recpetive to hearing my thoughts. When I have spoke to Voight and others ADs, whose area I am not even in, they too have listened to my opinions and provided their rationale and thoughts.

If you don't talk or write to or call your elected officers, in any organization, they won't be able to read your mind.

[BritinUSA]

No one cared about our thoughts to begin with. Maybe will see some outlaw pistol matches popping up like with 3 gun

Your AD, Voight and Amidon told you they did not care about what you thought? I find that hard to beleive. My AD has been very recpetive to hearing my thoughts. When I have spoke to Voight and others ADs, whose area I am not even in, they too have listened to my opinions and provided their rationale and thoughts.

If you don't talk or write to or call your elected officers, in any organization, they won't be able to read your mind.

Mark, I think what he is stating is that the BOD did not care enough about our thoughts to solicit our opinion on them prior to a vote. I think there should be a published agenda before each BOD meeting and only those items on the agenda should be discussed.

[MarkCO]

Those on the BOD that voted against this decision need to get a by-law passed into USPSA stating that;

NO RULE CHANGES BE PERMITTED WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH THE MEMBERSHIP.

"Prior Consultation" to imply a minimum 90 period where the BOD can solicit responses from the membership and pass information back and forth to ensure that all affected parties have an opportunity to respond.

So there....

Sorry Paul, but I totally disagree. USPSA is BOD run, and it is not a democracy except w.r.t. voting. If members fail to inform their ADs, NROI and the President of their views and wishes, that is lazy and should not then require them to accomodate such behavior. That would essentially make the BOD a voting proxy and therefore them being elected would no onger be required. Write your AD, I am sure he wants to hear your opinion!

[MarkCO]

Mark, I think what he is stating is that the BOD did not care enough about our thoughts to solicit our opinion on them prior to a vote. I think there should be a published agenda before each BOD meeting and only those items on the agenda should be discussed.

That makes sense, and might be a good halfway point to garner the type of input you seek in your post just prior.

[BritinUSA]

Mark, no-one knew that this issue was coming to a vote. How can we express our opinion on something when we do not know the subject is even up for debate/vote ?

Edited to add; Just saw your post above, Mark.... I think we are saying the same thing.

Edited December 23, 2011 by BritinUSA

[Chills1994]

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 ?

When you see Ben next, would you tell him that, in person?

Me? I'm a Beretta shooter also, rockin' the 9 in Limited Minor...wooohooo!

[MarkCO]

Let just remove this principle behind Production. It is not a carry division. it is a production division. None of the gear we use nor the way we shoot are "typically carry-suitable". If the carry philosophy is what you are looking for, there are games whose philosophy is more in line

I see in this as slightly different philosophy. The "carry-type" gear is what proespective new shooters predominanatly have and therefore catering to them provides a simpler gateway into USPSA. Rather than trying to be a carry division, a division where the carry stuff and commonly owned firearms are not at a significant disadvantage.

[Chills1994]

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.

Is it spelled out anywhere else what the purpose of the other divisions are?

I mean...can I go somewhere I read up on what the purpose of Open or Limited or Single Stack is?

[gmshtr]

Hello everyone,

I would like to express my thought process as it related to my vote (as A4 Director).

At the time of the meeting, I was rallying behind the philosophy that Production division should be that of a true “stock” class pistol, with a minimal amount of specialized gunwork and accessories needing to be performed or purchased to be competitive. The trigger limit discussion (and eventually motion) was spawned from Production mag pouch discussions, replacement triggers, etc. As some of you may know, I shot an M&P9 Pro for nearly 3 years that was totally stock (besides grip tape and sights). I think my vote was motivated by my rationale that if I could remain competitive with a 6-7lb trigger, most could. Plus new shooters would not be intimidated by the extra amount of trigger work needed to be “competitive.” In short, I voted based on my personal experience and viewpoints.

I can honestly say that I began to question my decision only days after the meeting. I came to grips with the fact that although some sort of restriction on excessive trigger work may comfort some new shooters, many of our current Production shooters would need to spend more money to even the playing field regarding their equipment. This was what I was trying to avoid in the first place.

Do I still PERSONALLY believe that Production Division should be shot with stock internals and triggers? YES

Do I think that adjusting one’s trigger pull to pick up an NRA 3lb weight (which most will do) would negatively, substantially, or permanently affect anyone’s shooting? NO

Do I think this was a worthwhile motion? YES

Do I think we presented the motion and voted pre-maturely? PROBABLY

(Here’s the important question) Do I think that raising the trigger pull would grow the division? I’M NOT SURE.

Here’s what I am sure of:

- Production division has been around for over 10 years, and has truly changed our sport for the better.

- It will be VERY difficult to re-structure a 10 year-old division without alienating a large group of shooters.

- It will be very difficult to ensure that triggers are weighed consistently regardless of what method could be used.

- It is in our nature to “improve” our gear, whether it is our guns, holsters, cars, golf carts...hell, everything.

- Members should contact their Area Directors to voice their opinions. I would ask that you please keep things polite and professional without personal feelings being interjected.

- The BOD will meet twice more in person with several special meetings during the year before this possible rule change would take effect in 2013.

Thanks to everyone for your comments.

Edited December 23, 2011 by gmshtr

[sdm74]

No one cared about our thoughts to begin with. Maybe will see some outlaw pistol matches popping up like with 3 gun

Your AD, Voight and Amidon told you they did not care about what you thought? I find that hard to beleive. My AD has been very recpetive to hearing my thoughts. When I have spoke to Voight and others ADs, whose area I am not even in, they too have listened to my opinions and provided their rationale and thoughts.

If you don't talk or write to or call your elected officers, in any organization, they won't be able to read your mind.

They may listen but they didn't care enough to find out how we thought to begin with.

[Supermoto]

I see in this as slightly different philosophy. The "carry-type" gear is what proespective new shooters predominanatly have and therefore catering to them provides a simpler gateway into USPSA. Rather than trying to be a carry division, a division where the carry stuff and commonly owned firearms are not at a significant disadvantage.

And trigger pull is only factor that determines if a firearm is significant disadvantage? a sub 3lbs G26 is at a significant advantage over a 3lbs G34?

BOD wants a 3lb trigger pull to easy the rules on modifications, fine. Call it that, don't hide it behind carry gun viability

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Doesn't take effect until 2013, right? That's a long way from being implemented -- though it was voted into existence.....

[Chills1994]

Opprobrious

Dang!

I must have missed that word while studying for the GRE.

From dictionary.com

op·pro·bri·ous   [uh-proh-bree-uhs] Show IPA

adjective

1.

conveying or expressing opprobrium, as language or a speaker: opprobrious invectives.

2.

outrageously disgraceful or shameful: opprobrious conduct.