Poll on 3lb trigger limit in Production

[Flexmoney]

Polls are interesting but very limited in the useful info provided simPly due to small sample size.

While it is counter-intuitive, statistically speaking, you don't need a large sample size to get a good result, provided that you avoid sample selection bias and ballot box stuffing.

Consider, for example, the expected outcome if everyone on the planet flips a coin heads or tails. The outcome is almost certainly going to be close to 50/50, following a classic binomial distribution of expected percentages.

Now, consider the expected percentage of you have 100 people (an extremely miniscule percentage of the planetary population) flip a coin and calculate the percentage. Chances are overwhelming that you will have a result with a few points of 50/50.

How heavy is the coin??!!!

I agree completely with your post. A sample is a sample. Some samples are more representative than others. And, poll questions can be worded well or poorly. I always try to look at them from those perspectives and give them according weight.

[smokshwn]

2. The SA pull on my CZ is far longer than any plastic gun.

Please take your CZ, put it in a box and mail to:

Ghost Products Inc / CZ Custom

1008 South Center St

Mesa, Arizona. 85210

There is something very wrong with your CZ if the SA is anywhere near the length of the trigger pull on a Glock. My CZ's DA pull is about the same length as a Glock. Don't know whats wrong with your gun but get it fixed.

Just catching up on this thread and yes my BS flag is flying high at the description of a CZ with a SA pull as long as a striker fired gun. Having owned a CZ SPO1 built by Matt Mink I can attest that your gun has serious issues. My DA shot was approximately 4lbs and no longer than a striker fired pistol and SA rivaled both my Open and Limited guns for pull weight, length and reset.

[BritinUSA]

I agree completely with your post. A sample is a sample. Some samples are more representative than others. And, poll questions can be worded well or poorly. I always try to look at them from those perspectives and give them according weight.

I tried to word this poll as carefully as I could, and made sure to add the option to specify how often the respondent shoots Production. It is interesting that the ratio has remained remarkably consistent as the vote numbers have increased.

[Chuck Anderson]

I agree completely with your post. A sample is a sample. Some samples are more representative than others. And, poll questions can be worded well or poorly. I always try to look at them from those perspectives and give them according weight.

I tried to word this poll as carefully as I could, and made sure to add the option to specify how often the respondent shoots Production. It is interesting that the ratio has remained remarkably consistent as the vote numbers have increased.

I completely agree with you Paul. This is a pretty well worded poll. I can't think of anything that would have made the questions better. The only issue is what is it polling. It's polling Enos Forum members, which only make up a portion of USPSA. And even you have to admit the numbers responding to the poll are relatively low compared to the number of USPSA members on the forum.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Chuck Anderson

[Nik Habicht]

I agree completely with your post. A sample is a sample. Some samples are more representative than others. And, poll questions can be worded well or poorly. I always try to look at them from those perspectives and give them according weight.

I tried to word this poll as carefully as I could, and made sure to add the option to specify how often the respondent shoots Production. It is interesting that the ratio has remained remarkably consistent as the vote numbers have increased.

I completely agree with you Paul. This is a pretty well worded poll. I can't think of anything that would have made the questions better. The only issue is what is it polling. It's polling Enos Forum members, which only make up a portion of USPSA. And even you have to admit the numbers responding to the poll are relatively low compared to the number of USPSA members on the forum.

Chuck,

I'll give you that the numbers are low, but you already made the argument that the folks who post and vote here are likely to be seriously committed to the game. Now I don't think my vote should count more than else's -- but I do have almost a decade's experience shooting the division, and eight years of experience running a monthly club match and four years experience running my section....

So, some of these responses are going to be representative of more than the single member's opinion that the poll will accept.....

Just some food for thought....

[Chuck Anderson]

I agree completely with your post. A sample is a sample. Some samples are more representative than others. And, poll questions can be worded well or poorly. I always try to look at them from those perspectives and give them according weight.

I tried to word this poll as carefully as I could, and made sure to add the option to specify how often the respondent shoots Production. It is interesting that the ratio has remained remarkably consistent as the vote numbers have increased.

I completely agree with you Paul. This is a pretty well worded poll. I can't think of anything that would have made the questions better. The only issue is what is it polling. It's polling Enos Forum members, which only make up a portion of USPSA. And even you have to admit the numbers responding to the poll are relatively low compared to the number of USPSA members on the forum.

Chuck,

I'll give you that the numbers are low, but you already made the argument that the folks who post and vote here are likely to be seriously committed to the game. Now I don't think my vote should count more than else's -- but I do have almost a decade's experience shooting the division, and eight years of experience running a monthly club match and four years experience running my section....

So, some of these responses are going to be representative of more than the single member's opinion that the poll will accept.....

Just some food for thought....

The poll is going the way I want it to, don't get me wrong. Maybe I'm not making my point on this one though. The opinion of someone who is involved and knows WTF they are talking about is not necessarily the opinion of the average USPSA shooter. Looking at the Poll numbers there is a surprisingly (to me anyway) decent sized minority that wanted trigger pull limits. Yet I've had at least one very experienced individual say no one ever told him they wanted a trigger pull limit. Either our bias from being experienced is tempering what we see and hear or maybe it's just a regional thing. My guess is the desire for a trigger pull limit is probably greater among people newer to the sport than those that have been around the block. It's just a guess though. I'd rather keep one member for 10 years than 10 members for one year. I do believe your opinion is more important. But I can't ignore the new folks either.

[Vlad]

I think we need a poll were we ask people if they believe that polls are representative. Perhaps we first need a poll to check if we want such a poll.

[Chills1994]

this tread is useless i would say only 1% of the membership comes to this site

This poll has been running just for three days and has received 286 votes. ASSuming we have 20,000 active members in USPSA, then 1.43% havE voted in this poll.

[BritinUSA]

This poll has been running just for three days and has received 286 votes. ASSuming we have 20,000 active members in USPSA, then 1.43% havE voted in this poll.

As it costs nothing to join BE.com perhaps everyone can e-mail their shooting buddies that are USPSA members and point them toward this poll. Maybe we can get a 1000 voters on here...

[Rob Boudrie]

Without getting into Statistics 101, a class I never took. If you have a 2 choice option, and there is no outside influence, yeah it's gonna be 50/50. If you have a small sample size that doesn't reflect all of USPSA and many, many options it really isn't representative.

A small sample size can represent a larger population as a whole, however, the key is conducting the survey in a manner that avoid bias. "Self selection" bias is one way to seriously damage the validity of a poll, and why virtually every media poll you see conducted on line refers to itself as a "non-scientific" poll. For the poll to be accurate, the respondents would need to be randomly selected, not self selected, and not choosing to participate in the poll because the issue is of concern to them.

Put simply, the challenge is not the size of the pool as much as the selection of the participants to assure statistical validity.

[MGMorden]

I've never shot in any division OTHER than Production, and I personally DO NOT like the proposal.

Having a little room for modification actually works AGAINST a gear race IMHO. If you are mandating bone-stock guns then rather that limiting modifications, all you're really doing is driving people towards a particular bone-stock gun that runs the best out of the box - currently CZ's costing well in excess of $1200.

In the same way a minimum trigger pull but only for the first shot is simply going to drive more people away from striker fired guns and towards DA/SA guns.

So yeah. Previously a person can be shooting a gun as good as they could expect with a $550 Glock or M&P and $100 worth of enhancements. Now its going to take a $1200 CZ-75 SP-01 Shadow Target. By hey, it's "stock". Way to level the playing field for the shooter on a budget.

[Chills1994]

This poll has been running just for three days and has received 286 votes. ASSuming we have 20,000 active members in USPSA, then 1.43% havE voted in this poll.

As it costs nothing to join BE.com perhaps everyone can e-mail their shooting buddies that are USPSA members and point them toward this poll. Maybe we can get a 1000 voters on here...

That is my intent.

When I can get to a real computer and get into the "club's" mail chimp account I will send out a bulk email and provide links to this threa the other 29 page monstrosity of a thread, and give them Kyle's and Sherwyn's email addy's .

[Chills1994]

I've never shot in any division OTHER than Production, and I personally DO NOT like the proposal.

Having a little room for modification actually works AGAINST a gear race IMHO. If you are mandating bone-stock guns then rather that limiting modifications, all you're really doing is driving people towards a particular bone-stock gun that runs the best out of the box - currently CZ's costing well in excess of $1200.

In the same way a minimum trigger pull but only for the first shot is simply going to drive more people away from striker fired guns and towards DA/SA guns.

So yeah. Previously a person can be shooting a gun as good as they could expect with a $550 Glock or M&P and $100 worth of enhancements. Now its going to take a $1200 CZ-75 SP-01 Shadow Target. By hey, it's "stock". Way to level the playing field for the shooter on a budget.

Holy cow! I didn't know CZ's were that expensive.

You can get police trade in Berettas for $400 or less. Throw in a D spring, or take a 1911 mainspring and cut a few coils off, and you're set!

[pjb45]

A sample is just that a sample. It does represent the population if they sample size adheres to basic statistical assumptions e.g. CI, size, etc.

So the poll is probably statistical sound for the population of BE forum members. A variance of means could be used to determine if BE forums members represent the USPSA population.

This presents an interesting circumstance:

If BE forum can produce a poll, with incredible responses then why can't USPSA do the same thing?

[Neomet]

Polls are interesting but very limited in the useful info provided simPly due to small sample size.

While it is counter-intuitive, statistically speaking, you don't need a large sample size to get a good result, provided that you avoid sample selection bias and ballot box stuffing.

Consider, for example, the expected outcome if everyone on the planet flips a coin heads or tails. The outcome is almost certainly going to be close to 50/50, following a classic binomial distribution of expected percentages.

Now, consider the expected percentage of you have 100 people (an extremely miniscule percentage of the planetary population) flip a coin and calculate the percentage. Chances are overwhelming that you will have a result with a few points of 50/50.

I do work with statistics quite a bit. The problem is you are measuring two different groups. Group A is the USPSA membership. Group B is the USPSA membership who are involved in this forum. One is a subgroup, therefore a different group than the other. As an analogy if I wanted to know what the most popular running shoe is to the general public I would not consider an accurate measure to be to poll the readership of Runners World. Still I think there is value in knowing what this group thinks and if there is no evidence to the contrary from a more comprehensive sample of USPSA shooters to contradict the results of this poll I am not sure there is a valid counter to the findings of this poll. You can only argue that it is not a comprehensive enough sample to make a decision upon which begs the question what is one basing the decision on.

[Chills1994]

I know it's not random, but I will rationalize it this way to an extent... The people who have posted in this thread and on the other thread seem to have disproportionately more skin in the game whether they be AD's, SC's, or MD's or just long time members of this forum and USPSA or just by joining this forum they show that they have more interest or skin than just somebody who dabbles in USPSA.

If there were to be a vote or a poll conducted by USPSA I would simply make the choice binary... Yes...or ...no. Leave all the " I have shot/do shoot/ will never shoot production" options out of it.

[justaute]

FWIW... I have two CZ Shadow with trigger jobs and have also had a short-dustcover CZ worked by Matt Mink. The length of DA-pull, for all of them, is meaningfully longer than the pull-length on the striker-based guns I owned, which included XDM (springer trigger job) and M&P (Burwell trigger job). The DA-pull weight range was 5.5# to 6.5# for the same guns. The SA-pull weight is around 2.5#. As far as the SA-pull length, well, it is definitely shorter than those of striker-based if you discount the long pre-travel or the added length from the Trigger Return Spring -- but not by much, especially comparing to the wonderful trigger job Springer & Burwell did. The TRS of CZ can be adjusted to be quite light, which makes the long SA pre-travel much less noticeable. Nonetheless, the added length and weight are still there.

Another issue regarding the SA-pull weight measurement. The weight of the TRS also affects the SA-pull. As an example, per CZ Custom's website, an SA-pull weight measured around 4.0# has about a 2.0# weight measurement at the sear/hammer engagement point. Thus, the TRS added 2# of pull.

2. The SA pull on my CZ is far longer than any plastic gun.

Please take your CZ, put it in a box and mail to:

Ghost Products Inc / CZ Custom

1008 South Center St

Mesa, Arizona. 85210

There is something very wrong with your CZ if the SA is anywhere near the length of the trigger pull on a Glock. My CZ's DA pull is about the same length as a Glock. Don't know whats wrong with your gun but get it fixed.

Just catching up on this thread and yes my BS flag is flying high at the description of a CZ with a SA pull as long as a striker fired gun. Having owned a CZ SPO1 built by Matt Mink I can attest that your gun has serious issues. My DA shot was approximately 4lbs and no longer than a striker fired pistol and SA rivaled both my Open and Limited guns for pull weight, length and reset.

Edited December 28, 2011 by justaute

[Shadow]

The other problem with polls is the accuracy of the input. For fun, I just picked a "big name" from the shoot production regularly and agree with the rule list of voters and looked up his classifier record (a32398). Just sayin'.

[grapemeister]

I was on the fence, but the more I read, and the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards being in favor of the new rule. Production guns are becoming more and more like Limited guns all the time. We all know shooters that are just as competitive in the Limited division with so called production guns as they are with the same gun in the Production division.

Do we really want to go the way of stock car racing? I like NASCAR, but they should take the word stock out of the name of the sport. We all know that the cars driven in NASCAR are not even remotely similar to cars we can buy at the local dealer. To me that is a joke. Do we really want our Production division to be a joke, too?

Ive since joined the party, and changed some parts out on my Production gun, but I remember being surprised at how much I could modify, and customize my gun when I first joined USPSA. I remember thinking that a gun, other than appearance, could pretty much be turned into a limited gun, and I wondered if the powers that be really intended for that to happen when the Production division was created.

We have to set some limits, and if you cant deal with it, move to the limited division. I know Im probably making some friends upset with my words. Im sorry, its nothing personal, and its just my opinion. Please dont hate me!

Further more, how can I tell a guy with a straight face that all he has to do is go to the gun shop and buy brand X, just like I shoot, and he can shoot in the Prodction division, too. Yeah, and it can be your carry gun, too. Hell, pro shooter so an so shoots the same gun; look him up on Youtube. What kind of introduction is this to our sport, when the poor guy finds out that a good many of our shooters have heavly tricked out production guns that many would not even think about carrying outside of a match. I sure as heck am not going to carry a concealed gun with a sub 3lb trigger pull.

I found two more cents in my pocket...thanks.

Edited December 28, 2011 by grapemiester

[ihatepickles]

The other problem with polls is the accuracy of the input. For fun, I just picked a "big name" from the shoot production regularly and agree with the rule list of voters and looked up his classifier record (a32398). Just sayin'.

Readin, ritin, and rithmetic!

[Torogi]

I am a full time production shooter now, I do not agree to the 3lb first pull. We have IDPA for that.

If the reasoning is in the essence of 'Production' type, we shouldn't be reloading our ammo too. Make it a level field? Not gonna happen. Every single gun of the same make, model, caliber, etc in the hand of an IPSC/USPSA shooter is not the same due to the fact that we like to change some things or tune parts the way we wanted to, and of course, within limits.

It is not 2013 yet, but if this will be implemented, USPSA should adapt IPSC rules. 5-lb, 15 or so rounds, speed holster accepted.

My personal view, right now, BoD shouldn't change anything. Shooting will not be a mainstream sport any time soon, but as a shooter, it is my enjoyment ALWAYS to invite somebody to try our sport. With all the restrictions in placed that worked for 10 years or so, why add more?

[Steve J]

I am a full time production shooter now, I do not agree to the 3lb first pull. We have IDPA for that.

You need to know what you're talking about. IDPA has no trigger pull limit in any divison, equipment restrictions in Stock Service Pistol are, I believe, less restrictive than in USPSA production.

[bgary]

I know it's not random, but I will rationalize it this way to an extent... The people who have posted in this thread and on the other thread seem to have disproportionately more skin in the game whether they be AD's, SC's, or MD's or just long time members of this forum and USPSA or just by joining this forum they show that they have more interest or skin than just somebody who dabbles in USPSA.

True, but that doesn't make them representative of the rank-and-file membership.

IIRC, there was a "poll" several years ago about the USPSA presidential election. The benos forum membership overwhelmingly voted for a candidate who was a frequent benos poster. The USPSA membership overwhelmingly voted for... someone else.

there's a "hive" mentatlity here on benos which, no matter how loudly it claims, doesn't statistically represent "the majority" of USPSA.

[MGMorden]

Holy cow! I didn't know CZ's were that expensive.

You can get police trade in Berettas for $400 or less. Throw in a D spring, or take a 1911 mainspring and cut a few coils off, and you're set!

Virtually all of these rules seem to be rooted in some missplaced though that anything you do to tune up your gun is somehow violating the "spirit" of Production. Pulling springs and cutting coils runs afoul of that.

If this trend more towards the IPSC idea of production being bone stock guns continues then we likely will just end up in a situation where in order to compete you have to buy one of the most expensive pre-tuned "stock" guns there is in order to compete.

All this is beside the point that I (and many shooters) have already invested good time and money into an existing pistol that is perfectly legal under the EXISTING ruleset (in my case an M&P 9L). A 3lb first trigger pull requirement - if I even chose to continue to shoot production (or USPSA for that matter) - would undoubtedly drive me at a minimum to a DA/SA gun, which means throwing out an investment in not only the gun itself, but also holsters, magazines, and other equipment that would all need to be replaced.

Overall its a bad idea. The comparison to NASCAR has been made, and I think its an apt one: no, there's nothing "stock" about stock car racing, but WHO CARES? Its arguing a semantic. The reason why that sport has taken the route it has is that its what the public wants. In the same way, Production division has been growing incredibly rapidly with its existing ruleset. There doesn't seem to be some huge cadre of shooters who would just love to shoot production if only the rules were tweaked. Why implement a rule that is already showing to be unpopular by solving a non-existent problem?

[ac4wordplay]

All this is beside the point that I (and many shooters) have already invested good time and money into an existing pistol that is perfectly legal under the EXISTING ruleset (in my case an M&P 9L). A 3lb first trigger pull requirement - if I even chose to continue to shoot production (or USPSA for that matter) - would undoubtedly drive me at a minimum to a DA/SA gun, which means throwing out an investment in not only the gun itself, but also holsters, magazines, and other equipment that would all need to be replaced.

Throwing out? Really? Really?! Yes, I understand, because it would all become worthless trash...

Let me know when and where and I'll happily hold the waste pail for your convenience (and collect the contents).