Production Division Compliance

[sirveyr]

I feel that once Nutnfancy or Cory and Erica do a review of a pistol, it should be good to go in USPSA Production.

[Flexmoney]

I feel that once Nutnfancy or Cory and Erica do a review of a pistol, it should be good to go in USPSA Production.

Yeah, we should probably raise dues to pay them a consulting fee. :wacko:

[mhop]

What's worse though - zero enforcement or full Pinto?

I think waiting and making sure a gun is 100% legal is better than jumping the gun and then refusing to correct the mistake.

That model is not yet in general circulation, nor does it appear in the FN catalogue or website. Perhaps next year.

Pinto is on to something

[Ben Stoeger]

What's worse though - zero enforcement or full Pinto?

I think waiting and making sure a gun is 100% legal is better than jumping the gun and then refusing to correct the mistake.

That model is not yet in general circulation, nor does it appear in the FN catalogue or website. Perhaps next year.

Pinto is on to something

Indeed

[sperman]

I've split the discussion on how to ensure compliance into a separate thread. Both are good discussions, but each deserve their own thread.

[sperman]

I would prefer not to see sanctions. I think it would be better to insure enforcement up front.

How about the gun isn't approved until 90 days after the form is submitted. This would give the BOD time to confirm availability, and if needed, allow the guns time to work through the pipeline.

I'm 99% sure this means that suppliers would simply submit the form 90 days early, hoping to have the guns to market by the time the gun became legal. This would make the problem worse, not better.

That's pretty simple. If the requirements aren't met the day the paperwork is submitted, you reject it and ask them to re-submit at a later date.

• BOD actually discusses EACH gun at IN PERSON meeting
  

This would mean that only twice a year would guns be able to be added to the list. It would give the members a chance to verify info in advance and bring any issues up with their AD. It would also require the BOD to discuss each gun and therefore they are likely to bring up issues that members have voiced to them.

I think that is a great idea. This way the BoD is empowered to make sure that the process is followed and nothing gets rushed through at the last minute.

I agree. A great idea.

[Gary Stevens]

A few random thoughts.

In person BOD meetings are actually one day. The second day is very short due to individual members leaving to catch flights back home. Trying to review individual guns at a meeting I believe would be difficult at best.

Gun companies are in the business of selling guns. Sometimes competitions, such as IPSC/USPSA and IDPA are a benefit in that process.Sometimes they have produced guns that compeition shooters want simply because they make good guns even better and therefore sell better. However, if you think that a representative of USPSA is going to be given access to the records of a gun company to verify numbers of units produced, I am skeptical. About the best you can do is take their word for it. Now a spot check of gunstores to verify that a particular model of a particular gun is actually available to Joe Blow who walks in off the street, could be accomplised by the AD's in each Area fairly easily I believe.

Gary

[sperman]

In person BOD meetings are actually one day. The second day is very short due to individual members leaving to catch flights back home. Trying to review individual guns at a meeting I believe would be difficult at best.

[drift]

Has our sport grown to the point that the BOD meeting 2 days a year isn't sufficient to conduct the required business?

[/drift]

[ima45dv8]

In person BOD meetings are actually one day. The second day is very short due to individual members leaving to catch flights back home. Trying to review individual guns at a meeting I believe would be difficult at best.

[drift]

Has our sport grown to the point that the BOD meeting 2 days a year isn't sufficient to conduct the required business?

[/drift]

Maybe. We could schedule 6 per calendar year, and also make funds available for DNROI or some other appointed representative to visit the manufacturers as suggested.

Nah. Wouldn't work. We'd then have three threads going on how the organization's leadership is failing as good stewards of the coffers and isn't putting on glitzy enough Nationals due to this flagrant waste of the membership's money.

[Gary Stevens]

Now now Mark.......

[ctay]

I guess I don't get it. I think we should be doing everything we can to bring more manufacturers into our sport, not making it more difficult to get approved. I just don't think it makes that much of a difference if 2,000 units are produced or not. It isn't like there is a significant difference in the guns we are talking about...

Like I said - I just don't get it.

[Shokr21]

Does the in person meeting generate more productivity?

I guess I don't understand why a video conference via skype or something similar isn't good enough, or why (if at all) the satellite meetings aren't just as productive as a face to face meeting?

or am I missing something?

[warpspeed]

I guess I don't get it. I think we should be doing everything we can to bring more manufacturers into our sport, not making it more difficult to get approved. I just don't think it makes that much of a difference if 2,000 units are produced or not. It isn't like there is a significant difference in the guns we are talking about...

Like I said - I just don't get it.

Then I suggest you write your AD and ask him/her to propose a removal of requirement # 1 for getting a gun on the USPSA Production approved list.

Until then, it is there and like all the rest of the printed words in the rule book, I think they should be followed just like power factor & magazine length.

[BritinUSA]

Could the review of potential candidates for the Production Gun list be done once a year at Shot Show?

Sending sone USPSA reps to Shot Show could then serve the dual purpose of promoting the sport and checking any new guns to check that they meet the physical requirements.

[beltjones]

A few random thoughts.

In person BOD meetings are actually one day. The second day is very short due to individual members leaving to catch flights back home. Trying to review individual guns at a meeting I believe would be difficult at best.

Gun companies are in the business of selling guns. Sometimes competitions, such as IPSC/USPSA and IDPA are a benefit in that process.Sometimes they have produced guns that compeition shooters want simply because they make good guns even better and therefore sell better. However, if you think that a representative of USPSA is going to be given access to the records of a gun company to verify numbers of units produced, I am skeptical. About the best you can do is take their word for it. Now a spot check of gunstores to verify that a particular model of a particular gun is actually available to Joe Blow who walks in off the street, could be accomplised by the AD's in each Area fairly easily I believe.

Gary

Very good information. I really think piling more on the BOD's plate isn't a good idea, especially at the in-person meetings. This seems like the kind of thing that could be voted on via email or something.

However, what's really troubling is not the time constraints of the in-person meeting, it's the total reliance on the "word" of the gun companies, when there is plenty of evidence that in some cases they can be ... less than correct? I don't think we can expect gun companies to open their books, but the unwillingness of anyone in charge to stand up and say, "You guys need to back this one up with some data, because by all accounts you got it wrong" isn't comforting.

Edited March 27, 2013 by beltjones

[Nik Habicht]

Does the in person meeting generate more productivity?

I guess I don't understand why a video conference via skype or something similar isn't good enough, or why (if at all) the satellite meetings aren't just as productive as a face to face meeting?

or am I missing something?

Yes. I'm no expert but I participate in a bunch of meetings each week in corporate America. The fastest, most productive meetings with the least amount of miscommunication occur face to face.....

Telephone conferencing w/application sharing, i.e. video presentation, and satellite video conferencing both leave a lot to be desired from time delays to bad audio. And I'm pretty sure that the professional services aren't cheap....

[Flexmoney]

As important as this is, there are lots of important items on the agenda at BOD meetings (in-person or otherwise). How much of your resources do you want devoted to an issue that comes up a few times a decade? Do you want the BOD executing business, or directing the execution? (if we have to micromanage then we aren't doing it wright, IMO)

And, it really wouldn't subtract from the workload of DNROI, it would probably add to it. He'd have to compile the data and present it and be prepared to answer questions...as we all (BOD) debated every detail for an hour or two.

I think the policy needs tweaked (I'm not speak for other BOD members, they may think differently). We seem to have some differences on the fundamental objectives. I think we should clarify intent (one thread), and devise a check (another thread).

[Shokr21]

I'm rather new to the sport, so I might not be grasping the intensity of meetings.

I guess where my frustration comes from is how something so simple (seemingly) can be apparently so intricate. I mean these 3 questions are all that's required: 2000 produced?

Available to general public?

Compliant with Divisional rules?

Those 3 questions just don't seem like rocket science. So I struggle with how it's possible that something like this occurs even once.

[warpspeed]

I'm rather new to the sport, so I might not be grasping the intensity of meetings.

I guess where my frustration comes from is how something so simple (seemingly) can be apparently so intricate. I mean these 3 questions are all that's required: 2000 produced?

Available to general public?

Compliant with Divisional rules?

Those 3 questions just don't seem like rocket science. So I struggle with how it's possible that something like this occurs even once.

USPSA is based on competition.

The saying " If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying" is as prevalent here as any other competition based sport.

Our BoD is elected so now we have politics involved.

We use to have an Us vs Them twist between Shooters & ROs but that, I think, has died down a lot.

Wrap it all together and you have a group that cannot agree on things that to you & I seem self evident.

[GigG]

We have a board, we have the NROI and we have a staff. The shooting business is pretty small compared to some other business and made even smaller by the limited number of distributors out there. It would be simple to call the various distributors that actually sell guns to gun shops and ask if the new SUPER GUN X is actually a gun that they have the ability to order and ship to their customers.

[warpspeed]

We have a board, we have the NROI and we have a staff. The shooting business is pretty small compared to some other business and made even smaller by the limited number of distributors out there. It would be simple to call the various distributors that actually sell guns to gun shops and ask if the new SUPER GUN X is actually a gun that they have the ability to order and ship to their customers.

Actually - looking @ Bud's, Davidson's and also on Gunbroker and you can see very quickly if a gun is available or not.

[leas327]

Here is an idea. When a manufacturer turns in the form for approval, the gun gets looked at and approved. If NROI approves it then they send out 8 guns to the area directors for final approval. They already made 2000 of them and since USPSA is such a small percentage of gun sales it shouldn't be a big deal. They don't seem to have a problem sending guns out to magazine writers. Maybe some of our directors could double dip and kill two birds with one stone. Guns ship next day, the directors have 2 weeks to review and approve. E-mail responses, majority rules.

[ima45dv8]

Here is an idea. When a manufacturer turns in the form for approval, the gun gets looked at and approved. If NROI approves it then they send out 8 guns to the area directors for final approval. They already made 2000 of them and since USPSA is such a small percentage of gun sales it shouldn't be a big deal. They don't seem to have a problem sending guns out to magazine writers. Maybe some of our directors could double dip and kill two birds with one stone. Guns ship next day, the directors have 2 weeks to review and approve. E-mail responses, majority rules.

Those gun writers reach millions (yes, millions) of gun enthusiasts who salivate over whatever is printed in the latest 4-color article in a popular magazine.

We're maybe 25,000 gun enthusiasts, a smaller number of which would be purchasing a "USPSA Production-compliant" firearm.

The math ain't working...

[mhop]

Here is an idea. When a manufacturer turns in the form for approval, the gun gets looked at and approved. If NROI approves it then they send out 8 guns to the area directors for final approval. They already made 2000 of them and since USPSA is such a small percentage of gun sales it shouldn't be a big deal. They don't seem to have a problem sending guns out to magazine writers. Maybe some of our directors could double dip and kill two birds with one stone. Guns ship next day, the directors have 2 weeks to review and approve. E-mail responses, majority rules.

would never happen