February BOD meeting - NEW USPSA RULES

[rooster]

50 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

so do you believe that weight is always an advantage when shooting minor, and you'll *have* to have a 59 oz gun to be successful?

 

I don't.

No I don’t believe weight is an advantage. In fact it makes transitions harder. My point was that USPSA is going way beyond the scope of the intentions of the division when it was created. It’s all about the money. 

[TrackCage]

1 hour ago, Rnlinebacker said:

No one cares what equipment we invest. We all make choices on what we want to spend our money. You spend too much and now your gun is perceived to be useless, oh well.
 

 

39 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

A big 10 - 4 to that. A rule change which makes your $xxx.xx gun or accessory very hard to sell for more than 50% of the value prior to the change does not seem to concern hq in the slightest. 

 

Hold on there guys. This is the reasoning we see time and time again for Limited. "If we allow you to make major with a 9mm" or "take away major/minor" eventually leads to the notion that we cannot make Limited shooters (and their 40 cal gats) be forced to buy new equipment.

 

Now we don't care? Those who have old equipment - f 'em?

 

I shoot a Glock, so I couldn't make the 45 oz weight, much less the new one. Just thought this line of logic was entertaining. Not focused on you guys specifically.

[waktasz]

These new rules don't obsolete any existing guns. Killing major in Limited would

 

[Rich406]

I don’t see much of an advantage over 40oz for 9mm minor. 

[IHAVEGAS]

Ah ha.

 

If I just stop with the membership dues and expenses lost working level 2's, I can recoup losses. 

 

 

That works.

[bgary]

1 hour ago, rustychev said:

I miss production as a truly stock gun area vs limited minor as it is now becoming.

 

That "truly stock" thing fell apart about a half-hour after the rules were first published (back in 2000)

The original "vision" of production division was a beginner's division; bring whatever you have from the bedside table, come out to play for a few matches and then, once you have a classification you can decide which "real" division you want to compete in. Seriously.  In the orignal draft of the rules, you couldn't compete in Production after you had some number of matches under your belt.  To bolster that, the rules basically required box-stock guns, "as produced".
 

What we found was that the division was interesting to a whole lot of people besides the brand-new-to-USPSA competitor.  And that NOBODY had a "box stock" gun.  Even the guy with a G17 in his bedside table added an extended mag-release, night-sights, whatever... which (in theory) made it illegal to use in the "box stock" division. 

 

Thus began the slide down the slippery slope.  USPSA amended the rules to say that certain internal modifications were allowed.  People interpreted that to mean "if you can't see the change from the outside, it's an internal mod and therefore legal".  We actually re-wrote the entire rule-set in 2009, IIRC, in an attempt to land the idea that ONLY certain mods were allowed, and that it was on the shooter to be able to point to a rule that made a modification legal.  That didn't go over well.
 

Flash forward to today.  There's (literally) no way to write a rule that draws a clear bright line between what's a legal mod and what is not. If a model on the approved list comes with an extended slide-stop (or whatever), can I put it on my gun, which is also on the approved list?  And, more to the point, the manufacturers are leveraging what *they* see as interesting corners of the market - milled slides, modular grips, weights, competition parts....
 

So just what *is* a "production gun" these days?  If it is a gun "as produced" by the factory, does that mean "in the exact configuration" it came in the box, or does that mean plus-or-minus factory options, or does it mean plus-or-minus a different grip module... or...?  And... how in the world would the guy at Chrono know whether or not the thing you put on the table is "as produced" or legally modified or NOT legal for the division?
 

That's the problem the Board has been trying to sort out.  Underscored by two premises: there are a lot of guns on the market that are "produced" in a configuration that includes many things that were "modifications" only a couple of years ago.  And if "we" can't tell whether or not a gun is legal under the rules, then... the rules don't really mean much.
 

At some level, the things that differentiate Production from the other divisions are: Not SAO, iron sights, at least some number built, minor scoring, 10-round limit, fits in the box.  THOSE things we can objectively determine.  The other things?  that's a lot harder, and it gets harder every time a manufacturer comes out with a new model that contains "features" that - last year - were modifications.
 

$.02

Bruce

[B_RAD]

IMO CO needed the weight adjusted.  Guns that were legal for production were over 45 oz (Stock 3). 
 

Now, if you have a cut up stock 3 or shadow 2, the resale value of that gun just took a hit since OR models will be available. 
 

I don’t see why Prod needed to be increased to 59 oz?!  If it was just to match the new weight for CO, that seems lazy. The current rule of gun + 4 oz seemed like a sensical limit. IMO, the CO rules should have been changed to something similar. Like gun + 10 oz.  

 

oh well,.... 

 

it’s going to be fun to watch the gear heads try to push the limits to make glocks “competitive” by adding 12oz of weight.  

Edited March 3, 2020 by B_RAD

[bgary]

2 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

The current rule of gun + 4 oz seemed like a sensical limit.

 

I don't disagree, but... how does that work at the Chrono table? 

 

If someone walks up with a... I don't know, Sig something-or-other.... is the weight+4 based on a specific manufacturer SKU?  Is it based on a specific range of serial numbers?  Is it based on which grip-module is installed?  Is it based on whether or not it has factory options (extended controls, adjustable sights, etc)?  For that one "model" of gun, there might be 5 or 10 or 20 different "factory weights"... does it make sense to (try to) maintain a list that includes all of them, and is updated every time the manufacturer adds a new "factory option"....?

 

 

[B_RAD]

25 minutes ago, bgary said:

 

I don't disagree, but... how does that work at the Chrono table? 

 

If someone walks up with a... I don't know, Sig something-or-other.... is the weight+4 based on a specific manufacturer SKU?  Is it based on a specific range of serial numbers?  Is it based on which grip-module is installed?  Is it based on whether or not it has factory options (extended controls, adjustable sights, etc)?  For that one "model" of gun, there might be 5 or 10 or 20 different "factory weights"... does it make sense to (try to) maintain a list that includes all of them, and is updated every time the manufacturer adds a new "factory option"....?

 

 

Very good point. 
 

though, if they keep changing the rules under the pretense of ease of enforcement, then let’s just make everything/anything legal!  That will require zero enforcement/knowledge of rules. Think about how much time that’ll save at equipment check. Heck, won’t even need to staff that position anymore. Think about how much easier matches will run!

 

 

ok, I’m trying to be funny but in my mind, we gotta draw some lines and freaking stick with them!  

Edited March 3, 2020 by B_RAD

[HCH]

Here’s my thoughts: 

 

combine L10, SS and Production, and stick with the 8 major, 10 minor of SS. Keep SS/Pro holster rules. Keep the production/SS box. Weight limit of 59oz (or whatever). No optics. No comps. 

 

Pretty easy and pretty consistent. 

[bgary]

27 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

 we gotta draw some lines and freaking stick with them!  

 

Agreed.

 

At the moment, the big lines around Production are: not SAO, iron sights, at least some number built, minor scoring, 10-round limit, fits in the box, less than 59oz.

 

I suspect one of four things will happen - either
-- the 59oz limit becomes meaningless because competitors decide it isn't a competitive advantage to shoot a gun that heavy; or,
-- manufacturers see a market and start producing heavier guns that are "factory produced" and the Board decides to adjust the weight limit (again) or

-- manufacturers see a market and start producing heavier guns that are "factory produced" and the Board decides to exclude them, or
-- we get rid of the weight limit entirely, but continue to keep the line drawn at not-SAO, minor, 10 rounds, iron sights, fits in the box, etc.

 

Arguably, three of those are competitor-centered (based on the idea that we should let competitors choose the equipment that they believe best suits their competitive interests within the rules of the division).  One of them is, arguably, drawing another arbitrary line in a place that serves only to "limit competitor choices".  I'm not personally sure which is best. 

Edited March 3, 2020 by bgary

[B_RAD]

4 minutes ago, bgary said:

 

Agreed.

 

At the moment, the big lines around Production are: not SAO, iron sights, at least some number built, minor scoring, 10-round limit, fits in the box, less than 59oz.

 

I suspect one of four things will happen - either
-- the 59oz limit becomes meaningless because competitors decide it isn't a competitive advantage to shoot a gun that heavy; or,
-- manufacturers see a market and start producing heavier guns that are "factory produced" and the Board decides to adjust the weight limit (again) or

-- manufacturers see a market and start producing heavier guns that are "factory produced" and the Board decides to exclude them, or
-- we get rid of the weight limit entirely, but continue to keep the line drawn at not-SAO, minor, 10 rounds, iron sights, fits in the box, etc.

 

Arguably, three of those are competitor-centered (based on the idea that we should let competitors choose the equipment that they believe best suits their competitive interests within the rules of the division).  One of them is, arguably, drawing another arbitrary line in a place that serves only to "limit competitor choices".  I'm not personally sure which is best. 

You’ll see SA legal and 15 rnd before long. Probably do away with major/minor too. 

[bgary]

15 round comes up in discussion every year.  The biggest argument "for" is alignment with IPSC. So far, most of the members who have given me input have indicated that's not enough of a reason, and the challenge of the 10-round limit is part of why the division is interesting to them.

 

SA and major?  Very doubtful.  At the end of the day, there's strong interest in making sure there are differentiators between divisions to make them different competitive challenges.  Allowing SA and major in Production would *really* erase most of the lines between Production and Limited, and... there's no good reason to do that.

 

JMHO.

[TrackCage]

2 minutes ago, bgary said:

15 round comes up in discussion every year.  The biggest argument "for" is alignment with IPSC. So far, most of the members who have given me input have indicated that's not enough of a reason, and the challenge of the 10-round limit is part of why the division is interesting to them.

 

SA and major?  Very doubtful.  At the end of the day, there's strong interest in making sure there are differentiators between divisions to make them different competitive challenges.  Allowing SA and major in Production would *really* erase most of the lines between Production and Limited, and... there's no good reason to do that.

 

JMHO.

Speaking for myself, if low-cap adopted the 8 major/10 minor thing, I'd be likely to consider 8 major in Prod. I have no desire to shoot L10 or SS in my neck of the woods, but have a healthy Prod population. Would this rule change deteriorate that population, is the question. 

[Jeff226]

2 hours ago, waktasz said:

These new rules don't obsolete any existing guns. Killing major in Limited would

 

Major wouldn't be killed in Limited if they just added a separate Limited Minor...which would be far better than what they are doing to production to appease the people that really want Limited Minor.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Jeff226
remove "..."

[motosapiens]

I don't think this needs all the weeping and wailing. Admittedly I don't shoot production anymore, but I did get my start in USPSA in production, and I still shoot CO. As i have said before, I think the value in production (and CO) is that they are based on actual duty/carry weapons in use by actual police agencies and militaries. I don't have any problem with people  modifying them by working on the triggers or super-gluing lead weights onto them if they think that's an actual advantage.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the race-only production guns being developed by cz. At least the shadow was pretty much based on the sp01 which is a real duty/carry defensive gun, but I'm not sure one can pass the red-face test when claiming the shadow 2 is police duty weapon. OTOH, I'm not sure I think a shadow 2 is any advantage whatsoever over a really good trigger on p320 or xdm, so maybe I don't care how people spend their money. At the end of the day, if it's got the right kind of trigger, and fits in the box and so forth, let people have a little fun.

[raz-0]

My $0.02 is that the rule changes regarding division gear mostly make a kind of sense these days. You may not like them, but they do appear to be driven by a couple of key concepts. 

 

1) USPSA needs a division to accommodate what is selling in the marketplace, otherwise we place barriers to new participation. 

2) Existing members get upset when they can't show up and shoot with stuff they already purchased. 

 

The divisions tend to expand and accommodate more and more. The only people really left complaining very hard are those who believe newly accessible gear actually offers a competitive advantage and feel they will need to buy new gear. 

 

A lot of newbies willing to show up and compete will dump a shocking amount of money on a new gun without talking to anyone. If you want to see the power of rules to drive someone away, telling someone their $2000 shiny new franken-whatever has no place to shoot but open does a pretty solid job. 

 

The fact of it is, that unlike the 1911 platform of old, on a lot of more modern modular striker fired guns, a lot of modifications are accessible to even the mildly competent DIYer with less than a c-note and a bit of determination.  It's just not the spending race it used to be. 

 

Additionally, you have a lot of potential shooters saddled with 10 round capacity limits. That's about 80 million people. 

 

If you want growth, or even to just replace churn, you need to be accessible to the available supply of people.  So we got carry optics, and we got changes to production that allow people who already carved all over their cool guy glock with a soldering iron to show up and shoot. 

 

I could take the magwell off my gun and shoot production, but I'd put it back for 3 gun. So for now I'll shoot it L10 minor. 

 

Lots of divisons has it's problems. It used to be a pain for MDs. Having done that job, scoring included, pre-practiscore I have great sympathy. However practiscore has made that not much of a big deal. Unless you are the competitive type who wants to force other people to play in your sandbox so you can show them what's what. But if that's you, we are ow on at least year 15 or 20 of listening to you complain that it's anything but heads up winner takes all and whining about any match that dare do random draw for prizes in any form. 

 

TrackCage's idea is something I'd possibly shoot. A broad category with a smattering of mutually exclusive options might be interesting.  

 

[be032]

Feels like they had someone lobbying hard to fit into carry optics, going from 45 oz to 59. 

 

Why not ramp it up if they were really trying to let the division "develop" organically?

[Hihellosup]

Things that actually make divisions feel different off the top of my head:

 

Irons vs dots

 

Power factor

 

Capacity

 

Goofy ass race guns with comps and frame mounted dots.

 

Giving a f*#k about trigger pull weight, pistol weight, stippling, etc is ridiculous. You aren't held back by the amount of money you can invest in your pistol. That stuff only matters at the absolute top level, where eeking out every tiny advantage is critical, and everyone is dumping money into their guns anyway.

 

This entire idea that we should have divisions based on "someone can buy a more expensive pistol than me!" is insane. Divisions should exist for different play-styles (it's a game), not to put poor people in one category, people who can afford slightly more expensive guns in another, and then people who can afford very expensive guns in open.

[sc68cal]

 
That "truly stock" thing fell apart about a half-hour after the rules were first published (back in 2000)

The original "vision" of production division was a beginner's division; bring whatever you have from the bedside table, come out to play for a few matches and then, once you have a classification you can decide which "real" division you want to compete in. Seriously.  In the orignal draft of the rules, you couldn't compete in Production after you had some number of matches under your belt.  To bolster that, the rules basically required box-stock guns, "as produced".
 
What we found was that the division was interesting to a whole lot of people besides the brand-new-to-USPSA competitor.  And that NOBODY had a "box stock" gun.  Even the guy with a G17 in his bedside table added an extended mag-release, night-sights, whatever... which (in theory) made it illegal to use in the "box stock" division. 
 
Thus began the slide down the slippery slope.  USPSA amended the rules to say that certain internal modifications were allowed.  People interpreted that to mean "if you can't see the change from the outside, it's an internal mod and therefore legal".  We actually re-wrote the entire rule-set in 2009, IIRC, in an attempt to land the idea that ONLY certain mods were allowed, and that it was on the shooter to be able to point to a rule that made a modification legal.  That didn't go over well.
 
Flash forward to today.  There's (literally) no way to write a rule that draws a clear bright line between what's a legal mod and what is not. If a model on the approved list comes with an extended slide-stop (or whatever), can I put it on my gun, which is also on the approved list?  And, more to the point, the manufacturers are leveraging what *they* see as interesting corners of the market - milled slides, modular grips, weights, competition parts....
 
So just what *is* a "production gun" these days?  If it is a gun "as produced" by the factory, does that mean "in the exact configuration" it came in the box, or does that mean plus-or-minus factory options, or does it mean plus-or-minus a different grip module... or...?  And... how in the world would the guy at Chrono know whether or not the thing you put on the table is "as produced" or legally modified or NOT legal for the division?
 
That's the problem the Board has been trying to sort out.  Underscored by two premises: there are a lot of guns on the market that are "produced" in a configuration that includes many things that were "modifications" only a couple of years ago.  And if "we" can't tell whether or not a gun is legal under the rules, then... the rules don't really mean much.
 
At some level, the things that differentiate Production from the other divisions are: Not SAO, iron sights, at least some number built, minor scoring, 10-round limit, fits in the box.  THOSE things we can objectively determine.  The other things?  that's a lot harder, and it gets harder every time a manufacturer comes out with a new model that contains "features" that - last year - were modifications.
 
$.02
Bruce

Well said! Totally agree

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[outerlimits]

the slippery slope really began with PCC.

[sc68cal]

the slippery slope really began with PCC.

With 3GN's implosion, I think USPSA was well positioned to pick up some participants from the fallout

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[awaldro7]

The main thing that annoys me is not the fact that 59oz is so high its that the weight changed anyway.  Tons of people have invested lots of money and time trying to get up to the current limit.  Companies have setup to customize guns to meet the limit.  Companies have released new guns to fit the limit.  Now they are all outdated.  It seems to me that the more these rules change then the less it drives companies to make well engineered products to fit the divisions nicely. I am relatively new to USPSA and I chose carry optics based on the fact that it was basically stock guns that can run an optic.  Based on all the other CO shooters I talk to they like it for the same reason.  If everyone wanted to shoot an open gun we would all be shooting open guns. 

Edited March 3, 2020 by awaldro7

[motosapiens]

41 minutes ago, awaldro7 said:

 I am relatively new to USPSA and I chose carry optics based on the fact that it was basically stock guns that can run an optic.  Based on all the other CO shooters I talk to they like it for the same reason.  If everyone wanted to shoot an open gun we would all be shooting open guns. 

 

you can still shoot a basically stock gun with an optic in CO, and you will be at no disadvantage. There are some very nice guns available for under a grand (not including optic), some of which have great triggers already, some of which need a $120 drop-in trigger kit and 30 mins of your time.

[davsco]

2 hours ago, Jeff226 said:

Major wouldn't be killed in Limited if they just added a separate Limited Minor...which would be far better than what they are doing to production to appease the people that really want Limited Minor.

limited minor would be pretty cool and there'd be a ton of crossover with 2 & 3 gun where lots are shooting 9mm 2011's.