9x19 Major voted down by USPSA BOD

[Carlos]

This just in from George Jones, A8 AD:

3. The Board addressed a member request to allow 9mm for Major Power Factor in Open Division.  Following very lengthy deliberation, the Board voted to retain the resolution (restricting 9mm from Major PF) in force at this time.  I will add that although I do not specifically oppose the   basic premise, I voted in favor of keeping the restriction in effect.

   It is my opinion that the various sources of evidence were inconclusive and sometimes contradictory.  As a result, I felt insufficient evidence was available at this time to remove the restriction without exposing USPSA to significant liability exposure.

I think the BOD is stuck in the past; let's just make sure to tell all the major 9x19 shooters at the next world shoot that they are dangerous and don't know what they are doing.  Sheesh!

[EricW]

This thread needs to be moved to "What's wrong with USPSA."

All Hail The Flat Earth Society!!!

[Flexmoney]

Carlos,

Thanks for posting this.  I copied your post over to a thread on GT.

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&amp...mp;pagenumber=1

[Carlos]

Thanks for getting out the good word; I guesse I'll postpone buying that 9x19 Bar Sto threaded barrel for the Glock 34.  I suppose I'll just have to buy an SV open gun in 9x23 instead (gee, funny how that works, isn't it?). At least I am not bitter. (rant mode: "OFF").

[ErikW]

Have your barrel re-chambered in 9x21 buy or a new 9x21 barrel. (You already indicated you were going to buy a new barrel.) It will be closer to the 9x19 ballistics you yearn for than will 9x23 and it'll be your beloved Glock.

[Chriss Grube]

I tried. I sent them data right out of the Vit. book showing it makes major. Showed them that a 9mm +p rates 38500 compared to the supers 36500. Starline 9mm is only headstamped +p for case segragation. In the end the old ways prevailed. Might be time for some new blood on the BOD. I'll be interested to see what the final vote was. I intend to ask George Sat. at the match a few questions. It seems like a don't confuse me with the facts I've already made up my mind case.

[bgary]

I'll jump in on this one, too.

There were effectively two issues on the table.

The first was whether or not 9x19 major is "safe".  The is some evidence that there are 9x19 loads that make the 165 power factor at or near SAAMI specs, and at *significantly* lower pressures than we commonly use in Super.  So, at first blush, it seems a reasonable thing to remove the 1990 resolution against 9x19 major in Open.

The mess is in the details.  The way the resolution itself was worded, it says that 9x19 major has been found to be unsafe and would be prohibited until such time as there is "clear andd verifiable evidence that it is safe".  

Which means that as soon as that prohibition gets lifted, USPSA has effectively made a statement that it "warrants" the safety of 9x19 major.  Notably, we don't warrant *any* part of this sport is safe, all risks are your own, etc, etc, yada, yada.

The evidence for 9x19 was there - I probably would have voted to lift the ban if that were the only issue.  But I voted against lifting the resolution for one reason - I think we need to get professional counsel before we do it, and find out whether lifting the prohibition creates actionable liability - in other words, if someone blows up a 9x19 major round in an unsupported barrel in a HiPower or something, can they come back, have their lawyer argue "USPSA said this was safe" and sue us out of existence?  That wouldn't be all that good for the sport ;-)

I think we are fairly close to determining that 9x19 major in Open is within the same ballpark as any other loads we use in competition; if we can find a way to lift the prohibition without painting a legal bullseye on the back of the org, it'll probably get done.

Bruce

[Carlos]

"Might be time for some new blood on the BOD."

Here here! May just have to run next time - or find someone who will. Brian?

[bgary]

Second answer, for Chris.

Your data got discussed in detail, as did other data.  It is not a question of the BOD just wanting to "leave things as they are" - we are very aware that some segment of the membership wants this; we are also very aware that this is a difference between us and IPSC that we would like to resolve.  The challenge is in resolving it without doing more damage.  For me, it basically came down to a risk/benefit question - does the benefit of allowing 9x19 Major in Open outweigh the risk we would take on, the way things are worded in the resolution.  For me, the answer was no, at least not until we get advice of counsel about just what risk that really is.

Bruce

[bgary]

Hypothetical....

Lets say you own a house, and for years you have been telling people to keep their kids and dogs off your property, because you put some *highly* toxic stuff in your garden.  In fact, it was so toxic that you put a big fence around it, and posted big signs, telling everyone it is unsafe to enter.

Now you want to sell your house.  You run a hose into the garden, wash things down, take down the fence and the warning signs, and tell everyone it is now "safe" to go into the garden.

Regardless of whether or not it is really "safe" to go into the garden (or, more relevantly, whether it was ever really *UNsafe* to go in the garden), the act of saying "it is now safe" creates some liability.  If someone were to go into the garden, eat a rock and choke to death, their family lawyer could very successfully (and expensively) argue "but, he said it was safe!"...

This is not a question where the current board is reluctant to make a change.  IMO, this is a case where the board is reluctant to make a change which could, if not managed correctly, do a great deal of damage to us.

Bruce

[EricW]

---

 I think we need to get professional counsel before we do it, and find out whether lifting the prohibition creates actionable liability

---

Sorry, but this is the type of research that needs to be done BEFORE the Board Meeting.  9mm major loads have been an action item for quite some time.  I don't have a lot of patience for these lame excuses as to why "A is not A."  It's this type of "in your face, we don't have to deal with this" crap that makes me not want to renew my USPSA card.  Chriss' work has been relegated to worthlessness just because no one on the Board wanted to do the necessary prep work for the meeting.  

What's the time frame now for USPSA to acknowledge reality for what it is?  6 months?  A year?  Never?  This really has me tweaked.  I genuinely thought that this was going to be resolved.  I can only imagine how Chriss feels.  What a disappointment.

Eric

(Edited by EricW at 4:26 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)

[Chriss Grube]

Bruce,

The legal requirement?  What about the supers that blew up in the early 90's? Hence the term Superface. I've seen .40's blow up too, guess we should ban them, just not safe. I'm sorry but any gun/ caliber can and probably has been blown up by some careless reloader.

My god we run with a loaded gun, should we change to only static shooting because somebody might sue?

  The proposal was sent to every AD several weeks prior to the BOD meeting so that the facts could be varified. Did they reword the 1990 ban or leave it as is? The 1990 ban addressed a 175 PF, since it is now a 165 PF. I hear "what's wrong with USPSA" all the time guess this is a prime example. Status qou, god forbid we change with new technology. A couple years we'll be like the dinousaurs, extinct! The data is clear and has been tested by a large multi-national powder company what more do you need a letter from the pope?

[TDean]

Maybe there was more to it than just the "safety" issue?

Bruce, you said "..There were effectively two issues on the table. .." in a previous post, I didn't catch what the other issue(s) was(were)?

(Edited by TDean at 7:03 pm on Feb. 12, 2002)

[bgary]

The two issues were (A) is there reason to believe the 1990 resolution should be lifted, and ( is there a way to lift it without creating a legal nightmare for ourselves.  I can only speak for myself, but if the legal issue had not been there, I would have voted to vacate the resolution.  Others would have, too.

Unfortunately, the legal issue *is* there, and no amount of "research before the meeting" is likely to make it go away.  In fact, it was "research before the meeting" that led us to understand that there *is* a problem, and no clear way out of it.

The difference between this and Super is that we never said Super was either safe or unsafe.  We've always disavowed any responsibility for anything you do at or bring to the range.  But, by saying that 9x19 major is "unsafe", the 1990 board laid a trap with no clear way out - there is now no clean way to allow 9x19 major in without USPSA in effect declaring it is "safe"... and, as soon as we do that, we are at risk of being sued if *anyone* has an accident with a 9x19 major round.

Turn it around.  We have never said *any* round is safe.  If we were, now, to put our USPSA sticker on a statement that says 9x19 is "safe", we would be doing something that has never before been done.  If we haven't done that for Super, or 40, or anything else, how can we do that now for 9x19?  The answer is... we can't.  At least, not without some significant risk.

Chris, your data was reviewed, and you get kudos for pulling it together.  Your work was not in vain.  It is just that, in my opinion, that isn't the only work that needs doing.  I'd say we're halfway there.  The other half is going to be tough.

I know y'all out there want to blame someone.  I get that.  What you don't understand is that this board *wants* to allow 9x19 major in Open... just can't find a way to get it done without betting the org on a roll of the dice.  If any of you have constructive ideas, please forward them along.

And, for those of you who just want to complain about everything the Board does.... I guess I'm sorry we can't do more to make you want to keep your USPSA card.  I'm trying to help make sure there will *be* a USPSA 6 months or a year from now.  I will say, it is a lot easier to take potshots from the sidelines than it is to come up with solutions that work.  I happen to believe this is an issue which could *kill* USPSA if it was handled wrong, and I think that warrants a fair amount of care... not a knee-jerk reaction.

Bruce

[EricW]

Sorry Gary,

but I beg to differ.  Someone from the Board could have consulted counsel before the meeting in an attempt to find that avenue.  Considering that switching to 9mm major would save shooters HUNDREDS of dollars a year EACH in brass costs - one certainly would regard even having legal counsel in attendance at the Board Meeting a proper use of funds.  

Regardless, I find the liability issue to be a very hollow argument.  By that token, everyone whose .40 S&W blows up could sue because the .40 caliber limit for Limited connotes "safety."  USPSA can simply issue a disclaimer stating that anyone shooting any caliber major or minor is PERSONALLY responsible for ensuring their ammo falls within SAAMI specs.  This also could be worded in a "hold harmless" agreement included with membership renewals that would protect USPSA from liability for ammunition failures in ANY caliber or power factor.  

There are possible legal avenues to resolve this, but the Board chose not to pursue them or even inquire.  It's just not right.  

Eric

[Patrick Sweeney]

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v.  However, the law and liability are not akin to the laws of physics, there to be discovered.  They are agreements we work out among ourselves.  Two ideas;

One, the BOD could eliminate the prior declaration problem by now declaring something like:  "We held off on allowing 9mm Major until the data became clear.  The data is now clear.  We do not declare the 9mm cartridge to be any more safe than any other cartridge, simply that we now recognize the existence of factory-supported loading data that had not previously existed."

As for guns blowing up, only allow 9mm major in the US in pistols where the factory is willing to state their product can be used with (wait for it) ammo loaded to the factory-generated loading data.  Load to the Viht specs, and you're in, load outside those specs (or any other powder makers data) and you're on your own.

There are several 9mm pistol makers alredy stating their pistols are good for +P ammo.  Why have USPSA shoulder all the burden?

[Jon Merricks]

My question is this. Is there anything in the USPSA rules that says someone can not shoot a 9mm at 165pf in compitition. If my understanding is correct it will just be scored as minor. If this is true I dont really think this is a saftey issue and if its not true I am a dumbass and dont know the rules. IMHO If the BOD was really thinking about what would help this sport they would change this ruling. Coming from a newbie this may not hold much wait, but we need more newbies than GM's. It would be nice to see M-GM's shoot a 9mm for the next year with no problem and see which lame excuse is used to not approve it being scored as major then.

[ErikW]

I double checked the rulebook. (Why doesn't it work with the Acrobat find feature!?!) I could find nothing prohibiting 9mm being scored Major in Open. If somebody walked up to the line with a 9x19 declared Major, I have no reason to say anything but, "Load and make ready."

If somebody were DQ'ed or not allowed to shoot his 9x19 and arbitrated it, I would see no reason to deny his request to be reinstated.

If I'm wrong, please cite the rule number for Jon and me.

[Chriss Grube]

Eric,

That was part of the proposal I sent in.

Bruce,

I appreciate your posts. I was going to reply on the ipsc list but as usual it turned into a pissing contest/name calling match. You read the proposal I submitted. Maybe I'm just a dumb cop but I deal with attorneys on a daily basis. Sorry it is the down side of the job! They sue over anything in a crash. In this case I can see the guy that blows up his super, I wanted to build a 9mm that has a stronger case and a *significantly* lower pressure but they wouldn't let me. So I was a jackass and blew up my gun with a super. Anyone can sue anybody for anything. The fact that we have a PF could be used to sue with a blown up gun. Nothing and nobody is sue proof. Has or is the BOD going to contact any legal authority to resolve this issue? I know they had an attorney when Craig sued them for the screw up a few years ago. Is the resolution the same as before or has it been rewritten? If so can I get a copy of the new wording. If the reason it was not allowed is  the legal issue I would ask that it be resolved with a consultation of the legal dept. A general disclaimer on all ammo (9mm included) should resolve the issue without a big deal. It shouldn't be months, that is something that could be done in a couple days. Don't let this go the way of the 50 year decision to put a marketing plan into place.

[Jon Merricks]

Erik, even if it was declared minor shooting 170pf, what would keep me from shooting it? If the BOD was worried about being sued that much they would have also have put in a max. pf to keep people from blowing up thier guns. And put in no lead in stock glocks and so on and so on.  I'm just not convinced of what the real reason for this is.

[ErikW]

Yeah Jon you could, and I wouldn't stop you unless I noticed your ejected cases had flattened or pierced primers or something like that. (But then, the rules don't provide a criteria for what constitutes unsafe ammo; it's up to the RO and RM. If they saw the memo, they may arbitrarily say 9x19 and Major is de facto unsafe.)

I think some of you are missing Bruce's point. USPSA is not worried about being hanged; USPSA is worried about being hanged with its own rope.

[EricW]

Erik,

I understand the point Bruce is making exactly.  I just disagree.  There *is* a way out of this.  It's all in the attitude in the way one approaches the problem.  A reasonable way exists to allow 9mm major and not increase USPSA's liability.  

It's not even this particular decision that galls me as much as the attitude that led to it.  This should be a slam-dunk issue for anyone willing to put a moderate amount of effort toward it.  This issue smacks of the same helpless and hopeless sensation that one gets from USPSA's inability to implement a competent marketing plan.  

The world is fraught with risk.  You just have to mitigate it as best you can and go if you ever plan on getting anywhere.  

E

[Patrick Sweeney]

A question, one that I (curiously enough) don't know the answer to:  Is there a current factory 9mm load that makes Major out of a Limited or Open legal pistol?  That is, some factory +P or +P+ load, out of a 6" barrel, that posts a 165PF or higher?

So, I walk to the line with a pistol within the rules, loaded with FACTORY ammo, and declare Major.  How is USPSA on the hook?  While I think you should always keep your hands on your wallet and good looking women when around lawyers (and I like 'em) I see no point in quaking in fear at their approach.

If there isn't a factory load yet, there will be soon.  What then?  

[Chriss Grube]

Patrick,

Winchester 127 grain +p+ makes major out of a 5" barrel. Actually 173PF. VIT also list the 130 and 147 making major in a 4". I understand the caution but are they looking for a solution or is this issue going to be put on a shelf until somebody else does the work for them. I agree with Eric in that the BOD seems to lack any type of ability to make a decision. I didn't realize we had members of congress on the BOD!

[bgary]

I'll try to respond to a couple of things (not chasing that extra dot just yet ;-)

First of all, the text of the 1990 ban.  I won't reproduce the whole thing here (full of whereas's and wherefore's) but the essential part says:

<i>"Now, therefore, it is hereby resolved, that the use of 9mm Parabellum (9x19) ammunition with an overall length of less than 1.250 inches and loaded to the Major Power Factor category is specifically prohibited and will not be allowed to be used in USPSA events until such time as there is <b> clear and convincing verifiable evidence that such ammunition can be safely loaded </b> to achieve the major power factor category" </i>

In my opinion (I'm *not* a lawyer, but I am paranoid ;-)  that says to me that if we were to approve 9x19 in Major, we would be saying that we have "found it to be safe" - something we have never done for any other round.  

Second, the question of the data presented.  Without going into details, it appears there are a number of published loads that get 9x19 up to Major velocities within SAAMI specs... but just barely.  There was considerable discussion about whether that comprised "clear and convincing" evidence.  I'd underscore here that the Board did NOT take this lightly - we spent about an hour, trying to find a way to get this done that we could still sleep at night with; in this instance, the load data we looked at was very close to the edge.  Yes, we are all aware that most Super loads (and many .40 loads) are well over SAAMI specs - but we have never gone on record saying those were safe; in this instance, effectively we would be saying the 9x19 loads are "safe".

Third - we *did* try to work out language that would get us out of this trap.  I proposed three different wordings of a motion, along the lines of "we hereby vacate the 1990 prohibition, but as always, reloading ammunition is inherently unsafe, and the shooter assumes all responsibility for everything he does and everything he brings to the range" (OK, it was cleaner language than that, but you get the gist of it).  None of the proposed wordings made it around the whole table - essentially, nobody thought we could informally come up with something that would stand up in court; hence the move to get an actual lawyer involved.  

Last (?), the question of factory ammo.  There is *one* factory load that we looked at, that looks like it will make Major out of a stock gun; however, it is sold to law-enforcement only, and it was generally felt that if it was not available to the general [shooting] public, it didn't make sense to use it as "clear and convincing evidence".

I'd throw out two additional thoughts.  We *all* wish the 1990 board hadn't done this - I thought it was a mistake back then, and I had no idea I'd be embroiled in the process of trying to undo it 12 years later, but it is a mess.  Second, though, we *are* working to undo it.  The general thought is that 9x19 is no more safe or unsafe than anything else we do; if you're going to be smart about it, it is fine; if you're going to be stupid about it, that's a problem... but either way, our challenge is to find a way to take 9x19 out of the "special" category, and put it back in the realm of every other caliber, so that we don't carry special liability if something stupid happens.

Bruce