Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

M&p Is Legal For Production Now!


kend

Recommended Posts

Nope.

And I was a great big squeaky wheel in getting us (USPSA) back to the 1yr and 2,000 produced criteria.

I'm pretty sure that stage sponsorship had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I talked, in person, with my Area Director abut this some at a Major match this year. Sounded to me like he was looking at the situation and trying to find a good, working solution.

I think the basic idea is to have guns in the division that are readily available to the public.

(Same wording needs done for Limited and Limited-10, I believe?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for the rules.................just sponsering a stage or two buys a waiver.
Not to quibble about verbiage, but it was not a question of a requirement being waived for one manufacturer - it was a unanimous decision by the BOD to eliminate the available to the general public for one year criteria for eligibility for inclusion in the Production Gun List (which, under separate motion, also extends to Limited and Limited 10). I don't have a problem with the change. 2000 manufactured and available to the general public is still there. With the M&P and XD45ACP being two of the popular new offerings in the market, I was personally uncomfortable with the you can shoot it - in Open Division - during the first year approach dictated by the old criteria (either that or Level I matches turning a blind eye toward the rulebook and I don't even want to go there).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds fine to me. The rule was intended to keep the factory only guns from being available only to the factory teams, like the CZ85 Combat II. There are way more M&P's in production now than a lot of guns that are allowed now. I don't think that anyone could argue that the M&P does not meet the criteria/spirit/whatever for Production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So much for the rules.................just sponsering a stage or two buys a waiver.

Does anyone else see a problem with this???"

Ah.....yup. ;)

"I'm pretty sure that stage sponsorship had absolutely nothing to do with it. "

Ah...yea. <_<

"According to my source USPSA has waived the one year requirement and the M&P is legal for Production."

Interesting timing..... I'm sure a welcomed decision for members of Team S&W.

Living proof that things change... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sure Julie, the only member of Team S&W using the M&P now is behind a Machiavelian scheme to make every one of the member of the BOD vote to allow her pistol. Flentz is still using the 5906, McGee is using the Single Stack guns and Ernest Langdon, well is he shooting IPSC or just IDPA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not get carried away here.....I'm not "poking fun" at Team S&W. If it were me, the new ruling would put me at ease.

You have no more of an idea who will be showing up with an MP than do I. For those that do or are planning on doing so...the ruling comes at a great time...wouldn't you agree?

My issue is with the timing of the ruling. Previously, no other member/shooter/manufacturer enjoyed such a ruling...did they? ;)

By the way...I support the ruling...not the way (or the time frame) in which it was implemented.

My personal belief... good ruling, great for Team S&W and MP owners, lousy execution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not get carried away here.....I'm not "poking fun" at Team S&W. If it were me, the new ruling would put me at ease.

You have no more of an idea who will be showing up with an MP than do I. For those that do or are planning on doing so...the ruling comes at a great time...wouldn't you agree?

My issue is with the timing of the ruling. Previously, no other member/shooter/manufacturer enjoyed such a ruling...did they? ;)

By the way...I support the ruling...not the way (or the time frame) in which it was implemented.

My personal belief... good ruling, great for Team S&W and MP owners, lousy execution.

Huh? It wasn't a S&W ruling only. They allowed the XD45 also. Think that'll be in the top 5 at the Production Nationals? I have a feeling that'll be a no. It was a ruling on Production guns and not 2 companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K. It's a great ruling for XD in 45 owners too.... :wub:

I just wanted to respond to Lawman's post as I wanted no misunderstandings or hard feelings between the two of us. I respect him and his opinions too much to let that happen. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people have asked the BOD to drop the 1 year requirement, myself included. I think they saw that it didn't make sense to apply that rule when the factory is selling a new model as fast as they can make it and they blew past the 2000 after the first couple of weeks.

Accusing the S&W of throwing girls through the windows of BOD members might be going a bit far :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The minutes of the on-line meeting dated 8-14-06 through 8-18-06 may be found in the members section of www.uspsa.org (look for the board meeting minutes on the left).

The following comments are mine alone, and do not necessarily represent those of other USPSA board members or officers.

While I cannot say what was in the mind of the other 8 people who voted, I can say this about the discussion and my motivation:

1) Yes, we were aware that manufacturers were interested in having their guns approved

2) No, we did not discuss specific sponsorships from S&W or any other company

My vote was based on what I felt the original purpose of the production/time limit was. The reason was "general availability" - my interpretation is that production should be a division for guns which the average person can buy at the local gunshop without comissioning a special order. The production limit, and "general availability" requirement, both serve to prevent manufactuers form creating unique guns with features such as nicer sights, crisper trigger, flared mag well, etc. - calling them "production" and making them available only to their team or people interesting in comissioning a special build for $$$. It really about two simple questions: #1: Are the features "production divsion" compliant? and #2: Can the average Joe buy one?

I don't believe that the change in criteria undermines this purpose or intent. If we find that the result is manufacturers certifying guns that you "can't get"(*), I would expect the board to take up the issue and consider changing the policy again. Although I don't expect that to happen, I have confidence we will deal with if it it does.

Manufacturer relations is a valid part of the equation, and I'm not talking about "sponsorships" or "free stuff for that nationals." While nice, the nationals prize table is not the fundamental key to our success as an organization. What is more important is that USPSA continue to maintain a leadership position within the shooting industry. Manufacturers seem to care about USPSA, and the position of their guns within our divisions, to a degree that is disproportional to the number they sell to our members. I believe that this is because we are seen as the high-performance shooters who "push the edge.". If a manufacturer has to wait a full year before one of their new guns is relevant to USPSA competition, it will server to reduce the level on industry interest in us. Remember, industry interest is what drives the gun media. I like it when an article about a gun mentions that it looks like a good selection for USPSA Production Divsion. If the year requirement remained, we might see these articles move towards concentrating only on "IDPA relevance." Despite the pollyanish "it's good for everyone" to have another shooting sport, the reality is that USPSA and IDPA are in competition for market share. Many clubs and individuals "choose one" - and I want USPSA to stay on the radar screen.

A separate question I always ask myself when considering a vote on a rule with equipment rule is "how many competitors be hurt by the propsoed chage?" While votes sometimes turn out to be a balance of interests (it's not possible to guarantee that everyone's gun will remain state of the art forever), this time it was easy. I could not think of a single shooter whose current production gun would be rendered less competetive by this change. It's not like we were talking about allowing comps in production :)

* - Except of course in MA and possibly CA where there is a LOT of stuff you "can't get" :( :( :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem Chuck. I just really doubt that the BOD sat down and decided that S&W should get a waiver because they sponsored a stage or two. Now that said, is that really such a bad idea? Not that we allow sponsors to "buy" their way in. But that we respect that S&W has donated a ton of product over the last several years? That S&W used to be a major USPSA Sponsor until the .356TSW ruling. And that USPSA making a decision at that time undercut the company. Now we've got S&W coming out with a gun that is perfect for Production Division, available under $500.00. And right about the time it comes out USPSA says, well they gotta be out for a year before you can use them. I'd be surprised if there are less than 10K M&P's on the street now. While I like the idea behind the 2K/1Y rule, I think there needs to be some exception for guns like this. Not just for the shooters benefit but also for the companies benefit. How do we go to manufacturers and say, build this better gun for us, and after you have it out for a year and sell a bunch, then we'll buy one. Hey, Glock, come out with the competition version we wanted. Do the mods that Dave Sevigny does from the factory and we'll buy a bunch. But not until you can find a market for the first year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That S&W used to be a major USPSA Sponsor until the .356TSW ruling. And that USPSA making a decision at that time undercut the company."

I know about that one all too well..... :angry:

Like I said, the ruling is a good one, for me...the timing of the ruling raises questions and gives the perception that a little "helping hand" was given.

Either way....it really doesn't matter. A post asked if anyone was concerned about the subject, I just answered "yup."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curse of a distrustful nature I guess.... ;)

"Like I said, the ruling is a good one, for me...the timing of the ruling raises questions and gives the perception that a little "helping hand" was given."

Question asked and answered.

"My issue is with the timing of the ruling. Previously, no other member/shooter/manufacturer enjoyed such a ruling...did they?"

Well....did they? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...