Intent Of Production

[Chuck Anderson]

I think the first step we need to take in fixing Production (if it needs fixing) is to identify just what the division should be. There has been talk in a lot of other threads about the "Spirit" of the division. The BOD is not even able to come to a consensus about what the division should be. Before we start trying to change it, lets figure out what we want to change it to.

If you've got another idea that I didn't list, feel free to pick other and lay it out for us. Not looking for a specific list of approved/disapproved modifications. Just what shooters want the Division to represent.

[Chris Keen]

Not this again ............

Production can be many things to many people.

The INTENT is what YOU make of it.

Want to shoot for fun with your friends or family ? Bring or buy whatever your little heart desires.

Want to shoot to win against the best this division has to offer ? Buy whatever the TOP PRODUCTION shooters are shooting, and be ready for a whoopin' or two!

I vote we leave it alone.

.

Edited September 10, 2006 by CHRIS KEEN

[Jim Norman]

I checked "Other" because nothing on the list seems to be what we essentially have already and however the rules get mucked about with, what we have is mostly what we should continue with. Any new rules should essentially limit the division in a manner that stalls it where it is.

Any new rules MUST be easily enforceable. If it takes the factory and four trained gunsmiths to determine if the gun is legal, then the rules are likely too complex.

So, I would allow a refinish, any kind, any color. It doesn't help you shoot any better and who cares if the black finish on my gun cost $300? Who cares if I chrome my slide? These are not items that add or dertract from the completeness of the gun.

Sights, we allowed the inletting of BoMars. Some people have sights that hang over the rear since the new sights were not available then. So what, they are still notch and post. You want Tritium? you want fiber optic, go for it.

Trigger work, who can prove what is normal wear and moderate fitting? At what point does reliability work become a "trigger Job" Should we have a minimum pull weight? maybe we should have, but it is probably too late now. factories are building to our rules. Lets not turn off the sponsors!

Now, what shouldn't be allowed?

Weights, Comps, Magwells, factory or otherwise, frame modifications, slide lightening ala Racing Stripes.

Oh, allow the plug in the Glock Grip, plastic only. At chrono, ask that it be removed if there is a question as to its being lead or brass weighted.

We don't want to chase away anyone that is already here and we want to welcome in new people. We want them to be able to tinker to a point. If we said, OK, you have it, you can keep it, but said to the new guy in the division, nope, sorry, you can't have it since you weren't here yesterday, that would be wrong. Just as wrong as telling someone that played in good faith that his $500 is now no longer allowed.

Remember the 6-7-8 shot revolver situation, let us not repeat that!

Jim

[EricW]

Chuck,

I hate to tell you this, but as near as I can tell even if we got rid of Production Division, gave all the current competitors their choice of high-zoot, brand-new Limited pistols and a pallet of free ammo.....

...people would still find a reason to bitch.

The bitching will never end. Trying to "fix" Production divisision is like trying to "fix" the wind and the tides.

Edited September 9, 2006 by EricW

[Chuck D]

A USPSA Production Division gun and gear should be IDPA SSP legal and vice versa to encourage "crossover."

[tightloop]

Chuck D

have another donut and ponder it again...

[BritinUSA]

Over on the IPSC Global Village there was a discussion about one of the new Tanfoglio guns that had been submitted for production division.

One of the reasons that it was rejected was because it was made specifically for production division... I kid you not !

I no longer involve myself in PD discussions because the logic of this division - and it's enforcement - just confuses the crap out of me.

[GeorgeInNePa]

Over on the IPSC Global Village there was a discussion about one of the new Tanfoglio guns that had been submitted for production division.

One of the reasons that it was rejected was because it was made specifically for production division... I kid you not !

I no longer involve myself in PD discussions because the logic of this division - and it's enforcement - just confuses the crap out of me.

I agree, I can't understand that at all. "Oh, you built this just for our sport? Sorry, not legal."

PS

I voted internal mods allowed.

Then again, that's basicly what we have now, seems to work fine.

For the most part.

[glock_40_caliber]

A USPSA Production Division gun and gear should be IDPA SSP legal and vice versa to encourage "crossover."

An IDPA SSP pistol IS legal in USPSA Production. And, depending on who is driving that pistol, is very competitve. Why do we need to worry about our equipment rules matching another sport word for word? I totally do not understand that concept. Can someone please explain it to me?

[Jim Norman]

Over on the IPSC Global Village there was a discussion about one of the new Tanfoglio guns that had been submitted for production division.

One of the reasons that it was rejected was because it was made specifically for production division... I kid you not !

I no longer involve myself in PD discussions because the logic of this division - and it's enforcement - just confuses the crap out of me.

The total lack of logic over "there" does not surprise me at all.

This exactly the type of answer that I would expect. There is a rule that sets the parameters of what can be done to a gun. A manufacturer bulds a gun that exactly follows the rules, meets all the criteria that the grand poohbas have set forth only to be rewarded with "Sorry, you followed the rules, that must be against the rules so we will rule that you don't meet the rules that you met!"

Jim

[Chuck D]

"An IDPA SSP pistol IS legal in USPSA Production. And, depending on who is driving that pistol, is very competitve. Why do we need to worry about our equipment rules matching another sport word for word? I totally do not understand that concept. Can someone please explain it to me?"

I never said it wasn't...my reason for saying so is that if any changes are made, IMHO the IDPA angle should be taken into consideration.

The reason is to encourage shooter crossover thereby increasing participation in the division and possibly increasing membership numbers. A SIMPLE CONCEPT for those willing to embrace it.

"have another donut and ponder it again... "

mmm.....doughnuts.

[Kevin Kline]

Doesnt IDPA have the weight limit rule or something to that effect? I disagree with having the crossover w/ IDPA. I know the CZ I shoot in Prod is not allowed in IDPA for whatever reason, I think the weight. It is like 1 oz or something over.

The crossover issue around our area (and most from the majority of shooters Ive talked to at different matches around the US) is not that high and when there is a crossover, it is shooters coming to USPSA, not leaving and going to IDPA.

USPSA needs to do whats best for USPSA Production and not worry about the crossover.

[Chuck D]

Just to make myself ABSOLUTELY clear....

I do not advocate a "word for word" interp. of IDPA rules for USPSA Production. I do think that allowing the same type of modifications (i.e. barrel replacement, trigger pull weight rules, sight replacement) would make it easier for shooters to "crossover" from SSP to USPSA and vice versa.

Crossover does happen and it does not matter in which direction it occurs or the frequency in which it occurs in a particular region of the country. To simply say "it's not an issue in MY domain isn't enough of a persuasive argument to prove it doesn't happen.

If it's IDPA to USPSA....So much the better.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Chuck D

[Steve Moneypenny]

no one will ever agree on this.

[MTrout40]

I only shoot production a few times a year at club matches so my $.02 is worth about $.00000001 in this discussion. But, here it is anyway.

My respose to the original question is "box stock". I thought PD was developed for the new guy with a (insert PD legal gun here) to come out and enjoy our sport, and be competetive, without spending a lot of cash to keep up with the next guy. But that brings up a problem.

The guy that shoots a 125.00000001 PF load has a gun that won't cycle, so he needs a lighter recoil spring. Well, to solve that problem you allow internal modification. So if you allow internal modifications, the GM or "gamer" that wants to shoot PD wants a 1.5 lb. trigger. You can do so with certain guns that have the parts available, and are internally legal. Now the new guy has a (Ruger P95 for example) that can't be modified to obtain a trigger equal to a (Glock for example). The same goes for sights. A new guy may think the stock sights are great. The GM, or lower class "gamer" may want buried Bomars and a Fiber optic. Now the new guy thinks he has to spend some money on sights, or a new gun, to be competetive in the sport when Production was suppose to be a cheap way to enjoy the game. The list goes on and on, but the point is you can't please everyone with the rule book. So the question is, who do we want to attract to our sport?

I have a comment on that as well. I think we have a few types of production shooters.

1) The new guys that want to enjoy our sport and not spend a lot of money on a LTD or Open set-up, and shoot what they have. Maybe they'll step up down the road?

2) The seasoned guys that have shot a (whatever) in LTD but now shoot production because it's legal and they enjoy it. (Like L10 and Singlestack for example)

3) The guys that want to hide from the competition in other divisions but want the gun to be set up the way they want. For example, if you own a hi-cap gun and shoot L10 in a major match, you are either A) Hiding from the big boys or want STI contingency. Get my point?

And to make my post fair....if they said bull barrels, tungsten guide rods, etc, etc, etc, were illegal in LTD...I would still shoot it. Becuase that's what dvision I like regardless of how the gun is built.

I think the bottom line for USPSA is balancing the rules to benefit the sponsors and the shooters at the same time. It's not an easy task.

[JFD]

I voted internal mods allowed. If it can't be seen, then you really can't sink a lot of cash into it which keeps it inexpensive. Inexpensive would help grow the sport. New sights with no machining allowed would be a plus.

The term "entry level" sounds like it should be a second class division for newbies only.

I do think we need a division that doesn't make new shooters feel like they must have a $2000 (min) gun to be competitive. I was thinking that was going to be Production, but it didn't turn out that way. If we went the way of IPSC, then it would be worse. Whatever factory gun held the most rounds would be a must-have item and only hardcore shooters are willing to play musical handguns every few months.

Thinking about it though, I'm not sure if we really have a problem besides USPSA focusing damn near all pics in any advertisments on Open and Limited guns, which cements the thought "I can't afford a racegun" in the mind of potential customers. Limited and Open need no advertising as they are like magnets to most anyone with blood in their veins.

Locally I see new shooters start out in Production or L-10 and not have any gripes.

[Chuck Anderson]

Here's the deal. USPSA is going to make changes to Production. I can almost guarantee that the Production Division rules that appear in the USPSA rule book come next year will be different. They may be a little different, they may be a lot different. If we can figure something out that might be workable great, it might help the BOD.

Like I said though. I'm not looking for a specific list of modifications. That, once again, is putting the cart before the horse. Deciding what mods to allow with out deciding intent would be like determining speed limits for roads without looking at the road. There needs to be some context. For example, if the majority of USPSA shooters want Production to be box stock, well the approved modification list is going to be real short. If the majority says DA Limited it's going to be extensive.

[Bryan W]

I voted for mostly stock / limited mods - Also, I don't think PD should be viewed as strickly an entry level division. It certainly can be a great entry point into USPSA but there are also some very experienced shooters that focus their efforts in Production.

Either way, I'll continue to shoot it because it's a challenge and I like the concept.

Chuck, thanks for asking the question.

BW

[Chris Keen]

Matt, please don't get me wrong here ..... I agree with 99% of what you said. Really I do.

I decided to shoot Prod. this year because I am building an open gun, and therefore my ammo is cheap, the gear is cheap, etc.

So even though I may be "hiding" from you, Todd, & Robbie ..... I am CERTAINLY not hiding from Sevigny & Angus or Vogel & Sindelar

[ysued]

I voted for Mostly stock with limited modification, similar to IPSC, but I'm for the 10 Round Limit, being able to use aftermarket Sights, but on the Factory Dovetail and not using Race Rigs, other than that the IPSC Roules are OK by me.

What I' I missing between USPSA and IPSC??

Edited September 10, 2006 by ysued

[MTrout40]

Matt, please don't get me wrong here ..... I agree with 99% of what you said. Really I do.

I decided to shoot Prod. this year because I am building an open gun, and therefore my ammo is cheap, the gear is cheap, etc.

So even though I may be "hiding" from you, Todd, & Robbie ..... I am CERTAINLY not hiding from Sevigny & Angus or Vogel & Sindelar

Chris, I don't take you wrong at all! It seems like you assume I put you into the "hiding" catagory. I'm sorry, but I don't know you or what class/division you normally shoot, but you have a reason for shooting PD. You're going to go to open when you're equipment is ready, thus, that takes you out of the new guy area. Although I know a few people that take that approach, it wasn't meant as an insult to the majority. But, you bring up a good point.

Sevigny, Angus, and Sindelar (sorry I don't know Vogel) are sponsored shooters. They are paid and/or sponsored to promote a production product. Shouldn't they be promoting a "production" product? There's no doubt that Glock rules the PD division, especially with the current rules. And the questionable trigger action of the XD (is it single action?) adds to the confusion of the division. That's why I said that it's a task for USPSA to balance the rules between shooters and sponsors. If you were a new shooter, bought a gun based on advertisement, and found out that John Doe didn't win the Universe Championship with a stock XXXX, but had a $200 barrel, $150 trigger job, $100 sights, internally lightened slide, $60 guide rod, and blah blah blah...would you have much faith in your purchase? You would probably feel like you would need to spend some money to be competitive! I know this because I started shooting USPSA with a singlestack 45 open gun when there was no production or L10.

There's nothing wrong with spending a few bucks on your equipment, and I don't disagree with SOME modifications, but the original question is the most important...the INTENT of Production Division.

And you're not hiding from me...I'm an average joe that has a good time shooting. Todd and Rob...well, that's a whole other level!!!

[Micah]

Not this again ............

I agree...

[Nemo]

I voted for the "OTHER" option.

My vote is somewhere between the "Mostly Stock - similar to IPSC" and the "Internal Mods allowed".

Intent of the division? Mostly stock handguns, where capacity is not an issue (everybody is equal: 10 rounds) some enhancement allowed (gotta have the bling factor), with non-ambiguous and easily enforceable rules.

I like what we have now, but definitions and clarifications are needed.

[AikiDale]

no one will ever agree on this.

Agreed!

[Chris Keen]

Matt, I see your point entirely.

But, just as they say that every USPSA match is really 6 matches running simultaneously (Open / LTD / L10 / Prod / Rev / SS) ....... it can also be said that it is actually 36 matches running simultaneously .... 6 divisions times 6 CLASSES (GM / M / A / B / C / D)

So if Joe Newshooter runs out and buys a stock XXXXXX pistol, and then sees Mr. Sevigny win the Ultimate Championship of the Universe with a different, yet highly modified Prod. gun, he needs to remember that while he may be in the same DIVISION as Dave Sevigny, he is not starting out in the same CLASS as Mr. Sevigny, and therefore not competing for the same prize, plaque, or title as Mr. Sevigny. It may be fun to compare yourself to the top-level shooters in this sport, but we should all remember that classes are there to allow us to be competitive amongst our peers. I know how hard that can be in the early stages on USPSA.

What I am saying here is that a bone-stock XXXXX gun can be VERY competitive in C or D class Production. And a good C or D class shooter could easily win for many, many years with such a gun if they just focus on the shooting.

Production Div. can be many things to many people. B, C, or D class shooters could win, thrive, & survive at their current level of shooting with many different models of Stock guns, while at the same time A, M, & GM shooters MAY NOT be competitive with those "Entry-Level" guns. No matter how good a shooter they might be, they may need many fancy, yet very legal modifications allowed by the current rule book, to stay competitive with the top shooters in their respective class. Sights are key, while grip tape, trigger jobs & "Action work to enhance reliability" are all within the scope of what it takes to make a good gun great. And if those "sponsored shooters" you mentioned don't win, then who will buy their sponsor's "Production" guns ? Not me. You have to be the best at what you do to sell guns. And who knows what the future holds for "Production" guns. Sig & HK has made a couple of "competition" models ........ maybe other gun-makers will follow suit based on what the top level shooters are doing to tweak their guns.

The modifications everyone seems to be "upset" about aren't mandatory...........

They're optional.

......... and by the way. Not trying to brag .... merely proving the point.

I made Master with a 2nd Gen. G17 with a stock barrel, some better sights, a little Tru-Grip, and a $50 trigger. It dosent take a sparkling-new G34 with a $500 trigger, $300 barrel, and $200 sights to get good. Take that $1000 ..... put $150 into mods. and then spend the rest on ammo.

PRACTICE!

PRACTICE!

PRACTICE!

Edited September 10, 2006 by CHRIS KEEN