Oct Bod Meeting Minutes Are Posted

[Vlad]

The box and an upper weight limit are viable tools to control the equipment race. What I did not want was just another USPSA full out race division. That would not have had a chance to accomplish what I was trying to achieve.

Oh for the love of Pete!

Look folks, USPSA IS A RACE GAME!!. We run, we shoot for score and the difference between the winner and the looser is often a fraction of a second or point (leaving Jerry and revolver aside). EVERYTHING about USPSA shooting is a race. We look for the smallest advantages, we tune the most insignificant parts, we polish small bit of metal until you can use them as reflectors for the Hubble.

Please don't consider this as an insult Gary, but what you want almost doesn't matter. The USPSA shooters race. This is why IDPA broke away, this is why we have some problems with IPSC rules, this is why USPSA shooters are called gamers. We are gamers. USPSA is the Indy circuit to IDPA's NASCAR.

Yes the history of USPSA blah blah blah. We all know about the roots but we are growing from the leaf and branch end, not from the roots. From my cheap seats I keep on seeing people trying to make the game match some view they had of it 10 or 20 years ago, all the while everyone trying to shoot their own game has to deal with constant changes and upwards presure to shoot a game they are not interested in. What exactly do you think that will lead to? Personally I could care less how many divisions you choose to add and how restrictive those divisions are as long as we don't start making decisions about the rest of the game based on those new divisions. Fell free to create a blackpowder division which requires people to use red sash as a belt, but folks, that doesn't mean that we can kill revolver now or reduce the stage round count to 6 rounds.

Oh and while we are talking about interesting rules, can someone describe to me where the fronstrap begins and ends? I have a DOH I use for my CZ, I don't have one for the 1911 platform, but on my CZ version the fronstrap from about 1/2 down is above the belt line. So .... would that be ok, assuming it fits a 1911 the same way? Or does the ENTIRE frontstrap need to be above the belt. And how do measure that? And what do you do about women for whom those dastardly DOH type holsters where designed for to begin with, and for good reason?

[Gary Stevens]

After re-reading it again, I think you are right Jim. Gee, first mistake I've made today

My point though was that no matter what happens some one feels like they got hosed. While I have fought to keep L-10 for the simple reason I haven't been convinced there is a problem, if I were convinced there was a problem, I would go the other way.

It isn't pretty, but Mr. Spock got it right in "The Wrath of Kahn", the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one. Decisions cannot be made based on a single individual, but what is best for the organization.

Having elected representatives that will converse with it's members one on one or in whatever format is available is paramount to making those decisions. Everyone needs to participate and understand how decisions are made. Only then can the organization benefit and hopefully the membership benefit at the same time.

Vlad, I left out the word "gun" after race. I fully understand the concept of "we all race" that is why our sport is fun. My effort was to try to control, within certain limits, the equipment, not the shooting.

Gary

Edited November 18, 2006 by Gary Stevens

[EricW]

From: http://www.1911society.org/rules.htm

1911 Single Stack Match Rules

USPSA Latest Edition Rule Book, except for the equipment rules which are as follows:

Pistols

The definition of a 1911 Pistol is as follows: The 1911 Government Model as designed by John M. Browning and adapted by the U.S. Government as a service pistol, (commonly known as a 5 inch Gov't Model). To include any compact models.

Pistols

1911 Production Type Pistols Only, No comps, Barrel Weights, Barrel Ports, Optics, or any kind of Electronic Sighting Device, Factory Length Mags Only.

Production Pistol: a pistol which has been available for at least 12 months and has had a minimum of 500 units produced.

No coned barrels or barrels with flanges will be allowed. (Except a production pistol with this type of barrel. Manufactured before October 1, 1995, or a 1911 compact pistols with a barrel length 4.2 inches or less cone barrels are allowed.)

The pistol must fit in a box of the following size: 8.90 x 6.00 x 1.81 inches, without a magazine.

Maximum mag capacity:

8 Rds. 45 ACP, 40 S&W, 10mm (Major Scoring)

9 Rds .40 S&W, 10mm (Minor Scoring)

10 Rds. .38 Super, 9mm (Minor Scoring Only)

Standard factory length magazines only. No extended magazines allowed. Magazine base pads may be fitted to standard length magazine.

Pistols produced with attachment points for external lights or optics are not permitted.

Holsters, Magazine Pouches, and Belts

Only safe holsters and magazine pouches, on waist level belt, worn behind a line drawn down the center of the shooter's side are permitted. Belt must pass through pant loops or be attached to pants belt by velcro or keepers.

Holsters and magazine pouches designed specifically for competition or to gain a competitive advantage are not in the spirit of the 1911 Society and are not permitted.

Holsters and magazine pouches should be designed for continuous daily carry and should be reasonably concealable.

Exception: Full-time police officers may use their duty rig, but all retention features must be used.

Power Factor

120,000 Minor

165,000 Major

Major power factor must be .40 cal or above. Major power factor was arrived at by using a Colt Officers Model, firing factory hardball ammo.

Power Factor = Bullet weight (Grains X Velocity; Feet Per Second)

1000

Rule Change for 2004

The Single Stack Classic has run under the same rules since it's conception with very little changes. But starting in 2004 there will be a rule change implemented. This change deals with magazine capacity for major power factor. Starting January 1, 2004 major power factor will be restricted to 8 rounds only in the magazine. So if your 1911's are chambered for 40 S&W or 10mm you may only load 8 rounds in the magazine if you declare major power factor. This rule has been considered for over a year by the BOD of the 1911 Society and this change was not taken lightly.

Here is how the new magazine rule will read:

* Maximum magazine capacity allowed:

8 Rounds - 45ACP, 40 S&W, 10mm (Major Scoring)

9 Rounds - 40 S&W, 10mm (Minor Scoring)

10 Rounds - 38 Super, 9mm, 9X23 (Minor Scoring Only)

* Standard Factory Length Magazines Only. No Extended Magazines Allowed. Magazine Base Pads may be fitted to Standard Length Magazines.

Okay, before all the 40 shooters start screaming and hollering and sending me nasty emails consider this: The Single Stack Classic was never about an equipment advantage, it is about shooting with as level of a playing field as possible. After all, this match has always been about shooting skill!

- Russell Cluver, 1911 Society V.P.

[EricBudd]

Yes there is a concerted effort to remove L-10. When the votes are posted you will see that.

But the more pressing issue is you are in direct conflict with Eric about the L-10 elimination, what should be done? Both of you can't be accomodated, that is clear.

Gary

I don't think Jim and I are far apart at all. We both want rules stability and L10 to stay around. I don't care about Single Stack anymore - one way or the other. It will be available at the matches I run and almost no one will shoot it. Fine.

At my club the vast majotity shoot Limited, L10,and Production. I don't know what the L10 guys will do if we take their division away.

So why do guys shoot L10? Some live in round restricted states. Others shoot guns that just are not going to be competive in Limited. An XD 40 with a mag well is a great L10 gun, buteven with extensions it doesn't have the capacity to play in Limited. Same with a Glock 21, CZ 75 (40 cal), or 24/7 Pro. Others just like cheap mags that work and don't want to play in a division that requires extended base pad, tuned magazines, ect to be competive.

Limited, because capacity matters, is dominated by only a few designs: STI, SVI, Para. Glocks (22/35) can play and CZ has the Tatical Sport designed for IPSC. Thats about it. Yes, there are oddbals out there, but by and large choices are limited. The other problem is that, even if we can afford it, some of us can't bring ouselves to sped $100 on a magazine and 'upgrade' parts to get the needed capacity.

I know the argument from some is take you cheap guns and play in production. No race holster or mag well for you! Oh, your gun is a 40 or 45? Too bad - you are scored minor; reload light loads. Oh, your just starting out and don't reload? Sucks to be you.

Leave L10 alone. Add other divisions if you want. Just don't complain that competition is deluted.

Don't forget, the guys who get screwed by the elimination of L10 might not stick around. Around my area we have an active steel challange leage, some ICORE (maybe more if some match directors get pissed off by the rule changes), IDPA,and outlaw run-and-gun matches. Guys can shoot just about every weekend and never send a single match fee to USPSA.

Just something to think about. Are we so concered about getting new blood that we just might chase away the guys and gals we have?

[SteveZ]

Yes there is a concerted effort to remove L-10. When the votes are posted you will see that.

Gary

Well its nice to hear someone who is part of running the show finally come out and state this publically. What really irks me is that there seems to have been a smoke and mirrors campaign being run by some ranking members of the USPSA regarding what was being planned regarding Lim-10. I posted this quote below. It was made by what I would refer to as a "ranking member" of the USPSA in a different thread (I'll let all of you use your search engines to fill in the holes).

Sort of like the whole thing that recently sprang from a mere mention that Single Stack and L-10 divisions were going to be discussed at the BOD meeting. Someone assumed, from a single line item in the agenda, that those divisions were going to be removed. There was no basis for this assumption, just someone's knee jerk reaction, and the subsequent domino effect.

but its fairly clear that the "knee jerk reaction" and "assumption" has turned out to be 100% accurate. I don't like being mislead...and I'm sure other members of the USPSA don't either.

Edited November 18, 2006 by SteveZ

[Rob Boudrie]

My personal thoughts regarding Single Stack :

Single Stack

Single stack was designed to be a home for out of the box 1911s. Although we wanted to make certain improvements permissable, the goal was not to provide yet another division where custom work became implicitly required. If the division evolves to the point where "A 1911 is a nice gun, but to really be competetive you need to buy a super expensive high-end 1911 with features you just can't put on your out of the box 1911", then the board will have failed in that goal.

If you don't like this approach, I suggest your comments also let the board know if it's the goal that you disagree with, if don't think we are doing the best possible job of implementing the goal. Actions are best evaluated by seeing how consistent they are with the goal being pursued.

Single Stack was deliberately introduced as a provisional divisoin with a trial period. This was done explicitly so we (a) would not have an implied obligation to continue the division if it did not work out, and ( we would be able to change divisional requirements without the constraint of "people have money invested in this division." Put simply, it's kind of hard to "mess with" a provisional division.

Limited 10

I voted in favor of keeping it.

[Tim James]

I've only been involved in practical shooting for a few months, but I see this debate a lot. I have an honest question: what is the problem with more classes? Diluting competition, more work for the match directors?

The reason I ask is that there are other male-dominated sports where lots of classes are used to equalize equipment, such as auto racing. SCCA autocross, for example, offers 30+ classes at local club races every week and it's no big deal. Is this just a case of practical shooters failing to get some perspective outside of their sport, or is there really a unique reason why classes should be kept to a minimum?

Sorry if this touches off a heated debate or goes off topic. I'd just like to finally learn the answer for my own personal benefit.

[ipscbob]

Vlad, I agree completely. In a previous post on this same subject I offered the warning "be careful what you wish for". What I meant was that if USPSA returns to it's roots, I believe that a large segment of the current membership base will no longer participate. I for one enjoy the equipment race and it is one of the reasons that I choose this shooting sport over others. I welcome the chance to shoot many different types of guns and to make changes to them based on what works for me. L10 is important to alot of us because it places few restrictions on the equipment. I have zero interest in whether the playing field is even (this doesnt exist in any competitive sport) or if my guns or equipment are tactically correct or meet some standard of practical outlined by the BOD. As you've already said, take away the race and all of the racers will go elsewhere.

[EricW]

I hope nobody takes offense to this, but what if some of us *do not want* USPSA to stay the same? I'm happy that there's change and that someone like Gary is busting is ass to make the organization more marketable and more profitable.

What is being lost here in all the vitriol is the fact that a static organization is a dead organization. Five years ago everyone, including myself, was on here bitching that USPSA didn't move fast enough.

I think everybody had better take one or two steps back from their computer for a few minutes of introspection. What's happening here is that you're giving the leadership of USPSA no avenue for success. If they don't do something, they're jerks. Do something, and they're bigger jerks. This is just one big game of Kick the Dog. Sooner or later the dog's going to get smart and go somewhere he doesn't get the crap kicked out of him. And that will be a huge loss for us all, because no matter what The Usual Suspects® think, we have good people on the BOD whose expertise and efforts I hope we don't lose anytime soon.

My sincere apologies to the tarred and feathered parties.

E

[moverfive]

Yes there is a concerted effort to remove L-10. When the votes are posted you will see that.

But the more pressing issue is you are in direct conflict with Eric about the L-10 elimination, what should be done? Both of you can't be accomodated, that is clear.

Gary

This is for all of the area directors and USPSA management -

What is the problem(s) that requires the elimination of L-10 and/or Revolver? What is the issue requiring overhaul of certain rules, divisions, and etc.

The membership doesn't typically get this information prior to any vote and therefore don't get the opportunity to provide good feedback prior to a vote.

Yes I can write my USPSA representatives and express my opinion.....but opine on on WHAT? I cannot comment on the elimination of L-10 or Revolver because I don't fully understand what problem or missed opportunity is being caused by their existence.

And in my opinion - an AD taking a poll from shooters attending a single match and then using those results as the basis for their vote, that just shows very little initiative - especially on major topics like the elimination of a division. With the ability of the web and e-mail, an AD can solicit a wider selection of opinions without a lot of effort. And even if your number of responses doesn't grow - at least you presented the opportunity to get a more informed opinion.

And none of this is to be critical. I just think that a lot of dissatisfaction within the membership is caused by lack of information. And no, you can never provide enough information for everyone and nothing you do (or not do) will make everyone happy. But I don't think it is unrealistic to request that each voting member of USPSA, individually or as a whole, explain the issues/problems and then some possible solutions WELL before any scheduled vote in order to give the membership an opportunity to express their opinions/solutions TO THE ACTUAL ISSUES as opposed to a solution to an guessed-at problem. And so you will still have unhappy folks - but hopefully they will know EXACTLY why they aren't happy.

[tightloop]

If this isn't a political rant I haven't seen one...Mods????

[j2fast]

I think everybody had better take one or two steps back from their computer for a few minutes of introspection. What's happening here is that you're giving the leadership of USPSA no avenue for success. If they don't do something, they're jerks. Do something, and they're bigger jerks. This is just one big game of Kick the Dog. Sooner or later the dog's going to get smart and go somewhere he doesn't get the crap kicked out of him. And that will be a huge loss for us all, because no matter what The Usual Suspects® think, we have good people on the BOD whose expertise and efforts I hope we don't lose anytime soon.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

[JFD]

This is a quote from Michael Voigt's 2003 presidential campaign:

"5. Implement L10 division to allow our sport's most classic handgun to be truely competitive again.

• IPSC was born in the US and made famous with a 45 caliber 1911 about a quarter century ago
  
• The first L10 championship was won with a 45 caliber 1911 single stack pistol!
  

"

This was why he got my vote. At the local level L10 has always been strong, with the same numbers or more than Production at every match. To me, it's a classic division with rules that allow for damn near anything a shooter wants to do, or not do. It also clearly allows for everything that the 1911 division allows.

Discussions here have always shown that actual L10 shooters don't care if the widebody guns are allowed to play.

The talk about restrictions in some states as a reason for L10 are flawed since we don't also have "Open 10". The division can easily stand on its own because it allows racing (or non-racing) on the cheap. It's a great division for many factory guns that don't have the capacity for Limited, but whose owners don't want the restrictions forced on them in Production.

What is the deal with carry holsters and mag pouch placement restrictions anyway??? We aren't about "training", don't use the word "tactical' in every sentence, know for a fact a race holster gives no more than 0.10 speed advantage and brings possible problems with using it, and have no valid reason to force folks to reach back to their butt crack for a mag. L10 shooters have had no issues with a mix of holsters, with both types represented equally. It's hardly unusual to see carry holsters used in Limited, but in L10/Limited you'll never see anyone with mag pouches at their butt crack because it doesn't make sense. Just a pet peeve of mine that will forever keep me out of Production or the 1911 division.

Personally I choose to not shoot those 2 divisions, but I guess I should be leading a campaign to outlaw them both, even though they affect me not at all. Seems to be the theme for USPSA.

I thank each and every BOD member who supports L10.

[Vlad]

What is being lost here in all the vitriol is the fact that a static organization is a dead organization. Five years ago everyone, including myself, was on here bitching that USPSA didn't move fast enough.

Well, you might be right, but there is a difference between static and trying to see what really happens when you aproach the speed of light. A balance might be nice. I would suggest that we should make a serious effort to keep the same rules for at least a couple of years in a row.

[Flexmoney]

If this isn't a political rant I haven't seen one...Mods????

Yeah...we are in deep.

This thread, and any like it (so don't start another one) are going to be closed...for now.

Brian's Forum needs to be about shooting and information. This thread has past the information aspect in is well into the arguement stage.

This place isn't the venue to address the BOD and argue a point.

We can open this thread back up when everybody has had some time to cool off a bit. Then, we will need to stick with discussion and information.