Oct Bod Meeting Minutes Are Posted

[Bigbadaboom]

I don't want to shed oz's!!! I shouldn't have to shed oz's!!! I carry a heavy 1911 and I want to shoot what I carry. IDPA doesn't allow me to shoot my 1911 carry guns by their rules so I built this one for the """"USPSA"""" (not IDPA, Single Stack Society or any other shooting sport).

Why do we have to try and "Bring people over" from IDPA? IDPA is a good shooting sport in it's own right. Why can't we attract people to USPSA without mocking other disciplines?

AGAIN, This isn't about bashing IDPA. This is about keeping the sports seperate so people have a better variety. How would IDPA shooters like it if all of a sudden the rules allowed open guns?

[Gary Stevens]

This is simply a business venture. Our business is shooting competitions. Every business venture has a business stragety. Only time will tell if this stragety is good or bad.

Remember the name of the division is "Provisional". It was very clear from the beginning that the rules would be modified during the test period.

I have explained the rational for the 2007 rules the best I can. That is all I can do.

Gary

[D.Hayden]

DOH? Can someone point me to the bannishment of the DOHs?

I'm not seeing it.. the rule looks about how I'd expect it..

[Scott R]

23. Holsters should be suitable for everyday use. Competition holsters of the race gun type are specifically not allowed. All retention features of the holster must be used. The holster, must carry the pistol so that the grip front strap is at or above the top of the belt. The holster, must not be cut further than 1/2 inch below the front of the ejection port and cover the slide completely up to 1/2 inch below the ejection port. A belt slide holster, such as a Yaqui slide, is exempt from the covering the slide and the 1/2 inch cut requirements

[jasmap]

"All the discussions and decisions are for a PROPOSED 2008 USPSA rule book. "

Unless I am misunderstanding then there is NO banishment as of yet.

DOH? Can someone point me to the bannishment of the DOHs?

I'm not seeing it.. the rule looks about how I'd expect it..

[GeorgeInNePa]

"All the discussions and decisions are for a PROPOSED 2008 USPSA rule book. "

Unless I am misunderstanding then there is NO banishment as of yet.

DOH? Can someone point me to the bannishment of the DOHs?

I'm not seeing it.. the rule looks about how I'd expect it..

From pages 10 and 11 of the PDF

Motion: To adopt changes to provisional Single Stack rules effective

1/1/2007

Moved by Area 4

Seconded by Area 5

Passed

[jasmap]

That's cool and I see what you're saying but......what did Chris E. mean then? As usual I'm lost.

"All the discussions and decisions are for a PROPOSED 2008 USPSA rule book. "

Unless I am misunderstanding then there is NO banishment as of yet.

DOH? Can someone point me to the bannishment of the DOHs?

I'm not seeing it.. the rule looks about how I'd expect it..

From pages 10 and 11 of the PDF

Motion: To adopt changes to provisional Single Stack rules effective

1/1/2007

Moved by Area 4

Seconded by Area 5

Passed

[Gary Stevens]

The PSSD rules are in place for 2007. The "new" rulebook that we are working on will be published for comment early in 2007 and then be implemented in 2008. Until then we will be working with what we have now with the modified PSSD rules for 2007. Everything else remains the same for 2007.

Gary

[ipscbob]

The PSSD rules are in place for 2007. The "new" rulebook that we are working on will be published for comment early in 2007 and then be implemented in 2008. Until then we will be working with what we have now with the modified PSSD rules for 2007. Everything else remains the same for 2007.

Gary

If the intent of all of this was to alienate as many current members as possible, it worked. Oh well, too bad we don't really get any input into all of this. Kind of like new gun legislation in California If this forum is anywhere near a representative sample, this will cause considerable grief among those who shoot L10 and/or SS. Guess we will have a chance to make our feelings known with our votes at the next election of officers.

Edited November 18, 2006 by ipscbob

[SteveZ]

Chuck,on a somewhat different note, when the next batch of votes regarding the rule book divisions are posted you will see who has been supporters of L-10 and who has not. Rules stability is partially why we are writing our own rulebook. Stability is one of our main goals. Having to print new rule books every 2-3 years was not a way to achieve stability.

Gary

I noticed on the USPSA webpage BOD On-line meeting minutes area, there is already a header for what appears to be a vote on handgun rules SEE HERE. Is this what your refering to and where the votes on L10 will be revealed? Its my understanding that the draft version of the new rule book...didn't even have an L10 division.

[D.Hayden]

The holster, must carry the pistol so that the grip front strap is at or above the top of the belt

Thanks Scott.. looked right past that..

It doesn't really surprise, nor bother me. It was the holster I was using for L-10.

It's easily converted.. in 2008? .. lol

[Gary Stevens]

Steve, that is still part of an active on-line meeting and I can't talk about it until it is posted to the public. Hope you unerstand.

ipscbob, I don't understand your comment. The new rulebook will be published early in 2007 for the expressed purpose of hearing your comments and suggestions. Then those will be reviewed and any changes will be made prior to shipping it off to the printers.

It is fairly easy to criticize, it is slightly harder to offer realistic solutions.

Gary

[Chuck D]

"I don't want to shed oz's!!! I shouldn't have to shed oz's!!! I carry a heavy 1911 and I want to shoot what I carry. IDPA doesn't allow me to shoot my 1911 carry guns by their rules so I built this one for the """"USPSA"""" (not IDPA, Single Stack Society or any other shooting sport)."

Now you know how I felt having spent the "long dollar" on a gun seemed legal by USPSA after several calls to H.Q. to "double" and "triple" check the facts.

"It is fairly easy to criticize, it is slightly harder to offer realistic solutions."

I agree. But when you do offer solutions you feel to be realistic the response is....

" This is a business....we have to do what's best for the organization in the long run."

Might I suggest you do what's best for the members as a whole? Think of USPSA as a department store....If you "run off" the customers...their will be no "store." Think "inclusive"......

"If the intent of all of this was to alienate as many current members as possible, it worked. Oh well, too bad we don't really get any input into all of this. Kind of like new gun legislation in California If this forum is anywhere near a representative sample, this will cause considerable grief among those who shoot L10 and/or SS. Guess we will have a chance to make our feelings known with our votes at the next election of officers."

I'm not alone......

Edited November 18, 2006 by Chuck D

[SteveZ]

Steve, that is still part of an active on-line meeting and I can't talk about it until it is posted to the public. Hope you unerstand.

Gary

Thanks Gary...yes I do understand. I also want to thank you for your motion to decouple the discussions between making SSD a replacement for L10.

[ipscbob]

Steve, that is still part of an active on-line meeting and I can't talk about it until it is posted to the public. Hope you unerstand.

ipscbob, I don't understand your comment. The new rulebook will be published early in 2007 for the expressed purpose of hearing your comments and suggestions. Then those will be reviewed and any changes will be made prior to shipping it off to the printers.

Sorry, but that is just political double-speak to me. The members do not really have a say in what happens in this organisation. Unless votes on all of these changes are truly solicited from the membership and tallied and results are reported so that there is some significant accountability, it is just lip service. Nobody ever asked me if my USPSA dues should be used to create the SS division or if L10 should be eliminated. I must have missed that vote.

It is fairly easy to criticize, it is slightly harder to offer realistic solutions.

Gary

Solutions? What were the problems that these changes were intended to fix? Sounds like Stirring the pot for no good reason to me!

Edited November 18, 2006 by ipscbob

[LChico]

I wonder if most L-10 shooters will do like my wife and I, and switch to Limited? A lot of the folks around here shoot L-10 to get the heck away from restrictive rules. That's the only reason I won't shoot Production or the 1911 division.

Mr Bond would have been better informed if he had simply checked match results for the area to see that L-10 is well represented at matches.

I think taking a poll at any area match slants the results somewhat. At our local matches , throughout the section, we have had a dramatic drop in Open shooters. However, that is typically the second largest division represented at our section match and at the area matches. Our monthly matches always have more L-10 & Production shooters than Open.

What percentage of your local club shooters go to the area match? 5 percent? 10 percent? This is not a complaint, just an observation that the area championship tends to have a sizable number of 'out of area' shooters, and also tends to attract more Open shooters. That's not the reality we see month in and month out at our local ranges.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

[j2fast]

I have little faith in mob rule so I'd just as soon keep the USPSA representative republic in tact; the organization is NOT a true democracy nor do I think it should be. Also not to parrot comments that others have made but if some of you are so dissatisfied with the organization start putting together your platform and sacrificing you personal time to take an elected seat away from someone you don't feel is doing a good job.

On another note, while the forum membership as a whole MAY be a good cross section of the membership as a whole I disagree that the handful of members that repeatedly post in these types of threads represent the feelings of the USPSA total membership. The majority members don't post here and many likely don't even know the forum exists. Most of those who are here and especially those read/post in these types topics are the more passionate of the bunch. Now I'm not saying anyone should hold back there opinions (far from it) get them out there on the table; I'm just saying that the more vocal of us shouldn't assume that their opinions represent that of the masses.

In the interest of disclosure I'll admit that I bailed out of Production for the relative stability of Limited because I felt like it was only a matter of time before my fully tricked out (within the current rules) XD with a trigger job, bomars, etc .was going to need changed or be deemed illegal all together. Maybe I over reacted with my decision maybe I didn't we'll see. I didn't like that I felt like I had to dump one division for another and I know not everyone can just do that. I like shooting Production and will hopefully get back there this year with a basically box stock gun.

I'm not normally a big "can't we all get along" type and I'm not entirely happy with the current state of the union but I think we'd do better with more constructive feedback with less bashing of each other and the BOD.

[Zerwas]

+1!!!!! As an infamous so kalifornian once said, "Can't we all just get along".

I have little faith in mob rule so I'd just as soon keep the USPSA representative republic in tact; the organization is NOT a true democracy nor do I think it should be. Also not to parrot comments that others have made but if some of you are so dissatisfied with the organization start putting together your platform and sacrificing you personal time to take an elected seat away from someone you don't feel is doing a good job.

On another note, while the forum membership as a whole MAY be a good cross section of the membership as a whole I disagree that the handful of members that repeatedly post in these types of threads represent the feelings of the USPSA total membership. The majority members don't post here and many likely don't even know the forum exists. Most of those who are here and especially those read/post in these types topics are the more passionate of the bunch. Now I'm not saying anyone should hold back there opinions (far from it) get them out there on the table; I'm just saying that the more vocal of us shouldn't assume that their opinions represent that of the masses.

In the interest of disclosure I'll admit that I bailed out of Production for the relative stability of Limited because I felt like it was only a matter of time before my fully tricked out (within the current rules) XD with a trigger job, bomars, etc .was going to need changed or be deemed illegal all together. Maybe I over reacted with my decision maybe I didn't we'll see. I didn't like that I felt like I had to dump one division for another and I know not everyone can just do that. I like shooting Production and will hopefully get back there this year with a basically box stock gun.

I'm not normally a big "can't we all get along" type and I'm not entirely happy with the current state of the union but I think we'd do better with more constructive feedback with less bashing of each other and the BOD.

[Rocket35]

I think taking a poll at any area match slants the results somewhat. At our local matches , throughout the section, we have had a dramatic drop in Open shooters. However, that is typically the second largest division represented at our section match and at the area matches. Our monthly matches always have more L-10 & Production shooters than Open.

What percentage of your local club shooters go to the area match? 5 percent? 10 percent? This is not a complaint, just an observation that the area championship tends to have a sizable number of 'out of area' shooters, and also tends to attract more Open shooters. That's not the reality we see month in and month out at our local ranges.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

Good point Linda. I think that if USPSA sent out a "mailer" to each member polling the issue of what division they shoot and which divisions they would like see stay, L10 would fair pretty well...

[Greg Jones]

I tend to stay on the sidelines of these types of discussions here as they often degrade into a shouting match rather than remaining a quality discussion of the points and counterpoints of the issues at hand. Since it has been suggested that the views posted here might be a representative sample of L10/SS shooters, I suppose that I'll break with my tradition and weigh in on the issue. To put my opinions in perspective, I shoot both IDPA and USPSA primarily with a .45 single stack. For the most part, I have shot L10 in USPSA until the last two matches of the year when I shot single stack. Frankly I am undecided at this point if I will primarily participate in L10 or SS next year. My decision will be made on 8-rounds vs. 10-rounds rather than any other PSSD rules.

On the issue of the box, it has been suggested here that a SS already fits nicely in the IPSC box and also that the change to the new box takes us further away from the 1911 Society rules. My experience is that the length and depth of the 3 boxes mentioned is a non-issue for the vast majority of 1911 guns. The critical dimension is the height, and I understand that some SS shooters have had to trim magazine base pads to fit the IPSC box. The new PSSD division box has the same height (6") as the 1911 Society box, so I do see the new box taking us closer to 1911 Society rules. The new PSSD box makes sense for US gun clubs and shooters as many clubs already have the needed box. The same cannot be said for the IPSC or 1911 Society box.

On the issue of the weight limit, this too should be a non-issue for the vast majority of 1911s that comply with the other PSSD rules. My full-size .45 1911 with a mag well and FLGR weighs 40.4 ounces, and I can see where a 9mm barrel might add an ounce or two more to the total. But if anyone has built a PSSD gun with an already illegal tungsten guide rod, don't be surprised when others are not sympathetic that your gun does not make the weight limit.

On the holster issue, I believe all Blade-Tech DOH made in the past year or two have come with a removable hanger and two back pieces-one with a drop and one without drop. Given that, almost everyone who bought a DOH specifically for PSSD should already have a back piece that will make the holster legal. For those who have an older one-piece DOH, odds are that it wasn't bought specifically for PSSD so why would replacing it be an issue now that it is not legal? I find it amusing when many shooters (in all shooting sports) are willing to spend big $$ to upgrade equipment to gain a (perceived) competitive advantage, yet are put under a financial hardship when a rule change makes a $60 item illegal.

My final thought is on the issue of the new rules making the PSSD an IDPA match. As mentioned earlier, I shoot both IDPA and USPSA and I have no problem distinguishing between the two disciplines. I value the differences between the two sports and enjoy both for what they are. Anyone that thinks that PSSD has become IDPA, or that USPSA cannot benefit from IDPA crossovers and the manufacturers that cater to IDPA/PSSD shooters are not looking at the big picture. Personally, I've seen at my local club how the two sports can compliment one another. We have IDPA crossovers shooting at the USPSA matches and USPSA crossovers shooting at the IDPA matches. Both divisions have benefited and are stronger because of it, but more importantly the shooters have fun doing it-no keyboards, just shooting! Thanks again Gary for all you have done to make the PSSD happen. I appreciate your hard work to further the growth of USPSA.

[EricBudd]

It is fairly easy to criticize, it is slightly harder to offer realistic solutions.

Gary

Gary,

What I don't understand is why we need solutions. We have a rule book that works pretty well and divisions that accomidate the vast majority of shooters. Other than a few clarifications and tweeks I don't see the need to change things just for the sake of change.

It has also been suggested in this thread that if you don't like the way things are, run for office in the next elections. That is a bit drastic, but ok. How about we have a proposed 2007 rule book and elections before it is adopted. As long as everyone running is up front about their positions, at least us unwashed masses will be heard with our votes.

I have already contacted my Area director with my opinion on the desire to drop Limited 10 and Revolver. I couldn't care less about Single Stack since almost no one shoots it at my club. If they do, I'll check the box in EZ WinScore.

[Jim Norman]

I don't unerstand how you have been excluded, perhaps you can enlighten me on that one.

If you are already a member, then you are not in the target group. You have multiple divisions you can choose to shoot already and probably are. Current members will either stay where they are or move to PSSD, fairly simple choice. Those that are not USPSA members though have to make a decision to "load and make ready" and try our game or stay out of the organization. I want them to join us regardless of their membership or lack of membership in any other organization.

Gary

Gary,

IF I understand all this correctly, there is a concerted movement to eliminate L-10, a division where I can play with my Limited Gun, competatively, in a 10 round environment dicated by hoplophobes and replace it with a division that requires me to have a different gun, magazines and holster. This EXCLUDES me. none of my current single stacks wil be either legal or competative in the current Singel Stack Division.

If we,the membership want a new divsion, that is fine with me. Have a Single Stack Division, but if that is what you are calling it, allow Single Stacks, all of them. If you really want a division that is limited to only the venerable 1911, that is also fine by me, call it what it is, The 1911, Unmodified Division. But this what we really want? Why not have a SIG 226 Division, or a Glock 20 Division or a Browning Hi-Power Division? Having a division that is limited to only one very narrow design and very limited modification is a step in the wrong direction.

Many of us need the L-10 division where we live. We shoot L-10 at home and then use the same equipment when we travel to shoot Limited. I can't be the only one that does this.

I think a "Stock Division" has a place. I think Single Stack is a fine idea, needs an overhaul, but has good intentions. Neither should eliminate another division. There area a number of people that benifit greatly if there arte only two divisions. The perenial top 10 that used to dominate the only two divisions now find that they have to chose two of 5 or 6 divisions, and they are up against a whole new crop of shooters in those new divisions.

Within some limits more divisions is a good thing. It may be that what we need to do is change how we select champions. Maybe the point series will become how this is accomplised. All area matches, Section matches and certain "Special Mtches" will be assigned points, just like Nascar and you collect points in each for each division you shoot, provided that you shoot a certain minimum number of matches in a division, accumulate a minimum number of points, you are the Champion. We could still have a Nationals, but the entry to the natinals could be by invitation, you would need to qualify by shooing a minimum number of regional matches and that would get you your slot, Paid entry of maybe 50% fee. There could still be a buy in available, but those people would not be eligible as National Champion. The Nationals would count for points, and the winner of the Nationals provided that he had enough other points would then be crowned the National Champion.

Jim

PS

LEAVE L-10 ALONE!!!!!!

[Gary Stevens]

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

[Scout454]

yeah, i didnt see the sentence that restricts the height of the holster, so the DOH would definitely be out. now bladetech will have to come up with a new HOH (high-offset) design!

Russell

Look at Blade-techs Stingray belt loop. You can even use spacers to adjust clearance.

Mike

[Jim Norman]

It is fairly easy to criticize, it is slightly harder to offer realistic solutions.

Gary

Gary,

What I don't understand is why we need solutions. We have a rule book that works pretty well and divisions that accomidate the vast majority of shooters. Other than a few clarifications and tweeks I don't see the need to change things just for the sake of change.

It has also been suggested in this thread that if you don't like the way things are, run for office in the next elections. That is a bit drastic, but ok. How about we have a proposed 2007 rule book and elections before it is adopted. As long as everyone running is up front about their positions, at least us unwashed masses will be heard with our votes.

I have already contacted my Area director with my opinion on the desire to drop Limited 10 and Revolver. I couldn't care less about Single Stack since almost no one shoots it at my club. If they do, I'll check the box in EZ WinScore.

Gary, Are referring to Eric Budd's post? I read this and Eric, please correct me if I am wrong, but I read this as a vote to Keep L-10. THe statement that we currently have divisions that accommodate most all shooters reads to me as keep L-10. THat Eric contacted his AD about his opinion on the desire to drop L-10 doesn't translate to his, Eric's, desire to drop L-1o, but rather to his opinon of that desire by others. Based upon his comments in opening, I would say he like me is against dropping L-10.

Eric, am I right?

Jim