Latest Bod Minutes

[GeorgeInNePa]

While a stabilized set of rules is a good idea, tell me how they will stay stable with the advances of technology and new equipment designs.

Aditionally getting the rules to where there are no grey area and eeryhting is black and white will also be a monumental task.

If there is a stability of rules that in itself will be a death keel to the sport too.

Difficult line to walk on both sides of the topic.

Alan

New technology and new designs can play in Open. When the rule book is up for review again in 2013 we can decide if the new technology has a place in the other divisions.

Sounds nice now, but I'll bet it will suck in practice.

[Nik Habicht]

New technology and new designs can play in Open. When the rule book is up for review again in 2013 we can decide if the new technology has a place in the other divisions.

Good thing you weren't writing the Constitution. Seriously, technology and competitors will always want to evolve the equipment, and things will continue to be invented that will require NROI rulings, or additions to the approved gun list.....

Besides, if we accidentally craft a bad rule --- take your pick here, we've discussed a bunch of rules someone or other has considered to be bad --- do you really want to wait five years to change it? If it's a safety rule that needs fixing?

Let's face it --- no one wants their favorite division, rules, what have you to change. I'm as guilty of that as most people ---- but sometimes things need to change for the continued health of the organization......

[EricW]

Stupid question time:

Why on earth would we try to measure trigger pull at a match? What's the point? All we need is go / no go.

If the only criteria is that the trigger is >= 3.0 lbs, then simply hang a weight off a 1/2 to 5/8" dowel and tune it so that the total mass is 3.0 lbs. Have a padded vise with a guide block so that the slide is held vertically. Put gun in vise. Hang weight off trigger. Repeat two more times. If it doesn't go "click" one time, send the competitor off on her merry to go racing.

[shred]

Stupid question time:

Why on earth would we try to measure trigger pull at a match? What's the point? All we need is go / no go.

If the only criteria is that the trigger is >= 3.0 lbs, then simply hang a weight off a 1/2 to 5/8" dowel and tune it so that the total mass is 3.0 lbs. Have a padded vise with a guide block so that the slide is held vertically. Put gun in vise. Hang weight off trigger. Repeat two more times. If it doesn't go "click" one time, send the competitor off on her merry to go racing.

Ah, I see somebody else has actually thought about it instead of... well, anyway, it's amazing how many PD shooters know their trigger is under 3 pounds and a change would ruin thier investment, yet also insist there's no way to measure them..

[GeorgeInNePa]

If the trigger pull test can't be performed by a 6 year old 100% reliable then two things will happen. At the lower level it won't be done and at the national level if it is even attempted they will need to find a 7 year old to try.

Min. trigger pull in Production(this was a piss poor name to begin with) is not needed in my opinion.

They can print any rule they(BOD) want but if it is never enforced(like the last 6 years of rules) why even bother.

I can't wait to get the contract for the "offical" trigger pull gauge so I can retire. USPSA will have to provide every affiliated club with one along with a box. $$$$$$

I can remember when I joined how an Area Dir. would say "USPSA has a million dollars in the bank and will never go below that". The last time I saw it has been below that mark for several years and with proposed rule changes like this it will go even lower. How- decreased membership, decreased mission count, trigger pull gauges, gun boxes..............................

BOD instead of doing the "USPSA Way" that has been done for years, making the membership pay to play by new rules, driving off current members, and make it so potential members don't want to join. Try to do something that will have a positive impact all the way around.

This AD would always listen to complaints, if you had an idea in how to solve it. My idea is stop trying to solve non existent problems. The only problem that USPSA has and will always have is membership. Annually we take in about as many as we loose. I suggested this years ago to many AD's and nothing ever happened.

Create a questionaire to send to past members asking question to why they left, money, rules, family, work.......................................

It needs to have a prepaid return envelope to work and yes I know some of the addresses we have will be wrong but whats the cost of some metered stamps if we actually get some needed answers as to why, instead of guessing. At this point in time it would probably be +40,000. We are approaching a number almost 3 times the current membership number. I think there might be a very small problem, maybe. I could be wrong for the 10 billionth time in my life.

Hell, I even said I would compile the results but, not now. The cost of gauges and boxes can cover a new employee for a year to do this.

Slame away, I could care less, I'm a Lifer and will stay no matter how much it costs,

Rich

Are you sure?

I'll have to see if I can borrow my club's USPSA supplied EGW Mag Gauge.

[Chuck D]

"Besides, if we accidentally craft a bad rule --- take your pick here, we've discussed a bunch of rules someone or other has considered to be bad --- do you really want to wait five years to change it? If it's a safety rule that needs fixing?"

Gun wise...regardless of Division? Yes !!!

Lets take a short "look" at the big 3:

Open....no changes needed.

Limited... should be like IPSC rules...anything goes, no comps or optics. Forget about the IPSC box and keep the 140mm mag rule.

L10...see Limited but 10 rounds only in a mag.

Production...let the new rules shake themselves out then lock 'em in place for 5 years minimum. You can add a gun to an approved list (should USPSA still choose to use one) w/o changing the rules or having to contact Amidon for every little issue. If the gun doesn't meet the criteria set forth...it isn't legal.

Revolver....leave things as they are, they seem to work well.

PSSD.... see my comments on Production. Pick a set of rules, lock 'em in place and carry on with the shooting.

No one would expect safety and administrative rules to remain "stagnant" but to say the rules regarding what divisions we will have and how those rules effect the purchases of USPSA members have to change by the day let alone the year is a "stretch."

"---- but sometimes things need to change for the continued health of the organization......"

Nothing but nothing harms an organization more that outlawing previously owned and used guns and gear. Add insult to injury when it seems to happen with such great frequency that the equipment rulebook is a never ending "ebb and flow" of modification.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Chuck D

[Alan Meek]

With this being a competitive sport and the competitors always looking for any advantage no matter how small or trivial, I for one can not imagine the size of a rule book that would cover every gun and every scenario short of the competitor purchasing a gun and having USPSA store the gun and only let the competitor have the gun for the match.

Or even if we had a full techinical inspection of the guns, that in itself would also be a nightmare.

All competitve sports review and modify their rules. Sometimes equipment that was previous legal per the rules does become illegal by changes in the rules.

Alan

[sslav]

As for production rules... can anyone here tell me a production gun with a trigger under 3 pounds? they don't really exist because of the liablity of producing them.

Can anyone tell me a production gun that will reliably cycle a 125 PF .40s?

Should anything but stock recoil springs be dissalowed?

Come to think of it I am no expert but as far as I know no production guns come from the factory with a 3lb trigger either. So one way or another you are going to pay for some sort of a trigger job - except now it is not going to be as nice.

Do i think there is a competitive advantage to a 1.5 pound trigger.... to top level shooters, no not really, But to the expense of our new shooter buying a gun from the factory then spending 100-200 on an action job because they have yet to practice enough to get their shooting platform strong enough to make it a non issue. that is a problem.

As the above-mentioned new shooter I have to respectfully disagree that trigger jobs are a problem. First I do not pretend to speak for every newcommer to the sport, but I did not start in this game expecting to be "competitive" any time soon. I mostly compete against my own resluts from previous matches. I do however want to have an enjoyable time. Comming into this sport is a daunting experience for a novice. There are just so many more things to concentrate on than in a stationary shooting dicipline. Having a gun that is a bit more forgiving to triger control provides for a more enjoyable experience. Spending another $100 on a trigger job (BTW my RS drop in had cost me $65) is a lot less likely to drive away new shooters than the frustration of tons of mikes and no-shoots. More than likely the new rule will have no relevance to me personally by the time it takes effect in 2008. But if you pretend to care about new shooters, leave the trigger jobs alone, at least thats this new shooter's opinion.

[Nik Habicht]

Nothing but nothing harms an organization more that outlawing previously owned and used guns and gear.

I almost agree with that statement --- and understand its underlying sentiment. I'm not in favor of outlawing previously owned and used gear and modifications ---- especially, when no one can point to a clear and resounding benefit to the sport. I can also envision scenarios, where equipment rules might have to change for all divisions, that would make lots of equipment obsolete. Consider the potential effect of changing legislation --- if it meant changing equipment guidelines next year so the sport could continue to legally exist, we;; that's a whole 'nother story. Everything's a situation, it deserves careful consideration before a decision is made, and blanket rules don't work in the real world most of the time.....

Eric's comment appeared to apply to the entire rulebook --- may not have been what he meant, but it's how I read it.......

[Chuck D]

"Sometimes equipment that was previous legal per the rules does become illegal by changes in the rules."

With all due respect to you Alan...obviously this hasn't happened to you and I can tell by the fact that if it did...I'd dare say you'd have a different take on the subject.

...and I'm not talking about a 60 dollar holster either.

once you tell someone they can "do something: to their gun...they do it...they use it...legally within the context of the rulebook for a significant amount of time then tell them "for the good of the sport" they can't do whatever anymore...I can see NO possible "up side" for the organization. Case in point...you can mill the slide of your PD gun for Bo-Mar sights but you can't have a trigger pull less than 3 lbs. See the irony....

If we are to believe the well grounded "theory" that USPSA shooting is competition shooting NOT tactical gunfighting "practice"...what's wrong with a 2.5 lb trigger or a DOH holster ? How does making a member "replace" previously legal guns and gear help the organization?

Anyone please give me concrete examples based upon guns and gear...not administrative and/or safety examples....make them clear and concrete...not blanket or vague statements please.

I'll even narrow the playing field for you. Take PD trigger pull weights for an example. How does making someone throw away a gunsmithed (or diy) 2.5lb trigger job on a G17 or an XD make the organization better ?

"Consider the potential effect of changing legislation --- if it meant changing equipment guidelines next year so the sport could continue to legally exist,"

I do...everytime I fight and argue for the survival of L10 Division....

Straight from my heart...just because the BOD's tell me that this or that decision is "for the good of the sport" doesn't mean that I defer all knowledge regarding the subject to them nor do I blindly "follow" their lead. Yes, I do believe they have the good of the organization in mind but we can and will disagree on a number of issues. The club level shooters and match administrators know what works and what doesn't and I honestly believe that they are not consulted nearly enough on these issues. If they were...this "trigger pull guage" thingy in PD would be DOA.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Chuck D

[Micah]

Nothing but nothing harms an organization more that outlawing previously owned and used guns and gear.

It wasn't as expensive as new mags/guns, but think of your Glock friends that were so excited to try out their new Ultimate $200+ trigger job from Charlie Vanek. They were like kids on Christmans morning...

...I know of several people that left the game once it was banned.

[Neil Beverley]

If you don't want the rulebook to change for 5 years then you should vote to keep the current rule book exactly as it is.

And if you do want to make changes to the current rulebook then I think this answers the 5-year-ban-on-changes issue.

[sslav]

Stupid question time:

Why on earth would we try to measure trigger pull at a match? What's the point? All we need is go / no go.

If the only criteria is that the trigger is >= 3.0 lbs, then simply hang a weight off a 1/2 to 5/8" dowel and tune it so that the total mass is 3.0 lbs. Have a padded vise with a guide block so that the slide is held vertically. Put gun in vise. Hang weight off trigger. Repeat two more times. If it doesn't go "click" one time, send the competitor off on her merry to go racing.

I think you would need something a little more elaborate for an objective measurement.

First the application of the load would need to be standardized in some way. The rate at which the weight is released will have the effect on the final result.

This contraption will need to be available at local club level to allow shooters to test their triggers. Otherwise you can end up with a scenario where someone tested fine at one match, fired say 1,500 rounds in between and gets a nice surprize at his next match of finding out that things got smoothed out just enough to make him shoot in the open division.

Next, I may be mistaken but vertical orientation of the slide will not necessarilly properly take into accont speciffic triger geometry - meaning that the measured result may be equal to, more or less than what the actual shooter will experience. So out of the box some gun makes may test better or worse than others. Would it be possible to have trigger jobs for at least some gun types that will pass the weight test but will actually provide the shooter with a significantly lighter (.5lb or more) trigger pull than 3lb? Would it be possible to come up with trigger jobs that are purpose built to pass the test while giving the shooter a lighter pull?

But even if we assume that objective measurement without signifficant variations is practical, what is the point?

Will this in fact result in a level playing field? Will it elliminate the need for for trigger jobs (whether percieved or real) thus lowering the cost of equipment?

I would think that if someone feels that they need to spend money on a trigger job under current rules, they would still feel that they need a trigger job to get as close as possible to that 3lb point without going over. Instead of Glock or XD with a 2lb trigger job, some DA/SA with 3lb/1.5lb trigger job might become the flavor of the month.

Will this restore the meaning of "production" in production division? That assetsion is just plain funny. A Glock with a chromed slide milled for a Bo-mar, a fiberoptic front, custom fit barrel, a noncaptured tungstein guiderod with a 13 lb spring and extended magazine release is about as "production" with a 2lb triggerjob as it would be with a 3lb triggerjob.

Will this attract new shooters to the sport - I have no idea. When I started shooting I had no idea about trigger jobs, guide rods, recoil springs, replacement barrels, etc. Not knowing wether the trigger pull limit is there or not would not have made a tiny bit of difference to me. Knowing it would not have made a slightest bit of difference to me. I could be average or exceptional in my attitude - I thend to think that my attitude would lean towards aaverage. I think it would have no impact eiter positive or negative on getting new people into the sport.

On the flip side this is guaranteed to p!ss off at least some people into quitting. Won't happen to me - my trigger is either legal already or I could get it there by swapping one spring. Now if I had an XD with a trigger job, I might feel different. But I think having a (likely vocal) p!ssed off minority would be more of a detriment to the growth of the sport than 2lb triggers in production.

Being pragmatic any change should be evaluated on a cost/benifit basis. Benifit here appears either negligible or imaginary. The headaches that it brings however will be very real. Seems like a bad idea, but thats just my opinion, your milage may varry.

Edited December 1, 2006 by sslav

[big_kahuna]

Trigger issue:

It's common business practice to weight upside potential versus downside risk, cost versus benefit, when considering policy changes. Here's what I can brainstorm (trying to read the minds of the BOD)...

Upside potential/benefit---

1. cultivate perception among constituents and prospects that stock or near-stock guns are safe and competitive; this is perceived by some to be a marketing tool useful for convincing newbies that they don't need costly aftermarket gunsmithing or accessories (e.g. trigger kits) to play the game.

2. Demonstrate to existiung/prospective OFM sponsors that USPSA has a place for their "box-stock" guns, with the intent of increasing sponsorship and support.

Downside risks---

1. Uniform administration of testing may be difficult, impossible, or cost-prohibitive.

1a. Non-uniformity in testing may result in perceptions of unfairness, cheating and "gaming".

2. Administrative burden: trigger testing will consume time and manpower at matches, potentially causing delays in the match timetables.

2a. shooters/prospects may perceive that "burdensome administrivia" is a barrier between them and the fun (shooting).

3. Mandated trigger weight requirement may relegate many previously-legal guns non-compliant.

3a. Dedicated constituent members may be forced to retrofit triggers (potentially incurring unwelcome costs and labor) to maintain equipment compliance.

3b. associated possibility of alienating constituency.

3c. associated possibility of attrition of the disenfranchised.

3d. ill-will from disgruntled members may erode organizational reputation and negatively affect future recruitment efforts.

I'm sure I missed some stuff, but am confident that folks will chime in to fill the gaps. This may be enough to get started in the cost/benefit analysis. So, the question: is the upside potential worth the downside risk? At this point, I'd say no.

Unenforceable laws and rules, or those that cannot be administered uniformly or affordably, are a waste of time. Mandating trigger pull weight seems to fall into this bucket.

[EricBudd]

If you don't want the rulebook to change for 5 years then you should vote to keep the current rule book exactly as it is.

And if you do want to make changes to the current rulebook then I think this answers the 5-year-ban-on-changes issue.

OK. Sounds good to me. Lets just keep shooting the way we have been. Production is a bit murky but I can live with it.

[RIIID]

big_kahuna,

No need for any gap filing with your post. I don't think anyone on the BOD can over come what you said in your post. Your post should be the last thing said about a min. pull weight in Prod.

Rich

[Singlestack Wonder]

It wasn't as expensive as new mags/guns, but think of your Glock friends that were so excited to try out their new Ultimate $200+ trigger job from Charlie Vanek. They were like kids on Christmans morning...

...I know of several people that left the game once it was banned.

The original Vanek design was illegal, period. It broke the "External Modification" rule. Just because several competitors modify something on their guns, pay money for that modification, and shoot many matches with that modification before getting caught, doesn't somehow justify that the modification should be OK. If they left the organization because they felt that they didn't have to abide by the rules, so be it.

[Alan Meek]

"Sometimes equipment that was previous legal per the rules does become illegal by changes in the rules."

With all due respect to you Alan...obviously this hasn't happened to you and I can tell by the fact that if it did...I'd dare say you'd have a different take on the subject.

...and I'm not talking about a 60 dollar holster either.

Chuck,

Yes it has happened to me in the past with USPSA and I found a solution for me that worked, so please do not make an assumption that I do not know what I am talking about.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Alan Meek

[ysued]

With this being a competitive sport and the competitors always looking for any advantage no matter how small or trivial, I for one can not imagine the size of a rule book that would cover every gun and every scenario short of the competitor purchasing a gun and having USPSA store the gun and only let the competitor have the gun for the match.

Or even if we had a full techinical inspection of the guns, that in itself would also be a nightmare.

All competitve sports review and modify their rules. Sometimes equipment that was previous legal per the rules does become illegal by changes in the rules.

Alan

Allan, I think you are on the right track!!

At this time, Enforcement "WILL" be a royal Pain in the A$$!!!

But....

I have a simple question...

Why didn't we use IPSC Production Rules???

They are simple and to the point.

You buy a gun, you put ammo in it, you shoot it!!

If you wanted to modify it to meet US Criteria and to attract IDPA SSP Shooters, you could have changed the Capacity and Holster criteria to the IPSC Rules, that's it!!

But noooooooo w had to be different!!

We had to take out the Trigger pull limit(or the don't do a trrigger job caluse) and we had to allow the Milling of the Bomars and somehow try to convince ourselves that taking a Bridgeport to your Slide is not an external Modification!! The funny thing is that the same folks that thought that Milling a Slide for Bomars and installing a Vanek Trigger wasn't an external Modification were telling me that putting an ISMI Guide Rod was!!

Please don't get me started!! The BOD Finally is trying to undo their mistakes, maybe not all, but some!!

Think about it, it could be worse!! We could adopt most of IPSC Production Rules, except the Holster and mag capacity, and not only would we have the 5lb Trigger Pull, but we would have the No Melted Bomar Rule!!

Can anyone tell me a production gun that will reliably cycle a 125 PF .40s?

Should anything but stock recoil springs be dissalowed?

Yes, Dan Burwell, shoots an M&P 40 Minor with a 200 Gran Bullet doing around 130 PF!!

He's bullets are going around 665 FPS, a 133 PF!! He's doing reliably and AFAIK, he's also doing it with the Stock Spring and Rod!!

If you don't want the rulebook to change for 5 years then you should vote to keep the current rule book exactly as it is.

And if you do want to make changes to the current rulebook then I think this answers the 5-year-ban-on-changes issue.

One point, because the ruls as they are are vague, and with too many loopholes that require a call to NROI/Amidon every other day!!

If we tightened up the rules, made them clear and concise with not loopholes, and kept changes limited to 3-5 years and stopped the constant barraging of E-mails to John Amidon looking for Rulings, the sport would be a whole lot better, but this is only my opinion though!!

[driver8M3]

It wasn't as expensive as new mags/guns, but think of your Glock friends that were so excited to try out their new Ultimate $200+ trigger job from Charlie Vanek. They were like kids on Christmans morning...

...I know of several people that left the game once it was banned.

The original Vanek design was illegal, period. It broke the "External Modification" rule. Just because several competitors modify something on their guns, pay money for that modification, and shoot many matches with that modification before getting caught, doesn't somehow justify that the modification should be OK. If they left the organization because they felt that they didn't have to abide by the rules, so be it.

the original vanek was not "illegal, period." the fact that "trigger work" is allowed gave lots of people the impression that vanek's trigger mod was allowed. fine, we were wrong. but it certainly was not as clear as you seem to think it was...there was plenty of ambiguity there. its not that just "several" competitors had it. i'd bet hundreds had it, and almost everyone knew of the vanek trigger. and until someone asked amidon about it last year, i had never heard a single person question its legality in production.

ok, fine so we cant use our vanek triggers (fair or not doesnt much matter). lots of those people then went out and bought a perfectly legal vanek or sotelo or x brand drop-in trigger kit. there was absolutley no ambiguity that these were/are legal. and now uspsa is going to yank those as well. how are we supposed to feel about the organization now?

Edited December 1, 2006 by driver8M3

[ysued]

big_kahuna,

No need for any gap filing with your post. I don't think anyone on the BOD can over come what you said in your post. Your post should be the last thing said about a min. pull weight in Prod.

Rich

+1 here Rich.

Again enforcement is the big issue for me, not the 3 Lb weight limit.

Edited December 1, 2006 by ysued

[driver8M3]

The funny thing is that the same folks that thought that Milling a Slide for Bomars and installing a Vanek Trigger wasn't an external Modification were telling me that putting an ISMI Guide Rod was!!

ummm, ysued...you're a little confused about the vanek vs. guide rod issue. i said that if the vanek trigger is an external mod (b/c amidon said it was visible externally), then so is a metal guide rod that sticks out the end of a G17. the guide rod is a lot more visible than vaneks trigger pin.

Edited December 1, 2006 by driver8M3

[ysued]

It wasn't as expensive as new mags/guns, but think of your Glock friends that were so excited to try out their new Ultimate $200+ trigger job from Charlie Vanek. They were like kids on Christmans morning...

...I know of several people that left the game once it was banned.

The original Vanek design was illegal, period. It broke the "External Modification" rule. Just because several competitors modify something on their guns, pay money for that modification, and shoot many matches with that modification before getting caught, doesn't somehow justify that the modification should be OK. If they left the organization because they felt that they didn't have to abide by the rules, so be it.

the original vanek was not "illegal, period." the fact that "trigger work" is allowed gave lots of people the impression that vanek's trigger mod was allowed. fine, we were wrong. but it certainly was not as clear as you seem to think it was...there was plenty of ambiguity there. its not that just "several" competitors had it. i'd bet hundreds had it, and almost everyone knew of the vanek trigger. and until someone asked amidon about it last year, i had never heard a single person question its legality in production.

ok, fine so we cant use our vanek triggers (fair or not doesnt much matter). lots of those people then went out and bought a perfectly legal vanek or sotelo or x brand drop-in trigger kits. there was absolutley no ambiguity that these were/are legal. and now uspsa is going to yank those as well. how are we supposed to feel about the organization now?

Thanks for the history lesson, I didn't know how the vanek issue happened.

You do admit that the Trigger Rule was so vague and it left a Loophole that allowed the first Vanek Trigger to go through, when NROI/Amidon found out, he made an un-popular ruling to some.

Now to the present, Big_Kohuna said it perfectly Enforcement is going to SUCK big time!!!

But, my opinion is that problems would have been prevented if IPSC Rules had been adopted instead of the Watered-Down Un-Clear USPSA Version.

Y

The funny thing is that the same folks that thought that Milling a Slide for Bomars and installing a Vanek Trigger wasn't an external Modification were telling me that putting an ISMI Guide Rod was!!

ummm, ysued...you're a little confusd about the vanek vs. guide rod issue. i said that if the vanek trigger is an external mod (b/c amidon said it was visible externally), then so is a metal guide rod that sticks out the end of a G17. the guide rod is a lot more visible than vaneks trigger pin.

I don't want to go back to that!! We beat that Dead Horse once before.

Amidon ruled it was OK, for the Rod and in the ruling he said the Rod was an internal part.

I don't care anymore, heck I dont shoot Glock anymore and I love the M&P Stock Recoil Spring and Rod!!

Were the rulings inconsistent??

Maybe.

You can sit here and nitpick everything Amidon says until you are blue in the face,

maybe this is a good example on why we should clarify the rules, get a good set of rules and shouldn't mess with them for a while. And don't call Amidon for a Ruling of a new Gizmo every other week!!

[driver8M3]

slav: i loved your entire post, but this was my favorite part. great post.

Will this restore the meaning of "production" in production division? That assetsion is just plain funny. A Glock with a chromed slide milled for a Bo-mar, a fiberoptic front, custom fit barrel, a noncaptured tungstein guiderod with a 13 lb spring and extended magazine release is about as "production" with a 2lb triggerjob as it would be with a 3lb triggerjob.

ysued: i'm not nitpicking what amidon said, i'm nitpicking what you said in post #294.

The funny thing is that the same folks that thought that Milling a Slide for Bomars and installing a Vanek Trigger wasn't an external Modification were telling me that putting an ISMI Guide Rod was!!

i dont think a single person ever made that argument. Edited December 1, 2006 by driver8M3

[open17]

One point, because the ruls as they are are vague, and with too many loopholes that require a call to NROI/Amidon every other day!!

If we tightened up the rules, made them clear and concise with not loopholes, and kept changes limited to 3-5 years and stopped the constant barraging of E-mails to John Amidon looking for Rulings, the sport would be a whole lot better, but this is only my opinion though!!

Go over to the "Global Village", roll back a couple of years, and substitute "Vince Pinto"

for "John Amidon". The above post would fit right in. IPSC did tighten up the Production

rules, and as far as I can see the constant barrage of e-mails to Vince hasn't backed off

much. Of course replying to them got easier---if there are the words "can I" in the

subject line the auto-reply is NO!!!.