Latest Bod Minutes

[Neil Beverley]

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!!

With the best will in the world you will not get a perfect set of rules. It will never happen. Someone, somewhere will be unhappy and will want (require) a change.

The point I was making is you either live with the problems for 5 years or instead you allow corrections to put things right. These are the only two options, because the perfect rulebook will not exist. Not to suit everyone.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Neil Beverley

[Alan Meek]

1

[rgkeller]

There are few things an organization seeking to grow can do that is stupider than establishing rules that cannot be enforced.

[ysued]

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.

Yes, Memebers here DID say just that!!

Not in the same sentence, but they DID say both things!!

And honestly, I don't have the time to look in over 200 posts to find all instances of thes quotes, but they were said.

If you think that Milling a Slide does not fall under the External Modification rule, I have no idea what an External Modification is!!

Plain and simple the USPSA Production Rules were badly written, and no thought was ever given to the Gaming mentality of us, the US shooters. IPSC Rules should had been adopted with a Magazine capacity and no Race Holsters, Period!!

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!!

With the best will in the world you will not get a perfect set of rules. It will never happen. Someone, somewhere will be unhappy and will want (require) a change.

The point I was making is you either live with the problems for 5 years or instead you allow corrections to put things right. These are the only two options, because the perfect rulebook will not exist. Not to suit everyone.

But that is what this year, 2007 is for!! To get the 2008 rules "RIGHT", not perfect, but RIGHT!!

Jet's all work together.

I suggest, that at this time, it's waaay to late for a Trigger Pull limit, and Personally, I'm not going to enforce it on my Monthly matches, I don't have the time to do it, I have a match to run!!

There are few things an organization seeking to grow can do that is stupider than establishing rules that cannot be enforced.

YESSSSS!!

Thanks!!

Y

Edited December 2, 2006 by ysued

[ysued]

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!!!.

The difference is that Vince is Evil and John is not!!

Now, we should do the same thing!!

Get a good set of rules, and have them run for more than 6 months without creating some sort of ruling or change!! Constant changes and rulings are an indication of BAD RULES IN PLACE!!

If we had good rules, there should be no need for rulings an changes!!

Y

Edited December 1, 2006 by ysued

[Nemo]

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.

Then some sort of rail contraption would have to be set up to keep the dowel perpendicular to the plane of the gun since angling of the dowel can result in variations in measurement.

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.

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.

If I was as smart and bilingual as sometimes I would like to think I am, this is what I would've said. Great posts, gentlemen!

Edited because I'm not that smart.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Nemo

[EricW]

Three words: Center of Gravity

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.

Then some sort of rail contraption would have to be set up to keep the dowel perpendicular to the plane of the gun since angling of the dowel can result in variations in measurement.

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.

[Nemo]

Plain and simple the USPSA Production Rules were badly written, and no thought was ever given to the Gaming mentality of us, the US shooters. IPSC Rules should had been adopted with a Magazine capacity and no Race Holsters, Period!!

Yamil,

But we didn't adopt the IPSC rules and now it's not the time to try to go back to that. Period! Also, IPSC production is not without faults. It is a Standard-Minor-9mm only division, a magazine capacity race. No trigger jobs? Well, maybe... Big whoopee! Try to shoot anything else but a 9... talk about excluding shooters equipment. Hell, even the G17 is staying behind in the IPSC capacity race with some of the other wondernines out there.

I invite you to read SSlav's post. It will give you the perspective of a shooter new to the game.

Maybe we, the US shooters, have this, in your mind damned, gaming mentality because we understand what we are doing is A GAME! And we have a GOOD Production Division. We agreed that we needed some rules clarified but not changed. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the way we shoot the division today.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Nemo

[ysued]

Plain and simple the USPSA Production Rules were badly written, and no thought was ever given to the Gaming mentality of us, the US shooters. IPSC Rules should had been adopted with a Magazine capacity and no Race Holsters, Period!!

Yamil,

But we didn't adopt the IPSC rules and now it's not the time to try to go back to that. Period! Also, IPSC production is not without faults. It is a Standard-Minor-9mm only division, a magazine capacity race. No trigger jobs? Well, maybe... Big whoopee! Try to shoot anything else but a 9... talk about excluding shooters equipment. Hell, even the G17 is staying behind in the IPSC capacity race with some of the other wondernines out there.

I invite you to read SSlav's post. It will give you the perspective of a shooter new to the game.

Maybe we, the US shooters, have this, in your mind damned, gaming mentality because we understand what we are doing is A GAME! And we have a GOOD Production Division. We agreed that we needed some rules clarified but not changed. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the way we shoot the division today.

I agree with you!! 110%!!

I don't eant the rules Changed in any way!!

And by no means I want to go back in time with the rules, it's too late for that, I only mention that because It should have been that way!!

BTW, if you read my psot correctly I mention IPSC rules with a magazine capacity change and NO Race Holsters!!!

But that I meant 10 Round Limit and Carry Holsters!!

Please go back and look, I know I'm a little slow, but not that much!!

NO BOX!!

NO TRIGGER PULL MINIMUM!!

Just Clarify the rules so that we don't need to contact John Amidon every other day for a Ruling on something or another.

Make the rules Clear and Simple enough so that ever "I" can understand them and don't have to contact John to make them clear for me!!

Y

Edited December 1, 2006 by ysued

[Ara]

I have a question for any international IPSC rule shooters. How does one guage a Glock trigger, anyway? What do they do, how do they do it? Anyone with experience?

Mine measures 2# at the tip but 3.25 in the middle and it graduates in between. If the guage rod is 1/8" lower, I could fall below the min and get bumped.

On the other hand, we run the same risk with other rules, including chrono. I've been to some VERY questionable chronos. Sometimes we do everything we can and get dinged at chrono. Are we just assuming somehow that this particular feature is any more priority to check than anything else in a Production gun? I guess what I'm saying is there is risk with alot of what we do anyway so in the case of the trigger, maybe we just have to have a 3.5# trigger to make sure, like we have a >130 or >170 PF.

I'm not per se, for or against trigger restrictions just trying to come up with solutions. The rules don't REQUIRE us to check the guns or ammo, they require the shooter to abide. Heck, even ammo isn't required to be checked for big matches depending the level.

As a member, I was not happy with the Vanek ruling but I had no problem spending a few bucks to upgrade. Now, if I have to up my trigger weight "for the good of the sport or division", I'm there. It's not going to cost me much at all (with a Glock at least).

[Chuck D]

"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."

I never said you "didn't know what your talking about" but if your willing to "eat" a purchase or two on USPSA's behalf...your a much better and richer man than I and I applaud your willingness to do so.

You should share your coping mechanism with the rest of us.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Chuck D

[sslav]

"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."

I never said you "didn't know what your talking about" but if your willing to "eat" a purchase or two on USPSA's behalf...your a much better and richer man than I and I applaud your willingness to do so.

You should share your coping mechanism with the rest of us.

I think eating a cost "for the good of the sport" should not be out of the question. But the question is how much cost for how much good? I am not sure that any good has yet been defined so the question of cost is accademic.

[Alan Meek]

My coping mechanismis fairly simple,

For me this is a game pure and simple, I choose to compete in the divisions as defined with the rules that are in place.

If the leaders of the organization make a decision to change the rules and or definitions of the divisions I will adjust. If these changes are not sound I will do what I can to try and get them corrected.

I have learned to remove the emotional reaction and step back and look at the issues in the broader picture.

Am I concerned that USPSA is losing members? Yes I am very much so, yet I do not feel the majority of members are leaving based soley on some of the rules issues that seem to fuel the most debate.

There has been a call for stabiltiy of the rules for a specified period of time. I feel that this is not in the best interest of the sport in the long term. We would have an organization that would be moving at tortoise speed and that will never end in a good result.

If you were to apply that same thought to any company they would be out of business very quickly.

In my opinion what USPSA really needs is a solid set of rules that are easy to comprehend by all members and potential members.

If USPSA enacts a rule that disallows equipment that was previously allowed they should have a period to allow the members to make the change over.

USPSA needs to contnually apply as much common sense in developing the rules for the sport. I feel the current BOD has done a better job than some of the previous BOD's in this aspect.

Alan

[Singlestack Wonder]

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.

"Impression" is the key word. While trigger work was OK, the fact that the work was on the outside of the gun made it illegal. Should the rulebook be modified to state, " Trigger modifications are OK only if 100% of the work is internal and not visible from the outside of the pistol"?

[GeorgeInNePa]

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.

"Impression" is the key word. While trigger work was OK, the fact that the work was on the outside of the gun made it illegal. Should the rulebook be modified to state, " Trigger modifications are OK only if 100% of the work is internal and not visible from the outside of the pistol"?

That would have saved us from the whole debate, now wouldn't it?

[ysued]

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.

"Impression" is the key word. While trigger work was OK, the fact that the work was on the outside of the gun made it illegal. Should the rulebook be modified to state, " Trigger modifications are OK only if 100% of the work is internal and not visible from the outside of the pistol"?

That would have saved us from the whole debate, now wouldn't it?

Absolutely and directly to my point!!! Clear rules don't need clarifications or Rulings!!

Had the Rules been drafted correctly from the start, we would have never had the problems we did.

BTW, this Internal modifications only have been used at the NRA Service Rifle Matches for ages!! My M1A is super Pimped Out!!! On the inside!! They also have a Trigger Pull Minimum, 4 Lbs!! and they DO Enforce it!! You have a 3.98Lb Trigger Pull, you shoot.... NO SCORE or don't shoot!!

[Lee Bell]

Yeah, but does NROI have the G24 posted on the approved Limited and Limited-10 gun list??

Measuring trigger pull is pretty simple and should be more consistent than chrono is today, and IPSC somehow manages to muddle through.

Were I in charge of it, I'd make an official USPSA 1/2" delrin cylinder with a 1/4" hole in the middle and have the tester to pull straight back with the bottom of the cylinder touching the bottom of the triggerguard.

If I were in charge of it, I'd use a device that fits between the trigger guard and the trigger and uses an air or screw driven piston to apply pressure to the trigger directly to the rear, eliminating any issues of where to pull against the trigger and whether the pull was straight or off to one side.

[richardschennberg]

"... Interestingly enoough...no one to the best of my knowledge has "restricted" themselves by going to a Nationals and purposely used 10 round only mags to prove their point...

Actually, Rob Leatham did just that (but with 8! round mags) for years until the first time he was beaten by "the burner" aka Jerry Barnhart. Shooters from England need to position not just their mags, but also their guns and ammo in the free world (I guess Sir Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain is now facing backwards!)

[Chuck D]

"Rob Leatham did just that (but with 8! round mags) for years until the first time he was beaten by "the burner" aka Jerry Barnhart."

Lets talk post 1999 history here...better yet, lets find someone anyone that lobby for the elimination of L10 that's willing to "practice what they preach."

"Shooters from England need to position not just their mags, but also their guns and ammo in the free world."

With all due respect...what's that have to do with the USPSA rulebook ?

"There has been a call for stabiltiy of the rules for a specified period of time. I feel that this is not in the best interest of the sport in the long term. We would have an organization that would be moving at tortoise speed and that will never end in a good result."

I couldn't disagree with you more but I honor and respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.

[ysued]

There has been a call for stabiltiy of the rules for a specified period of time. I feel that this is not in the best interest of the sport in the long term. We would have an organization that would be moving at tortoise speed and that will never end in a good result.

We have to make up our minds guys.

We either want the organization to move, or stay the same...

on the one hand, when the BOD suggests changes, some scream loudly in a fit of panic that changes are not needed and we are just in heaven. Then when some ask for clarification and rule stability, some complain that the organization is going to become stale.

Guys, you both are right, but let's fins a happy medium and go on!!

Y

[GeorgeInNePa]

There has been a call for stabiltiy of the rules for a specified period of time. I feel that this is not in the best interest of the sport in the long term. We would have an organization that would be moving at tortoise speed and that will never end in a good result.

We have to make up our minds guys.

We either want the organization to move, or stay the same...

on the one hand, when the BOD suggests changes, some scream loudly in a fit of panic that changes are not needed and we are just in heaven. Then when some ask for clarification and rule stability, some complain that the organization is going to become stale.

Guys, you both are right, but let's fins a happy medium and go on!!

Y

Change for the sake of change is a waste of our time and money.

[ysued]

Change for the sake of change is a waste of our time and money.

Agreed!!

I don't want drastic changes.

Clarification is not a Change.

What I really want is clarification and stability.

Isn't that what we really need?

Y

[Nemo]

Welcome to my world. First, get all those doubts out of your head. You will find a great bunch of people here and at your local or national matches. Get out there and experience it and then make your decision on your equipment later. Browse through this forum and you will find an abundance of information at your fingertips. Good Luck.

You mean right after the 2008 rule changes become final, right?

I have to say, I was leaning toward joining USPSA until I went through the thread on rule changes. Personally, I've got some studying to do before deciding which, if any, of the practical shooting organizations has a place for me and the guns I most enjoy shooting.

Lee

Is this what we want?

[driver8M3]

Should the rulebook be modified to state, " Trigger modifications are OK only if 100% of the work is internal and not visible from the outside of the pistol"?

the NROI vanek ruling took care of that.

did you know that it was illegal before the ruling?

[shred]

I have a question for any international IPSC rule shooters. How does one guage a Glock trigger, anyway? What do they do, how do they do it? Anyone with experience?

Mine measures 2# at the tip but 3.25 in the middle and it graduates in between. If the guage rod is 1/8" lower, I could fall below the min and get bumped.

Like the rule says, they measure from the middle of the trigger face. At the international matches I've witnessed the trigger test, they clamped the gun into a padded vice and pulled on the trigger with a pull scale. If the Glock trigger safety didn't disengage, they carefully pushed it out of the way with a stick of some sort. Of course one of them wasn't run in accordance with the current rulebook, but there still wasn't as much griping as at the chrono..

On the other hand, we run the same risk with other rules, including chrono. I've been to some VERY questionable chronos. Sometimes we do everything we can and get dinged at chrono. Are we just assuming somehow that this particular feature is any more priority to check than anything else in a Production gun? I guess what I'm saying is there is risk with alot of what we do anyway so in the case of the trigger, maybe we just have to have a 3.5# trigger to make sure, like we have a >130 or >170 PF.

A-Men! Chronos are FAR FAR more variable and inconsistent than any random monkey with a spring scale, yet we all have to live with them and know how to. Any argument against trigger pull requirements that doesn't include "it's hard to measure" (or "I just don't like it") is a lot more convincing.