Latest Bod Minutes

[Alan Meek]

Some thing I heard a while back was to use the NY Trigger setup with a 3.5lb connector.

Alan

[BSeevers]

It is not that SS is not competitve in L-10 but if you ask what should you shoot in L-10 the answer will overwhelmingly be a wide body. So the perception is that SS is not competitve in L-10 otherwise why do so many people recommend to use a wide body.

Remember perception is reality

Alan

Thank you Alan. There is a perception that the SS is at a disadvantage. When a new shooter shows up with a SS and sees he is competing with a full race limited gun the first thing he thinks is do I have to spend the $ for one to be competitive?

Chris

I think almost all new shooters have this feeling but its with all divisions not just L10. They are shooting their Sig/Glock/Beretta slow and inaccurate but they feel they are in competition with my STI Open. Pretty much all newbies fall in that camp. Heck around here its all classes. Most people look at overall combined first. We still calculate it because of high demand.

Double stacks are easer to reload than SS if you don't shoot a SS on a regular basis. Can you learn to reload a SS as fast? Well sure. As I said though most, not all, new shooters see $ as the way to Master or just improving. They come around if they stay in the sport.

I know the new rulebook will be posted for a while giving us LOTS of time for tweaking. I feel this is a very important step for the sport. Its the BOD's "way" of looking at this that causes me concern. Thanks for your reasoning, I know you are not my Area but who knows I might move to CA, naw never happen. AZ looks good though.

[JFD]

Around here nobody shoots a widebody gun in L-10 on a regular basis. 1911s and Glocks are what are shot here.

If we concentrated on the folks who actually shoot the division, there's little doubt SS with its restrictive rules would be axed immediately. SS is NOT a place for current L-10 shooters, as it's a giant step backwards into somebody's version of the "good old days" that never were.

Seems to me the "good old days" had nearly everybody using crossdraw or tied down "gunfighter" rigs. So why does SS not allow race rigs? The current SS division is simply another tired attempt to attract IDPAers who would be here already if they had the urge to play.

I think this is disgusting. We haven't had more than 1 SS shooter in a monthly match since the division started. Yet we always have more people shooting L-10 than Open or any other division except Limited. Major match results most definitely do not show SS is popular enough to ever threaten L-10. I can't begin to understand why anyone feels the need to screw with L-10.

I just hope our current L-10 shooters don't vote with their feet and move to IDPA where these kinds of rules are at least expected. I dropped $4K for me and my wife to switch to Limited. If Limited gets screwed with at all, I'm done.

[ima45dv8]

Thanks to Jim Norman for his "local" (local to the Enosverse) poll. As enlightening as that may or may not be to those who read and/or post here regularly, the statements made that it represents a very small portion of the total active USPSA membership are well founded.

Hold the phone! I recently participated in a poll regarding 3-Gun/Multi-Gun posted in the Member's section of USPSA.org. In fact, I strongly suspect I was not the only one.

Couldn't we, shouldn't we, do something similar regarding some of these sweeping changes? It seems logical to get as much feedback from the total membership as possible when items like the proposed elimination of Limited10, and the issue of a minimum trigger pull weight in Production, are being discussed. Here's a chance to diffuse concerns that these decisions are not being made with the full support/input of the USPSA membership. If I were on the BoD, I would want to hear from a larger sampling than just those shooters who attended an Area match (or matches).

So, how do we go about creating a similar poll on USPSA to solicite a more meaningful sampling of what the membership desires? Possibly the results could be filtered by Area so that the various members of the BoD could then vote based on their constituency's desires.

Rob? Gary? Any other BoD members here? Wouldn't you find that level feedback useful, and more importantly, relevant?

[Rob Boudrie]

The USPSA web site has an on-line polling system that is managed by HQ, so we have the technical capability. It would also be straightforward to add the "filtering results by area" feature. I'll see what the sentiment is for a poll on the proposed 2008 book once published for review by the membership.

One advantage of the USPSA polling system over the Enosverse is that is is non-stuffable. The reason we require you PIN to use the poll is not so we can track your specific responses (we don't), but to assure that the results do not become contaiminated with repeated votes by individuals who want their opinion to previal.

We currently have 598 responses to the multi-gun poll that is now in progress.

Rob

[moverfive]

I would again like to point out that the rule changes we are dealing with here are for the PROPOSED 2008 rule book. It will be released to the membership for your input and comments by the first of the year. Nothing is final about these rules at this point. I for one welcome input.

Chris, let's be somewhat realistic here. To change anything the membership is unhappy with is going to take a small revolt in order to effect such a change.

But maybe more to the point - what type of input are the AD's wanting? We have yet to be told WHY these changes are necessary. What problems are being caused by the existence of L-10? What problems does a DOH holster present in SS division? What problems does a 2.5# trigger in Production cause?

Without understanding these issues, how can I offer an opinion that would have any relevance to the issues you guys are attempting to address with these changes?

[vluc]

I would again like to point out that the rule changes we are dealing with here are for the PROPOSED 2008 rule book. It will be released to the membership for your input and comments by the first of the year. Nothing is final about these rules at this point. I for one welcome input.

Chris, let's be somewhat realistic here. To change anything the membership is unhappy with is going to take a small revolt in order to effect such a change.

But maybe more to the point - what type of input are the AD's wanting? We have yet to be told WHY these changes are necessary. What problems are being caused by the existence of L-10? What problems does a DOH holster present in SS division? What problems does a 2.5# trigger in Production cause?

Without understanding these issues, how can I offer an opinion that would have any relevance to the issues you guys are attempting to address with these changes?

+10000

[shred]

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

Well heck...let's do it for all divisions then...

Why?

Exactly.

Because no other division has requirements on triggers, maybe???

If "combined" results were unavailable, would we still have so many divisions?

[driver8M3]

...so the BOD thinks we have too many divisions. anyone know how we got these 6 divisions?

another intersting thing is that the provisional SS division hadnt even completed its first full year and the BOD already thought it needed to replace a well established division. i didnt realize SS was that big of a success...

[Z-man]

I would also like very much to know a bit more regarding the reasoning behind these proposed changes (L-10, SS, Prod. triggers). I know they aren't meant to run people out of the sport, so it'd be nice to see the thought process behind them. As has been said, that would improve the memberships ability to comment intelligently. Otherwise I think many will continue to fear that we are fixing something that 'ain't broke'.

[Rocket35]

...so the BOD thinks we have too many divisions. anyone know how we got these 6 divisions?

another intersting thing is that the provisional SS division hadnt even completed its first full year and the BOD already thought it needed to replace a well established division. i didnt realize SS was that big of a success...

+1....Once again, it appears that the agenda of a few will impact the masses.....

[bgary]

I would also like very much to know a bit more regarding the reasoning behind these proposed changes (L-10, SS, Prod. triggers)

I'll give you my perspective, and then I'll try to find out if there's enough room in Gary's bunker for me to hang out while the daggers fly.

Lim-10

I have felt for some time, and have posted here *many* times, that we have too many divisions. My opinion is that at the club level, where 95% of our activity takes place, competition gets *diluted* - it is perfectly possible for a club match of 20 or more people to take place, where every single one of those people can take home 1st in class in their division. I think that we should have fewer divisions, based on differences in equipment, and *if* participation warrants it, we could further recognize variations within those divisions. So... my belief is that we should have three divisions (Open, Limited and Production), and that "variations" (such as 10-round limited, or single-stack, or other things) should be treated as categories, and ONLY if there is enough participation to make the categories meaningful.

That's my personal opinion. I offered that as the approach for adopting single-stack rules when they were proposed, and the Board voted to make it a separate, stand-alone division. OK. I think it was the wrong direction (more divisions, instead of fewer), but there you go.

I am firm, though, in the belief that the divisions are defined by *equipment* differences. In that light, I think that the *reason* for having a separate division, is because the *equipment* is different enough that it affects the competitive choices that a shooter makes. In that light, I am about 50.0001% convinced (hi, Carmoney!) that Revolver is and should be a valid division in its own right, *specifically* because the equipment is different enough that it changes the game for the shooters who choose to use it.

In that same light, I believe that Limited-10 should *not* be a stand-alone division, because... for the most part, Limited-10 equipment is the same as Limited equipment (wide-body hi-caps in .40). Where the equipment is not the same as a Limited gun, it is pretty probably that it is the same as a Single-Stack gun or possibly a Production gun. So, from an *equipment* perspective, I'm having a hard time seeing that Lim-10 is "different enough" to warrant being a separate division.

Yes, I know there are 10-round states. Yes, I know people are passionate about their division. Yes, I know ChuckD is going to chime in here and tell everyone that he sold his L10 gun in disgust and just doesn't know if he can continue being a member of USPSA, because the Board and its co-conspirators are killing the org. I get all that.

But... my viewpoint is that we gotta find a way to solve some of the "structural problems" in USPSA, and put a solid foundation under it that will be strong enough to grow on, yet flexible enough to adapt as marketplace and technology change. The first priority of the Board, IMHO, is to make sure that there *is* a USPSA... which means that we gotta find ways to become more stable and promote growth... which, to me, means we gotta stop fracturing ourselves into smaller and smaller subgroups with arbitrary "differences".

OK, so having said all that, why did I vote to reinstate L-10? Quite simply, I don't think it was handled right. We had a lot of discussion at the recent Board meeting, and while it did not reach a successful conclusion, I thought we had reached consensus on a number of things. One of the things I was pushing back on was: *IF* we choose to reduce the number of divisions, then "how" we do it is every bit as important as what we do. If we do it in a way that makes sense to members, that is justifiable in terms of the long-term health of the org, that provides a transition period for shooters, that does *not* obsolete currently-legal equipment, then I think we can move forward. If it fails in those areas, then it doesn't matter how "right" the idea might be, we'll be doing it the wrong way.

Based on the perception of consensus at the Board meeting, L-10 was just "deleted" from the draft of the 2008 rulebook. I didn't think that was "the right way to do it". I think that potentially deleting a division is an important-enough move that it calls for an explicit vote, as well as a well-thought-out position that shows why it is the right thing for the org, and how detrimental impact on members is minimized.

If a motion is made to delete L-10, and *if* it addresses my concerns about transition and impact to members, I'll thoughtfully consider it, filtered through the feedback I get from shooters in Area-1 (hi, Steve!), and make the best decision I can based on what I believe is best for the long-term health of the org. But... quite simply, I voted "yes" to reinstate L10 in the draft because I though "just killing it" was not the right way to accomplish anything.

Production trigger pull

I was around when Production division was created. I *know* (personal knowledge, having been involved in the conversations and the drafting of the rules), that the intent was to have a division where *production* guns (eg, guns actually produced by a factory, and available at your average gun store) had a place. I know that "intent" is a dirty word in our game, but... that was the intent. Box-stock guns, everyone has one, come out and play and know that your *equipment* (and the amount you spend on modifications) will not be the limiting factor. In order to further level the playing field, it was made a non-single-action division (highly-tweaked 1911s already have places to play, and - again, in light of the fact that these are rules based on *equipment* - we wanted to create a place where a DA or DA/SA gun is viable), Minor-only scoring (to make it so all different calibers were viable), and 10-round limit (to neuter different mag capacities and further level the playing field. Doesn't matter if the 9mm gun holds 17 and the .40 model holds 12, they both get down-loaded to the same level.)

OK, that was the intent. Clearly, there were holes in the rules that allowed people to circumvent the intent. We never expected that (for example) people would drill holes in frames and change the geometry of trigger mechanisms, claiming that it was legal because the rules say "you're allowed to do trigger work for reliability". There you have it.

I think (Bruce's opinion) that there is a need for a "stock gun" division - one where you can compete with a basically stock gun, without having to throw a ton of money at modifications. This is not only good for the entry-level competitor, it is also good for the growth of the sport. MANY people tell me that the reason they walk away from the game is because they can't keep up with all the equipment mods they gotta do to stay competitive. That tells me that we need a place where equipment mods are capped, if we want those people to stay and play our game and grow our org.

The challenge is, how do we write rules that define what a "production gun" is, and what modifications are allowed? In my opinion, it is a terribly conflicting set of priorities. On the one hand, you want to believe that people should "know" what is a modification, and what isn't. On the other hand, for competitive purposes, I believe that a gun should be judged legal or not legal based on things that can be objectively proven or measured.

So, my position in the Board discussions was we're basically talking about wanting to have guns that "look" and "function" the same way they did when they came from the factory. In my own feeble mind, that led to a couple of beliefs:

-- "major components" (side, barrel, frame) have to be kept the way they came from the factory, except for very specific allowed modifications (can mill the slide for sights, can re-finish the slide). If you replace a slide or barrel, it has to be with one that is "just like the factory one" in all outward appearance and function. I don't care about twist rates, chamberings, etc... but if barrel of certain caliber and profile came with the gun, that's the caliber and profile that any replacement barrel has to have.

-- "minor components" (springs, operating levers, etc) on the inside of the gun, we've basically got no way to police, and those are typically neither big-dollar items nor big competitive disadvantages. If you want to put an extended slide-stop or mag-release on your gun, I say have at it. For two reasons - one, it doesn't alter the fundamental operation or appearance of the gun, and two... we have no way to police it anyway. Realistically, can anyone tell whether that extended mag release came with your gun, or came on another approved gun, or came on a non-approved gun, or is an aftermarket part? No real way to enforce that at a match - no way to *objectively* enforce the rule, so let's not write a bad rule to try to band-aid it. IPSC is going to attempt to do that - my understanding is that they intend to have a "lab" at the next World Shoot, where they tear down each competitor's gun to ensure that all the parts are OEM/original... down to testing spring weights and lengths. I think that's a cluster in the making.

The thing that neither of those arguments covers is triggers. I believe you *should* be able to replace trigger components to get the feel and function you want - that's consistent with the above, being able to replace springs and levers and strikers and stuff. At the same time, I do *not* think that changing the *function* of the trigger mechanism is good, and I *do* believe that if we allow modifications that allow super-light DA or striker first-shots, then effectively there *is* potential for a serious competitive advantage, and the true DA guns (that the division was originally created to provide a place for) would be squeezed out.

So, I supported the trigger pull, because #1 it is measurable and objective, #2 it will *tend* to provide a functional limit for how much "modifying" it makes sense to do to the trigger mechanism, and in doing so, will keep the division more stable. Notably, I'm not aware of any currently-legal Production gun that comes with a trigger pull less than 3.5 pounds, so we are not obsoleting any "production guns" - we're only putting a limit on modifications, and doing it in a way that is measurable.

Now, one question you didn't ask was about the Box. Contrary to popular conspiracy theories, the box isn't about getting closer to IDPA. Sure, there is a great deal of interest in getting IDPA shooters to cross over to our game, and if we can do it so that their equipment is viable in our game, so much the better. But that isn't the driving factor.

What *is* the driving factor, is having a sustainable model for *measurable* gun parameters which can be known and understood by shooters, officials and manufacturers.

Huh?

One of the questions that always comes up is.... well, what about mag wells? "My" gun didn't come with one, but a later model did, and so I want to add one to mine, too!

We can't predict what manufacturers are going to come up with. We want the rules to be stable and predictable, and we want to encourage innovation, but we also want to have boundaries. We *don't* think that a striker-fired, 14-ounce-first shot, tricked out, weighted, mag-welled, palm-swelled gun should be allowed into Production "just because" the manufacturer made the required number of them. The way we can address that is with the Box. Along with the other criteria (such as trigger pull), we can use the Box to address the question of whether or not a mag-well is legal... whether it came from the manufacturer, or was added afterwards.

Again, we may not all agree that we're drawing the lines in the right places. No matter what decision we make, there are going to be those that love it, those that hate it, those that wonder why it took us so long, and those that question whether we have acted too fast. We can't resolve those things for everyone. What we *can* do - and are trying to do - is to make those decisions as thoughfully as we can, and write the rules as clearly as we can, so that - in doing so - we at least take out the ambiguity, and can start dealing with feedback based on substance.

$.02

Bruce

[BSeevers]

You guys can get in your bunker but the real question is do I have 6, 8, 10 or 24 daggers to "attack" you and can I modify them.

Thanks for a informational post.

[Z-man]

Thanks Bruce, that's the kind of info I was hoping for. I appreciate it. I think everything you've said there is very reasonable.

[moverfive]

Thank you Bruce!

I wish all AD's and voting members of the BOD would clearly express the issues at hand and their opinions on all major items like this. And I wish they were expressed in advance of any vote.

[Rocket35]

First and foremost I would like to thank Gary and Bruce for voting in favor of L-10 and enlightening us on their views and reasoning. I know you didn't have to, but I think it goes a long way in defining the kind of leaders you are. Bruce I especially like the your views, you are a credit to your Area. I could live with the 3 divisions with sub-divisions you mention above. But to delete one division for the inception of another "provisional" one doesn't sit well with me. Thank you for your time and views on the recent subjects.

[Chuck D]

"Yes, I know there are 10-round states. Yes, I know people are passionate about their division. Yes, I know ChuckD is going to chime in here and tell everyone that he sold his L10 gun in disgust and just doesn't know if he can continue being a member of USPSA, because the Board and its co-conspirators are killing the org. I get all that."

No I'm not Sir...all water under the bridge.

I may not agree but I do appreciate and respect your willingness to stand your ground and state your views ...

You no longer need deal w/me.... I'd expect you'll (and others) will be rather "busy" dealing with the PD guys and gals.

Giddy up.....

Edited November 20, 2006 by Chuck D

[Wakal]

Thanks, Bruce! Well reasoned, articulate, and comprehensive. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone

Alex

Charter Member, BGary Fan Club

[SteveZ]

Bruce I especially like the your views, you are a credit to your Area.

Our Area Director? Yeah, I think we'll keep him!

We're lucky to have Bruce as our AD. I've talked him numerous times about stuff, and he's always there to listen....even if his views on L10 (catagory) don't always agree with my views (division).

[Carmoney]

I am about 50.0001% convinced (hi, Carmoney!) that Revolver is and should be a valid division in its own right...

YES!!

The man has seen the light!!

[vluc]

I would also like very much to know a bit more regarding the reasoning behind these proposed changes (L-10, SS, Prod. triggers)

I'll give you my perspective, and then I'll try to find out if there's enough room in Gary's bunker for me to hang out while the daggers fly.

Production trigger pull

So, my position in the Board discussions was we're basically talking about wanting to have guns that "look" and "function" the same way they did when they came from the factory. In my own feeble mind, that led to a couple of beliefs:

-- "major components" (side, barrel, frame) have to be kept the way they came from the factory, except for very specific allowed modifications (can mill the slide for sights, can re-finish the slide). If you replace a slide or barrel, it has to be with one that is "just like the factory one" in all outward appearance and function. I don't care about twist rates, chamberings, etc... but if barrel of certain caliber and profile came with the gun, that's the caliber and profile that any replacement barrel has to have.

-- "minor components" (springs, operating levers, etc) on the inside of the gun, we've basically got no way to police, and those are typically neither big-dollar items nor big competitive disadvantages. If you want to put an extended slide-stop or mag-release on your gun, I say have at it. For two reasons - one, it doesn't alter the fundamental operation or appearance of the gun, and two... we have no way to police it anyway. Realistically, can anyone tell whether that extended mag release came with your gun, or came on another approved gun, or came on a non-approved gun, or is an aftermarket part? No real way to enforce that at a match - no way to *objectively* enforce the rule, so let's not write a bad rule to try to band-aid it. IPSC is going to attempt to do that - my understanding is that they intend to have a "lab" at the next World Shoot, where they tear down each competitor's gun to ensure that all the parts are OEM/original... down to testing spring weights and lengths. I think that's a cluster in the making.

The thing that neither of those arguments covers is triggers. I believe you *should* be able to replace trigger components to get the feel and function you want - that's consistent with the above, being able to replace springs and levers and strikers and stuff. At the same time, I do *not* think that changing the *function* of the trigger mechanism is good, and I *do* believe that if we allow modifications that allow super-light DA or striker first-shots, then effectively there *is* potential for a serious competitive advantage, and the true DA guns (that the division was originally created to provide a place for) would be squeezed out.

So, I supported the trigger pull, because #1 it is measurable and objective, #2 it will *tend* to provide a functional limit for how much "modifying" it makes sense to do to the trigger mechanism, and in doing so, will keep the division more stable. Notably, I'm not aware of any currently-legal Production gun that comes with a trigger pull less than 3.5 pounds, so we are not obsoleting any "production guns" - we're only putting a limit on modifications, and doing it in a way that is measurable.

$.02

Bruce

My thanks and appreciation for finally hearing something on these issues.

I can see part of your argument for Ltd and L10. Maybe you should think on adding a Ltd and L10 minor category as well for those who may not want to play in production under changed rules but still like to tweak their 9mm's.

As for a minimum trigger pull, what guns are this being directed at? My SIG 226 can't come anywhere close to that 3 pound, so it seems to be more directed to the striker-fired style pistols. Are we to penalize such technological changes?

[bgary]

But to delete one division for the inception of another "provisional" one doesn't sit well with me.

Thanks for bringing that up - I was going to mention Single Stack and got lost in my own long-winded-ness ;-)

There's a theory which got a lot of discussion at the Board meeting, and has (to some extent) addressed the topic of "what do we want our divisions to be".

The theory is, that we should have four divisions (OK, really 5 when you count revolver)

-- Two "Race" divisions (Open and Limited)

-- Two "Stock" divisions (Single Stack and Production)

For those who want to tweak their guns, pick a race division. Open is comps and dots, anything goes. Limited is anything *except* comps and dots. Just like they are now.

For those who want to shoot basically stock guns, there would be SS and Production. SS would be basically stock 1911-pattern metal-framed single-stacks, consistent with our current provisional SS division. No weighted frames, no bull barrels, no widgets and gadgets, just 1911s the way John Moses Browning designed 'em. That covers the single-action side of the equation. For the DA or DA/SA side of the equation, there would be Production division, as described above. Both would be *intentionally* geared towards stock, mass-produced, generally available guns. Both would be constrained from having major modifications which fundamentally change the appearance or function. Production would additionally have a minimum first-shot trigger pull to ensure that true DA triggers remain as a differentiating equipment criteria.

Fundamentally, I *agree* with this approach. It addresses the directions I think we should be going, including

-- clear boundaries between divisions

-- based on *equipment* differences

-- provides a place to play for just about any type of gun

-- provides stable "entry points" for any competitor

-- etc.

**IF** we can work out transition issues, I would probably vote in favor of this for the USPSA 2008 rules. But, in my opinion those transition issues are non-trivial. One of my beliefs is that we should work long and hard to *not* obsolete any currently-legal equipment. If we were to go with this approach, I suspect there are some currently-legal guns that would no longer be *viable* in the new alignment.

Take a Browning HiPower, for example. Single-action, so it can't play in Production. Not a 1911-pattern (and not a single-stack) so it can't play in Single Stack. Not competitive as a Limited gun. So, what do we do with it?

My thought is that we do two things. One, we (as part of adopting a new approach) provide an explicit transition period (and/or some sort of grandfathering for a fixed period of time), so that someone who has *only* a HiPower has a chance to decide what they want to do, and can compete with it while making that transition. Two, I think we need to accept that maybe not *every* gun has a place in our game. I've never actually seen someone shoot one of our matches with a HiPower. If this is a *competition* oriented org, we should not be ashamed of admitting that certain models, designs, features, whatever *lend* themselves to competition better than others. That's actually true to our heritage - the sport was formed, way back when, as a vehicle for figuring out what kind of equipment and techniques were effective.

So.... I personally like this idea in concept. I'd be willing to help flesh it out with transition plans and such. And I'm willing to take the (probably unpopular) position that, in the new alignment, there may not be a division where every gun is competitive.

But, heck. We don't have that now. Otherwise... we'd be seeing as many HiPowers as we see Glocks, wouldn't we? On the flip side.... lots of gun magazines have a 1911-pattern gun on its front cover every month, and who knows how many millions of people have Dad's old 1911 sitting in a safe or a drawer. Doesn't it seem like a good thing for the health of our sport to give *those* guns a "real" place to play, as well as the high-zoot customized plastic guns?

On a basis of pure market economics, we *ought* to be chasing after three models of gun, if we really want to grow this sport: we ought to be going after single-stack 1911s (probably more out there, and more being manufactured, than a whole lot of other stuff combined), Glocks and similar "production guns", and revolvers. I'd bet that, between those three, just about every gun owner is America is covered. We're already known as the place to play with highly customized guns.... I think we also ought to be known as a place you can play with "stock" guns, too. So... that "4 divisions" idea is pretty interesting. I'm hoping it gets fleshed out in a "makes sense" kinda way, so the Board can address it.

B

[Vlad]

As for a minimum trigger pull, what guns are this being directed at? My SIG 226 can't come anywhere close to that 3 pound, so it seems to be more directed to the striker-fired style pistols. Are we to penalize such technological changes?

Not at all. Please show me a production gun, from the factory, which is striker fired and comes with a trigger lighter then 3lb. Heck, most good bolt action rifles, technicaly striker fired, have triggers heavier then that. Hell, show me a single action 1911 which has a trigger that light from the factory. If single action only guns don't have triggers that light, what sense does it make to have them in the non single action division?

[EricW]

Thanks Bruce!

FWIW, I do not believe that USPSA needs to provide a competitive category for every type of handgun in existence. There's just no way to to try and fit *everything* under the tent and have a manageable ruleset. I like the idea of covering the big-hitters then running with it.

[vincent]

Many thanks to the folks involved in the rule making process that are posting views to this thread. Reading about the thoughts underlying the issues is very enlightening.

Thanks again!