Latest Bod Minutes

[Gary Stevens]

I am having a bit of trouble understanding how being a catgegory in a particular division is really any different than having two divisions.

Let's take my Area Championships for instance. If L-10 were a category of Limited how would awards be made? If we award the Limited winners and the at the end say something to the effect of "Oh yeah, L-10 was won by Joe Sixpack" then that is one thing. If on the other hand we award Limited and then also award L-10 with awards/prizes how is that different than having two divisions?

Perhaps someone can give me a real word scenario for how this would work.

Be gentle, I am a product of public education.

Gary

Edited November 21, 2006 by Gary Stevens

[EricW]

One of the most illuminating experiences of my life was serving on a Board of Directors. My opinions on proper governance changed substantially after serving on a BOD after being merely governed by the same. It is one thing to argue for one's own self interests, versus executing responsible governance of interests of a group of affected parties.

Try it sometime. You just might be singing a different tune.

Is this another one of those, "Run for the office or be quiet" rebuttals? I wouldn't think that's what you meant but I'd like to be sure.

No. It's a "see it from their side" point. All I'm asking is that you sit in one of their chairs around the conference table and understand their decisions based on growing an organization in a manageable fashion. What seems totally irrational from the outside can often make good sense once you're in the room with the statistics staring you in the face.

Before my little sojurn on a BOD, I judged the right and wrongness of their actions based solely on what was good for me. It's a different story when you're trying to do what's good for 15,000 people. And ironically, you make decisions on what's best for 15,000 people that may well not be good for you personally.

There's a lot of anger in these threads that really doesn't need to be here. People have got to realize that nobody's trying to screw anybody out of anything. Just take a deep breath, relax, and try to see the big picture. It will all be OK. This isn't the end of anything.

I am having a bit of trouble understanding how being a catgegory in a particular division is really any different than having two divisions.

Because you don't have to have a separate Nationals for it? And isn't recognizing a category at the discretion of the MD?

[Chuck D]

It isn't about 40 bucks. It's about being given something...having that something "championed" by the USPSA President in campaign literature... having to deal with the constant calls by those uneffected by the lingering remnants of the 1994 AWB ban for the elimination of the Division..then being told constantly that you can go "shoot here instead" by those whom are not effected by the ability to legally own magazines.

That's what it's about......

L10 is a big deal...to more than just me. Read some of the posts...actually read them... You'd see there are a bunch of members who have supported the Division, help build it into what it is now...a successful gig... and are about to lose it because they choose to use a wide body or non-1911 SS frame. And to add insult to injury...they get told..."it will be a category...no big deal."

If you ask, you'd find that L10 was originally made a Division so to give L10 the credibility it needed and deserved instead of being the "red-headed stepchild of Limited Division." A7 director Boudrie passed this info on to me at the inception of L10 so this isn't a "pipe dream" I made up while "stewing" over posts about this very subject.

If "calling me out" makes you happy...so be it. How about you keep your 40 bucks and leave L10 alone. It's not hurting you...I'm certain you sell grip tape to people that use WB and non-1911 guns in L10 right?

L10 isn't a financial drain on this organization. Clubs have the ability and in my opinion the obligation to set parameters on how many awards they are going to give out and how much they are willing and able to pay for them. SS Division is a great idea if for nothing else than from a marketing standpoint. People lobbying for the elimination of a Division they don't frequent or are not "attached" to due to Local or State laws confuse me to say the least.

I respectfully deny your "genuine offer" for help.

still want my address...feel free to PM me.

[EricW]

Chuck,

I've said it before and I'll say it again. These internet debates and the tone that they take on are ten times more damaging to USPSA and its growth than any ruling that the BOD makes on the matters in question.

Also, I have zero influence on what happens to L-10. All I want is a substantial reduction in the # of divisions in USPSA. It dilutes the competition, plain and simple. I don't care how the BOD gets there as long as they get there. And I will support them.

E

[Chuck D]

"I am having a bit of trouble understanding how being a catgegory in a particular division is really any different than having two divisions."

Gary, at the risk of being "redundant" ...this is what I was told by A7 Director Boudrie a while back...

"L10 was originally made a Division so to give L10 the credibility it needed and deserved instead of being the "red-headed stepchild of Limited Division." A7 director Boudrie passed this info on to me at the inception of L10 so this isn't a "pipe dream" I made up while "stewing" over posts about this very subject. "

If the BOD's were going to make L10 a category...it should have done so from its inception. In fact...I wrote several letter to the USPSA President and the BOD's in 1995/1996 asking for a 10 round category for Limited and Open and for those categories to remain in place until the AWB ban was lifted nationwide.

"There's a lot of anger in these threads that really doesn't need to be here. People have got to realize that nobody's trying to screw anybody out of anything. Just take a deep breath, relax, and try to see the big picture. It will all be OK. This isn't the end of anything."

I respectfully disagree. When you lobby for something...see it get put into place...see it grow and prosper...then have people advocate it away to make room for the next marketing idea...it angers people.

This all about having something of value...that's NEEDED in some places being whittled away for no other reason that the claims of "dillution" of talent and costs of trophies/awards.

If saving L10 remands reduction to category status...so be it. But I'd expect to see SS Division becoming a category of Production Division as well. After all...what's fair is fair.

In addition...I'd bet that an L10 category fee will incur the same costs as a Limited DIVISION category fee. Not quite important/worthy enough to retain divisional status but you can bet the cash cow won't take a day off.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Chuck D

[Gary Stevens]

Thanks Eric, but we have never had a stand alone Nationals for L-10. It has always been a division along with at least one or more other divisions. As to the MD's ability to recognize a category or not, I really don't know because we don't have them now as it pertains to equipment. Current categories, Super Senior, Senior, Lady, Junior, etc. are normally recognized.

What I am afraid will happen if L-10 becomes a category of Limited or for that matter Single Stack becomes a category of Production, is that it will be relegated to the "red headed step child" Chuck described. By the way Chuck let's lay off that Red Headed thing, although mine is mostly grey at this point

If a category has to pay a full match fee to be eligible for a computer generated certificate while the main division hauls off the guns, and other prizes, that seems to be a sure way to kill the categories deader than a door nail. On the other hand if they are awarded individually, it seems to me to be the same as a stand alone division.

Gary

[Two Mikes]

Would Classifications also be simplified into Stock and Race?

[XD Niner]

I don't live in a State that has a ten-round limit and I don't have a wide body, major PF pistol. Despite that, I enjoy shooting my single stack 1911 in L-10! Why? Partly because I also like shooting Production which is likewise a ten round limit. That lets me use the same basic COF strategy regardless of which Division I am shooting. Also, I like shooting my 1911 yet not having to reload quite so often. Mostly, I just enjoy it and as far as I know I don't need a reason to have fun.

As for the competition edge of a wide body in L-10, I and probably 80-90% of the people who shoot L-10 don't care. If we did, we wouldn’t shoot it. How many of us are GMs? Probably about 5% given the classifier criteria. Add the Masters and you have a total of 15%. That leaves a very large majority that aren't looking for that last 0.05 seconds per mag change at the cost of another $1000 or more invested in their pistol and magazines. Instead, they are more than happy to practice using their preferred, less expensive equipment Heck, most of us even shoot .45ACP instead of milking another 0.01 seconds per split by shooting a .40.

If you want to avoid the use of STI/SVIs in L-10, then make a rule outlawing them in that Division. They are obviously perfectly capable of competing in Limited. Personally, I don't think it is necessary since I really don't give a hoot whether they shoot 'em in Limited or L-10. I've lost to shooters with wide bodies and I've beaten some STI/SVI owners in L-10. I can't remember a single instance where the winning/losing margin was so small over an entire match that I thought the potential wide body advantage made a difference. In all cases, it was the Indian and not the arrow (or bow in this instance I guess) that made the real difference.

We have a large number of USPSA members who enjoy shooting L-10 for whatever reason using the Division legal equipment of their choice. Certainly it is larger than the number who routinely shoot SS. Personally, I just can’t understand why either has to go. However, if the BOD is adamant that it must fix something that isn’t broken, then stick with L-10. It is needed for some States, those shooting it have a sunk investment in their equipment, and the same 1911s that compete in SS can compete in it. If people don’t like the situation the way it is now, they have already switched to a different Division.

Just my 2¢ worth but I feel better getting it off my chest. Now, I’m off to beat up on some of those poor, hapless, unfortunate wide body shooters.

[n2ipsc]

With the box and the trigger pull measurements, it looks like we are putting together our own lab in USPSA...who is going to be the lab technician??

And don't forget scales...

I still cringe, thinking back to my formative days in USPSA competition, watching an NRA Bullseye league that shot on the indoor range at my club on the same weekend...waving pistols about in the clubhouse whilst measuring trigger pulls, and not infrequently locking horns with irate competitors whose gun and/or trigger pull weighed in differently elsewhere.

At minimum, expect routine challenges to trigger pull gauge and (postal?) scale calibrations...

Speaking purely from the perspective of an admin wonk - this stands to add a whole new layer of PITA to matches of any significance...

Edited November 21, 2006 by n2ipsc

[Chuck D]

"What I am afraid will happen if L-10 becomes a category of Limited or for that matter Single Stack becomes a category of Production, is that it will be relegated to the "red headed step child" Chuck described. By the way Chuck let's lay off that Red Headed thing, although mine is mostly grey at this point."

I'd better record this day in my "diary"....

I made "sense"... and someone "agreed".....

Now I can put on my uniform...my duty gear...and go arrest someone tonight content in my knowing that I've finally made a breakthrough.....

In all honesty Gary...thank you. Sorry about the "hair" thing.

[nipplehead]

...but when I started hearing the rumors of L10 demise back in the spring...I decided I was going to jump ship .... before the ship sank from under me. So I sold off my single stack and bought a hi-cap limited gun and switched divisions.....just like RickB said....this is going to result in fewer people shooting single stack guns rather than more.

If SSD was never created...all of the discussion (here) and decisions on the USPSA's part for replacing/eliminating L10 never would have happened...and I'd still be shooting L10 today.

I didn't realize the difference between 5 and 6 was exponential.

+1 I switched to Limited and I will never look back. Too bad I really loved my single stack and was never at an disadvantage shooting it in L-10 with my race holster. I have no desire to shoot 8 round mags in USPSA and I sure dont want to see any array rule changes made to accomodate 8 round mags.

It blows my mind that so many people shoot L-10 and the BOD would eliminate it. I'm glad some of them toughtfully explained the thinking behind the positions...that helps.

[the "who I'll vote for" stuff edited out]

Edited November 21, 2006 by Flexmoney

[driver8M3]

bruce: one thing that it seems you and the rest of the BOD may not have considered (at least i haven't seen it mentioned yet) in adding a production trigger pull is just how may shooters you are affecting. just about every single production shooter i know has some sort of trigger job, and i'd guess that the vast majority are dang near or under the 3lb limit that you've proposed. sure, our guns aren't obsolete, but the triggers that we've used for years might not be legal any longer. that's no small matter. if you think it is, just try to add a trigger pull limit to limited or open!

All I want is a substantial reduction in the # of divisions in USPSA. It dilutes the competition, plain and simple. I don't care how the BOD gets there as long as they get there. And I will support them.

yeah, 6 divisions probably does dilute the competition. of course, getting rid of L10 might just reduce the competition.

[Gary Stevens]

Let me save Flex the trouble of saying it "Hold the political comments for private conversations" Actually I probably said it nicer than he would have

Guys I hear you saying if SS had never been created L-10 would alive and well. You might be right. It is my opinion though, based on my experience, that the desire to kill L-10 has been in existance for a while now. When I brought up the idea of SS for my stated reasons, membership and financial, it may have provided the opening to make the jump. I still believe that desire was there long before though.

I will note though that L-10 is again alive and well and back in the 2008 rulebook. And unless someone changes their mind (it won't be me) it will remain there.

Gary

[Ronnie Casper]

I will note though that L-10 is again alive and well and back in the 2008 rulebook. And unless someone changes their mind (it won't be me) it will remain there.

Gary

Thanks for your support Gary!

Ronnie

[Flexmoney]

I am having a bit of trouble understanding how being a catgegory in a particular division is really any different than having two divisions.

The biggest difference is just the name. It's a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.

Creating categories...to reduce divisions..is slight of hand.

The underbelly of sticking L-10 in with Limited is the scoring. The hit factors for a stage wouldn't be achieve by comparison to like gear, they be derived from the combined division/category. So, the reality of that is the L-10 guys are getting scored against the Limited shooters. (I'm sure we have all seen how shooters scores and placements can change when looking at the "unofficial" overall scores. The same problem would come from putting L-10 in with Limited.)

[ipscbob]

Good question. If for a second people would put the needs/wants of members in 10 round States ahead of a plastic trophy or some arbitary number of shooters in a division at a club match...this issue wouldn't exist. Fact is...those advocating the death of one Division to make way for another won't care...until either 10 rounds is the law of the land nationwide or their locale is "hit" by the 10 round only disaster.

No matter how much "common sense" and "rationale" you put forth...you'll never get through.

When they come for your mags and your State becomes just like mine...expect the same "support" I got from you....

sold out for a cheap piece of plastic....

It isn't about 40 bucks. It's about being given something...having that something "championed" by the USPSA President in campaign literature... having to deal with the constant calls by those uneffected by the lingering remnants of the 1994 AWB ban for the elimination of the Division..then being told constantly that you can go "shoot here instead" by those whom are not effected by the ability to legally own magazines.

That's what it's about......

Very well said, Chuck. That same attitude is what drives people on this forum to suggest that I should move out of my state because of the restrictive gun laws. Those who don't have to come under fire from the anti gunners daily will never understand this. Someday, I would love to feel that we are getting just a tiny bit of support from other gun owners and sportsman or even USPSA. Instead, I have to read about how the elimination of one of the divisions that brings new shooters into our sport here in california is "No Big Deal".

Edited November 21, 2006 by ipscbob

[walangkatapat]

Great posts Chuck and I'm with ya.

[Ronnie Casper]

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.

Bruce,

Instead of eliminating or moving L10 to a category, don't clubs already have the ability to choose which divisions they recognize under Appendix A2?

APPENDIX A2

IPSC Recognition

Prior to the commencement of a match, the organizers must specify which

Division(s) will be recognized.

Thanks,

Ronnie

[walangkatapat]

Very well said, Chuck. That same attitude is what drives people on this forum to suggest that I should move out of my state because of the restrictive gun laws. Those who don't have to come under fire from the anti gunners daily will never understand this. Someday, I would love to feel that we are getting just a tiny bit of support from other gun owners and sportsman or even USPSA. Instead, I have to read about how the elimination of one of the divisions that brings new shooters into our sport here in california is "No Big Deal".

Within the next couple of years 10 rounds may be all you may have no matter where you live in the US.

[Carmoney]

With the box and the trigger pull measurements, it looks like we are putting together our own lab in USPSA...who is going to be the lab technician??

And don't forget scales...

I still cringe, thinking back to my formative days in USPSA competition, watching an NRA Bullseye league that shot on the indoor range at my club on the same weekend...waving pistols about in the clubhouse whilst measuring trigger pulls, and not infrequently locking horns with irate competitors whose gun and/or trigger pull weighed in differently elsewhere.

At minimum, expect routine challenges to trigger pull gauge and (postal?) scale calibrations...

Speaking purely from the perspective of an admin wonk - this stands to add a whole new layer of PITA to matches of any significance...

I understand the motivation behind the minimum trigger pull for Production. Hell, I think I might even agree with it. But administering this rule is going to be frickin' awful. Just for the hell of it, I went downstairs earlier this evening and measured the trigger pull on my box-stock XD. It weighed 3.4 pounds. The next time I tried it the guage showed 6.2 pounds. Then 4 pounds even. Then 5.1 pounds. Then 3.9 pounds.

The gun has a nice consistent trigger pull that feels (to me) like it's around 5 pounds, so I was obviously doing something wrong in terms of operating my trigger pull gauge. I'm not a total moron when it comes to mechanical stuff, and with a little more messing around I'm sure I could've figured out exactly how to manipulate things to make the pull light or heavy, mostly depending on where and how the gauge arm interfaced with the trigger and safety lever.

From a practical perspective, if there is any possible way the various divisions can be defined and regulated without the use of trigger pull gauges, boxes, or approved-model lists, I really believe it would be good for our sport. That may not be possible, but it certainly seems like a worthwhile aspiration.

[Chuck D]

"I have to read about how the elimination of one of the divisions that brings new shooters into our sport here in california is "No Big Deal".

I'd have a long talk with the USPSA President if you haven't already. Seeing he's from CA...his vote was unexpected.

"Great posts Chuck and I'm with ya."

Thank you...I appreciate the support.

Guys and gals...keep the heat on... lets make sure the decision doesn't get "overturned."

SS and L10 as Divisions will only provide "benefits" to USPSA.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Chuck D

[omnia1911]

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.

Bruce,

Instead of eliminating or moving L10 to a category, don't clubs already have the ability to choose which divisions they recognize under Appendix A2?

APPENDIX A2

IPSC Recognition

Prior to the commencement of a match, the organizers must specify which

Division(s) will be recognized.

Thanks,

Ronnie

...and a match is only required to recognize at least one division.

6.2.1 IPSC Divisions recognize different firearms and equipment (see

Appendix D). Each match must recognize at least one Division.

When multiple Divisions are available in a match, each Division

must be scored separately and independently, and match results

must recognize a winner in each Division.

So, why is there a perceived problem with competition being diluted because of having too many divisions?

[GeorgeInNePa]

With the box and the trigger pull measurements, it looks like we are putting together our own lab in USPSA...who is going to be the lab technician??

And don't forget scales...

I still cringe, thinking back to my formative days in USPSA competition, watching an NRA Bullseye league that shot on the indoor range at my club on the same weekend...waving pistols about in the clubhouse whilst measuring trigger pulls, and not infrequently locking horns with irate competitors whose gun and/or trigger pull weighed in differently elsewhere.

At minimum, expect routine challenges to trigger pull gauge and (postal?) scale calibrations...

Speaking purely from the perspective of an admin wonk - this stands to add a whole new layer of PITA to matches of any significance...

I understand the motivation behind the minimum trigger pull for Production. Hell, I think I might even agree with it. But administering this rule is going to be frickin' awful. Just for the hell of it, I went downstairs earlier this evening and measured the trigger pull on my box-stock XD. It weighed 3.4 pounds. The next time I tried it the guage showed 6.2 pounds. Then 4 pounds even. Then 5.1 pounds. Then 3.9 pounds.

The gun has a nice consistent trigger pull that feels (to me) like it's around 5 pounds, so I was obviously doing something wrong in terms of operating my trigger pull gauge. I'm not a total moron when it comes to mechanical stuff, and with a little more messing around I'm sure I could've figured out exactly how to manipulate things to make the pull light or heavy, mostly depending on where and how the gauge arm interfaced with the trigger and safety lever.

From a practical perspective, if there is any possible way the various divisions can be defined and regulated without the use of trigger pull gauges, boxes, or approved-model lists, I really believe it would be good for our sport. That may not be possible, but it certainly seems like a worthwhile aspiration.

If you can't repeat it each and every time, the test is worthless.

USPSA pay heed, if a gun owner can't tell what his own gun measures, this test is sure to create problems.

[Flexmoney]

I don't quite get the variation that Mike was getting...

I clamp my gun into the bench vise (by the slide) and use a digital trigger gauge....

Still, I get more than enough variation to call the test questionable.

(And, the results can be manipulated quite a bit too.)

[vluc]

The proof will be in the pudding.

Why not allow those area directors who want to see some of these proposed changes institute them, on a provisional basis (hehehe), in their areas for a year or two? Then they can have what they want, a quantifiable, objective measure of how well received their notions are. Why penalize the whole of the USPSA body? So Area 1 can eliminate L10 for 2 years, add minimum trigger pull and all that stuff. We can then watch and see what happens.

What do you think?