Latest Bod Minutes

[Jim Norman]

Gary,

While I don't personally think we need SS as a division since it fits well in L-10. You can shoot L-10 or even limited with a carry holster quite well, I appreciate and applaude your statement that you do not want to see L-10 go away.

Jim

Edited November 21, 2006 by Flexmoney

[open17]

Couple of thoughts about the trigger pull thing.

Quite a bit of concern about getting consistent and repeatable results. I share that concern.

Probably nothing to be concerned about at the club match/level I match level, because

it simply won't be a factor. I doubt that ANYONE is going to be checking trigger pulls at

the local match level.

Why don't we ask the people that have "been there, done that" how the trigger pull

checking works out?

IPSC has had a 5 lb. Production minimum for quite a while.

The 2006 Bianchi Cup started a 2 lb. minimum requirement in 2006?

Let's hear some comments from people that have been involved in the enforcement

of these rules. Shooters, match officials? What are the specifics of the system?

Does it WORK? How many problems arise?

[driver8M3]

Production Trigger Pull:

if the limit is set at 3 lbs, no shooter in their right mind will set theirs at 3 lbs. virtually nobody aims for 125 pf b/c of the risk/variability involved. same thing would happen with the trigger test. so a 3 lb limit would effectively be closer to a 4 lb limit.

[zhunter]

This whole L-10 thing is interesting to say the least. I am NOT well versed in the big scheme of things, but here is my opinion.

If you live in a 10 round state, then Limited when shot in that state should be L-10, NOT limited ( the whole grandfathered magazine thing is BS in my opinion). When you travel to an out of state match, you can THEN shoot Limited and use your NOW legal L-10 gear in Limited.

We have all voiced opinions, so here is another of mine, but it is MY opinion that MANY competitors who live in non-10-round states elect to shoot L-10 to run away from the tough competition in Limited.

NOW I am going to go and hide in Gary's bunker

Sorry, but it is my opinion, and I have a right to voice it!!!

I could care less about trigger pull weight, but see no reason to not have one. I DO see a problem with people arguing with their pocketbooks tho!!!

I DO shoot Single Stack, so I have a dog in this fight. Saying that there are not a significant number of people shooting SS is not a valid arguement until it is a recognized Division or Category. It is not fun to shoot if you are not truly recognized. I shoot because I enjoy shooting, and I enjoy trying to improve via my classification percentages in the Classifiers. SSD NEEDS to have the Classifications computed and put on our monthly updates. THIS will increase participation in my opinion.

So, I have a question, when does PSSD become either SSD or a Category of another Division?

[Mapzter]

Why don't we ask the people that have "been there, done that" how the trigger pull

checking works out?

While I haven't checked trigger pull in IPSC, I've checked it in other pistol sports.It's simpler than using a trigger pull scale, since we're not interested in the actual weight, just if it more than a certain limit. The way we've done it, is with a certified metal weight, that matched the trigger pull weight specified. It has an L shaped metal rod which is positioned at the centre point of the trigger, with the pistol held vertically, and the weight placed on a table. The pistol is then lifted gently, and has to raise the weight from the table, without the pistol being triggered. If the pistol fails to do so in 3 of 3 tries, the competitor is given a chance to remedy the problem, and a re-test. If the pistol still fails the test, it is excluded. Doing this on a Glock can be a tricky operation due to the trigger safety, but it's not impossible.

[Alan Meek]

ZHunter

+1 your Opinion

Alan

[driver8M3]

...the whole grandfathered magazine thing is BS in my opinion...

did i just read that here on this forum???

[XRe]

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

...

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?

The difference is that we only award "High XXXX" in a category - so, only high L-10 would get an award/prize. That's potentially a huge difference over having a division that awards top 8 or top 16, and class awards, etc.

[Alan Meek]

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

...

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?

The difference is that we only award "High XXXX" in a category - so, only high L-10 would get an award/prize. That's potentially a huge difference over having a division that awards top 8 or top 16, and class awards, etc.

So if we get rid of all the divisions except open and make the previous divisions as categories that would help the match directors save $$$, less trophies and plaques to buy for the awards ceremony.

Sorry, just had to be a Smart A**

Here is the conundrum from my spot in the world.

We have a National organization that has to administer the rules across various states that have inconsistent laws. The BOD needs to do this as fair as possible. There are individuals that are very passionate about their selected divisions. So how does the BOD develop a set of rules and divisions that are fair and equitable.

It appears that this is almost impossible.

Just my .02

Alan

[XRe]

In general - I agree with the things I've read about the plans the BoD is thinking of acting on (see my previous post).

I do think that a referendum (through poll, or other means) is warranted. This forum is a rather vocal minority of the USPSA membership - and maybe we're the only ones making noise, but... Seems like it wouldn't be a bad thing to really understand directly what the membership thinks it wants (or, at least, those that wish to voice and opinion) - and it doesn't mean that that's what they'll get, either...

Here's what bothers me. I had a great talk at the Nats w/ Bruce (who found me and struck up the conversation, BTW... ), and I mentioned this to him at the time. When SSD was originally pitched and enacted, we were told that there would be a provisional period (3 years, right?) to decide if the new division would be successful, and then it would be determined whether to keep it or not. At the time, there was no mention of ditching other divisions in favor of SSD (whether it seems to make sense or not). And now, less than a year later - 1/3 the provisional period - we're talking about not only making SSD permanent, but also removing another fairly popular (more popular than SSD around these parts) division.

So, my concern is this - what kind of message is the BoD sending the membership about their credibility??? The next time an issue comes up and there's a timeframe around it, should we assume that that means nothing?? Can we trust decisions made at the BoD to last for any stretch of time, or is everything always fluid? Were we communicated a timeframe as a political move, when the real intent was what we're seeing all along?

I'm not saying that I think there was some vast conspiracy - I certainly don't, and I understand and believe that the provisional status was required in order to get the full BoD to accept the change (as Gary Stevens explained over and over on this forum when SSD started up). However - I think the BoD should take this point to heart. When they make decisions, and then chuck them out the window when the wind changes, it does send a message to the membership - even if the changes are for the good of the organization, etc.

Put another way - some sharp "damage control" might be in order, via Front Sight, or some other method... There's going to be a lot of folks who'd like a lucid, complete explanation of the whole situation....

BTW - thanks again, Bruce, Gary, and Rob for participating in these discussions and explaining (quite well) why the decisions are being made and what they are. You guys are a testament to the spirit of the BoD trying to do the right thing for USPSA and its membership, and your voices here make me confident that the BoD is taking the best steps they can - even if I have concerns about them....

[moverfive]

Excellent post XRe. And you are highlighting the root cause of the concerns I had - our USPSA leadership isn't voting/leading our organization with the best feedback from its membership. And when you talk with these folks, it is clear that they have a good understanding of the issues at hand and the organization as a whole.

So then why are we having discussions like the ones around L-10 and SS?

I think that answer is this - there is more than one correct answer. The answer they chose doesn't seem to be the best correct answer.

For example - from what I have gathered, L-10 was being considered for elimination because (1) there are too many divisions and thus dilutes competition, (2) it is too similar to Limited, and (3) creates a perceived competition problem because wide-bodies and single stacks compete against other.

All of these issues are not real problems, while they may be perceived problems, we shouldn't be changing our rules because someone doesn't fully understand something.

Here is why I don't think these issues are not a problem:

(1) assuming too many divisions is a problem, matches can choose what divisions they want to recognize, therefore, match administration can be controlled up front....the customer base will determine what division should and should not recognized. As for competition dilution - if people are truly more concerned about competing against the best, they will shift to where the competition is. Otherwise, many folks compete against themselves and simply enjoy the shooting sport.

(2) L-10 is not "too similar" to Limited. Try shooting a complicated stage with Limited AND then come back with a L-10 gun. Odds are, you are going to run it differently. While I don't shoot L-10 as a primary division - I enjoy having to game out stages with only 10 rounds as opposed to 20. It makes for a more technical stage analysis and plan.

(3) We cannot solve perceived problems. And if I remember correctly, what were the top finishers of this year's L-10 Nationals shooting? Weren't most shooting single stack guns? What gun won the first two Limited Nationals? Were they also single stacks competing against wide-bodies? Single Stack guns in Limited and L-10 are just as competitive as a wide-body. Thinking otherwise and therefore trying to legislate otherwise is bad business.

And when I read through the many posts from folks on this list, I get the feeling that my opinions here aren't unique. And while the number of people on this list is definitely a minority in the grand scheme of things, I don't think our opinions are in the minority. Therefore if the membership as a whole was made aware of these issues and given ample time to provide feedback to their AD and President - $100 says some of these decisions/thought processes would have been a little different. Hence why I am saying that I think the root cause for a lot of our problems is that the USPSA membership isn't fully informed of the issues at hand.

[Alan Meek]

But how many of the members are in the mode of don't really care?

[XRe]

I think you'll find - much like trying to inform the US National electorate on all the issues - informing the whole membership is a lot more difficult than it would appear.

There's a subtle point that I was trying to make, which is that the membership - being not completely informed, and not completely aware of various things such as marketing angles, etc - may not be equipped to make the best decision for USPSA or its membership... That's the reason why we have ADs, etc, and not just one big voting membership on every issue. The ADs and Pres should obviously solicit and take into account the feedback of the membership - and should also make every attempt to educate and inform that they can. However, when it comes down to it - your voice is most heard in the voting for ADs and President, and in the willingness of the membership to take the reins (through fielding ample and appropriate candidates for those positions).

I still think a USPSA poll to test the wind would be a good thing - at least on the rearrangement of divisions... I'm just saying that perhaps it should not be the only consideration when making the decision....

[AikiDale]

These arguments have all come up, all too regularly, for years but this thread is only two days old and reading it has been quite interesting. It seems to me we don't know what kind of sport we want to be.

Do we want to be an amateur sport, a professional sport or both? If both do we want the same rules for amateur and pro divisions? Do we want the lion's share of the 80 to 100 million gun owners in the US to be players or are we interested in the 10 to 20 thousand competitors?

Do we want to be everything for every shooter or the elite few?

Until we know what we want to be it's going to be most difficult to structure our competitions.

Do we want to be like Auto Racing or Golf? Boxing or Swimming?

I'm going to have to think about this a while longer before I come to a conclusion. In the mean time I'd like to keep all the divisions we have at the moment following the logic it's better to have it and not need it....

[Alan Meek]

I think whatever USPSA is first and foremost we need to have definitive divisions and rules.

In all the years I have been a member there has been a few times when a change has been made with a stated intent and in a few years the intent that was the basis of such change was either disregarded or convulted to be something different.

Case in point.... GM Class was presented to be representative of those competitors that were actually capable of winning the major match and as such the GM class would not be recognized for class placement it was either finish in the top and be rewarded for overall place of finish.

2nd case in point... Limited division was started with the intent of attracting new shooters to the sport and not be a part of the arms race at that time years ago. Now a limited gun is only a couple of hundred dollars less than an open gun. hmmm, seems like limited is part of the arms race.

These are the two that come to mind at the moment.

My other .02

Alan

[moverfive]

I think you'll find - much like trying to inform the US National electorate on all the issues - informing the whole membership is a lot more difficult than it would appear.

I totally disagree. Now don't get me wrong here - I am not saying ALL issues should be presented prior to any vote/debate or that there should be mob rule, I am only saying that it should be standard practice to attempt to solicit informed opinions on major issues.

And while there is not a definitive line between what is a major issue and a 'minor' one, I don't think anyone would argue that eliminating a division would definitely be on the major side of the fence. Hence why I used L-10 as my example.

And with the USPSA website, we have a medium to allow issues like this to easily be presented. As Gary has stated - some of these issues could have an effect on people's wallets, i.e. making current equipment obsolete. If that is a point of the discussion, then why can't they delay any potential vote on that issue until the membership could be informed and thus given time to voice their opinions? That is all I am saying.

You can never make everyone happy and nor will everyone think they have 'enough' information. But when you don't make an attempt to inform the membership prior to doing things like eliminating a division, I just think that is bad policy.

[TxD]

These arguments have all come up, all too regularly, for years but this thread is only two days old and reading it has been quite interesting. It seems to me we don't know what kind of sport we want to be.

Dale. I agree, these arguments do tend to recycle.

In looking at the Nov/Dec issue of front sight page 46, there is an article written by the Area 5 Director titled " New Category Of Competition Proposed!".

It speaks of a new class as a supplement to the existing classes with the following criteria:

Firearms:

1. Min caliber 9X19.

2. Replace barrels with barrels of the same diameter.

3. Replace sights as long as they don't overhang.

Etc. Etc.

Ammunition:

1. Only those calibers that are produced by at least three commercial ammunition manufacturers and are generally available at retailers across the country and make the major power factor may be scored as major.

2. Reloaded ammo is permitted.

Proposed Names:

1. Defence class

2. Stock class

3. Practical class

4. Sportsman class

5. Tactical class

Footnotes:

1. Weight restrictions were examined and found to be unworkable.

2. Limits on size were reviewed. It was suggested that a box with fixed dimensions be used.

3. A maximum retail value has been suggested to help keep down the cost of admission.

4. Cost limitations on modifications were explored.

5. A frequent suggestion was that professional shooters could not compete in this class.

Interesting.

[Tim James]

"Competition Dilution"

No one liked my last thought puzzle, so I'll try a new one. This also hints at what AikiDale was talking about.

In the long run, which would produce stronger competition at the national or local level?

1. Cutting the number of divisions to 2 or 3 -- just the basics.

2. Increasing the number of divisions by 2 or 3 -- with new divisions that tap into new markets.

[EDIT]Gary caught me -- I wrote classes and meant divisions. Mixed up my hobbies

Edited November 21, 2006 by Tim James

[Gary Stevens]

Would that be E-F-and G" class?

On a different note, I think I shot at least 11 state/sectional, area, or national championships this year, in addition to numerous local matches. At everyone of those I solicited comments on L-10, single stack, trigger pulls, etc. Some were lively conversations I suspect the other members of the BOD did also. So while we are not and cannot contact every member individually, we are not operating in a vaccume either. In addition I and others check in on this forum on a regular basis, even though we might not post a comment. These limited venues do provide us a window into the membership. While it is not perfect, it is still useful in making decisions.

Gary

Edited November 21, 2006 by Gary Stevens

[Two Mikes]

But how many of the members are in the mode of don't really care?

I care very much ... However, I respect the AD's to make the best decision for the organization and my area. They are our representatives.

[warpspeed]

Question for the AD's here-

Could we have our cake and eat it too ?

By that I mean can we allow club or section matches to recognize L-10 but not require Area or Nationals to do so ?

So if my local club has enough participation, they can run a L-10 divison but not have an area or national championship?

[Gary Stevens]

As has been stated here previously there is no requirement for any match to recognize all the divisions. All you have to do is tell the shooters what divisions you are going to recognize.

Gary

[Jim Norman]

If you live in a 10 round state, then Limited when shot in that state should be L-10, NOT limited ( the whole grandfathered magazine thing is BS in my opinion). When you travel to an out of state match, you can THEN shoot Limited and use your NOW legal L-10 gear in Limited.

We have all voiced opinions, so here is another of mine, but it is MY opinion that MANY competitors who live in non-10-round states elect to shoot L-10 to run away from the tough competition in Limited.

Z,

A couple points you miss here. Not all 10 round states are 10 rounds. In NJ we have 15, in NY, you can have a grandfathered Standard Cap, or a post ban 10, Same in Calif. In HI it is my understanding is that it is 10 rounds period.

As to hiding, we have a group of us here that will ask what the other is shooting and switch TO that division. Sometimes we shoot Limited, sometimes L-10 and often Production. This group includes G, M and A shooters. We aren't hiding, we like to shoot different games.

Jim

[GeorgeInNePa]

These arguments have all come up, all too regularly, for years but this thread is only two days old and reading it has been quite interesting. It seems to me we don't know what kind of sport we want to be.

Dale. I agree, these arguments do tend to recycle.

In looking at the Nov/Dec issue of front sight page 46, there is an article written by the Area 5 Director titled " New Category Of Competition Proposed!".

It speaks of a new class as a supplement to the existing classes with the following criteria:

Firearms:

1. Min caliber 9X19.

2. Replace barrels with barrels of the same diameter.

3. Replace sights as long as they don't overhang.

Etc. Etc.

Ammunition:

1. Only those calibers that are produced by at least three commercial ammunition manufacturers and are generally available at retailers across the country and make the major power factor may be scored as major.

2. Reloaded ammo is permitted.

Proposed Names:

1. Defence class

2. Stock class

3. Practical class

4. Sportsman class

5. Tactical class

Footnotes:

1. Weight restrictions were examined and found to be unworkable.

2. Limits on size were reviewed. It was suggested that a box with fixed dimensions be used.

3. A maximum retail value has been suggested to help keep down the cost of admission.

4. Cost limitations on modifications were explored.

5. A frequent suggestion was that professional shooters could not compete in this class.

Interesting.

Production Lite?

[BritinUSA]

This issue is basically a microcosm of what is happening vis-a-vis IPSC and USPSA.

IPSC is trying to implement global rules that cater to some countries dumb gun laws.

The same things is happening with USPSA. Some states have bad gun laws and the National organisation can either alter the rules for everyone so that those states can compete or it can choose not to.

USPSA solution is to allow clubs to shoot IPSC or USPSA matches and this appears to be a worthwhile compromise.... well done BOD

There is no reason why the same proposal would not work within USA between States and USPSA. I see no reason why those states with restricted capacity could define each division as 10 round only.

For example, what's the problem with NY (for example) hosting a match with all divisions limited to 10 rounds. As long as they advertise the match as 10 rounds only so no-one gets a nasty suprise when they turn up.

Of course other states would not have the 10 round limit for those matches and those that choose to compete from restricted states can either acquire some magazines at the match to shoot it, or compete with the 10 round magazines and see how they do against the hi-cap shooters.

Again as long as the MD declares in advance what the capacity is then I really don't see a problem.

Leave it up to the MD about mag-capacity for Level I, II and III matches.

Just food for thought.