Who Does It Affect? It Affects Us All.

[Flexmoney]

A little reminder...

Admin.

Welcome to Brian's Forums!

We’ve found the following guidelines indispensable in keeping the Forum enjoyable, informational, and just a fun place to hang out.

Posting Guidelines

Attitude

Please be polite. Or if not polite, at least respectful. Please – no antagonistic, offensive, or quarrelsome tones.

[caps]

Unfortunately it seems USPSA might be marching a little too far down the road of IPSC and like I said, will probably manifest itself in either killing the sport or at least membership not renewing and shooting 'USPSA-style' matches at the club level.

It seems to me the BOD is trying to distance USPSA from IPSC but trying to be more like IDPA at the same time. Look at the plan to change from the IPSC box to the IDPA box then look at how they want to change divisions. I just don't get it.

Worst of all, I doubt more than 5% of USPSA members even know about the new rules, so the vocal minority will be dictating everything IF the BOD even listens to them but I get the feeling the whole thing over theres nothing more than lip service.

All we need now is for another organization to splinter shooting in the US even more but I think it's a distinct possibility.

[Lycanthrope]

I agree with most of the posters in this thread.

I'm not sure where many of these rule changes originated from. This forum is the place to be for USPSA shooters and I'm not hearing complaining here or at matches regarding the issues addressed in the proposed rules changes. Where did this come from?

After the last IDPA holster change our local club pretty much lost interest in that sport. With proposed USPSA changes having to do with distances of mags/holster from the belt, using an IDPA box, trigger pull restrictions and the definition of freestyle things just keep getting tighter and tighter.

We can talk about our roots or we can talk about our evolution.

With almost everyone aggreeing that IDPA and USPSA are games and not training, we sure have a lot of people who do not understand that "Tactical" isn't always the same as "Practical".

[Chuck D]

I say to myself... "why can I put a Caspian slide and Bar-Sto barrel in my G17 and be USPSA PD legal but I can't put a Bar-Sto bull barrel in my Para and be USPSA L10 Division legal?"

The only way this nonsense will ever stop is if the decisions made by USPSA begin to effect the financial bottom line.

[i]"This WILL manifest itself in folks not renewing their membership and just shooting at the club level."[/i]

You had better believe it will...this coming from someone that has yet to renew his membership that expired in July of '06 and has no plans to do so in the forseeable future. The clubs in our area refuse (and rightfully so) to "turn away" paying customers on the basis of no USPSA membership and their are more than a few "black market" USPSA type matches for shooters to participate in.

Of course...some of these rule changes could be deemed "in the best interest of the organization ".....

Edited January 13, 2007 by Chuck D

[Jaxshooter]

I am also supporting a change of Area 6 Directors. We need a leader who will voice the Area's wants, not follow alonf with what the President wants.

[geezer-lock]

Interestingly enough, we don’t have a vote. This is more like a republic, not a democracy so the membership can only indirectly affect the outcome. As far as I know there is no formal process (such as a recordable ballot) to make our views known to those that can vote.

We can certainly make a lot of noise but the views made known here (and at the USPSA forum) represent a pitifully small percentage of our membership.

David C

[johnhurd]

Are all the benefits from being a Super Senior in the past, going to be grandfathered in, man o man I hate to lose all those added points and freebies............. I may have to give up shooting USPSA if they pull the mandatory respect too!!!

[Gary Stevens]

I can't speak for the rest of the BOD, but I think I have responded to every question that has been asked me regarding the draft rules. Some of them more than once.

I will say that I am less inclined to respond to those who feel the need to beat me to a bloody pulp before they ask their question.

Gary

[bgary]

I can't speak for the rest of the BOD, but I think I have responded to every question that has been asked me regarding the draft rules. Some of them more than once.

I will say that I am less inclined to respond to those who feel the need to beat me to a bloody pulp before they ask their question.

+1 on both of those

Bruce (the "other Gary")

[SRT Driver]

I do not agree with the proposed Production changes.

Triggers..

If it is a safe trigger, the weight is irrelevant.

Gear..

Now that the rules limit the distance away from the belt to 1", I will not sell gear to shooters who might be able to use them for less than a year in Production. So it costs me money too.

Let's stop over legislating ourselves and get back to shooting.

[mlmiller1]

I have a question for the two Garys. Do you think that the opinions posted & the polls taken will really affect the rules changes? I have opinions & I expressed them in the polls but does it really matter? If I thought it mattered, I would try to encourage others to vote or post. Even though the votes in the polls are only a small number of our membership, I believe they are fairly representative of the membership as a whole. Many of the folks that express their opinions are the folks that welcome the new shooters, they set up the matches, they r.o. & serve in all the other ways that this organization needs. It seems to me these folks opinions would carry some weight with the B.O.D.

MLM

[jspruance]

I have probably renewed my USPSA membership for the last time. I only took the associate membership this year, since I don't shoot many major matches anymore I don't miss the magazine.

I only signed up this year because I bought a junior membership for my grandaughter and I want to shoot the OHIO Sectional one last time with my son, daughter and my grandaughter.

I have been in the USPSA for 10 years. I am a CRO and have worked several major matches. Some didn't even pay our motel fees. It was just part of giving back to the sport.

After this year I plan to only shoot local matches. I don't care if there are too many rounds in a stage, or the targets are upside down I don't care if they have both style targets in the same stage. Too many rules spoil the fun.

We elect people to represent our interest. Just like in our government. When they don't represent us to the level we expect, we have the option to replace them. From the president on down. Maybe it's time to clean house. It happened last November.

JFS

[Micah]

James...please hang it out. I certainly enjoy shooting with you, and it would be a terrible loss to our great sport...

[Gary Stevens]

MLM,

Short answser is they provide valuable information to me. I can't speak for others, but I suspect most feel the same way.

On the USPSA forum I speculated that the serious issues revolved around 4 basic issues:

1. Minimum trigger pull for Production

2. Distance from belt for holsters and mag pouches

3. Front strap height in Production

4. Short cut rule for course design.

Another fellow added the 2 hits on a no/shoot and replacement barrels in Limited and L-10.

1.I already voted against this once, so that is not a problem.

2.I will vote to return the distance to as close to the previous 50mm rule. We are trying to use inches and feet where possible so I think that would be something like 1 15/16 inch.

3.The only front strap height I am interested in is in PSSD. I am totally comfortable with the previous rule.

4.If we are going to address the short cut, I think the default should be with the course designer or local MD. We probably need to address an appropriate penalty, but wheather you can do it or not, I think should be a local decision.

As to the no shoot. I feel if you shot it, you bought it. That is the way it has always been prior to the latest rule book.

I honestly think the barrel issue in Limited and L-10 is a cut and paste error. I never heard a single word about this before it appeared in the proposed rule. I don't know how you establish what the dimensions of the "factory" barrel in a gun built from parts.

A lot of the other stuff is wording that can be worked out pretty easily.

Hope this answered your question.

Gary

Edited February 1, 2007 by Gary Stevens

[mlmiller1]

Gary,

Thank you! You certainly sound like you care & are interested in the opinions of those of us out here in the world. I appreciate what you do! MLM

[jspruance]

PB,

Thanks for the kind words.

I certainly intend to keep shooting the local matches. We are blessed in this area with a match nearly every week end of the summer months.

These local matches are becoming better and more competitive each year. I think that the increase number of local Master and GM shooters have driven this trend. Ranges are also improving, check out the range at Miamisburg.

It is a source of great pleasure to shoot with people that you like and respect on a regular basis. I hope that my children and grand children will continue to be part of this sport.

Previously someone mentioned that to be heard you have to post on the offical USPSA web site. I personally think that if the BOD does not monitor other sources, such as this web site they may be missing a valuable source of information and feed back.

JFS

[Jim Norman]

Speaking only for myself.

The two Garys and George Jones have responded and posted answers to questions that have answers.

At this point in time I don't feel that the answers truly exist. Right now we have questions. The forum is developing the answers. Some I agree with and others I don't.

There are some members that would be happy to see USPSA go away as a truly separate entity and be merely a local extension of IPSC. I am not of that camp. I feel that the USPSA specific and IPSC Specific rules are a good thing. I really do not want to ever see the USA run by the UN and IPSC control of USPSA is the same thing in microcosm.

Treat the BOD and SCs with respect even if you don't agree with them. If enough people in your Area or Section don't agree AND one of you is willing AND able, step up and run for the office. I am willing to bet that almost anyone would gladly go back to just being a shooter after serving a term or two as an AD or SC.

I would like to see each member of the BOD at some point in time post their positions on a non-answerable forum regarding each of the say top 20 items in the proposed rules. I would also like to see each rule voted upon as a separate line item then a vote to accept or deny passage of the new rulebook and then the entire record made public.

That would give us the membership the information we need to know if the people we put in charge of guarding our sport are doing the job WE sent them off to do. And while we are at it, maybe we can try and get a better voter turnout next time around. We complain about the results, but how many people take the time to read the rules, debate and dissect them and make their opinions heard? How many then after not doing anything up front, fail to cast a vote for either their current or a new AD, SC or President and go on to bitch and moan about the direction of the sport?

OK, Rant mode off, I got to get back to work

Jim

[bgary]

I have a question for the two Garys. Do you think that the opinions posted & the polls taken will really affect the rules changes? I have opinions & I expressed them in the polls but does it really matter?

Yes.

I can't speak for all the Board, but I pay a great deal of attention to the opinions that get sent my way (email, phone, conversations at matches...), and can't tell you the number of times that they have changed my own thinking about something. The revolver guys, for example, have thoroughly turned my head around about whether or not revolver "deserves" to be a stand-alone division.

Having said that, I'd note two things.

One, I don't pay a lot of attention to "polls". The bare numbers don't mean much to me. What I pay attention to is *thoughts*... so, just casting a vote by pressing a button is not going to help nearly as much as posting *why* you think something should change (or not change).

Two... please have patience with us as we sort things out. We *are* in an open feedback period, but know that we have many different "agendas" that we are trying to find a way to balance. Things like:

-- how to balance "what members like" against "what makes the organization strong"

-- how to balance "vision for the future" against "heritage of the past"

-- how to balance what "we" think "practical shooting" is, vs. what the rest of the world thinks

-- how to balance "flexibility and responsiveness" against "rules stability"

-- how to balance "local/club rules" against "national championship rules"

-- how to balance ... well, a bunch of different ideas about what the divisions should be, and the belief that the divisions should "mean something", and that the division structure should not dilute "competition".

-- etc.

That set of conflicting goals, more than anything else, underscores the importance of this feedback period. We are 11 guys with decisions to make, and we want to make them in a way that serves the interests of *today's* members, *and* makes sure there is a strong and viable organization for *tomorrow's* members.

Bruce

I personally think that if the BOD does not monitor other sources, such as this web site they may be missing a valuable source of information and feed back.

We do, as much as we can. But please understand, that we are all *volunteers*, with day jobs and families and such. I don't have the time to read every forum. I spend a lot of time here, and some on the USPSA forums, but... in truth (and this is going to sound really self-centered, but it is real life...) if you want to be SURE I see your opinion, you gotta put it in front of me. Hoping I'll read the forum you put it on is not *nearly* as much a sure-thing, as emailing it to me, or calling me.

Bruce

Edited February 1, 2007 by bgary

[bgary]

I'll chime in, too, on the same topics Gary noted (as I have on the USPSA forums as well)

1. Minimum trigger pull for Production

I already voted against this once, so that is not a problem.

I voted *for* that one. I think it is the right thing to do - I think "Production" should mean "as produced by the factory". More to the point, I think we already have plenty of divisions for the guys who want to modify their guns... I believe we need a place for guys who *don't* want to get sucked up into an equipment race, where they have to tinker and modify to avoid being at a competitive disadvantage. I think Production "should be" the place where you can compete with a department-issued gun or a straight-out-of-the-bedside-table gun or a just-bought-it-and-want-to-shoot-it-as-is gun. That was the original *purpose* for creating the Production division, and when we wrote the rules we tried to make it clear that very few modifications would be allowed. We didn't close all the loopholes, obviously, and what we have now is people making structural and functional changes to their guns - on the inside, where no one can see them - to gain a competitive advantage. The minimum trigger weight is nothing more than an attempt to put a guardrail around that - in a measurable way - so that the guns stay a little closer to "Production" configuration. Shooters that want to modify their Glocks/XDs/CZs/whatever already *have* a place, its called Limited (or Lim-10). I'm open to discussing this... but that's what I think, and that's how I voted.

2. Distance from belt for holsters and mag pouches

I will vote to return the distance to as close to the previous 50mm rule. We are trying to use inches and feet where possible so I think that would be something like 1 15/16 inch.

Yup. I voted against the change, and I would vote to restore the rule to its 2004 form. I don't "get" what we would accomplish in doing this change. (I'd be happy with calling it "2 inches". I don't think we need to quibble about 0.8mm)

3. Front strap height in Production

The only front strap height I am interested in is in PSSD. I am totally comfortable with the previous rule.

I'm ambivalent about this one. *IF* we end up going down the path that the USPSA President has proposed... two "race" divisions (Open and Limited, all modifications are fair game), and two "stock" divisions (Production and SS, modifications would be very restricted), then this rule makes sense for both Production and SS to me. The "idea" of those divisions would be that race holsters belong in the "race" division, and I personally believe that dropping and offsetting a holster is a "race" move. I think that in Production, the holsters should be suitable for daily carry. If SS becomes a "stock" division, I think the same would be true there. If it remains a stand-alone division, I don't think I care whethere DOH-type holsters are allowed or not, the division would stand on its own anyway.

4. Short cut rule for course design.

If we are going to address the short cut, I think the default should be with the course designer or local MD.

I *hate* this proposed rule. I think it is a knife in the back of "freestyle", and ends up penalizing the shooter for what really, at the end of the day, is bad course design or lazy course construction. No offense meant to course designers and builders, but... my belief is that if you want a shooter to go someplace, make it worth his/her while by putting some points there that he can't get anywhere else. And if you *don't* want a shooter to go somewhere, put up a wall, a rope, a row of no-shoots, a couple of barrels.... make it so he *can't* get there, but don't penalize him for "solving the problem" as the freestyle rules allow.

Another fellow added the 2 hits on a no/shoot

As to the no shoot. I feel if you shot it, you bought it. That is the way it has always been prior to the latest rule book.

Totally agree. And, I'll add, after all the screaming that we got when we adopted the IPSC rule on this in 2003, I'm *very* amused by all the screaming we're getting now that we want (in response to member feedback!) to change it back.

and replacement barrels in Limited and L-10.

I honestly think the barrel issue in Limited and L-10 is a cut and paste error. I never heard a single word about this before it appeared in the proposed rule.

Same here. I don't know how this got into the proposed rulebook, I hope it was a cut-n-paste error, and it is on my list to take back out.

Bruce

Edited February 1, 2007 by bgary

[geezer-lock]

" Hoping I'll read the forum you put it on is not *nearly* as much a sure-thing, as emailing it to me, or calling me."

Bruce,

That really underscores the need for the membership to “make some noise” with their AD’s. One thing I can say about the “Internet keyboardists” is that we are a little more organized and vocal. I plan to build a fax and letter campaign to inform my AD and I hope others will do the same.

I will echo Mark’s sentiment and say again, thanks for all you do for the sport.

David C

TY5333

Edited February 1, 2007 by geezer-lock

[carinab]

3. Front strap height in Production

The only front strap height I am interested in is in PSSD. I am totally comfortable with the previous rule.

I'm ambivalent about this one. *IF* we end up going down the path that the USPSA President has proposed... two "race" divisions (Open and Limited, all modifications are fair game), and two "stock" divisions (Production and SS, modifications would be very restricted), then this rule makes sense for both Production and SS to me. The "idea" of those divisions would be that race holsters belong in the "race" division, and I personally believe that dropping and offsetting a holster is a "race" move.

Or a move to accomodate the feminine form....Don't make me sew belt loops or wear low riders... DOH solves the problem for the ladies.

[bgary]

I got this question thru PM, and gained permission to answer it in open forum (he can identify himself if he wishes to...)

Quick question for you on your comments re: production and mods.

Where, in your opinion, can 9 minor play with a lighter than 3 lb trigger and be competitive - not just me as a "B", but a C or D shooter...L-10 will get eaten up, as will Ltd.

Short answer: Yep.

Longer answer: I started playing this game in 1987 (I think), and the thing that *intrigued* me about it was that it was all about choices. Do you want to shoot fast, or slow down and get better points? Do you want to shoot those from here, or spend the time to move to a different spot, but get a better angle on them? Do you want to shoot .45 (more points for major) or Super (more bullets in the gun)? The core of the game, IMO, is that *you* figure out how you want to solve the problem. Within the rules, yes, but you have the choice for figuring out how *you* want to solve it.

I believe the responsibility of the Board, at its essence, is to define "the boundaries" of the playground. It is then up to the individual shooter how they want to approach the problem within those boundaries.

When we started having divisions (1994? 1995?).... what USPSA did, in effect, is say "OK, now there are *two* playgrounds. One where you can do anything you want with your equipment, one where there are some boundaries you can't cross (optics and comps).

We now have *six* divisions, and each one has its own set of boundaries. Which means, each one has its own set of choices. Wanna shoot a dot? That means you have to play in the Open playground. Wanna shoot a revolver? OK, there's a set of boundaries for that playground, too. Etc.

What we're trying to do is to refine the "boundaries" of each playground, so that the people who *choose* to play in each area can play with others who have made similar choices. And we're trying to figure out what the right number and shape of those playgrounds should be. It isn't good to have everyone in the same playground - at the same time, we don't want to have so many playgrounds that everyone is in their own little world and competition dries up. Somewhere in the middle there's a "right number of playgrounds" that provides a place to play for every interest, and provides a framework in which competitors can make choices about what kind of equipment they want to compete against.

(All of that is background. Stay with me. I *will* get around to answering your question)

So.... here's what some of the playgrounds look like, in *my* opinion:

Limited:

-- modifications allowed (implies you *gotta* make mods to be competitive)

-- hi-cap allowed (implies you gotta have a wide-body to be competitive)

-- single-action allowed (implies you *gotta* have a slick trigger to be competitive)

-- major and minor scoring (implies you have caliber/PF choices to make)

L-10

-- modifications allowed (implies you *gotta* make mods to be competitive)

-- hi-cap allowed, but capacity CONSTRAINED (implies wide-body or SS are viable)

-- single-action allowed (implies you *gotta* have a slick trigger to be competitive)

-- major and minor scoring (implies you have caliber/PF choices to make)

SingleStack

-- modifications LIMITED (has a DIFFERENT boundary around the playground than L/L10)

-- hi-cap NOT allowed (DIFFERENT boundary than Limited or L10)

-- single-action allowed (yeah, go ahead, slick up that trigger)

-- major and minor scoring, PLUS capacity limits based on caliber (DIFFERENT boundary)

So far so good? What this means is that if you have a Para widebody or a S_I widebody or a Glock, you have a bunch of choices... you can compete in L or L10 effectively, you can choose which caliber you want to shoot, you can choose which PF you want to shoot, you can choose which modifications you want to make, etc. You canNOT choose to shoot in SingleStack, because your *choice* of gun is not a single-stack.

Conversely, if you have a SA/Kimber/Colt/whatever single-stack in the right configuration (bushing barrel, etc, as defined in the division "boundaries"), you have a bunch of choices TOO. You can choose to shoot in PSSD, and compete against a bunch of guns just like yours. You can choose to shoot in L10, which has a different set of boundaries (eg, you can load up 11-round mags in .45, rather than just 8-rounders that are inside the PSSD boundaries). You can also choose to shoot in Limited... you'll probably be at a competitive disadvantage, but whether that is real, perceived, or an enticing challenge is entirely up to you . You have that choice.

OK. Now lets think about the boundaries of the Production division. I'm going to "salt" this conversation with what I think those boundaries "should be":

Production

-- modifications TIGHTLY CONSTRAINED (has a DIFFERENT boundary around the playground than L/L10)

-- hi-cap allowed, but capacity constrained (DIFFERENT boundary than L or SS)

-- single-action NOT allowed (first shot has to be DA, DIFFERENT boundary)

-- minor scoring ONLY (DIFFERENT boundary, means .38/9/.40/.45 all compete equally)

-- holster and mag positions CONSTRAINED to "street-like" configuration (different boundary)

-- holster and mag *gear* CONSTRAINED to "street-usable" stuff (different boundary)

That's what *I* think Production division should be. We have a bunch of divisions where shooters that choose to modify their guns can play. I strongly believe that we should have a place where shooters who do NOT want to modify their guns can play, and not be at a competitive disadvantage against the other kids in that playground.

That's my belief. What it comes down to, if that is a valid belief, is "how do we police the boundaries of that playground?" If we say certain modifications are not allowed, how do we *determine* whether those modifications are present? My belief is that we have to have rules that are objective and measurable.... and if we don't want shooters to (for example) swap trigger parts out of their Glock, change pivot-points, etc... the only viable way to police it is to put up a "boundary", and make determination on whether or not that boundary has been crossed, some objective and measurable thing, rather than a test of my ability to detect whether or not your _____ is an OEM part.

That's the reason for the trigger weight, IMHO. We want to have Production *not* be a race to see who can put together the slickest combination of trigger mods... we want Production to be a playground where *stock* Glocks/XDs/whatever can play *without* having to "choose" to make a bunch of modifications to their guns in order to be competitive.

So....

Where, in your opinion, can 9 minor play with a lighter than 3 lb trigger and be competitive - not just me as a "B", but a C or D shooter...L-10 will get eaten up, as will Ltd.

9-minor can play in Limited or Limited-10, if the shooter wants to make that *choice*. In Limited, for example, that 9-minor can be loaded up to max capacity, trigger lightened, grip tweaked, magwell added, whatever you want to do, it is *your* choice whether you want to shoot minor and bias towards accuracy, or switch to a major caliber and bias towards speed. That's *totally* consistent with the original choices our founders thought were meaningful.

On the other hand, if you want to compete against a bunch of other minor guns and not have PF put you at a disadvantage, the playground for that is Production, but that division has a different set of boundaries, which implies a different set of choices. You can't load as many in the mag as you want... you can't add a magwell or modify the grips.... and, IMHO, you should not be able to make modifications to the trigger other than the "smoothing and polishing for reliability" that was so badly misinterpreted from the original Production division rules. Smooth things up? Yes. Replace a bunch of parts, modify others, and end up with a *very* different trigger mechanism in order to get a sub 3-pound pull? No.

So, at the end of the day (and a very long post, sorry).... it still comes back to choices, IMO. If you want to shoot in a division which allows and encourages modifications, we have some of those. If you want to shoot in a division in which 9-minor does not put you at a competitive disadvantage? We have one of those, too. But each has a different set of boundaries, and you're in charge of choosing which set of boundaries you want to play in.

My $.02

Bruce

Oh, PS. I've long been an advocate of "collapsing" our division structure into three divisions:

-- Open = anything goes

-- Limited = anything except comps and dots

-- Production = no mods, shoot it the way the factory made it.

... and covering all the other "choices" by making them categories *within* those divisions.

-- wanna shoot 10-round neutral? Fine, check the "reduced capacity" category. That means that (subject to participation at any given match), within the divisions we would *also* recognize Open-10, Limited-10, etc

-- wanna shoot single-stack? Fine, check the "SS" category. That would allow us to recognize Open-SS, Limited-SS, etc

-- and so on.

I [personally] think this is a way that we could recognize *more* choices at a match, without forcing a match to recognize 20 or 30 or whatever different divisions, which feels like where we are headed. *I* believe that our divisions should be defined by differences in *equipment* - and I'd be hard-pressed to identify *equipment* differences between Limited and L-10, but that's probably a conversation for another day....

Edited February 1, 2007 by bgary

[ima45dv8]

-- wanna shoot 10-round neutral? Fine, check the "reduced capacity" category. That means that (subject to participation at any given match), within the divisions we would *also* recognize Open-10, Limited-10, etc

-- wanna shoot single-stack? Fine, check the "SS" category. That would allow us to recognize Open-SS, Limited-SS, etc

Shouldn't you have said, "....recognize HIGH Open-10, HIGH Limited-10, HIGH SS, etc."?

Once they are thrown aside to the status of a category, only the top shooter in each is recognized. Correct?

And please, I wish the "dilutionists" would stop saying we're on the way to having a division for every gun and every shooter. That has not come to pass and never will. 6 divisions is not the end of the world. It's no more difficult to select SST or Lim10 from the drop-down list in EWS than it is to select Limited or Open.

Edited February 1, 2007 by ima45dv8

[bgary]

Afterthought (like I haven't already worn out my welcome here...)

We have two VERY different types of courses of fire:

"Freestyle" courses - you attack it the way you want, your choice. If the rules don't specifically prohibit it, it is fair game.

and

"Standards" - where you don't have choices - if the course description does not specifically ALLOW it, you can't do it. you have to shoot it exactly the same way everyone else does, from the same places, according to the same boundaries.

In the past, equipment rules have been interpreted as if they were "freestyle" - if the rules don't say you canNOT do something, that must mean it is fair game.

That *bit* us on Production rules:

-- We said "no external mods"; that got interpreted as "hey, if you can't see it from the outside, it is fair game!". Not at all what we "meant".

-- We said "action work to improve reliability is allowed"; that got interpreted as "hey, I can completely re-design the way the trigger works, and because they said "trigger work" in the wording of the rule". Not at all what we meant.

-- We said "holsters of the race type not allowed"; that got interpreted as "hey, ok, we gotta use a full-coverage carry-type holster, but there's nothing that says we can't hang it on a dropped/offset hanger to get a race-like draw out of it."

Etc.

We (OK, I) believe there's a place for a "stock" division in our game. More to the point, the single biggest point of *resistance* we hear from prospective new members is that our game is an "equipment race", and they aren't interested in getting on that treadmill. Having a "stock" division would solve that. *I* think the biggest challenge is not necessarily in writing the right words into the rules. I think the biggest challenge is in communicating to our members that, just like a Freestyle course has choices and a Standards does not, we have that same mindset in our divisions. Some divisions have choices, and you can do whatever you want. Some division, you gotta color inside the lines.

Using the analogy from our two different types of courses:

Think of Open/Lim/L10 as "freestyle", you figure it out, if the rules don't prohibit it, it is fair game.

and

Think of Production as "standard", you don't have [as many] choices, if the rules don't specifically ALLOW it, it is outside the boundaries. Your gun is limited to the same set of restricted parameters as everyone elses', according to the same boundaries

$.02

B

Edited February 1, 2007 by bgary

[bgary]

Shouldn't you have said, "....recognize HIGH Open-10, HIGH Limited-10, HIGH SS, etc."? Once they are thrown aside to the status of a category, only the top shooter in each is recognized. Correct?

Not necessarily. There are minimum guidelines in the rulebook that say how many shooters have to be in a category for the category to be recognized. There's nothing in the rules about how that recognition has to take place.... in other words, there's no reason that a match couldn't recognize top-3, top 5, top whatever they want. Prizes/awards have always been up to the match organizers (In my home section, they have what they call the "3-5-7 rule" - if they have 3 in a category, they'll hand out a 1st-place award... if they have 5, they'll hand out 1st and 2nd... etc)

And please, I wish the "dilutionists" would stop saying we're on the way to having a division for every gun and every shooter. That has not come to pass and never will. 6 divisions is not the end of the world. It's no more difficult to select SST or Lim10 from the drop-down list in EWS than it is to select Limited or Open.

<laughing>

OK, noted. But I'd add two other notes

1) Over on the USPSA forums right now, there's a thread in which people are lobbying for new divisions. The thread includes arguments for Open-10, Open Revolver, Hi-Cap Production, and a couple of others. So... we're heading from 6 to 10, at least in conversation.

2) I don't know what it is like at your home club. At my home club, we might get 25-30 shooters for the average club match, and... with 6 divisions and 7 classes, it is entirely possible that *1st* in class really ends up going to the *only* shooter in that class. I'm old-school on this... I believe that in order to say you "won", you should have to "beat" someone. So, while I agree that it is no more difficult to pick from a list of 6 or 10 or whatever divisions in the scoring program, for me that's not the issue. It is about the quality of competition... and the more divisions we have, the thinner our population is spread out and "compartmentalized".

For today, that may be what the membership wants, but I worry about what that means for the organization, and for the health of the sport, 5-10-15 years down the road. And... that's something the Board has to take into account in its attempts to write good rules, too.

Bruce