Who Does It Affect? It Affects Us All.

[ipscbob]

The place where we have *not* made much progress is in the strategy of the org. It still seems to me like we are "drifting" - we have no clear statement about what direction we want to head, and no clear identification of the problems that keep us from getting there.

I would agree with this but I think that the direction MUST come from the membership. I don't believe that this forum presents a representative sample either. It definitely represents a specific demographic. Isn't it time to start polling the members directly? We talk a lot about how this is a member run organisation and maybe it is time to put our money where our mouth is on that issue. The way we accomplish asking the members for input to proposed rules today is at best laughable.

Take the divisions, for example. What we *have* done over the last 5 or 6 years is add divisions in sort of a knee-jerk, reactive fashion.

Yup, and as you stated Single Stack is a great example of the knee jerk reaction. Most of the locals I shoot with don't see a need for it and wonder if there is a hidden agenda being pushed.

One of the "problems" we have, IMHO, is growth.

-- maybe we're not marketing enough, or in the right ways? I have this feeling that there are huge untapped pools of potential USPSA competitors out there, who either don't know about us, or know about us and have decided that, based on what they've heard, we're "just not for them". In fact, arguably, there are 35,000 people out there who *have* heard about us and chose to no longer be members... maybe we should be marketing to *them*, finding out why they left and giving them reasons to come back?!?!

Marketing of our game is almost non existent in my area. It took me years to find out that USPSA existed and how to get involved. IDPA flyers were handed to me every time I purchased a gun. Because it is defensively oriented, I felt that IDPA wasn't for me but I damn sure knew about it every time I made a purchase. This simple grass roots marketing strategy is key. Why don't we do it?

As far as production division is concerned, It should be Stock with VERY few mods allowed if any. PERIOD. Shoot as they come right out of the box. Is that being considered?

[Chuck D]

"-- maybe we're not marketing enough, or in the right ways? I have this feeling that there are huge untapped pools of potential USPSA competitors out there, who either don't know about us, or know about us and have decided that, based on what they've heard, we're "just not for them". In fact, arguably, there are 35,000 people out there who *have* heard about us and chose to no longer be members... maybe we should be marketing to *them*, finding out why they left and giving them reasons to come back?!?!"

Nothing personal (this I mean sincerely) but if I had a dime for everytime I've heard or read this statement...going WAY back to Dave Stanford....I'd be able to take a month off from work.

Almost to a person...everyone I've talked to who once were a member then quit...have had enough of : rules changes, talk of adding/eliminating/combining divisions, justifications of divisions, ipsc vs. uspsa rulebook compliance, and mixed messages coming from Sedro Woolley about the future of the sport.

Suggestion: Settle on one set of rules and one set of competition divisions. Stick with them for a minimum of 5 years. The former members will most likely return. All the slick marketing campaigns in the world will not "gloss over" the fact that the rules utilized in "running the game" both in the US and at the IPSC level are as fluid as a department store revolving door.

No one likes instability.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Chuck D

[GeorgeInNePa]

Just one quick question after reading that "novel".

After we change Production or whatever division, so we can "appear" to be a kinder gentler sport to the newbies, and the newbies STILL don't join or return or re-up,

What will we change next?

[thorspapa]

Almost to a person...everyone I've talked to who once were a member then quit...have had enough of : rules changes, talk of adding/eliminating/combining divisions, justifications of divisions, ipsc vs. uspsa rulebook compliance, and mixed messages coming from Sedro Woolley about the future of the sport.

Suggestion: Settle on one set of rules and one set of competition divisions. Stick with them for a minimum of 5 years. The former members will most likely return. All the slick marketing campaigns in the world will not "gloss over" the fact that the rules utilized in "running the game" both in the US and at the IPSC level are as fluid as a department store revolving door.

No one likes instability.

I agree. A large number of rules makes for a safe regulated game, but it also tends to overcomplicate. Simpler is better.

Changing rules every couple of years doesn't help.

I've had good and bad experiences over the years, though I must also add that it was always at small local matches where the RO misread or misapplied the rule book to suit his fancy, never at a large match.

However, the average shooter does balance his time and attention between a household, kids, job or business, and possibly another hobby besides shooting. It's not always realistic to expect a new or old shooter to keep track of just what rule 27.10.05 (yeah, I made that number up) actually is

I DO expect any shooter participating in a match to be aware of safety rules (don't break the 180 with gun in hand) and basic game rules (recognize commands and understand stage requirements). But too many rules beyond that tend to get fuzzy (at least in my old, tired mind) and may not be all that necessary or important to enjoy a safe fun match

Maybe I'm just an old man who likes simple things, with minimum chances for arguments or unpleasantness

[Gary Stevens]

I agree that there have been too many rule changes over the years. This is exactly what we are trying to address by having a dual track of USPSA and IPSC. It is also exactly what we are trying to do by presenting a draft rule book and gathering input from our membership that will be using the rules.

Beating the drum of what has been, is a waste of time. We realize those points and are trying to address them by our actions. If we can get a good usable rulebook, with membership input, we should be able to keep it intact for at least 5 years.

I hope that goal is not lost in all of this.

Gary

[Chuck D]

In the following... is what I believe to be a question:

"-- maybe we're not marketing enough, or in the right ways? I have this feeling that there are huge untapped pools of potential USPSA competitors out there, who either don't know about us, or know about us and have decided that, based on what they've heard, we're "just not for them". In fact, arguably, there are 35,000 people out there who *have* heard about us and chose to no longer be members... maybe we should be marketing to *them*, finding out why they left and giving them reasons to come back?!?!"

I answered it as best I could using what I believe to be the #1 problem USPSA has regarding membership retention. It is a "theory" I've (and others) have used over and over again in as sincere a form and format as humanly possible.

"Beating the drum of what has been, is a waste of time."

History also repeats itself..... kinda like the "war to end all wars"....

It doesn't bode well to be told to forget past actions ... especially when in an indirect way your asked if USPSA should " find out why they left" in the first place.

[Chriss Grube]

Well the main complainant was the IPSC rules a few years ago. Last year it was a let's try to get a better relationship with IPSC and get the rules closer. Now the rules go all over the damn place with this latest greatest draft. Things that have not been a problem are now suddenly getting changed...for no apparent reason other than somebody wanted to be a tactical mall ninja. The holster rules and distance have been fine until now. Why do we keep trying to reinvent the wheel. If it worked leave it the hell alone and fix what safety rules are a concern. We keep changeing the rules to bring in the "potential" new shooters and pissing off the shooters we already have by screwing with their equipment. This SPORT was designed to test the shooter and find the best gear for the game.....now everybody wants to impose some type of arbitary leveled playing field so the new guy doesn't get his feelings hurt when he shows up with his gear and gets beat. It all comes down to the shooter not the gun but we want to limit advancement.

[driver8M3]

.....now everybody wants to impose some type of arbitary leveled playing field so the new guy doesn't get his feelings hurt when he shows up with his gear and gets beat.

and no matter how level we try to make the field, the new guys are going to come in and get their asses kicked. this is a tough game to master. the vast majority of us come in...and suck for a while...and get better only after a lot of time and effort. we didnt suck when we started b/c our triggers or holsters or sights were inferior. we sucked b/c we couldnt shoot! those whose egos cant take finishing DFL a few times will walk away using any excuse available.

[Jim Norman]

Its OK to zero a stage as long as you do it with great style in a really fast time. And a DQ or a malfunction doesn't count.

It is also OK to zero a stage so badly that it causes your buddies to look for a sundial to time you with and offer refunds for the tape you don't need due to so many misses. In other words, Not only did I shoot it slowly, at least I missed a lot.

Hey, anyone that hasn't been there is probably a liar. The difference between us and the ones that go away whinning about the equipment is that we have the intestinal fortitude to stick with something and learn. Ihave said this before, this isn't pre-school T-Ball where everyone wins, there are no outs and everyone gets a run. The only similarity is after the game we all go out for adult substitues for ice cream.

Jim

[BritinUSA]

...

and no matter how level we try to make the field, the new guys are going to come in and get their asses kicked. this is a tough game to master. the vast majority of us come in...and suck for a while...and get better only after a lot of time and effort. we didnt suck when we started b/c our triggers or holsters or sights were inferior. we sucked b/c we couldnt shoot! those whose egos cant take finishing DFL a few times will walk away using any excuse available.

And that my friend, is the true reason why we don't retain new members. When someone shows up to shoot their first match, chances are they will finish dead last and with a lousy score, their ego will suffer and they won't want to put themselves through it again.

The people with a genuine desire to improve themselves will continue, the rest won't and there is NOTHING we can do to change that. Altering our rules to try and make the results closer by restricting equipment simply won't work. Give a new guy and an experienced shooter the exact same equipment and the new guy will still get his butt kicked.

[shootingchef]

...

and no matter how level we try to make the field, the new guys are going to come in and get their asses kicked. this is a tough game to master. the vast majority of us come in...and suck for a while...and get better only after a lot of time and effort. we didnt suck when we started b/c our triggers or holsters or sights were inferior. we sucked b/c we couldnt shoot! those whose egos cant take finishing DFL a few times will walk away using any excuse available.

And that my friend, is the true reason why we don't retain new members. When someone shows up to shoot their first match, chances are they will finish dead last and with a lousy score, their ego will suffer and they won't want to put themselves through it again.

The people with a genuine desire to improve themselves will continue, the rest won't and there is NOTHING we can do to change that. Altering our rules to try and make the results closer by restricting equipment simply won't work. Give a new guy and an experienced shooter the exact same equipment and the new guy will still get his butt kicked.

Why don't we stipulate with new shooters, that they shoot their first couple of matches without their scores being posted. Use a mentor system and build relationships. I have found that if I spend a few minutes with a new shooter, than he/she feels more comfortable, reminding them that they cannot be competitive and should practice till they are ready. they have fun and they come back. Of course that EGO thing gets in the way, especially with folks who carry for a living.

[ipscbob]

...

and no matter how level we try to make the field, the new guys are going to come in and get their asses kicked. this is a tough game to master. the vast majority of us come in...and suck for a while...and get better only after a lot of time and effort. we didnt suck when we started b/c our triggers or holsters or sights were inferior. we sucked b/c we couldnt shoot! those whose egos cant take finishing DFL a few times will walk away using any excuse available.

And that my friend, is the true reason why we don't retain new members. When someone shows up to shoot their first match, chances are they will finish dead last and with a lousy score, their ego will suffer and they won't want to put themselves through it again.

The people with a genuine desire to improve themselves will continue, the rest won't and there is NOTHING we can do to change that. Altering our rules to try and make the results closer by restricting equipment simply won't work. Give a new guy and an experienced shooter the exact same equipment and the new guy will still get his butt kicked.

I agree, this is definitely a factor. I also believe that this EGO factor is the reason why our local clubs have not been very successful in recruiting crossovers from other disciplines. Alot of people are just not comfortable comparing their shooting and physical abilities against others as we do at every event.

[ihatepickles]

So, here we are nearly 5 years later. New leadership has been elected.

Has the direction that SSD and Production gone in impressed or disappointed the USPSA membership?

I remembered this thread while reading the latest grumblings about Production magazine capacity. I think the previous leaders of USPSA have done a great job keeping things moving in a very positive direction. I think the Production rules are getting a bit hard to wade through, but... I'm ok with them now. In other words, the restrictions are pretty complicated. I understand the need but we're really getting wordy and lengthy to keep things on the right path.

Where will the new leadership steer these rules?

[beltjones]

So, here we are nearly 5 years later. New leadership has been elected.

Has the direction that SSD and Production gone in impressed or disappointed the USPSA membership?

I remembered this thread while reading the latest grumblings about Production magazine capacity. I think the previous leaders of USPSA have done a great job keeping things moving in a very positive direction. I think the Production rules are getting a bit hard to wade through, but... I'm ok with them now. In other words, the restrictions are pretty complicated. I understand the need but we're really getting wordy and lengthy to keep things on the right path.

Where will the new leadership steer these rules?

I wasn't around for the last leadership change, but since I've been in the sport shooting Production I have to say that the things that have bothered me the most have not been the existing rules, it has been the, frankly, bizarre rulings put forth from NROI. The paint in the magwell thing is a perfect example. Perhaps even more strange with that ruling was the language, "anything to help them reload or align sights quicker." Sight black is a temporary finish applied to aid in sighting the gun, and is obviously illegal based on that language, except that DNROI pointed to precedent to stipulate that sight black is, and has always been, legal. Which is it, the letter of the law or precedent? The rules about not using a barrel length any different from factory standard were also pretty clear, except that NROI changed their minds for CZ shooters. One can swap an Australian barrel into a regular old Shadow no problem, but I can't put a Glock 34 slide on a Glock 17 frame. One of those things clearly creates a competitive advantage, the other does not, and the one that does not is the one that is illegal.

Oh yeah, I asked DNROI about that CZ barrel issue and he said it wasn't legal. A matter of weeks later they changed the CZ Production gun list to include different barrel length options for the same model of guns (even though they don't come that way from the factory).

I'm hopeful that our new President - an experienced Production shooter - can lead a charge to simplify these issues and bring them more in line with common sense.

[GeorgeInNePa]

So, here we are nearly 5 years later. New leadership has been elected.

Has the direction that SSD and Production gone in impressed or disappointed the USPSA membership?

I remembered this thread while reading the latest grumblings about Production magazine capacity. I think the previous leaders of USPSA have done a great job keeping things moving in a very positive direction. I think the Production rules are getting a bit hard to wade through, but... I'm ok with them now. In other words, the restrictions are pretty complicated. I understand the need but we're really getting wordy and lengthy to keep things on the right path.

Where will the new leadership steer these rules?

I wasn't around for the last leadership change, but since I've been in the sport shooting Production I have to say that the things that have bothered me the most have not been the existing rules, it has been the, frankly, bizarre rulings put forth from NROI. The paint in the magwell thing is a perfect example. Perhaps even more strange with that ruling was the language, "anything to help them reload or align sights quicker." Sight black is a temporary finish applied to aid in sighting the gun, and is obviously illegal based on that language, except that DNROI pointed to precedent to stipulate that sight black is, and has always been, legal. Which is it, the letter of the law or precedent? The rules about not using a barrel length any different from factory standard were also pretty clear, except that NROI changed their minds for CZ shooters. One can swap an Australian barrel into a regular old Shadow no problem, but I can't put a Glock 34 slide on a Glock 17 frame. One of those things clearly creates a competitive advantage, the other does not, and the one that does not is the one that is illegal.

Oh yeah, I asked DNROI about that CZ barrel issue and he said it wasn't legal. A matter of weeks later they changed the CZ Production gun list to include different barrel length options for the same model of guns (even though they don't come that way from the factory).

I'm hopeful that our new President - an experienced Production shooter - can lead a charge to simplify these issues and bring them more in line with common sense.

How would anyone know?

[Steve Anderson]

I've been thinking of taking up autocross.

I don't want to spend money on better tires and I really don't want to abuse my car by practicing much.

I expect that the autocross club better have a class for guys who don't want to mod their cars or practice, so I can feel good about myself.

They should all return their cars to stock so I can feel better about the choices I have made.

Wait, these guys are all faster than me even with stock cars.

They must be cheating, or all gifted drivers from birth! (or maybe trained by the stig )

I'm done with autocross.

.02,

SA

[beltjones]

So, here we are nearly 5 years later. New leadership has been elected.

Has the direction that SSD and Production gone in impressed or disappointed the USPSA membership?

I remembered this thread while reading the latest grumblings about Production magazine capacity. I think the previous leaders of USPSA have done a great job keeping things moving in a very positive direction. I think the Production rules are getting a bit hard to wade through, but... I'm ok with them now. In other words, the restrictions are pretty complicated. I understand the need but we're really getting wordy and lengthy to keep things on the right path.

Where will the new leadership steer these rules?

I wasn't around for the last leadership change, but since I've been in the sport shooting Production I have to say that the things that have bothered me the most have not been the existing rules, it has been the, frankly, bizarre rulings put forth from NROI. The paint in the magwell thing is a perfect example. Perhaps even more strange with that ruling was the language, "anything to help them reload or align sights quicker." Sight black is a temporary finish applied to aid in sighting the gun, and is obviously illegal based on that language, except that DNROI pointed to precedent to stipulate that sight black is, and has always been, legal. Which is it, the letter of the law or precedent? The rules about not using a barrel length any different from factory standard were also pretty clear, except that NROI changed their minds for CZ shooters. One can swap an Australian barrel into a regular old Shadow no problem, but I can't put a Glock 34 slide on a Glock 17 frame. One of those things clearly creates a competitive advantage, the other does not, and the one that does not is the one that is illegal.

Oh yeah, I asked DNROI about that CZ barrel issue and he said it wasn't legal. A matter of weeks later they changed the CZ Production gun list to include different barrel length options for the same model of guns (even though they don't come that way from the factory).

I'm hopeful that our new President - an experienced Production shooter - can lead a charge to simplify these issues and bring them more in line with common sense.

How would anyone know?

How would anyone know that I was cheating? I would know. I would also know that I have no integrity. My integrity is worth more than anything I've ever seen on a prize table. Others may have already traded their integrity for something, and thus don't have that problem.

[beltjones]

I've been thinking of taking up autocross.

I don't want to spend money on better tires and I really don't want to abuse my car by practicing much.

I expect that the autocross club better have a class for guys who don't want to mod their cars or practice, so I can feel good about myself.

They should all return their cars to stock so I can feel better about the choices I have made.

Wait, these guys are all faster than me even with stock cars.

They must be cheating, or all gifted drivers from birth! (or maybe trained by the stig )

I'm done with autocross.

.02,

SA

Yes. You're the only one who practices.

Anyone think I can return a couple of books for spite?

:rolleyes:

[Sin-ster]

I've been thinking of taking up autocross.

I don't want to spend money on better tires and I really don't want to abuse my car by practicing much.

I expect that the autocross club better have a class for guys who don't want to mod their cars or practice, so I can feel good about myself.

They should all return their cars to stock so I can feel better about the choices I have made.

Wait, these guys are all faster than me even with stock cars.

They must be cheating, or all gifted drivers from birth! (or maybe trained by the stig )

I'm done with autocross.

.02,

SA

I didn't misinterpret the tone of the post...

... and couldn't agree (or love it) more.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Sin-ster

[Mokken]

If something's not broken, you don't fix it. Hopefully the voices will be heard and these changes won't take affect.

[Skydiver]

Everyone keeps saying that "if it's not broken, don't fix it.". How many people realize that the BoD was trying to fix a problem about OEM vs aftermarket parts, but unfortunately the solution turned out to be completely separate from the original problem.

The original problem they were trying to solve so this: XD's can come from the factory with the Powder River trigger. This makes the part an OEM part if it leaves the factory that way. Now if you already have own an XD, can you legally drop in a Powder River trigger? The way the current Appendix D4 21.6 rule is written, the answer would be NO, because the part is aftermarket. I was not at the meeting and have not heard details of the meeting, but I can guess that the discussion went to how can you tell the difference between the OEM installed part and the aftermarket dropped in part? I can see how the question moved on to just defining a trigger pull weight minimum to side step the issue.

To me, it seems like a better solution may have been to ease off on D4 21.6 and allow aftermarket parts. Or would that opened a bigger can of worms?

[vluc]

Some aftermarket parts are quite difficult to tell from factory, yet add some value. Take down levers for Glock from other mfg's make it easier to remove the slide and are reported to aid in locking the gun up tighter (easier to grip, better ridges, but is not allowed). Supposedly the Vickers mag release is better than factory and again, not permitted. Unless you saw these parts in advance, a casual inspection of a Glock could not really tell the difference.

Do they give a competitive advantage, well, I've never been beaten by a magazine release button, but given the thought that a dot in your magwell is a competitive advantage, then I guess any of these would be. All would be considered external as you can see some part of them, and an aftermarket trigger would absolutely be visible!

Blame Springfield for muddying the waters. If they had simply bought the company, then you would have had to order the parts from them and they would not be considered aftermarket.

Edited December 26, 2011 by vluc

[z40acp]

Doesn't a gun have to be on an approved list to be used in Production? Would it not have been better to just not have approved the model with the part in question?

Edited December 26, 2011 by z40acp

[Skydiver]

Doesn't a gun have to be on an approved list to be used in Production? Would it not have been better to just not have approved the model with the part in question?

Unfortunately, the XD's were approved before the Powder River triggers came along. It just happened that Springfield later started shipping the guns with triggers in them as a factory option.

[z40acp]

Where the new XD's with the Powder River trigger the same model/ sku number?