2007 March Bod Meeting In Dallas

[driver8M3]

After we get the Production trigger pull rule, what will be the next thing we change when the "crossover"shooters and new shooters don't materialize?

This question goes out to all of the people who say this rule is needed to combat the perception that a light trigger is what is needed to compete and this keeps the newbies from trying our sport.

since our poll and comments (currently a landslide against the proposed rule) didn't seem to have an effect on the BOD, perhaps someone should post a new poll over on idpa.com or something similar to find out what all these potential "crossover" shooters think.

[BritinUSA]

On the USPSA Forum just over 74% of those who voted expressed the view that we should not have a minimum trigger pull in Production. Although the number who vote is small compared to the overall membership, BOD should still respect this poll.

If others feel contrary to this then they should vote.

[ima45dv8]

I would like to see any USPSA BoD members, and any USPSA President who vote to implement the proposed 3 lb. minimum trigger pull rule for Production, commit to shooting that division *exclusively* for 1 year once the changes come into effect. If you folks truely believe in this, then live with your own decisions. To do otherwise, to radically change the game for others and not endure these changes yourselves is dishonest.

[bgary]

I'd like to see any member who has a less-than-3-pound trigger on their Production gun, show me how that made your gun "more reliable" than it was when it came from the factory, since "action work to enhance reliability" is the ONLY context in which "trigger work" is legal under the current rules.

Want to be honest? Great, lets be honest. Show me a *specific* place in section 21 of the existing Production Division rules where it actually says "modifying your gun to achieve a sub-3-pound trigger" is currently legal.

*WE* are not "radically changing the game". The Production division was created specifically to provide a place for "production" guns to play. The people who have...um... "creatively interpreted" the rules and imagined loopholes, then gone through them, and are now screaming because the loopholes are being tightened up... I think *those* are the people who are "radically changing the game". We're trying to *restore* the game to its original alignment.

Bruce

[JFD]

Thanks to the general lack of interest USPSA members show in the elections, my guess is this will be a bad year for our President. The folks wasting their time on the USPSA forum with posts and polls (that are being ignored) are most likely the folks who actually vote and influence other votes. The folks we see at matches who are unaware proposed rules even exist might not be a big voter base.

Gary Stevens has shown that he's willing to embrace the improved communication with members offered by the forums, blowing away Mr. Voigt in this regard. The fact that Gary doesn't seem to support "rules for the sake of rules" or "rules because we can and you can't" probably makes his posting experience a lot more pleasant than someone trying to kill L-10 or give us a 3 lb trigger pull that we clearly don't want.

Edited to hopefully comply with the rules.

Edited March 6, 2007 by JFD

[ihatepickles]

I'm angry that the BoD asked for input that they have no intention of using.

[ima45dv8]

Nice try, but I'm not buying that at any price. See item #6 in that same appendix:

"Minimum trigger pull?" "No."

John Amidon ruled in February 2006 that Charlie Vanek's drop-in trigger kit was outlawed (and only that kit) due to the fact that it had modifications which were visible externally. With that golden opportunity available, he again elected to NOT make a statement that if a trigger is lightened as a result of work performed it is not allowed in USPSA Production, or that a minimum trigger pull weight should be maintained. Based on that ruling, I and many others bought trigger kits from Ralph Sotelo, and later from Charlie, when his drop-in kit became available.

Trigger work has been performed since the day this division was implemented. To come back now tell us we have to send our Springfields back to the factory for costly mods (shipping alone is bad enough), and/or that we'll have to possibly purchase parts to change our Glocks back to >3 lb trigger pull (I didn't keep the original parts for mine) just to be in line with what some BoD members *thought* the division should have been way back when is simply wrong.

And yes, you are radically changing the game through the expense imposed on those who will have to un-do previously legal modifications, and through the impact at major matches where measurement of these new trigger pull requirements will adversely affect match staff.

I don't shoot Production as much as I do Limited, but I do play it, and with equipment that I paid for myself. How many of you folks shoot it?

Leave it alone.

[bgary]

Nice try, but I'm not buying that at any price.

Nice try, but you didn't answer my question.

Show me where, in section 21 of the existing rules (the section on "allowed modifications"), it says you can do trigger work for any reason other than to enhance reliability?

Bruce

Edited March 6, 2007 by bgary

[ima45dv8]

Nice try, but I'm not buying that at any price.

Nice try, but you didn't answer my question.

Show me where, in the existing rules, it says you can do trigger work for any reason other than to enhance reliability?

Bruce

Show me where these kits do not enhance reliability. The fact that they are easier to shoot than factory triggers is a positive change. Being an easier platform to fire accurately is an enhancement to reliably hitting the target.

So, what about line item 6 that very clearly says there is *not* a Minimum Trigger Pull weight required in USPSA Production division?

[bgary]

Show me where these kits do not enhance reliability.

Burden's not on me to prove that your gun is legal. Burden is on *you* to prove your gun is legal. Can you?

The fact that they are easier to shoot than factory triggers is a positive change. Being an easier platform to fire accurately is an enhancement to reliably hitting the target.

Oooh, cool! There's one of those "creative interpretations"! Show me where *that* is supported in the rules, and I'll eat my hat.

What you're missing, with all due respect, is that these are the *equipment* rules, and freestyle doesn't apply here. The rules - all of them - define what is and is not legal for equipment in a given division. Item 21 says [paraphrased] "here's a short list of the modifications that are allowed on Production Division guns. If it isn't on this list, it is not a legal modification"...

... and lightening the trigger pull is not on the list. Nor is changing out trigger parts. Nor is changing the shape of trigger parts. Nor is changing the geometry or pivot-points of trigger parts.

*MY* contention, since day one, has been... if you did that stuff to your gun? You have an illegal gun. Unless you can show me where, in the rules, on that list, it says it was OK to do it, I will continue to believe that.

So, what about line item 6 that very clearly says there is *not* a Minimum Trigger Pull weight required in USPSA Production division?

Exactly. So we're thinking of fixing that. Because the Vanek trigger, the XD, the GhostRocket striker and a whole lot of other things didn't exist in 2001 when we wrote those rules. So now we feel we need to fix them. As a way to ensure that Production Division has a fighting chance of actually involving "production guns", as opposed to highly tweaked-and-modified guns.

What we have right now is a hodge-podge mess - in part, because we didn't know what loopholes would come up, but... in part, too, because people *bent* (IMHO) the existing rules (as written) in ways that they *imagined* were legal ... and now where if people say "it's legal" loudly and repeatedly enough, they start to believe it.

I think that's bogus. More to the point, I think that is bad for the sport. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that, huh? Doesn't mean I'm not listening. I just don't agree with you.

Bruce

Edited March 6, 2007 by bgary

[ima45dv8]

Of course we can and will agree to disagree.

And for the record, I snatched that convoluted little piece of logic out of the dark place to demonstrate how badly this area was adressed the first time around. Bruce, I honestly do understand that you folks think you're on some nobel path here, with your quest to go back and change little seemingly insignificant things like Line Item 6 of App. US D9.

And sadly, I think you folks also do not get that this change is both signifcant and unwanted.

Consider this -- as was suggested elsewhere, create that Stock division that you wanted, and tighten up the restrictions to where they're so tight they squeak. But don't screw around with mature, popular divisions, especially if it's a Division that isn't even visited by those doing the voting.

[bgary]

how badly this area was adressed the first time around.

in hindsight, totally agree with you. in real-time? We had no idea what developments would come, we "thought" we had written a pretty "clamped down" set of rules from the outset.

Bruce, I honestly do understand that you folks think you're on some nobel path here

Dunno about "noble". I *do* think it is the right thing to do for the long-term good of the sport. I *firmly* believe that if we don't have at least one "box-stock" division... or, more to the point, if we allow Production division to devolve into an "anything is fair game" equipment race division... it will be a nail in our coffin. I know that's an unpopular view for the shooters of *today*.... but part of the job of the Board is to *also* make sure that the org is healthy enough to still be here "tomorrow".

And sadly, I think you folks also do not get that this change is both signifcant and unwanted

I get that it is unwanted. Really, I do. I *don't* agree it is significant, or at least not as significant as *you* feel it is.

I'll drag you off on a random rant, for a second:

I used to race sailboats (still would, except work and USPSA biz keep me way too busy to commit to a serious racing program). In that sport, the rules change *every* year. Why? Because people keep pushing the envelope, and build boats that have features or modifications that "arent quite technically illegal" according to the rules. And, for that year, they are probably "rule-beaters". But at the end of the year, the rules commitees review what happened, and generally the rules that come out the following year close those loopholes. There are some *very* unhappy owners each year... sometimes to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of modifications required to get their boat compliant with the new tightened-up rules. But... there's a universal truth to the process, and that is: only the owners that put themselves in that position are affected. The people that followed the letter of the rules, it doesn't cost them a *penny*, because they didn't push the envelope.

I [personally] think the situation is the same in our game. The people who "got" that the Production Division is about "production guns" aren't going to have to pay a penny to get their guns compliant with a 3-lb trigger... because they already are. The only people who are going to have a cost, are the people who "pushed the envelope", and did things that weren't specifically allowed in the rules... ymmv.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic. I'm just trying to be honest.

As an aside, I am perpetually amazed at how USPSA members can spend tons and tons of money on the latest gear, the gamiest mods, the best [whatever], and yet be so tight-with-a-penny when something "unwanted" affects them. Show me a shooter who is competitive in this game, and I'll show you a shooter who has spent thousands on guns-and-gear, thousands on components and reloading equipment, and thousands for travel to matches, etc. Yet they'll complain like the dickens if the match fee at a local club match goes up a dollar.

I feel like this is one of those situations. You have spent money to have your gun modified. I get that. In *my* opinion, you went out on a limb when you did that, because NOBODY in USPSA's Board or NROI said that was OK to do, but... ok, so it happened. You spent hard-earned money, I get that. But... in the global scheme of things, in context of all the money you have invested in this game to get and stay competitive, and knowing that everyone else is going to be on the exact same level playing field with regard to the rules.... is it really a "problem"? I know you don't want it, but.... can't you see, even just a little, that over the long term it is probably good for the game?

Consider this -- as was suggested elsewhere, create that Stock division that you wanted

Last thing in the *world* that I want is another division. I think we have too many now. But that's a whole different conversation

Bruce

Edited March 6, 2007 by bgary

[ima45dv8]

Again, we'll just have to disagree, because I don't see how having a 3 lb minimum trigger pull in this division is providing for the long-term good of this sport.

Face it. We are a fringe sport. We are not unlike those crazies who jump off the side of a mountain with a board strapped to their feet, hit half-way down and go for a full-speed thrill ride to the end of the course. That's not for every body, and neither is USPSA/IPSC. There will always be more shooters and gun owners who either don't get it, or can't get it, than those who do. I've learned to accept that as a situation we can't change without altering our sport so dramatically as to be unrecognizable to us. I wish it were different, but in today's world, where the funny commercials of small boy playing with his full-auto Tommy gun in the family living room would cause some lawmakers to start drafting new bills to outlaw such dangerous toys ("....if it saves only one child...."), society just isn't going to embrace what we do on a grand scale. Maybe if we had capitalized on the 9/11 tragedy and got ourselves in good with the folks at Homeland Security, things might be different.

I say all this to make the point that a 3 lb trigger pull is not what keeps people from shooting this sport. The folks who "get it" aren't blaming their first few match finishes on their trigger. And the ones who don't come back to play because they say they don't want to spend money on their trigger, they were a lost cause to start with. Changing the rules governing Production *now* to suit those potential members is a bad idea, and risks dislodging the loyalty of those hillside-jumping crazies who already are members.

As one of our BoD member's signature line says, "This sport isn't for everyone. Some times it's easier to make excuses than to load and make ready." (I apologize if that's not exact....I'm working from memory).

[j2fast]

The folks wasting their time on the USPSA forum with posts and polls (that are being ignored)

I'm angry that the BoD asked for input that they have no intention of using.

I've got to disagree, while I think the trigger pull limit is a bad idea and I actually preemptively sold my worked over XD for a box stock blaster because I saw this situation coming. I don't agree that the opinions of those on the USPSA forums are being ignored completely. If the comments were completely being ignored its likely more people would have been buying new holsters/pouches than may need to undo some trigger work. Again I don't like the trigger pull requirement but I think making sweeping statements that all comments from membership are being ignored is a bit of a stretch. All that said I definitely wish more of membership was involved and I don't feel like the organization as a whole did enough to make the members aware that they could comment (or that new rules are even coming).

[dfwmiket]

I just want to say this: I have no dog in this fight anymore, since I no longer shoot Production, but I want to tell Bruce I think he's a class act for not being afraid to be here on the forums and respond to questions and answers. THAT is what will help keep our sport growing, IMHO.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

-Mike

[ima45dv8]

I just want to say this: I have no dog in this fight anymore, since I no longer shoot Production, but I want to tell Bruce I think he's a class act for not being afraid to be here on the forums and respond to questions and answers. THAT is what will help keep our sport growing, IMHO.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

-Mike

I'll second that.

[Flexmoney]

I'd like to see any member who has a less-than-3-pound trigger on their Production gun, show me how that made your gun "more reliable" than it was when it came from the factory, since "action work to enhance reliability" is the ONLY context in which "trigger work" is legal under the current rules....Bruce

What the heck does 3lbs have to do with it ???

I'd like to see the shooter that has a 3.25 lb trigger pull on their gun to make it more reliable.

Don't you see...? It is just an arbitrary number.

I see new shooters come to the range to shoot Production all the time (Production is, by far, the largest division in Ohio). I also see the same type of shooter in the Steel Challenge matches I run and at the NRA AP matches...to name a few.

These shooters are struggling with stock triggers...which isn't fun. Why do the stock triggers suck so much? It's not beyond the factories to make them better. It's likely more of a function of lawyers and accountants.

- As a (somewhat accomplished) Production shooter...I see no need or desire for the 3lb rule. (For the record, mine is likely over 3lb)

- As a Section Coordinator...I don't see this helping our image, nor helping the new shooter.

- As a Major Match Director...I want no part in the extra logistics involved in measuring the triggers. In fact, I'd seriously have to consider downgrading the Level III match that I run. (that isn't meant as a threat...it's just something that I'd seriously have to weigh)

- Idpa shooters already can run better triggers on the SSP/Production guns.

- A 3lb limit doesn't make it less likely a trigger will get work done, it makes it as likely...or even more so. Shooters will be afraid that they might go under the 3 lb floor, so they will have to work, tweak, test. (For example, there is only one reason I own a chronograph. It's so I don't go below the power factor floor at USPSA matches.)

Want to be honest? Great, lets be honest. Show me a *specific* place in section 21 of the existing Production Division rules where it actually says "modifying your gun to achieve a sub-3-pound trigger" is currently legal. ...Bruce

Bruce,

I just don't see where you can hang your hat on that. We've lived with the wording of those rules for multiple years now...never ever has it been interpreted that members/customers couldn't do (internal) trigger jobs. Not ever.

We're trying to *restore* the game to its original alignment.

Bruce

No, thank you.

We are good. WE don't need *restored*...to something we never had.

There is no foul here.

[Chuck D]

"I'm angry that the BoD asked for input that they have no intention of using."

"WE don't need *restored*...to something we never had."

"Burden's not on me to prove that your gun is legal. Burden is on *you* to prove your gun is legal. Can you?"

Sure fire way to assure people spend their money elsewhere...and they will...

[Flexmoney]

To be fair, we've had some good dialog with a few members of the BOD.

And, some have taken our wishes to heart.

[moverfive]

I feel like this is one of those situations. You have spent money to have your gun modified. I get that. In *my* opinion, you went out on a limb when you did that, because NOBODY in USPSA's Board or NROI said that was OK to do, but... ok, so it happened. You spent hard-earned money, I get that. But... in the global scheme of things, in context of all the money you have invested in this game to get and stay competitive, and knowing that everyone else is going to be on the exact same level playing field with regard to the rules.... is it really a "problem"? I know you don't want it, but.... can't you see, even just a little, that over the long term it is probably good for the game?

Bruce

And I guess this is where I don't understand your points. When I modified my trigger, I didn't go out on a limb or try to push the envelope. I simply had my trigger modified so that it was more 'user friendly' for competition. I didn't draw up blue prints to redesign how it works, I didn't contract with NASA to develop new materials......I just had Canyon Creek make the trigger to where it is easier to pull (thus making the gun more accurate) and no longer requires me to pull the trigger over a half mile to make the gun go bang and that same half mile back in order to reset itself. THAT modification is what the current Production rules allow and was it's intention. So where does a pound limitation come into play?

What about the double-action guns that have a 1 1/2 trigger pull after the first shot? My XD is way above that pull on every shot? Are you only concerned with the first shot? And does that fit in with your definition of the original intention of Production? If my XD has to have a 3lb pull on every shot - shouldn't double action guns have the same limitation on every shot?

My point and my overall question for these rule changes is - in your opinion, what exactly is broken? While the current format of Production may not be exactly as you had hoped, WHAT IS BROKEN? As others have shown, Production is the leading division in some areas. I know in a couple of major matches, Production was the second most populated division behind Limited - beating out Open. Production doesn't sound broken to me.

So what do you see is broken that requires a 3lb trigger pull in order to fix?

Edited March 6, 2007 by moverfive

[Chriss Grube]

Well to counter Bruce's arguments the rules in this sport tell us what we can't do. Everything else is freestyle and wide open. The problem is the first set of rules and then the rulings from John A. totally screwed the whole thing up with some poor decisions. Now they are going to try to and close the gate after the horse already left. Why not look at what the real problems in the rules and fix those and not piss everyone off by trying to address something that hasn't been a issue? We seemed to have been just fine for the last few years....nobody was hurt at any matches, people shoot and seemed happy, people bought gear and then all of the sudden the BOD decides we need a whole bunch of new rules? First it was to get closer to IPSC now???? I don't think the BOD even has a clue of where the hell these rules are going. Why not leave well enough alone and go shoot.

[GeorgeInNePa]

-snip-

I [personally] think the situation is the same in our game. The people who "got" that the Production Division is about "production guns" aren't going to have to pay a penny to get their guns compliant with a 3-lb trigger... because they already are. The only people who are going to have a cost, are the people who "pushed the envelope", and did things that weren't specifically allowed in the rules... ymmv.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic. I'm just trying to be honest.

-snip-

Bruce

How many of these people that "get it" are the people that support our sports sponsors and vendors? How many shoot more than a few club matches per year? How many shoot the bigger matches?

Also, when exactly did the BOD become concerned about these "unauthorized" trigger jobs? This is the first we are hearing about it, at least I haven't heard anything in the last 4 years that I can remember.

If we weren't supposed to do trigger jobs to our Production guns, why wasn't that addressed when the Vanek issue blew up?

Edited March 7, 2007 by GeorgeInNePa

[DaG]

Nice try, but I'm not buying that at any price.

Nice try, but you didn't answer my question.

Show me where, in section 21 of the existing rules (the section on "allowed modifications"), it says you can do trigger work for any reason other than to enhance reliability?

Bruce

I can reliably sqeeze a 2lb trigger and shoot alphas better than than I can un-reliably squeeze a 6.5 lb trigger and shoot alpha,charlie

Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood....

DaG

[Gary Stevens]

To answer George's question. I shot 3 Nationals last year, one in Production and one in L-10 and one in Single Stack. I shot 9 Area/State/Sectional matches in Single Stack and about 20 local matches in Open and Limited. Sorry Revolver guys, I'll try to do better and get in at least one with the 6 shooter

I repeat again, I am against the 3 lb. trigger rule.

Gary

Edited March 7, 2007 by Gary Stevens

[txaggie]

I guess I'll be playing this year in Limited shooting minor. Hard to believe that my Glock will be perfectly legal in IDPA SSP, but won't be legal in Production.

Oh well, bring on the fun