New Uspsa Production Start Rule?

[Bucky]

I was reading the USPSA Board Meeting minutes and noticed that they decided to do away with "First Shot Must be fired double action", but are leaving "single action pistols not allowed". While I have no problem with the user cocking the hammer on the draw, I think this leaves a big hole when it comes to traditional DA guns that have the ability to start cocked and locked. These include the current HK USP guns, the Taurus "Beretta Clones" and the traditional CZ style pistols. I think an additional phrase, "Gun must start in double action mode" is needed to close this loophole. Your thoughts?

[Skywalker]

Bucky,

you probably missed this tread and Stevens's post.

[Bucky]

I've seen the post, but I want to make sure it is covered in the rules. The board may be "intending" on this, but if they do only what is stated in the meeting notice, they will leave the hole open. Then we'll have another one of those..."it's not in the rule book, but it is a rule" situation.

[Bucky]

Vlad,

Copying from your post in the other thread:

Single action pistol = a pistol which can only shoot single action aka SAO

1911, 2011, BHP, Desert Eagle, etc

Double action pistol= a selective fire pistol, single action and double action, DA/SA

CZ, Beretta, USP, SIG, etc (some can do C&L, some can't)

Double action only = .. well I guess that one is simple. DAO

Glock, many versions of otherwise DA/SA guns, etc

Your on the right track here:

If you look at 8.1.5 of the Final draft of the Proposed USPSA rules, it describes three types of self loading pistols:

8.1.5.1 - "Single Action....:

8.1.5.2 "Double Action..."

8.1.5.3 "Selective Action" means that the handgun can be operated in either "Single Action" or "Double Action" modes.

Now back track to 8.1.2 and it describes the legal start positions of each:

8.1.2.1 - "Single Action - chamber loaded, hammer cocked, and the safety engaged

8.1.2.2 "Double Action" - Chamber loaded, hammer fully down or de-cocked

8.1.2.3 "Selective Action" chamber loaded with hammer fully down OR chamber loaded, hammer cocked with external safety engaged.

Now, what I saw on the USPSA board meeting minutes, was they were going to eliminate the "First shot must be double action", and in it's place put "Single-action pistols not allowed." The loophole that I see is - your CZ is allowed since it is a "Selective Action" based on 8.1.5.3, and it IS legal for you to start "Cocked and Locked" via 8.1.5.3 - I don't see anything prohibiting this. I am sure this is NOT the intention of the USPSA board. I suggested to our area director to replace "first shot must be double action" to "Gun must start, where by the first shot would be double action". This would allow thumb cocking at the start... which is there intention, while disallowing "selective action" pistols from starting cocked and locked.

Not sure if you subscribe to the IPSC list, but I've gotten some good responses there and I think they'll be taking this under advisement.

[Vlad]

Thank you, Bucky.

No I am not subscribed to that list. Could you throw me a pointer to it, and/or its archives.

Personally I would love to start my CZ C&L in production, that being the only reason I currently shoot L10. However, I completly understand if people have a problem with that, as it would put some really popular guns at a disadvantage (like your Beretta, or SIGs, etc). On the other hand, the SA pull of my CZ is about as heavy as some Glock triggers I have seen.

Either way, I think if the rules are left as they are described in the minutes, then C&L is legal. If that is not the intention then I think that the rules must be written down to say so. I really don't think this is something to be left to the ROs

Vlad

PS: thank you for starting this thread in the right spot.

[Bucky]

Vlad,

I hope Rob Boudrie is listening. I think that the IPSC list is archived on Yahoo groups somewhere. Can anyone point us there.

To join the list, go to USPSA's Web Page and look under Miscellaneous items of interest for the Unofficial IPSC list.

Also, I feel the other thread was closed prematurely, but perhaps the discussion belongs here where it is directly in line of the title.

To Gary, I think you are missing the point of our intentions. We understand with AND agree that the intentions of the board are to have the gun start double action. We just feel the current proposal leaves a loophole that WILL be exploited and then we'll have to have a post rule book rule which I think is always problematic. While many of us aren't (or don't want to be) DRLs, you have to think like one to avoid loopholes such at these.

Again, we are just trying to help. My appreciation goes out to all the Area Directors for taking time out of their personal lives to make this a great sport.

[Vince Pinto]

Bucky,

The IPSC Digest archives can be found here. This link will take you to the latest message, but you can work your way back from there.

This is the place where I keep tabs on rogue elements in IPSC, such as The Geek. I know where he lives and I have black helicopters standing by, awaiting my orders

[ErikW]

Bucky and Vlad, what changes can you make by re-hashing this issue in a new thread?

The change will allow slide-racking or thumb-cocking to SA after the start signal. That's it.

We do not yet have the specific rule wording because it's not a rule yet. The Board has merely outlined the intended rule change, delegating the specific implementation to the rules commitee.

The BOD stated its will. It is up to the executive staff to implement the changes. How does posting here affect the implementation? To my knowledge, there are but a few Board members participating here in these forums, and none of the executive staff.

If you think the USPSA executives responsible for the rules are too incompetent to implement the changes without leaving a loophole allowing single action starts, then your vision might be better served by contacting them directly. If that is not possible, contact your Area Director and the other BOD members.

I just don't see how continuing to discuss it here can affect change.

Edited December 8, 2003 by Erik Warren

[Bucky]

Erik,

I did not start this thread to continue on something that you closed. I started this thread after reading the minutes from the board reading. This was before I saw that a conversation had started (which only turned to this issue, very shortly before my post). Note the topic of said thread focused on "Getting a gun list". My thread was started two pages of threads prior to you closing the other thread.

Also, I don't understand what the problem is trying to point out an issue, that someone else is failing to see. The members discussing the issue don't seem to have a problem with it.

Also I take great offense that you accuse me of thinking the board members incompetent. Note the following stated previously to your accusation.

Again, we are just trying to help. My appreciation goes out to all the Area Directors for taking time out of their personal lives to make this a great sport.

And finally, don't be surprised it you do not see a change in the wording on account of DISCUSSING this over sight.

Gary: Please realize I have the utmost respect for you and that Erik's accusations are COMPLETELY FALSE.

[ErikW]

Well now.

First things first: In my previous post I implied Bucky started this thread to re-hash a closed topic. He didn't; in fact, he started it before the topic was closed. I apologized to him in a PM and edited my post.

There's no problem pointing out an issue that someone might see. My problem is repeating that action ad nauseum, and not to the principals who are best-equipped to handle the issue.

Bucky: Also I take great offense that you accuse me of thinking the board members incompetent.

Erik: If you think the USPSA executives responsible for the rules are too incompetent to implement the changes

I thought I was very clear and consistent in distinguishing between the Board and the executives charged with carrying out the Board's wishes. It is apparent to me that the Board members are not the ones you think are incompetent.

If there is some extra action taken, it won't be because of any discussions in these forums, it will be due to the discussion with the USPSA executives implementing the rule changes.

[Nik Habicht]

I admit it took me a while to figure out where Vlad, Bucky et al. were going with their concerns about someone range lawyering the change in first shot must be DA to First shot doesn't have to be DA in Production Division. I think there were others who took a while figuring out what theiir point is. I do however think that these exchanges are beneficial --- partly because some members of the board do read/participate in these threads, and partly because the discussion helps both sides understand where the other one is coming from. Once both sides have a clear understanding of the issues from the other sides point of view, it becomes much easier to formulate an argument to affect change. In other words, if Bucky or Vlad wanted to lobby the entire Board of Directors, the Officers, and the Executive Staff, they'd be in a much better position to write a clear, concise and succinct letter to persuade those parties that a particular rule needs rewording. The conversation stayed civil --- and anyone who lost interest/got tired had the option of dropping out of the thread along the way..... which is what I'm gonna do now....

[Bucky]

Nik,

Thanks, I couldn't have said it better!

Erik,

Yes I read the PM after my post. And I'm sorry I missed that you mentioned the Executive members. Still, consider the actions I am discussing are due to a board meeting notice. It appears (and I don't know the bylass, so I say appears) that the board has some influence in what the rule book will be.

Also, I feel it is good to discuss in case anyone sees something I've missed that solves the problem. I'll be the first to admit I just breezed through both the final draft of the rules and the board minutes, so I was hoping to see a ... yeah but rule x.y.z covers this.

And as Nik said, the point wasn't getting across clearly at first to all. So the back and forth hashing shall cease, but I'd like to see the thread remain open for any new points or developments... of course that's up to you.

Thanks for the PM.

~bucky~