USPSA RULE CHANGES VOTED

TY43215

TY43215

NES Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
5,250
Likes
329
Location
Other side of the bridge
Feedback: 38 / 0 / 0
Although not taking effect till 2013, the Production changes should be noted before you have work completed on new guns or when buying used. Also purchase of mag holders in Singlestack and Production

Handgun Rule Updates
Motion: Approve changes to Limited Division as presented effective January
1, 2013
Moved: Pres Seconded A4 Passed
Motion: Approve changes to Limited 10 as presented effective January 1,
2013
Moved: A1 Seconded A2 Passed

Motion: Production and Single Stack Appendix will have the following
added: Each magazine must be contained individually within the magazine
pouch. Magazines may not be retained through magnetic means. Effective
January 1, 2013
Moved: A4 Seconded A5 Passed

Motion: Minimum pull in Production will be 3 pounds for the first shot
effective January 1, 2013
Moved: Pres Seconded A2 Passed
Roll Call requested
YES - Pres, A2,
Click to expand...


Not looking to start any arguments, just an FYI
 
Last edited:
Scrivener will be happy with the limited division change [devil2]

I've got to go measure my M&P9L. I'm probably OK but I may have to change some springs.
 
Hmmm. I didn't think many folks in Production had triggers less than 3 pounds- that's damn light. I can't imagine anyone with the DA/SA guns like CZ, Sigs will have any issue since it's only the first trigger pull. The only issue I see is I bet most people don't know what their current trigger pull is (or have a good gauge that they know how to use) and I'd guess measuring it consistently at a match will be much more difficult than say chrono.
 
jar said:
+1. What was the problem this was to solve? Why did the membership not hear anything about it until it was passed?
Click to expand...

The problem was that production was intended to be a division for out of the box guns suitable for carry (see the quote from the BOD policy statement of March 7, 2009) and people pushed back to make it a "what can I get away with?" division. The choice was to keep it as a division suitable for actual carry guns, or allow it to evolve to a division where the "must have" gun is a custom gun suitable for competition use only.

The action was based on time; advance notice requirements; and a feeling that the "goal" of production was settled and we were just dealing with an implementation detail, not a change of the goal. Ditto for the pushback on "exotic" magazine holders. A weapon with a 2.5lb trigger is not a "typical carry-suitable" gun.

I was quite literally on the edge on this one, but I opted for consistency after reviewing the 2009 document.


From the March 7, 2009 BOD Production policy statement:

Summary:

The broad intent of the Production Division remains intact; to provide an equipment category where stock or nearly-stock guns can compete on a relatively level playing field. Due to unsupported member assumptions, a wide variety of internal and external modifications have been seen in competition. USPSA’s intent, with this ruling, is to re-level the playing field, respectful of both members existing investments in guns and current modifications, and the desire to have the Division remain viable for typical carry-suitable guns.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not too upset with this new rule if it goes thru.. as long as they can measure it consistently. I'm just really surprised at all the pissing and moaning about it over "there"... I do find it amusing how some of the top shooters say having a lighter trigger doesn't matter! LMAO, BS!

If that were the case I should shoot just as fast with my 625... yeah sure. Although it does have a mile long reset compared to the Glock... :)
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The problem was that production was intended to be a division for out of the box guns suitable for carry (see the quote from the BOD policy statement of March 7, 2009) and people pushed back to make it a "what can I get away with?" division. The choice was to keep it as a division suitable for actual carry guns, or allow it to evolve to a division where the "must have" gun is a custom gun suitable for competition use only.

The action was based on time; advance notice requirements; and a feeling that the "goal" of production was settled and we were just dealing with an implementation detail, not a change of the goal. Ditto for the pushback on "exotic" magazine holders. A weapon with a 2.5lb trigger is not a "typical carry-suitable" gun.

I was quite literally on the edge on this one, but I opted for consistency after reviewing the 2009 document.
Click to expand...

I meant problem in the sense of actual member complaints, or new shooters who don't show up because of it, or leave when they find out that others have light trigger jobs. I understand your point on intent, but trigger weight is one small issue. There are plenty more, when does it stop? G34 size guns aren't particularly suitable for carry, Dropped and Offset holsters have zero place for carry, heavy bullet/fast powder poof poof loads aren't suitable for carry, and on and on. That genie is out of the bottle. I think production is fine where it is. Factory guns with sights, triggers, and minor internal mods.

As far as keeping stock carry guns competitive, how come this would ban a $500 M&P with a $100 trigger kit, but not a $3000 custom CZ?

Based on the comments on Enos so far, actual production shooters seem 90% against this and 10% ambivalent. Haven't seen a single person actively happy about it yet. It seems this was dumped on the membership without any input beforehand. Also, lets pass the rule change now and figure out how to fairly enforce it later sounds just like the government excesses we all rail about.
 
jar said:
I meant problem in the sense of actual member complaints, or new shooters who don't show up because of it, or leave when they find out that others have light trigger jobs. I understand your point on intent, but trigger weight is one small issue. There are plenty more, when does it stop? G34 size guns aren't particularly suitable for carry, Dropped and Offset holsters have zero place for carry, heavy bullet/fast powder poof poof loads aren't suitable for carry, and on and on. That genie is out of the bottle. I think production is fine where it is. Factory guns with sights, triggers, and minor internal mods.

As far as keeping stock carry guns competitive, how come this would ban a $500 M&P with a $100 trigger kit, but not a $3000 custom CZ?

Based on the comments on Enos so far, actual production shooters seem 90% against this and 10% ambivalent. Haven't seen a single person actively happy about it yet. It seems this was dumped on the membership without any input beforehand. Also, lets pass the rule change now and figure out how to fairly enforce it later sounds just like the government excesses we all rail about.
Click to expand...

I agree,
Trigger weight is the least important change to make in keeping with the "carry" philosophy. Guns and holsters currently used aren't even in the same ballpark as carry. And lets face it here, USPSA has nothing to do with carry or self defense, it is a game, the Practical portion on USPSA is all but gone, using a arbitary trigger pull # will not save it.

Rule changes need to make USPSA better for the current members, sacrificing them for the small possibility that we we gain future members is wrong path
 
I'd imagine there will be some heated disputes at the trigger testing table at major matches. Technique and positioning of the gauge on a double action trigger does make a difference.
 
My only comment specific to this rules change is that I recently put in a replacement trigger kit that is "Production legal". The seller advertises a weight around 2 lbs 6 oz, so I guess if that turns out to be accurate I'll have to put back some of the old parts to bring the weight back over 3 lbs. Not a big problem for me, so I guess my reaction to the change is a bit of annoyance, but I'll deal with it and move on.

On a general note, any rules governing equipment standards for a competitive sport will inevitably result in competitors pushing right up to the limit of what those rules allow. The "spirit" or "intent" of the rules only matters to people who care about that sort of thing; everyone else will take every advantage (real or perceived) they can get. That's just the nature of competition. Any attempt to "shore up" the rules to eliminate those advantages will inevitably result in unintended consequences, usually to the detriment of the sport. This is especially true when the sport involves expensive, competitor supplied equipment, since people hate nothing so much as a rules change that costs them money.

The "spirit/intent" thing works well in small, local organizations where everyone knows everyone else and people can agree that even though the rules say doing "that" is technically legal, it's super-cheesy and you shouldn't do it. If someone does it, they get hassled by their peers and will either stop doing it or leave. Once the group grows beyond a certain point, that social pressure ceases to be a factor, and only the letter of the rules matters. Rules lawyers will analyze every nook and cranny looking for loopholes, and trying to close them all is simply impossible, and leads to the unintended consequences I mentioned before. It's better for the organization to accept that some competitors will push the rules to the breaking point, and as long as it doesn't ruin other people's fun, what's the harm?
 
Lugnut said:
I'm not too upset with this new rule if it goes thru.. as long as they can measure it consistently. I'm just really surprised at all the pissing and moaning about it over "there"... I do find it amusing how some of the top shooters say having a lighter trigger doesn't matter! LMAO, BS!
Click to expand...
And if it doesn't matter, then why are people pissing and moaning about it?
 
Last edited:
bill o said:
I'd imagine there will be some heated disputes at the trigger testing table at major matches. Technique and positioning of the gauge on a double action trigger does make a difference.
Click to expand...

Other shooting disciplines have managed to do this for decades.
 
Based on the comments on Enos so far, actual production shooters seem 90% against this and 10% ambivalent. Haven't seen a single person actively happy about it yet. It seems this was dumped on the membership without any input beforehand. Also, lets pass the rule change now and figure out how to fairly enforce it later sounds just like the government excesses we all rail about.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the issue is the underlying principles that were well established and published. We did not adopt any new guiding principles - in fact, they had been published for over 2 1/2 years prior to this meeting. I viewed the vote as an implementation of a policy that had been announced, published, and available for review for years.

The "spirit" or "intent" of the rules only matters to people who care about that sort of thing; everyone else will take every advantage (real or perceived) they can get.
Click to expand...

On March 7, 2009, the board clearly stated that our decisions would be guided by the intent of production, that we saw the "pushing of the limit" to be a problem, and it was our intent to handle rule decisions with this goal in mind. If you disagree with that decision, push to have the goal changed, rather than advocate for rules that are not consistent with said goal.

Some me "production guns suitable for regular carry" that are being sold for that purpose by major manufacturers with sub 3lb triggers and I will introduce a motion to reverse the decision. No, I'm not including guns that come with a caveat "not for duty use" or that use parts that the manufacturer won't sell to civilians for fear they will end up in a carry gun.

Also, lets pass the rule change now and figure out how to fairly enforce it later sounds just like the government excesses we all rail about.
Click to expand...

Enforcement was exactly one of the reasons behind this. It's is MUCH harder to examine a gun and conclusively determine that there have not been replacement of any internal parts with models that operate differently, have different geometry, etc. than to measure a trigger pull. One requires a weight on a hook; the other requires detail stripping, gunsmith level skills, and a detailed understanding of the "as shipped" configuration of every production gun.

Asserting that it will not be possible to come up with a way to measure trigger pull that is accurate, but still errs on the side of the shooter, is a distraction to the real issue.

---------------------------

"I do find it amusing how some of the top shooters say having a lighter trigger doesn't matter! LMAO, BS!"

Standard logic for any equipment limitation - "XYZ does not provide any advantage, but don't you dare ban the advantage I have purchased with XYZ".
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
Some me "production guns suitable for regular carry" that are being sold for that purpose by major manufacturers with sub 3lb triggers and I will introduce a motion to reverse the decision. No, I'm not including guns that come with a caveat "not for duty use" or that use parts that the manufacturer won't sell to civilians for fear they will end up in a carry gun.
Click to expand...

DOH holsters are not marketed as carry, neither are long slides XD, MP and glocks, So how do these fall within the carry goal of production, but sub 3lbs trigger don't?
 
DOH holsters are not marketed as carry, neither are long slides XD, MP and glocks, So how do these fall within the carry goal of production, but sub 3lbs trigger don't?
Click to expand...

My guess is that a manufacturer would tell you a long slide gun is suitable to carry as a defensive gun, but you won't find any manufacturer making such a claim about a 2.5 trigger pull gun.

If the principle is wrong, it needs to be re-visited and re-written, and then consistent decisions derived from a new version.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
My guess is that a manufacturer would tell you a long slide gun is suitable to carry as a defensive gun, but you won't find any manufacturer making such a claim about a 2.5 trigger pull gun.

If the principle is wrong, it needs to be re-visited and re-written, and then consistent decisions derived from a new version.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the principle, but I will accept that Production can be a carry division. But it needs to be "carry" across all equipment

Obtaining the greatest accuracy for target shooting was the main reason for the development of the GLOCK 34 which has an extended barrel, greater slide dimensions, and unmatched reliability. This highly accurate pistol has found widespread use as a competitive pistol for USPSA, IDPA, IPSC, GSSF and other sport shooting organizations.
Click to expand...

5.25" 9MM COMP SERIES
Click to expand...

Blade-Tech Industries :: Competition Series Products :: Black Ice DOH
Click to expand...
 
I don't agree with the principle, but I will accept that Production can be a carry division. But it needs to be "carry" across all equipment
Click to expand...

An interesting tidbit regarding the Glock 34 -

The MA target roster covers guns that are "designed and market solely for formal competition target shooting". I was contacted the Glock's chief legal counsel regarding the MA situation, and I explained the statutory testing requirement, the alternative "target list", and the fact that the AG's regs contain an exemption for formal target shooting guns (Including on the target list represents an EOPS finding that gun is indeed designed and marketed only for formal competition target shooting).

I was really hoping I could get Glock to submit an application to get the Glock 34 on the roster. After looking into it, Glock's counsel advised me that they had marketed that model for both competition and defensive use, and the company was not in a position to make a written statement that this model had been "Designed and marketed solely for formal competition shooting".

Oh yeah - the Glock 34 trigger is heavy enough to pass any reasonable 3# trigger pull test. It's claimed to be 3lb, but in reality, tends to measure a bit higher.

It is very easy to draw a crisp line regarding trigger pull - in fact, it's VERY easy to find MANY reputable trainers who will state that carrying a gun with a 2.5lb trigger on the street is not advisable. It's much harder to find a universal consensus as to exactly what level of slide length makes a gun uncarryable.

One thing that we did not get into was "marketing statements" by the manufacturer, but instead considered suitability for carry purposes. If someone produced a gun with a 1lb trigger and labeled in the "Urban Carry Special", that wouldn't make it a carry gun - any more than calling a dog's tail a leg gives you a 5 legged dog. The converse is also true - the label "comp" does not mean something is not carryable.

The "carry" makes no statement about "concealed", and a DOH holster could indeed be carried openly.

I don't agree with the principle, but I will accept that Production can be a carry division. But it needs to be "carry" across all equipment
Click to expand...

The disagreement is a very legitimate basis for a discussion of the issue. All the other points are contortions to fit a desired conclusion to the existing framework.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
Oh yeah - the Glock 34 trigger is heavy enough to pass any reasonable 3# trigger pull test. It's claimed to be 3lb, but in reality, tends to measure a bit higher.
Click to expand...

No way is the stock 34 trigger 3 lbs. 4.5 lbs is closer to it in reality.. highly from what I recall.
 
Lugnut said:
No way is the stock 34 trigger 3 lbs. 4.5 lbs is closer to it in reality.. highly from what I recall.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. The Glock 34 has been marked as "practical/tactical" and sold to LE agencies for some tactical teams, and is most definitely not a gun with a sub 3lb trigger and, as such, would not be excluded from production on that basis.
 
Last edited:
Lugnut said:
No way is the stock 34 trigger 3 lbs. 4.5 lbs is closer to it in reality.. highly from what I recall.
Click to expand...

It is very clearly printed on the sticker on my G34 case that my trigger is 4.5 lbs. There are 2 "triggers" for the G34. A 5.5lb and a 4.5 lbs - depending on which "variation" you have.
 
I guess I'm in the ambivalent column on the rule change, but not on the principle behind the Production division.

Although based around carry guns, Production division is not about 'carry' guns and equipment the way IDPA is. It's about providing an affordable entry-level opportunity to shoot and even be competitive. The equipment and time investment required to be even remotely competitive in any other division is orders of magnitude greater than it is in Production.

Lots and lots of folks start in Production and if they like the game they get more serious and start making a serious investment in time and money. Sometimes they change divisions and sometimes they don't. However if they stay in Production, their equipment requirements tend to be much more affordable. Sure some people throw a lot of money into their Production guns and gear, but in this division it doesn't make as much of a difference as it does anywhere else.

That said, I don't really see how this rule change accomplishes the goal.
 
Testing trigger weight consistently is easy to do. Use a NRA Trigger weight set. The weight for the test needs to be determined by NROI. If it holds the weight, it passes. If the hammer falls it does not. This has been done in Bullseye for a long time and is NOT Rocket science.

Do I agree or disagree with the rule change? Makes no difference to me as both my Production guns are SA/DA.

As to the number of Production guns with lighter than 3#, there are a lot of 2# guns out there which means there will be a lot of crying on this.

The GOOD thing about USPSA is MEMBERS can contact their area director and voice an opinion. The opinions of the Voting Members are usually taken into consideration and it is very possible for a reconsideration of this to be taken up prior to it being implemented.

That is one of the reasons I like USPSA [smile]



Edit to add, My dislike was the magnet rule. I really like mine for pick up stages [wink]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

USPSA - GA State - October 5 2024
Replies
0
Views
237
allen-1
allen-1
Hopkinton Heavy Hitters - September USPSA Match
Replies
0
Views
306
admcd
admcd
IDPA and USPSA parity
Replies
15
Views
766
eboos
eboos
USPSA training class any planned in central mass?
Replies
5
Views
592
Broc
Broc
IDPA 2022 Rule changes
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Back
Top Bottom