Rule Changes

This was posted on the mailing list earlier today so I thought I would share it here.

http://competitions.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/rules/rul_conv_pistol_14.pdf

I know Dennis reads the posts here so here are my two questions regarding the Production Division:
1.  d) The front sight must be non-adjustable. So a front sight that can be drifted to the right or left is not permitted even if it came from the manufacturer that way?

2. g) Single Action Semi-Auto Pistols are prohibited.  Is this SA only pistols like a 1911 or does it include DA/SA pistols like a Beretta 92FS?

Generally, drift adjustable sights are fine. Click adjustable front sights are what is prohibited by rules of this type. 

Iron sighted 1911s would be in Metallic. Generally, production is for polymer pistols. In CMP games matches, Berettas, CZs, and Sigs wind up there too. CZ-75 SAs would likely be prohibited.

It's interesting to see these new classes.

I'm guessing that 92FS would be prohibited as SA.  It's time to Glock it up!

I think they will need to clarify if semi-auto .22s count as "single action" or any other semi-auto pistol that isn't "striker fired" like a glock, or DAO.

I like those classes.  I think I'll be shooting irons a lot more.  That will be fun.

This is so confusing, and very vague.  Anyone know who wrote this?  I could go directly to him/her and ask them to explain it.  


"The following items are prohibited: 

         a) Peep, ghost, optical or electronic sights. "

Does this mean red-dot sights are prohibited?



"The following firearm modifications are prohibited: 

a) Milling of slide, slide ports are allowed on only factory-original approved models. 
b) Custom-shop firearms. 
c) Changes in the original factory sight configuration of the firearm are prohibited, front adjustable 
sights. 
d) Peep, ghost, optical, electronic, Bo-Mar and Aristocrat type sights. 

Does this mean the Bo-Mar type rear sights on my SRO are illegal?






"f) Compensators ported or weighted barrels. 
g) Single Action Semi-Auto Pistols are prohibited"

Does this mean that 1911 pistols are prohibited?  What abourt adding weight to the underside of my 22/45 Lite to help balance it out?  No go as well? 

Rob Kovach wrote:It's time to Glock it up!

Should I start ordering the parts to convert my G23 into 9mm?   

Steve,

Those rules that you are worrying about are for new "sub-classes".  The "production" sub-class excludes single action semi-autos like 1911s, and likely many others.  That's where the glock comment came from.  This class is to try and attract the shooter that just bought his first pistol.  Some members here say that such guns can't shoot 50 yards, but I disagree.  This concept is designed to break down perceived barriers, and allows us to be more inclusive.

The exclusion of dot sights are for the "metallic division" sub class.  Your Springfield RO doesn't have "bo-mar" sights.  That means this:
http://www.1911timewarp.com/Pics/BoMarEFSa.jpg
 Your question about the barrel weight on your 22/45:  You can use them in any match, you just would not be eligible for prizes in the "production" sub-class.  You would be competing in the .22 match in your overall classification.

Does I make sense with any of that?

Okay, got it.  Thanks again!

I saw Bo-Mar and thought of these.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bo+mar+sights&espv=210&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Ztr1UprVG4W0ygHVvIHwCA&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=653

If the non full rib style rear sight was factory equipment on a Semi-Auto Non-single action pistol, I interpret that it would be allowed in the "production" sub class.

Either one is legal for the "metallic sights" sub-class, as are 1911s.

Not to be a pain here, but I hope we get a little more informaiton and background on this. The SR1 cards have not been modified for different divisions on the NRA website.  I, as a match director, would really hate having to be the one to decide if that barrel change moved your springfield XDM from Production to Metallic (note the questions already posted).  My current, and unsupported, scoring program does not support different classes at this time, which means I have to run it 3 times if needed and figure out how to make the awards if I decide to incorporate the divisions.  "...these Divisions can be used in any tournament for .22 caliber, Center Fire or .45 Caliber firearms."  It did not say "will" and I understand that. 

Of course, this is in addition to having to monitor if the competitor is shooting with one hand or two if the match is per the other new rules.  So do we now have 1 and 2 hand, Open, Metallic and Production?  (If it is an Open division only match, do the scores for shooters with Metallic or Production go into Open for them, or do they not get reported? If not reported, does the NRA get the match fee?)  

Can we think of any more ways to "give somebody the opportunity to win" or should we just quit keeping score and declare everybody a winner. 

Look, I'm not against getting more shooters, but the guys that run the matches already put in a full day for a 2700 plus doing all the stats, money, awards, NRA submissions and answering questions.  Adding more things for them to do may not be in the best interest of getting more matches. 

The game was set up so you could come and shoot with whatever you wanted, per the positions and rules anyway.  The guys that win with Open will generally win with Production and Metallic. Creating Divisions may just promote somthing else.  Why should some old guy have to shoot Open and not win with a score that would have won Production just because he can't see open sights anymore? Is he going to keep shooting Open and losing with a 295-15X or just get pissed about a 235-2x winning Production and go his own way? Remember Bianchi Cup (Action Pistol) went this route to "encourage more participation".  As a matter of fact these are almost a direct copy for the Action Pistol rules.   How many Action pistol matches are in your area?

I'm just saying two things.  First, Don't ride the match directors too much without their specific input. Second, don't be surprised if the result is not what you expect.

Cecil "Dazed and Confused"

I agree that a memo should be issued along with this change.  I also agree that these sub-classifications aren't the way to go.  How many damn classification cards to we need?  If you are a Master classification now with a red dot, are we all going to be eligible to shoot for the National Marksman class championships with irons at Perry this year--or do we have to shoot 360 shots in our new "classification" first.

If the match winner is shooting a production gun, would he win the match, production, metallic sights and open class awards?

That would make it easy to administer...

I held a match in 2015. Seven shooters came with different class pistols. They all won.      

Larry Lang wrote:I held a match in 2015. Seven shooters came with different class pistols. They all won.      

I would think that if there were not enough competitors in a particular equipment class they would be bumped up to the next class for awards but not records. At least that is how I would do it and it is how we do it now for SS, EX, etc.

Rob Kovach wrote:I'm guessing that 92FS would be prohibited as SA.  It's time to Glock it up!

I think they will need to clarify if semi-auto .22s count as "single action" or any other semi-auto pistol that isn't "striker fired" like a glock, or DAO.

I like those classes.  I think I'll be shooting irons a lot more.  That will be fun.

A Beretta 92FS is a traditional double-action pistol, meaning that the first round can be fired double-action and following rounds fired single-action. This is opposed to the double-action only pistol which has a double-action trigger pull for all rounds, from first to last.

The end of Conventional Pistol.
Time of death February 2014.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Dave C.

Dave C. wrote:The end of Conventional Pistol.
Time of death February 2014.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Dave C.

Meh. I'm generally pessimistic about changes from "above", but even I don't think this is that big of a deal. I agree with Cecil's points - this burden will fall on match directors. Some will adapt quickly to the new rules, some will wait and see what the demand is. I hope to be proven wrong, but I don't think that adding production and metallic classes will foment the "Great Bullseye Renaissance of 2014".

You still have to stand on your hind legs like a gentle(person) and shoot a pistol one-handed at 50 yards, for up to 7 hours straight. It's a great sport for introverts, and others of us who have an attention span longer than a Tweet.

Mostly harmless.

And 42 will be the total number of new shooters brought in by the changes.  Now the references are complete, wait, I forgot my towel.    :-D

CR10X wrote:And 42 will be the total number of new shooters brought in by the changes.  Now the references are complete, wait, I forgot my towel.    :-D

Shooting Production is unpleasantly like being drunk.

What's so unpleasant about being drunk?

Have you ever asked a glass of water?

john bickar wrote:

CR10X wrote:And 42 will be the total number of new shooters brought in by the changes.  Now the references are complete, wait, I forgot my towel.    :-D

Shooting Production is unpleasantly like being drunk.

What's so unpleasant about being drunk?

Have you ever asked a glass of water?

is this the new DA class?  

It's too bad NRA doesn't involve the unwashed rather than issuing a diktat!

Ron Habegger

john bickar wrote:

Dave C. wrote:The end of Conventional Pistol.
Time of death February 2014.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Dave C.

Meh. I'm generally pessimistic about changes from "above", but even I don't think this is that big of a deal. I agree with Cecil's points - this burden will fall on match directors. Some will adapt quickly to the new rules, some will wait and see what the demand is. I hope to be proven wrong, but I don't think that adding production and metallic classes will foment the "Great Bullseye Renaissance of 2014".

You still have to stand on your hind legs like a gentle(person) and shoot a pistol one-handed at 50 yards, for up to 7 hours straight. It's a great sport for introverts, and others of us who have an attention span longer than a Tweet.

Mostly harmless.

You do not have to shoot the pistol one handed anymore.  Two handed shooting is OK now.  


Dave C.

The 2 handed "probationary" matches and these new gun classes are all at the discretion of the match director.

I thought that we received word in November that my suggestions for the probationary matches were adopted, but they aren't on the list of changes.... 

"Shooting Production is unpleasantly like being drunk.

What's so unpleasant about being drunk?

Have you ever asked a glass of water?"

Thanks for that one!  Been a while since I read anything written like I sometimes think.  May have to dig out the books and read them again.  
Cecil

Dave C. wrote:
You do not have to shoot the pistol one handed anymore.  Two handed shooting is OK now.  


Dave C.

True enough, and that's great for those that want to do so. But (with apologies for being flippant) wake me up when someone breaks 2600 shooting two-handed.

The thing about this sport is that it's no secret that the grownups stand on their hind legs and shoot with one hand. That's the point.

I like the mechanisms to ease people into it. Bullseye at the highest levels is not something that Joe Bag O' Donuts can do. Those that want to succeed in this sport will shed the training wheels as they gain their competence, because they will want to.

 I want 2 hands and a barricade!

First, I'm not NRA bashing here. Just stating the facts and my opinions.  Second, I still need to rant a little, please bear with me.  I'll probably get over it (some) when the Pappy Van Winkle kicks in.  You can't drink all day unless you start early in the morning!

Been sleeping on this and I have a counter proposal for the NRA. The NRA does not realize that people do not shoot matches becasue they are NRA matches, the shoot matches because there is a place to shoot and there is a match (NRA or not). They also do not seem to  realize that the only way to get more NRA registered shooters is to actually make it easier for match directors to have NRA sanctioned matches. Its not how many people shoot, its how many matches are available with NRA sanctioning that generates the numbers the NRA needs.  How many people that proposed and approved these changes actually run matches?.  

Heck, we never even got the NRA to develop a scoring program we could use, and they still wanted the quill pen and their paper SR1s up until a few years ago.  Same with the match approvals, finally electronic just a couple of years now. Some of the new rules have worked out great.  I sent a new guy home for not having a piece of plastic in a otherwise safe gun. Yes, it was an oversight on his part, but the funny thing is he never came back.  

So, in the style of Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal", if all they want is more shooters then why don't the match directors simply remove the NRA approval and sanction?  That will automatically remove $4.50 from every competitors cost for Approved Matches!  Why we would generate thousands of new shooters from our new "lower rates"! (Heck, I understand that there are a number of "outlaw" matches and leagues and they seem to function just fine.) Of course the NRA will not get to count those shooters as competitors for the NRA programs, but who cares!  We'll have more shooters. 

No more worrys about getting someone's membership number correct, no more sending checks to NRA, no more getting calls if they don't get their money or match reports. The NRA could cut a substantial amount of staff as well with the reduction in paperwork.  And best of all, just like this rule change, we don't have to tell them before hand either.  (Hummm, you can start off with really good intentions and wind up with reducing cash flow and jobs.  Imagine that?)

By the way, we have a state match that has different divisions like Distinguished Pistol, Revolver and Production.  I'll bet youj won't believe this but apparently certain shooters will choose one over the other because another (equal or better) shooter would not be in that division.   

Now I'm not proposing this immediately, but someone needs to start talking to those that do first, rather than those that just talk first.  The NRA should really look at the comparison of the numbers of those that asked for this, versus the numbers that did not say anything because we were OK with what we had.  I thought we had representation that would try to look at things from the perspective of those that were most affected?   


Back to the real world.  

Dear NRA, please send me a new scoring program that works and uses the new Divisions.  I'll be able to score and send the checks in after that.  Otherwise I'm not meeting the needs of the competitors that want to compete in the new Divisions.

Cecil