Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

mr50mag

Classified
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mr50mag

  • Birthday 08/23/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Georgia
  • Real Name
    Robert Romero

Recent Profile Visitors

543 profile views

mr50mag's Achievements

Looks for Range

Looks for Range (1/11)

  1. The no basepad rule was to keep it easy for ROs to visually inspect without asking competitors to unload the magazine. I hate the idea of asking ROs to audit shooters on the line that's why the 9 shot start limit cannot be checked at the line anymore. The rule is 30rd factory length and there is no capacity as long as it's original length. At best it could be a +1 round advantage depending on the magazine make. The concession was for couplers that replaced the floor plates. Since those are easily discernible we allowed them. A plugged shotgun and downloading pistol mags was another concession to allow for a simple division crossover but the line was drawn at rifle mags because there would be no way to really keep track after the start. I hope this sheds some light on the rationale and logic behind it.
  2. When it's 100% your fault you have to man up and eat it. I basically waited till I was on deck to gather my stuff out of the rain. I recently shot a pistol match and took all the retention out and just neglected putting it back. A small oversight cost me the match. Lessons learned.
  3. 1) I was the idiot who didn't tension my holster and I'm the only person on record to have one come out in a major. Figures. 2) The LAG version is a 100% knock off of the 2nd Gen Pistol Coffin before is was called that. The version that was made by Ready Tac for the NST was the version copied and why the newer one made by VEIL Solutions looks different. It's not known or spoken but I felt it necessary to to clear the misconception.
  4. You're welcome Kurt. I hope it cleared up some of the misconceptions about the targets and their origins. I appreciate the civility in your response as well, it's refreshing. It definitely was a compromise with the target but we tried to do the best with what we had.
  5. Don't give up too soon. Dan only said 3GN rules. Targets and scoring will most likely be what you're used to. It would probably be better served if they didn't use 3GN rules as well. No one in the AMU has shot any matches in the Regional series and their familiarity with the rules will probably lead to a lot of confusion and complaints in the officiating which will just turn into blame towards 3GN which has no stake in the match. As to the targets. When Birchwood Casey came on as a sponsor the biggest shoot and see target they would contribute was the 18x18" base sized target. We collectively chose the most recognizable target to put on that base. Since the scoring was 1 in the center and 2 anywhere a bullseye target was a easy choice. Obviously the cardboard lower cost club target would mirror it. I say obviously but the correlation was lost on the fringe. 3GN is a brand now and paying royalties to use another competing organizations target is counter productive and a pretty weak suggestion for anyone to toss out there. That's like saying there was already a target with a head on it out there so I wonder why IDPA didn't just adopt it? Sounds lame when put in comparison. Considering the target is almost half the size I would venture to guess that all the complaints about the emphasis on accuracy or lack there of in 3 gun have never shot at this target. Try it before you knock it. It's not that easy.
  6. To be fair I've been doing this for awhile and only in the last 2 years has my opinion drastically shifted. I for the longest time agreed with your and the other's views but I've seen and been at the receiving end of BS a few too many times to continue shooting those style matches. Hey at least there is a plethora of matches to attend and if you don't like the treatment there is somewhere else to play.
  7. You're right about being stuck. I'm stuck on the notion that all stages aren't the same, all target difficulties aren't the same and assigning stage points based on it's got some LR so it's this and it's a short one so I think it should be this is flawed. I know it's not USPSA but at least you can show the math of why an 8rd stage is worth 40pts and an 32rd stage is 160. Yeah I know it's one gun but how would it work out if the same scoring was for USPSA? I believe if the value of a stage is based purely off nothing other than an opinion it's just subjective and I don't believe subjectivity has a place in a sport with winners and losers. Maybe we should just have judges and then JT would win them all. Next topic.
  8. I've never seen a stage where only one guy smokes a stage by 100 seconds and got to phone it in the next 3. I get the rhetoric but it's a stretch. The hardest portion on any given match is LR targets. I think most can aggree. There is where the problem of one stage determining the match winner lies. I think also at the top level your competition doesn't allow you to make huge errors and still finish well and sometimes you can't climb out of that hole when you STB.
  9. Eh? Are you saying that experienced match directors can't look at a stage and guess how long it would take? Look at the results, they got it right, it isn't subjective that a stage that has you running up and down the hills will take longer that a stand and shoot. Again why those numbers? Why not 175/225/300 why not 1/2/3. How are the values derived? How does the difficulty of long range targets compare to short range clays? What's so hard about counting the targets and coming up with a stage value based on real tangible numbers? Why are the penalties in time if we're talking about points? Why is a FTE 15secs rather than 15pts?
  10. If all stages are in fact not created equally then why do most MDs assign a 100pt value to them? Excluding FNH and BR3G of course.
  11. We agree to disagree and that's fine. I have had similar experiences from the other side of the spectrum all year and the most memorable was a match where somehow 8 seconds on a 17sec stage is equal to 30 seconds on a 70sec (28pts). I couldn't then and still can't wrap my head around a stage that small had such a disproportionate value with little difficulty compared to a huge stage with tons of difficulty and roughly 30 more targets meant so little. To me matches are a marathon and consistency is king. Great conversation though.
  12. Their penalties were still in time and the stage points were assigned subjectively on the perceived length not based on math that could be explained. In the right direction but not quite there.
  13. Their penalties were still in time and the stage points were assigned subjectively on the perceived length not based on math that could be explained. In the right direction but not quite there.
×
×
  • Create New...