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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Rank
    Back From the Dead
  • Birthday 02/06/1976

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Parker, CO
  • Real Name
    Charlie Perez

Recent Profile Visitors

4,628 profile views
  1. Changes To The USPSA Classfication System

    The other thing I want to point out is that screwing up the HHF's in a way that makes it too easy to make a higher classification automatically dilutes the classification achievement others have made in the established divisions. For example, a B class pistol shooter can cherry pick the easy 100% classifiers in PCC. Then generate a GM classification in PCC. This bumps their Limited classification to Master automatically. This situation dilutes the value of the pistol classifications.
  2. Changes To The USPSA Classfication System

    Thomas H> I totally understand where you are coming from. And I am sure that a big reason why a complete rework of the classification system hasn't happened simply because it works fairly accurately for the established divisions. My primary beef is the total lack of effort or forethought put into it for New Divisons or Classifiers. Deploying a new division requires a proactive effort to get the 100% HHF's accurate. What we have seen today with both Carry Optics and PCC is a complete joke. Classifier fees are a HUGE revenue generator for USPSA. Why they wouldn't want that revenue stream running as accurate and solid as it possibly could is beyond my comprehension. USPSA isn't run by volunteers. There are paid employees on staff to make sure this stuff is done right. If I was tasked with that effort at my day job and made a monkey show of it like USPSA has I would be fired. Businesses can't neglect revenue streams like that and expect to be successful. USPSA always has the "Grow the Sport" marching orders for its membership and sanctioned clubs. It's a little strange for them to make that type of mandate when the business it's self isn't even looking after their fundamental products designed to service the membership. I say, get your house in order then worry about others jumping through hoops to grow the sport.
  3. Advantages Limited vs Production?

    I usually advise new shooters to start off in a high capacity magazine division. First, its easier to break down stages and shoot difficult arrays of targets with more ammo in the magazine. Second, its easier to learn how to move efficiently and aggressively into and out of shooting positions when you are not dealing with a reload. I see a LOT of low capacity division shooters who never really learn how to haul ass with their movement because they are too focused on dealing with a reload just about every time they move from one position to the next. Unfortunately, turtle slow movement from one position to the next is still slow regardless of getting an even slower reload done before arriving at the destination. Eliminate the reload and learn how to haul ass without needing to do a reload. Then add the reload into the mix and see if it reduces your movement time.
  4. When are the stages going to be posted on the match website?
  5. Best Paper Targets

    Keep in mind the below USPSA rule. If you want super heavy perforation lines the target still needs to adhere to the below rule. On another note, most of the Colorado Front Range clubs use the cardboard targets from American Target and they have solid perforations that make it easy to score. I have seen cardboard targets from other vendors where the perforations are super faint and it makes scoring them very difficult even if you are only a few inches from the target looking for it. The American Target cardboard USPSA targets are NOT like that. 4.2.2 - Paper targets must have scoring lines and non-scoring borders clearly marked on the face of the target, however, scoring lines and non-scoring borders should not be visible beyond a distance of 33 feet. The scoring zones reward power in USPSA matches.
  6. As a competitor, I really don't care about awards at Majors. I am not a trophy collector and never have been. I would much rather a match have great stages and it run smoothly verses a crappy match with special awards. I also welcome lower entry fee's or at least an entry fee that reflects the match product you are buying. Over the years I have seen way too many major matches with excessively high entry fee's that come no were close to justifying the match product they are providing. There are way too many major matches with $175 - $225 entry fee's. If I am paying close to $200 for a match I am expecting a superior match product. There should be match meals included, match shirts included, awesome stages, solid prize table, appropriate awards issued, and a well organized and run event. Unfortunately that seems to be the exception these days. If a major match has close to a $200 entry fee and the above items are not included, then one of two things are happening. First, some greedy SOB is getting PAID a crap ton of money to run the match. Second, the match staff is wasting a crap ton of money on things that are really not needed. My 150 - 170 shooter Level 2 match has a $100 entry fee. That minimal entry fee can Feed Everyone, Give match shirts to everyone, Has well above average awards recognition, Provide significant $$$ prizes, Produce great stages, Run like a well oiled machine AND still produce a profit for the hosting USPSA club. If I can do that with a $100 entry fee and 150 - 170 shooters then people hosting $200 entry fee and 300 - 400 shooter matches have ZERO excuse in being able to do it as well.
  7. I wanted to add some facts to the discussion. I have run a Leve 2 match for the past 6 years which usually pulled in 150 - 170 in attendance. I would use the normal "Cheap" wooden plaques and not so cheap acrylic glass looking trophies for the HOA in the divisions that had solid attendance. I would do Overall per division, usually for the top 5, Division Classification, and Category awards. All of these in varying 1 - 3 as needed based on the participation. The expense for these "Cheap" trophies averaged about $900 each year, which is a significant expense. My match had an awarding depth well beyond most of the other major matches I have attended, but I would still have competitors whining about not getting an award. People don't understand that there needs to be a certain level of participation to justify an award. For example, if there are three Seniors in a division I would only give a High Senior award. But the second place Senior would belly ache about not getting an award. I guess this is a long post to say that no matter how awards are distributed, there will always be people that bitch about it. As an MD all you can do is cater to the masses and not let the whiners ruin your efforts.
  8. Changes To The USPSA Classfication System

    I understand that there was an "Effort" made by USPSA to acquire data for setting the High Hit Factors. But it is suspect when that "Effort" produces invalid data compared to normal classifier results in club matches. The fact of the matter is that classifiers will always be shot to max effort in club matches verses majors. If our high hit factors are based on the "max effort" club match results then that is where the data mining should be coming from. This further enforces my comment that USPSA isn't putting much thought or effort into this stuff before they deploy it for prime time.
  9. Changes To The USPSA Classfication System

    The classification system is a primary performance improvement motivator for a lot of USPSA members regardless of what level matches they attend. I think this is a good thing as it gives shooters something to strive for and is a fairly accurate performance measurement to rate ones fundamental shooting and gun handling skills. The Classification system isn't new as its just as old as USPSA its self. Its also a significant revenue generator for USPSA from clubs setting up classifier stages all across the nation at least 3 - 4 times a week as clubs host Weekend and Weekday matches. What baffles me about the Classification system is how USPSA seems to put very little effort into actually validating that existing High Hit Factors are accurate. Its even more perplexing how High Hit Factors are initially set when new classifiers are released or new divisions are deployed. I know for a fact that many of the 09 and 13 based classifiers had significantly lower than expected High Hit Factors when they were initially released. Then the High Hit Factors were updated later to reflect reality. But to me, this is the lazy mans method of defining the High Hit Factor numbers. USPSA could just at easily go into data collection mode for 3 - 6 months on new classifiers or divisions in order to set some kind of baseline performance level to set the new High Hit factor accurately. Once they have enough data points to make an accurate judgement of what the High Hit Factor should be THEN they should deploy the classifier as a valid one that counts against competitors classification record. Vetting new classifiers or new divisions on existing classifiers can be done effectively in many different ways. But I am yet to see USPSA leverage any method consistently. What I have seen is the new High Hit Factors get picked for some unknown reason and then it allows for invalid classification results to be recorded on members results until the high hit factor is adjusted to reality. To me, that is the biggest injustice of this whole process. USPSA claims to provide a product that accurately rates your performance, but any time a new classifier or division is deployed they simply "Wing It" and allow inaccurate classifications to happen. The most recent case in point would be PCC. Many of the PCC high hit factors are based on the Open division high hit factor which for a lot of stand and blast classifiers with no reloads is a joke to compare one to the other. We have well established "Lifer" B and A class Pistol shooters who can magically generate a GM classification in PCC because the high hit factors are jacked up. This level of product inconsistency can only happen when the people behind the scenes (USPSA Brass) are asleep at the wheel. I also don't understand how USPSA can award classifications on divisions that are still in a "Provisional" status and the gun/gear rules are still in flux. (The same could be said for having National Championships for provisional divisions) At a minimum I would expect that all classifier results for "Provisional" Divisions would be suspended until the division exits provisional status and becomes a normal division. If they did that it would give them enough classifier data during the provisional period to at lest come up with a fairly accurate High Hit Factor once the division exits the "Provisional" status. Would shooters have to wait longer until they became classified in these new divisions? Absolutely. But once the classification system was turned on for the new division at least the high hit factor would be valid and based on existing results.
  10. CHA-LEE's Tale

    No local club matches for me this past weekend. I instead went over to Grand Junction to do some live fire practice with Bob Krogh at his local range. We setup a large field course stage with a bunch of steel and partial targets and shot it a bunch of different ways. This stage was very biased towards aiming hard to get solid hits on all of the targets. We also mandated that all of the steel in the stage must be engaged through ports in the walls which made it even more difficult. I was shooting “OK” on Saturday but I wasn’t able to pull together a whole stage run that was totally solid. On Sunday I was shooting better but this stage was still kicking my butt in one manner or another. This was kind of expected as I was testing some different things in pushing the boundaries of shooting these difficult targets either faster or sooner while not fully settled in the shooting positions. One thing that was unique challenge at this range is the surface of the berm itself. The ground of the berm was covered in loose crushed rock which makes it difficult to accelerate hard without losing traction. It’s kind of like trying to run on hard packed snow. If you move around smoothly with no aggression, it’s not a problem. But if you try to haul ass by accelerating or braking hard you will slip around on the loose rocks. The loose rock would also get piled up in the shooting positions easily creating uneven footing conditions while standing in the shooting position. This made it even more difficult to execute these difficult shots through the ports or keep from shuffling round within the positions because you felt unbalanced. To me, the range surface was less than ideal for practicing how to move aggressively, but it was good practice for dealing with that kind of range surface. There was a very fine line between hauling ass effectively and losing traction and slipping all over the place. Over the weekend I shot about 800 rounds which was a solid amount of shooting given the stages we were practicing on. For most of Saturday I used my #1 Limited blaster then I switched over to the #3 Limited blaster. Both blasters were running well but I preferred the #3 this weekend because the rear notch is a little narrower at .090 versus the .100 wide notch on the #1 blaster. The narrower rear notch made executing the difficult shots a little easier so that is why I stuck with the #3 blaster most of the time. Overall it was a great weekend of Live fire practice. I am glad that I was able to make it over the mountains and do some practice with Bob. He is always fun to shoot with and we do a good job of pushing one another to perform our best or try different stuff. I am looking forward to shooting some majors against him in the next month or so. Now I need to get back behind the reloading press and get my ammo stocked back up so I can hit the ground running in September and not worry about reloading ammo. September is going to be super busy with major matches and other travel that I am doing so the more I can get squared away before then the better.
  11. Try partially closing your non-dominant eye so you can still see out of it peripherally but can't focus on anything with it. This worked out great for me verses fully closing the non-dominant eye, using tape, or whatever else. When people have very close dominance between both eyes it makes shooting with both eyes fully open very difficult due to the double target/sight issues as your eyes fight for dominance. That and I also want to point out that there are several top shooters that fully close their non-dominant eye while shooting and still manage to whip some serious ass. So I don't really think that not being able to shoot with both eyes fully open is a serious road block to producing maximum performance.
  12. Then I challenge you to shoot faster using the same process to see if you have enough visual feedback to call the non A-zone hits.
  13. It sounds like you are on the correct path. The only warning I can make is that if you are getting random B/C/D/M hits on the close targets that are a "surprise" when you see the hits or lack there of, it may be time to reassess not using a sight picture on the close targets.
  14. The ultimate goal is to practice different sight pictures to the point of subconscious execution. The key is to burn in a "Sight Picture" for any given target that gives your brain enough information to accurately call the shot as well as produce a reliable on target hit. Can you burn in using only your "Fist in the middle of the target" as a subconscious sight picture? Absolutely. But it will eventually bite you in the ass due to random crappy hits because that sight picture isn't refined enough for your brain to call shots "Bad" or "Marginal". You opened this thread with the title of "Do you get a sight picture on the second shot of close targets?". There have been many answers to this question so far in this thread. Take all of that information along with your own testing on the range and come to your own conclusion. My simple answer to your initial question is "YES". How I came to that conclusion really doesn't matter as that is simply my opinion.
  15. The Donating Time aspect comes from NOT using the sights then DECIDING to USE the sights on different targets within the same array. If you are not using your sights to blast at an open target then DECIDE to look at the sights for a partial in the same array that will waste time because making conscious decisions takes additional time. If you want to subconsciously blast at open targets without looking at the sights then you will have inconsistent hit quality verses looking at your sights. As I said many posts ago, not observing the sights while blasting at targets will donate either Time or Points. Our brains strive to resolve the scenario and confirm a valid hit. That can be done by looking for holes on the target (huge time waster), listening for the "Ding" from the steel (Huge time waster) or calling the shots by observing the sights (Most efficient method). In the end, you guys can obviously do whatever you want. I was simply trying to keep you guys from making the same mistake that I did in thinking that "NOT seeing my sights" was the correct rout to go. That mistake derailed my performance improvement 2 years and I wasted at least 50,000 rounds by trying to justify not using my sights to call my shots. If you want to waste time and ammo figuring out the same lesson the hard way have at it.