jkmccoy

At the risk of reviving an old (and possibly dead) thread... Like Brian, I discovered at the 2013 Task Force Dagger match that if I intend to compete in 3-gun I need to be in better physical condition. Old fat guys (like me) can still do pretty well on short hose-em stages. We don't do as well when the stage requires you to sprint 75 yards (after engaging shotgun targets from within an SUV) and then run up 3 flights of stairs and engage rifle targets out to 400 yards. I looked at the cross fit programs and frankly I'm not capable. At my age there isn't enough recovery time to get any benefit. I have started a fitness program that involves interval training and I'm happy with the results so far. I expect to be much better prepared for the 2014 TFD3G. Fitness can be an important part of 3-gun competition, but you have to find a fitness program that works for you. Some of us are already fit, some of us aren't. For those of us approaching Senior category, be sure to talk to your physician about an exercise program. As motivation to stick with your fitness program I highly recommend taking your 15 year old son with you when you go out for a run/walk. It converts a workout to a competition and markedly increases the intensity. I know that 55 is the usual minimum age for "Senior" category. I think that we should consider "high mileage 54." Cheers, Kelly

It's great to see another major 3-gun match in the SE. I'll be there!

Tyler, Nice post and thanks for reminding us of the importance of professionalism in a mostly volunteer sport. I don't have an answer to your basic question of how to implement training for 3-gun RO's, but you've provided a lot of guidance in your comments. I'm getting back into 3-gun competition after a long hiatus and bringing my son (Will, almost 15) with me. We're going to RO/shoot the TFD3G in a couple of weeks. I've been telling Will about the importance of being consistent, courteous, and professional. Now, I'm going to make him read this thread to see that other people say the same things. It's too bad that you had a poor experience with last year's match. So far communication with Andy and Mike has been great and they seem to be treating the RO's well. I know that when I was organizing big matches I tried very hard to be good to the RO's. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Well it has already happened. Youth and speed rarely beat experience and guile, but in the Sept. 3-gun match I had a couple of really bad stages and my son beat me. We shot the match again (just three stages) and he couldn't keep it up, but it won't be long before I really have to work to stay ahead. Cheers, Kelly McCoy SW GA

Jesse, Thanks for adding us to the 3 Gun Nation List. Mike, Please feel free to add our match (or matches) to the CSRA list. We've been shooting 3-gun on the 4th Saturday and combat pistol (we're outlaw all the way around) on the 3rd Saturday. Unless there's a lot of interest from shooters from other clubs we probably won't change that. We have to work with the other shooting sports using the ranges (cowboy, silhouette, bench rest) and their matches are also scheduled to avoid conflict with other clubs. Everyone, We'd really like to see some new shooters.

Fellow multi-gun shooters, For the past year I've been shooting at Camp Sumter Sport Shooting Associationin Andersonville, GA. We've been shooting a small multi-gun match each month and we'd like to encourage more shooters to participate. We will be hosting a multi-gun match on Saturday, 22 September. This will be a small club match, but the stages will be fun. We shoot these matches using slightly modified IMGA rules (mostly simplified equipment division) On Saturday we will shoot three stages, two shotgun/pistol stages and one pistol/carbine stage. Probably about 24 rounds shotgun, 45 rounds pistol, and 24 rounds rifle. Round counts are very approximate because there will be many targets where the shooter will decide which firearm to use. The weather looks good and if anyone wants to we'll go ahead and shoot the whole thing again. If you haven't shot a match at Camp Sumter, the first one is free. I'd really like to see this match grow and I hope we can draw some shooters from surrounding areas. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Kelly McCoy Americus, GA

Hello everyone, I'm not a new shooter or new to this forum, but I've been away for several years. I was pretty active for a while when I was shooting with the San Angelo Gun Club and keeping score for a lot of matches in west Texas. I walked away in 2006 when it quit being fun. Since then I've moved to southwest Georgia and gotten back into shooting. My son is now 14 and is shooting with me. Introducing him to the sport has been a lot of fun and plenty of reason to start shooting again. The local club is pretty small, but we shoot a combat pistol match and a multi-gun match every month. We've also been shooting a .22 steel challenge match. I'm looking forward to participating in this forum again and learning from the members. Cheers, Kelly McCoy SW Georgia

Results are posted: http://sanangelogunclub.org/action_pistol/...TS3Gresults.htm Kelly McCoy SAGC

I wish that I had spent more time shooting and less time working at matches, keeping score, designing and setting up stages, discussing rules changes, writing sponsors, etc., etc. If I had devoted all of those hours to practice I honestly believe that I'd be a better shooter (not great, but I'd be better). I also believe I'd be a lot happier right now. I was wrong. I thought that I could help support a sport that I really loved. I could see that most of the work was done by just a very few people and I thought I could help. Nothing changed. I just became one of the very few. In the time that I've been involved working USPSA matches, complaints have outnumbered thanks by at least 10 to 1 (a very few shooters always make a point of thanking the match staff and I have great respect for them). The vast majority of those complaints have been completely unfounded (shooters who can't add up their points but are sure that their scores are entered wrong, shooters who don't know what a "D" is worth but are sure their scores are entered wrong, shooters who signed their scorecards but "really only shot two no-shoots, not three like the scoresheet shows," shooters who don't refer to any rule but don't like the results, etc.). The answer is pretty clear to me...This is just a hobby. I don't have to do this. I don't get anything out of it but enjoyment. If I'd enjoy shooting more than scorekeeping then I ought to be shooting. If USPSA shooting disappears because there aren't any volunteers to do the work, I have other hobbies I'll enjoy. Ciao, Kelly McCoy West Texas

The 2006 Texas State 3-Gun Championship is over. I'll try to get some results posted this week (I'm not real motivated to do so right now). There was vehement controversy/complaint regarding the manner in which the aggregate results were calculated. All results were calculated based on my best understanding of current USPSA rules and using the currently approved scoring program. The complaint was not based on reference to rule. Aggregate results for the 2005 TS3G were calculated in the same way (using EZWS). Although it describes some of the processes I have used to score 3-gun matches to appropriately reflect power factor according to USPSA rules, the "San Angelo Scoring Method" described in the current provisional Multi-Gun rules is NOT how I have scored previous Texas State 3-Gun matches and I do not agree with the way such results will be calculated. My real response to the complaint is in the "What I Hate" section. It doesn't belong here. Ciao, Kelly McCoy San Angelo, TX

I absolutely agree. I've owned an SDB for about five years now and I'm sure I've long exceeded the expected number of loaded rounds for this machine (I'm probably at well over 150,000 rounds now). I can easily exceed 500 rounds per hour (including initial start up and filling primer tubes). It's given me very little trouble and produces remarkably consistent and accurate ammunition. I just wish it was tall enough to load .223. Cheers, Kelly McCoy West Texas

AShooter, We aren't offended (at least I'm not). I am disappointed because I was looking forward to a fun little 3-gun match near home. It won't be any fun if all the guns/equipment I own are disallowed. I am an IPSC shooter. However, I have been allowed to use my gear in non-IPSC matches. I don't mind being put in a different category/class because I have a dot-sighted, magazine-fed shotgun (with a 22" barrel, Alex didn't include me in his post for some reason) and pistol magazines that stick out of the bottom of the grip (I don't even own a magazine that fits flush!). I agree with Alex. Come play with us this weekend (many of us will be shooting very "practical" gear as a tune-up for an upcoming Production match). See if it isn't fun to play along with people shooting serious race guns and gear. You've said that the point is to have fun and I agree entirely. Many of us have fun shooting heavily modified guns and using gear that is designed for competition. Cheers, Kelly McCoy San Angelo, TX p.s. My IPSC holster is a CR-Speed holster which doesn't cover any part of the front of the gun but because it has very positive retention is standard police issue in several African countries (it's made in South Africa). I'd say that makes it pretty practical. p.p.s. The pistol in my nightstand is an IPSC pistol (now retired from active competition, but it fired a lot of matches). It would be a very bad idea to test the theory that IPSC guns are not "practical" by breaking into my house in the middle of the night.

If you are really going to run this thing let us know. I'm sure there are five or six of us that will come down from San Angelo. Count me in for sure and hold some slots for the rest of us! Cheers, Kelly McCoy San Angelo, TX

I can't believe how many people actually caught me in the process of posting the scores. All the results are now posted and should work. Cheers, Kelly McCoy SAGC

I can't believe it. I thought I had the only 3-Gun M12 in the world (might have had for a while). Of course, mine was an Open shotgun with 10-round magazine, compensator, and red dot sight. Might still be the only Open M12 in the world. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Go Bruce, Tilt those windmills. Kelly McCoy

Bruce et al., OK, I haven't been suggesting specific wording of rule changes (partly because this started as a scoring thread, partly because I was trying to address philosophical questions regarding scoring system instead of specific rule changes, partly because I was too lazy to retype a bunch of stuff I typed in a thread last year and that was resoundingly ignored at the time). Following (from last year's thread) are suggestions to change the rules regarding stage design that really must be changed: "D(v) - currently mandates (in essence) that the designated weapon for a stage is determined by which weapon accounts for more the majority of the stage points. This severely restricts the design of stages where a shooter is allowed to choose which weapon is used to engage which targets (some of the most fun 3-gun stages). My suggested revised version: D(v) For scoring purposes each stage will be designated as either a "rifle" "pistol" or "shotgun" stage and that designation will be clearly published in the stage description and the match booklet. It is suggested that the designated firearm for each stage be based on the firearm likely be used to account for the majority of points for most shooters D(vi) - currently mandates that all shots will be scored with the power factor of the designated firearm. Although this is the reality of how the hits are entered into EZWinScore it is NOT a useful rule. My suggested revised version: D(vi) Each shot fired in a multi-gun stage will be scored according to the declared power factor of the firearm used to fire that shot. D(viii) - Suggested revision: When it is not possible to properly score "B" "C" and "D" hits to reflect the declared power factor of the firearm used (as required by D(vi)) stage designers must use only "A-zone only" targets for the non-designated firearm - followed by the list of allowable targets and the suggestions as currently in the provisional rules. I suggest that these revisions will still allow most clubs to conduct good 3-Gun matches within the current capabilities of WinEZScore, but will not restrict the stage designs at scores where we are already working around the inadequacies of the software." I think it would be a GREAT idea to ask for suggested changes to the multi-gun rules. The proper venue for that would probably be the USPSA website, although it could be publicized here. Is there any plan to do so? If we spend a lot of time working on suggested changes will there be any action on those suggestions? Are revisions to the multi-gun rules on the BOD agenda? Cheers, Kelly McCoy

14,500 No challengers?

15,800 I'm not good at video games. Is no-one else interested in this one?

OK, 13,300 Would have done better with a big-stick, but I usually shoot Limited.

Thanks Benny! You are absolutely right! "They don't get it." They (all of "THEM") really need to come to San Angelo for the Texas State 3-Gun match. They would get to shoot a really fun match, see some innovative stage designs and target arrays. They would find real multi-gun stages where the shooter has to decide which gun to use on which targets. I think they would see a pretty darned good 3-gun match. I don't want to brag too much and I don't think we've really done anything all that extraordinary. We're a bunch of guys who love to shoot and we work hard at designing a match that we think would be fun. We all like the USPSA scoring system (although we've shot matches with time-plus scoring) and we like the USPSA safety and equipment rules so we build a match that we would like to shoot within those rules. We design stages with a bunch of us sitting around my dining table saying "...if we put a swinger in there... I think we should make this a low port...what if we added a couple of steel at long range..." until we have stages that we would find interesting and fun (and among the SAGC design team we have shot a LOT of stages). THEN we worry about rules. The only thing we are doing differently is that we're willing to kluge around the scoring program to shoot the stages we want to shoot. We think that that's a really important concept. Decide what the stages/competition should be and then figure out how to score it appropriately. There have been suggestions for changes to the scoring system. There are other threads on this board that suggest changes. There are polls on this board asking about changes to the scoring system. I want to say NO! NO! NO! Why do you want to change the sytem? Give me a good, solid, reasoned, logical argument for a change to the system and I'll listen. If it works I'll agree with you and petition the BOD for that change (not that I have any power with them, but I'll add my voice). But all I see is "I think it should be..." or "the scoring should be..." or "it's easier to score if...". Don't give me any more of that cr*p. The USPSA scoring system is a system that WORKS. It does reward DVC (I'll admit that the reward for power is a little too large for pistol and a little too small for rifle, but it's the most fair system I've ever seen). The problems can be worked out. The BOD showed last year that they are willing/able to step up and hammer out a solution (they hammered out the wrong solution but they did hammer one out). Unfortunately the provisional rules that were passed prohibit clubs from actually solving the problems. I would like to make a humble suggestion... The number of posts on this thread tells me that there are a bunch of active 3-gun shooters who find this an important issue. We have argued the issue thoroughly in this venue. What we need is action from the BOD. Let's all begin an email campaign to petition the BOD to amend the provisional rules. Send emails to your area director. Send emails to Mr. Voigt. The BOD has demonstrated that they will respond to serious situations. Let's make them aware that this is a serious situation. If we (USPSA) lose this upcoming 3-Gun season it will be a tremendous loss. I'll be happy to help coordinate efforts and to help explain possible solutions to the current rules problems. Bruce is absolutely right. Let's begin some constructive efforts to correct the problems instead of hanging out on this forum and whining about it (myself included in the "whining"). Respectfully, Kelly McCoy

ErikW, Scott P. et al., I don't think the scoring system is the problem. Your hypothetical stage and your (unusual) choice of weapons really don't pose any problem. How about this...a 60 round stage, 20 paper including some swingers and beartraps, 15 steel, and 5 static clay pigeons. Rifle, pistol, or shotgun (birdshot doesn't count on paper) - your choice. Start with any one, end with any one, ground weapons safely when you transition. I'll run you and 99 other shooters through that stage and 9 other stages in a two-day match. 30 minutes after the last shot scores will be posted - and everyone will get the correct score with the correct power factor for every shot fired in the whole match. One hour later we'll have final results and hand out the trophies. An FAL and a 9mm pistol? Come on give me a real challenge...Use an 8mm Egyptian Hakim for a rifle and a 9mm minor pistol...Even better - enter open division with a .357 carbine (minor) and a .38 Super pistol (major). I'll still get your scores correct. There are two problems: 1 - I haven't really solved anything in EZWinScore. I've just figured out how to trick it into giving the correct score. The problem is that not everyone is willing to fiddle around and make it work. You can't just "fill in the blanks" and get the correct score. 2 - The "provisional" rules restrict course design so that the course I describe above isn't legal. The restriction was put in place BECAUSE not everyone is willing to work around the WinEZScore problems. I really think we need to solve both problems. The provisional rules could be fixed with a few changes to wording (I suggested some last year), but there doesn't seem to be any pressure to do so. I think EZWinScore could be fixed (or rewritten) to give us a really functional software platform. It needs to be a higher priority than it appears to be now. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

EricW, AMEN!!! We have reached the astoundingly silly point of writing stupid rules that limit stage design so that stages can be easily scored with an outdated software program!?!? It isn't that hard. Maybe the BOD could authorize me to spend $500 to find a Computer Science senior to rewrite the program over the weekend. Send the money and the source code and I'll have it done. I'll have them fix a bunch of silly glitches in the program too... Try entering a negative time and see what the hit factor is. Change a stage design from IPSC targets to Classic targets after there are scores entered (yes, it will let you do that) and the "B" hits don't go away. You can't see them anymore (since there is no "B" zone on the Classic target), but if you enter the appropriate number of other hits you get "too many hits". I've done enough programming to understand know that these shouldn't happen and can be fixed. Kelly McCoy

Thanks for the kind comments, but my scoring work-arounds aren't really a solution. They are a functional temporary stop-gap until we get a scoring program that works. There are people in various thread advocating doing away with PF, and/or instituting time-plus scoring for all the wrong reasons. We should change scoring ONLY if it does a better job of representing differences in the relative skill of the shooters. The USPSA scoring system (IMHO) does the very best job possible of representing and recognizing differences in relative skill of shooters. It achieves a good balance of speed and accuracy and appropriately recognizes weapons that are more difficult to shoot quickly (i.e. major PF). Yes, the scoring software currently available can make it a royal PITA to score some multi-gun stages. You can use my work-arounds or you can limit stage design (e.g. all steel targets for one gun as in the provisional rules), but you CAN score multi-gun stages with the USPSA system. DON'T throw out the system just because it is slightly more difficult to implement. Work to make it easier to implement. If you think USPSA scoring is not appropriate because it doesn't recognize differences in the skill of shooters or it is in some manner unfair then explain your argument and I'll consider it. If you don't like it because it's "too hard" then you're just whining. Look at it from the other side. Do you want to use a scoring system that doesn't really reward Power, Speed, and Accuracy but is REALLY easy to score? How about "fire a minimum of one shot in the general direction of each target, fastest time wins"? It would be really easy to score/record, but it DOES NOT work. I would also hope that USPSA 3-gunners (and interested non-USPSA members, they are welcome in San Angelo) would work to try to fix the problems with the USPSA system. It's a good system (I think it's the best), but there are problems in application. Right now the problems are: 1 - WinEZScore doesn't support multi-gun stages. I don't have the expertise or the time to modify the program myself. I do have the expertise to make the (fairly educated) guess that it can be done. We need to have it done soon. 2 - The "provisional" rules. I've said before (and will likely say again) kudos to the BOD for their efforts to solve a bunch of obvious problems and try to establish rules that allow real 3-gun matches. OTOH, shame on the BOD for adopting a set of silly and clumsily worded rules that prohibit clubs from solving those problems in ways that actually work. Not that I'm bragging, but SAGC had already solved the problems of accurately scoring multi-gun stages and safely grounding weapons in multi-gun stages and our solutions are prohibited under the "provisional" rules. If these rules really were to test solutions to difficulties with 3-gun matches wouldn't it have made sense to allow clubs the lattitude to seek other solutions. And Bruce, I did check the archives. You were there for many of the discussions before the provisional rules were adopted and you were there for discussions after adoption when we pointed out the flaws. It has been a year, but I don't recall seeing a draft of the "provisional" rules before adoption (so I couldn't provide specific input), but I was there commenting as soon as they were public. The "provisional" rules suck! Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Gentlemen (and Gentle Ladies), Let us not get too far afield. I firmly believe in and support the USPSA rules AND the scoring system. I do NOT want to abandon DVC in favor of a "time-plus" scoring system just because it is easier. We have system that (in principle at least) appropriately awards qualities that our sport should test (power, speed, and accuracy). Let us not leave these principles behind in our quest to achieve a workable scoring system. Instead let us work out what will be necessary to score multi-gun stages according to these prinicples. Bruce, Glad you could join us. I'm almost embarrassed by the "San Angelo Scoring" title for the thread. We haven't done anything except to figure out how to appropriately score multi-gun stages using the currently available software and rules (except the provisional rules). Our system is just as much a Kluge-fest as the current 3-gun rules (just a bit more elegant in application). All we have done at San Angelo is try to hold a really fun and challenging 3-gun match according to USPSA rules. I hope the comments from the shooters will show that we have been fairly successful in that endeavor. I understand that updates to EZWinScore lag behind rule changes that require changes to the scoring program. I'm perfectly willing to work around the EZWinScore problems (for a while). I understand that the "provisional" 3-gun rules were an emergency solution to allow a proper 3-Gun Nationals. I actually applaud the BOD for moving to enact the provisional rules and I agree that it is a tremendous testament to the flexibility of this sport. The problem (and my main complaint) is in the wording of the adopted provisional rules. Those provisional rules, in trying to avoid the scoring problems because we don't have a proper scoring program, prohibited the approach we have used in San Angelo to kluge around the defects in the scoring program. I understand that not everyone is willing to use my work-arounds to score multi-gun stages. We needed rules that would allow those clubs to run multi-gun stages. But we didn't need rules that restricted stage design just because not everyone could figure out how to score those stages correctly. Several of us suggested wording changes that would have allowed "San Angelo Scoring" while still providing a method of running multi-gun stages at clubs where the scorekeeper couldn't/wouldn't use similar work arounds. Those comments were universally ignored. As regards grounding a "hot" weapon...Absolutely YES. If it can be done safely then it must be allowed. We (SAGC) suggested several possible solutions. We employed several of those solutions in the past two Texas State 3-Gun matches. I absolutely guarantee that no-one's safety was in any way compromised by grounding a "hot" weapon at those matches. The building of bunkers needs to be optional, but it needn't be a major financial burden on clubs. It is possible to ground a hot weapon and allow the shooter to move laterally (and not move downrange of the weapon) without causing a safety issue. We used the cardboard tubes made to be forms for pouring concrete pillars to build completely safe bunkers for less than $5 per bunker. Finally (Yes, really finally. I know I'm a bit long-winded at times), the main complaint from SAGC and the shooters that enjoyed our matches is that we had actually solved many of the problems that the BOD was trying to address with the provisional rules but we were ignored when it came time to provide input on those rules. When the provisional rules came out they forbade many of our solutions. Although the BOD was absolutely correct that provisional rules were necessary, the rules that were approved were wrong (on many levels). Many of the problems with those rules could have been corrected with minor wording changes (many of which were suggested by SAGC members). And Bruce...I think you were involved in some of the threads discussing the provisional rules on this forum. I'll spend some time in the archives and if I'm correct you are in for serious castication. Kurt...We'll be looking for you. Hopefully there will be someone to give you some competition. The match is the third weekend of May. The entry form is on the SAGC website (www.sanangelogunclub.org). Cheers, Kelly McCoy