jkmccoy

Sorry I've been missing this discussion. To be real honest I don't follow the forum like I used to (got tired of the S.O.S.). Loved talking to you all, just have trouble wading through the blah...blah...blah... Every stage should be freestyle (IPSC/USPSA rules). Multi-gun stages should allow shooters to choose which weapon is used to engage each target (McCoy's opinion, supported by the reaction of shooters to SAGC stages). That means you must be able to score a stage no matter what weapon a shooter uses to engage each target. There is the potential for using weapons with different power factors. Owing to the limitations of the current USPSA scoring program (WinEZScore) each stage must be designated as being shot with a particular weapon (either rifle, pistol, or shotgun). Every hit entered for that stage will receive the score appropriate for the designated weapon (e.g. if it is entered in WinEZScore as a "pistol" stage every hit will get the score appropriate to the pistol power factor). If there are paper targets that could (note "could") be engaged with different weapons the match staff and the scorekeeper will need to make certain that the score is recorded and entered appropriately. What we have done is to print scoresheets that have separate columns for each weapon. The RO calls out not only the hits, but also the weapon (e.g. "pistol target, two alpha"). The hits are recorded in the column for pistol hits. If the designated weapon is major power factor then any B, C, or D hits with a minor power factor weapon lose one point per hit (just put the number in the "additional penalties" box). If the designated weapon is minor power factor then any B, C, or D hits with a major power factor weapon receive an extra point. This means you may need to change C hits to A hits to increase the points (and you may need to put in one penalty point to make it come out even). This sounds much more complicated than it really is. The vast majority of shooters are using a .223 minor rifle and a major pistol of larger caliber. The scorekeeper can treat all of them the same and only needs to pay special attention to the very few shooters who are using some other combination. In the VERY rare case where someone is using a major pistol and a minor rifle of the same caliber...Larry is absolutely correct. The shooter gets the benefit of the doubt. Not perfect, but correct. I have never seen it happen. I don't think it is really a problem. The USPSA scoring system works. It appropriately awards power factor. It allows for very flexible stage design and increases the "freestyle factor" (e.g. do I engage these close targets with my rifle which may be faster than transitioning to my pistol but I'll get fewer points for non-A hits?). Sorry, could say more but the wife says its bed time. Cheers, Kelly McCoy p.s. I'll try to get back tomorrow.

How about some actually USEFUL changes to EZWinscore... Tactical Division??? Ability to score multi-gun stages with different power factors. We'll keep the scoresheets correctly, let me enter them directly into the scoring program without having to kluge around the "one gun" problem. And throw out the useless "Provisional 3-Gun" rules that just prevent people from running 3-Gun matches they way they should be run without helping anything. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

San Angelo scoring is just awarding appropriate points for all hits (including appropriate points for hits with weapons of different power factor). It also doesn't include proscriptive stage descriptions (e.g. "engage these targets with your pistol and those targets with your rifle") or artificial means such as cutting out everything except the A-zone. The proper way to score multi-gun stages and matches would be to have a set of rules that allowed it and to have a scoring program that supported it. Since we don't have a scoring program that even recognizes all of the divisions in 3-gun that isn't possible. I guess the USPSA "powers that be" don't find it sufficiently important to support things the membership wants/needs/demands. In the meantime...it is possible to score multi-gun stages and matches correctly with a few "work-arounds". I appreciate the "quickly and accurately" comments, but for the past couple of years I've just been klugeing around the problems with EZWinscore. I will continue to do so until USPSA throws me out (and then I'll probably continue in another venue). I will also point out that "quickly and accurately" only occurs in San Angelo in the afternoon because the scorekeeper sometimes oversleeps. Several of us begged the USPSA BOD not to pass the "provisional" 3-gun rules because they forbid correct, accurate and reasonable scoring and stage design for multi-gun stages. Several of us also suggested wording changes that would allow us to continue scoring stages as we have done for several years without altering the intent of the rules. We were thoroughly ignored. The Texas State 3-Gun Championship will continue to include REAL multi-gun stages. The stage descriptions will still allow shooters to decide which weapon to use for various targets. Scoring will still be correct for power factor for each hit. One of the goals of the match staff is that each stage description is "engage all targets as they become visible". Come on down. It will be LOTS of fun. Kurt, I'll be glad to list your USPSA number as "pending" and enter your scores in the match. If any other scorekeepers out there want to discuss my work-arounds and kluges, let me know. I'll be glad to share. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

FP10 and Slide Glide for general lube and "cleaning" Brownell's Action Lube on high pressure parts (e.g. sears) Rust protection? I've used a lot of different lubes and solvents and cleaners over the past xx years (I'm not telling, but it's a lot). Since I've switched to Slide Glide and FP10 I haven't used any solvent on my pistol. The lubes never get to the point that the fouling is caked/dry/stuck to the metal. Cleaning the pistol means disassembly and wiping off the dirt. I re-apply lube and reassemble. Slide Glide is a little heavy for my taste so I thin it with FP10. I'm strongly in favor of supporting companies/products that support our sport like FP10 and Brian E. Cheers, Kelly McCoy A42081

MAXM, Danial97 answered your questions. The apparent inconsistencies in spring rating (not rate) and wire diameter are almost certainly owing to differences in alloy/heat treatment (wire material as Indiana J. points out). Regarding some of the other comments (this turned out to be a long diatribe, if you are really, really interested in springs you might want to read it, otherwise you could just scroll to the bottom for the "bottom line")... DogmaD - cutting coils off of a spring does change the rate. You are correct that it also changes length (and thus preload) so the total force applied to the slide (at any position) is different, but it also changes the amount of force necessary to compress the spring a certain distance (the rate or constant). In 1911 applications the spring is long enough that cutting one or two coils will change the spring rate so little that the difference in preload will be a MUCH more noticeable effect, but the change in rate is still there. Also, although the manufacturer's rating refers to the total force to compress the spring to slide stop, since slide travel is the same (mostly, I know some guns are a little different and some people use lots of slide buffs) the rating is proportional to the spring rate. Indiana J - Nice explanation of spring physics, but I must differ on a couple of points. (I'm just a biologist/statistician but I've had a few physics courses and I've played with a few springs - in guns, motorcycles, trucks, etc.). Despite being a biologist/statistician and being able to write/work mathematical equations I have not suffered from an inability to write English. Fortunately we do not have to be concerned with conservation of energy in the firing of the bullet and recoil (energy is conserved, but there are many changes between kinetic and potential energy), just conservation of linear momentum. F=ma is nice, but what we really need to remember is that the velocity forward times the mass of everything moving must be equal to the velocity rearward times the mass of everything moving. Since you are far more massive than the bullet you need to move at far lower velocity to balance the linear momentum of the bullet. That is, the recoil to be absorbed by the shooter is entirely a function of the mass times the velocity of the bullet, and is not affected by the recoil spring. The gun begins to recoil as soon as the bullet begins to move forward because momentum must be conserved. This momentum is mostly tranferred directly to the shooter and cannot be avoided. Under ideal circumstances (if you don't rock back) the momentum is absorbed by elastic stretching of muscles/connective tissue as the pistol rocks back and up. Because these tissues are not perfectly elastic some of the energy transferred will be lost (as heat) and if you had a single shot/locked breech pistol you would need to add energy (through muscular contraction) to move the pistol back (down) into firing position. When the slide begins to move rearward some of the rearward momentum is transferred to the slide instead of directly to the shooter. Although the mass of the slide is much less than the mass of the shooter the velocity is so much higher that a lot of momentum can be transferred. Because the spring is resisting the rearward movement of the slide it transfers momentum to the shooter (the force required to compress the recoil spring places force on the shooter through the frame of the pistol). If you had a recoil spring with an infinitely large spring rate all the force would be transferred to the shooter (i.e. a single-shot pistol). A spring with an infinitely small spring rage would transfer no force to the shooter. Neither a recoil spring with an infinitely large nor infinitely small spring rate will work in an autoloading pistol. The spring stores kinetic energy as it is compressed and must return sufficient energy to move the slide forward at the end of the cycle and push the next round into the chamber. The spring is nearly perfectly elastic (all the energy stored in compressing the spring as the slide moves rearward will be put into moving the slide back forward). The amount of energy stored is proportional to the spring rate times the distance compressed. Since the distance the slide moves (from locked breech to full recoil) is about the same the only thing we can change is the spring rate. A recoil spring with a higher rate (heavier spring) will store more energy (assuming that it is compressed the same distance) and thus will have more energy to move the slide forward and load the next round. My disagreement with Indiana J is mainly in that he has discounted the losses owing to inelastic collisions... Imagine a 1911-type pistol and two very different recoil springs (one very heavy and one very light). Both springs allow the slide to recoil completely and contact the frame. The rearward momentum imparted to the slide is the same for both springs (it's a function of the load being fired, not the spring). So at maximum recoil the two springs have absorbed/stored very different amounts of kinetic energy (much more energy is stored by the heavy spring). So what happened to the energy/momentum of the slide that was not stored by the light spring? It is transferred to the frame of the pistol because the slide hits the frame at much higher velocity. Some of that energy/momentum is transferred to the shooter, but much is absorbed by the inelastic battering of the slide/frame. Very light springs certainly could result in frame damage. If you use a shock buff there is some elastic compression of the shock buff (much like compression of a spring) that will go into pushing the slide back forward, but the buff also absorbes much of the energy in an inelastic collision. Now the slide is at full recoil. The energy to move the slide back forward is strictly a function of the rate/weight of the recoil spring. The only energy available is that energy stored in the compressed spring. You must have enough energy to move the slide back into battery, to strip the next round from the top of the magazine, and to overcome all of the friction associated with those actions. Imagine that our light spring stores just barely enough energy to perform those functions. The slide will move forward, load the next round, lock into battery, and there will be no energy/momentum left. The muzzle of the pistol will remain pointing up. The elastic rebound of tissues in the shooter's hands/arms/shoulders will push the pistol back towards the point of aim but because there are lots of inelastic losses in those tissues the shooter will need to add energy (through muscle contraction) to get back to the same spot. That means the pistol will end up pointing above the original point of aim. Our very heavy spring has plenty of energy stored to return the slide to battery and load the next round, but when the slide locks forward there is lots of energy left over which is transferred to the frame (through another inelastic collision) and then to the shooter. This tends to force the pistol down when the slide goes forward and if not opposed by muscular contraction results in the pistol pointing below the original point of aim. Our goal is to have the sights return exactly to point of aim at the end of the recoil cycle so we must balance the spring rate between being so heavy that the sights are forced below the point of aim and having the spring rate so light that the the sights don't come all the way down to the point of aim. Bottom line...There is no single answer to "What is the right recoil spring weight?" There are too many variations in firearms and shooters for one combination to be correct for everyone. There is a huge amount of experience available on this forum. Read everything you can. Understand everything you can. Then try enough springs to find what works for you. The experience available on this forum can provide a good starting point and a lot of useful considerations, but it can't tell you what spring rate will work best in your pistol for you. Just because your buddy gets great results with a 10# spring doesn't mean that it is right for you. You might find a 12# spring more comfortable. Find what works for you. I'm not even getting into the discussion of slide speed/cycle time. Figure it out for yourself. Cheers, Kelly McCoy A42081

I've been using an SDB for over 3 years now and I have (almost) nothing bad to say about it. It is a very functional little reloader. Dillon's estimates of loading rates are VERY conservative. Once I sit down with brass, bullets, and primers at hand I can load well over 500 rounds per hour. I've had almost no malfunctions and I'm sure I have exceeded Dillon's lifetime expectations for this little press (nearly 100,000 rounds so far). Changing calibers is very easy except if you need to change primer sizes. Changing between large/small primers will slow you down a little (15-20 minutes total for the change). If you have two set up it would work great! The only serious drawback to the SDB is its inability to load rifle ammo. I've started shooting 3-gun and I'd really like to be able to load .223 on my progressive press. Can't do it with the SDB. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

With good lube and regular cleaning you won't need anything drastic, but I like brake cleaner for really tough stuff. I use SlideGlide and FP10 for lube. Both of them stay soft and easily removed even with substantial fouling build up. Use the lube liberally and clean every 5,000 rounds and you will never need solvents. Just wipe the fouling off. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Yeah! I can go for that. If we can get it all on one sticker. Cheers,

Nuke the baby whales! I'm also offended by the various "My _____ can beat up your honor student" stickers and sorely disappointed that they have appeared on this forum. There is already too little respect in our society for intelligence and education. We certainly do not need to advocate that physical violence is preferable to doing well in school. Clearly, someone who is well educated and reasonably intelligent is far more likely to be able to help solve some of society's problems than someone who has no talents other than the propensity for physical violence. While I realize that we have created a society where the average person has no appreciation of the value of intelligence and education, I am exceedingly disappointed that this attitude has appeared on this forum. I have generally found a somewhat higher level here in the BEnosphere and I'm saddened that such a low-level white-trash sort of attitude has appeared here. p.s. I assure you that education and intelligence will ultimately win. If your _____ does indeed beat up my honor student... no-one will ever find your body. Cheers,

Wakal uses a USAS12 (very much like an AR on steroids, lots of steroids). Other than having been officially declared a Destructive Device by the BATFE, the weight of the USAS12 (12.5 pounds) is a serious detriment for most of us. I borrowed Wakal's shotgun for one stage at the NM State 3-Gun (the hammer in my shotgun broke) and the weight definitely slowed me down. Wakal is a big guy in good shape and it works for him, but it ain't for everyone. I've been playing with a Saiga 20 gauge for 3-gun for several months. Don't have all of the teething problems worked out, but I think it has real potential for 3-gunning. It's much more nearly the same weight/size as a "regular" shotgun. The action should be highly reliable (although as I said I've had a few problems, I'm getting them worked out, but there have been some problems). 10-round magazines are occasionally available (I see them on Ebay sometimes) or can be made, but one must be cautious of the current federal firearms laws. The BATFE has apparently indicated by letter and by telephone (I'm reporting this second-hand, I didn't talk to them and I didn't see the letter) that the Saiga shotguns with 10-round magazines would be prohibited from import under 18 USC 925.D.3 as not being "particularly suited to or readily adapted to sporting use." Under 18 USC 922 it is illegal to assemble from imported parts a firearm that would be banned from import. 27 CFR 178.39 clarifies this regulation and provides a list of 20 parts. A weapon that would be banned from import under 18 USC 925 cannot be assembled using more than 10 imported parts from this list. Thus, if you replace sufficient parts in your Saiga you will not have violated this law (just like you have to use a certain number of US-made parts to assemble an FN-FAL from a parts kit). The AWB has nothing to do with it. The Saiga shotgun is NOT an assault weapon no matter what the magazine capacity since it has only one of the banned features. The hammer that broke in Alamogordo was one of the US-made replacement parts. Cheers, Kelly McCoy West Texas

Actually, the perceived problem is part of the allure of the pigeon flippers. On a very short course it may indeed be advantageous to not shoot at the aerial clays. But, if you include the pigeon flippers on a long field course (low HF) and place them in target arrays where the shooter has other targets to engage while waiting for the pigeons to appear it becomes a much more interesting stage. There may not be a clear advantage to shooting/not shooting the pigeons. That just makes it interesting. Do you shoot them? Do you leave them? How quick can you load those extra rounds? We've used pigeon flippers in one stage at each of the last two Texas State 3-Gun matches. Both times they were in a long field course. Both times the pigeon flippers were in a target array that gave shooters other things to engage while waiting for the pigeons to appear. Both years we had some shooters engage the clays, and some shooters ignore them. We had good scores both ways. The fun is in making the decision. Having a stage that can be shot in different ways with no clear advantage is my ultimate goal in stage design. FREESTYLE!!! Cheers, Kelly McCoy West Texas

Hopefully the rules regarding "abandoned" firearms are part of the Provisional rules that can be changed to result in a successful set of USPSA 3-Gun rules. Remember that these rules have been presented as "Provisional" and that they are to be used as a means of hosting matches within the USPSA rules but that they are subject to change. It is great to see the exchanges here regarding these rules. There is obviously a wealth of 3-gun knowledge among the members of this board. I encourage all of you to view these provisional rules as a "working draft" and to submit suggested changes to your Area Director. We can collectively beat this horse into the ground, but we will also need to work through the USPSA channels to get the set of rules we really need. Personally, I agree that there are safer ways to deal with "abandoned" firearms. I would much rather see firearms grounded in a "safe" condition in a position so that the muzzle points in a safe direction. At the Texas State 3-Gun we have been pretty successful using tables where a gun could be left pointed into the ground. This year for long guns we used the 12" cardboard tubes firmly affixed to props with padding in the bottom where long guns could be grounded. That way, even if the gun is still loaded it is pointed into the ground and is relatively safe. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

I've been toying with the idea (and trying to sell it to the rest of the usual volunteers at SAGC) of hosting a real 3-Gun match. One day format, probably 6 stages (maybe 7), every stage is all three guns. Every stage is "engage targets as you see them". Use whatever weapon you want on whatever target (shooter's choice). Seems to me to be the ultimate in "freestyle". I think we can draw stages that will really work in this format. We'd use USPSA safety and equipment rules, but there would need to be some adjustments to scoring. My question is, would anyone be interested in shooting such a match? Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Kurt (and everyone else who is interested), USPSA as an organization is not perfect. As others have pointed out when the organization gets larger the bureaucracy also gets larger and the wheels tend to grind slower. There have definitely been examples where the wheels ground far too slowly to accommodate the needs/wishes of the shooters. It is part of the price we pay for being part of an international organization. However...The BOD has now given us a set of provisional rules that will allow us to run real 3-Gun matches (sort-of, I'm already requesting some revisions). We have run multi-gun stages at the last two Texas State 3-Gun matches (with approval from Amidon). I don't think that USPSA or any of the administration are working against running real 3-gun matches. Quite the contrary, I think they are working very hard to provide rules that will allow matches that the shooters really want to shoot. They are hindered by the weight of the bureaucracy that determines how rules are written and approved. Give them a chance. I think they will eventually come up with a set of rules that will govern really fun 3-Gun matches. Don't give up on USPSA. There are some good 3-Gun matches in USPSA (real 3-Gun matches). I think there will be more with the new rules. I assure you that the Texas State 3-Gun will continue to be a real multi-gun match. Kurt, even if you don't renew your membership we'll let you shoot next year. Cheers, Kelly McCoy SAGC

Kevin, Yes and no and sort-of...The RO is NOT required to determine/watch which targets are shot with which weapon. It is quite easy to distinguish 9mm holes in paper targets from .30 caliber holes. We haven't had anyone try to use 00 buck on paper targets, might need to address that in stage descriptions in the future. If someone shows up with a .35 caliber rifle at minor power factor (or with a .35 caliber rifle in major with a 9mm minor pistol) we will have to work out some additional processes. The scoresheets we use to for these multi-gun stages have separate columns for rifle/pistol/shotgun hits. In practice it is always just two columns (and then steel or frangible targets for the third gun). If a shooter shoots a paper target with two different guns it is possible that hits would appear in two different columns (always giving the shooter the best possible score). That is, a shooter engages a paper target with his (minor power factor) rifle and gets two C's then re-engages the target with his (major power factor) pistol and gets another C. That target would be scored as one rifle C and one pistol C (7 points for that target). Our experience is that it really isn't a problem to get the hits recorded properly on the scoresheets. The trick is in getting WinEZScore to calculate the correct number of points. BUT - both are possible. I just don't want our stage design to be limited because some juggling in WinEZScore is required. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Bruce, I applaud your work and the work of all the other BOD members in getting these provisional rules together so that we can actually shoot 3-Gun matches. These rules will go a long way towards promoting USPSA 3-Gun shooting and with some tweaking over the next year I'm sure we can put together a really functional set of rules. However, I do have some problems with some parts of the provisional rules and I'm going to lobby strongly for immediate changes (since they are just provisional rules anyway and not full-fledged published-in-a-book rules)... The current set of provisional rules place some very stringent limitations on multi-gun course design (D.v, D.vi, D.vii). Since what the shooters all seem to want is multi-gun courses I think it is in the best interests of USPSA to allow the greatest possible flexibility in stage design (especially multi-gun stages). I'd like to suggest some modifications that will allow greater flexibility in stage design while maintaining the intent of the rules. I understand that the BOD was working to develop a set of rules that would provide stages that could be scored using the current version of WinEZScore. However, it is possible to score multi-gun stages correctly using the current software with some work-arounds. As Kenny said, I would be happy to share with you copies of the scoresheets we've used the past two years at the Texas State 3-Gun and I'd be more than happy to discuss the way I've kluged WinEZScore to make it work. The rules changes I suggest will allow matches where the scorekeeper is willing to make the work-arounds to have much greater flexibility in stage design. It will still allow matches to be run where the scorekeeper isn't willing to go to such lengths. PLEASE do not limit stage design simply because our software does not easily allow scoring of some stages. The rules MUST be written because they are the right rules, NOT because they are dictated by the scoring program. 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. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Hey, Hey, Hey, Why y'all knocking the Mini14? With some clever gunsmithing it can be a fairly competitive rifle. There are gunsmiths out there that can do some great work on that platform. My home gunsmithed Mini14 is absolutely reliable (can't hit SH*T with it, but it runs). I HATE AR15's, stupid design, stupid location for controls, stupid rifle all over. Didn't your Gunny tell you that when you hit the bush you should "shoot a g**k, take his AK and all his mags, and throw away that plastic piece of sh*t"? Now you want to buy one? OK, if you really want to build a 3-gun rifle on an AR platform...Call Benny Hill. He's too modest to tell you, but his guns run (I don't own any Benny guns, this is just my observation watching people at various matches), they shoot, Benny is a serious 3-gun shooter and knows what works (and doesn't). I know Benny well enough to say that he won't do you wrong. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Maybe I've been in West Texas too long (or just long enough)... 0.0 0.0 -1.0 Although I have strong feelings about what is right and what is wrong I refuse to tell you what is right or wrong for you. (Except that I will suggest you thaw the chicken completely first, maybe even warm it up in some hot water.) Although there is substantial argument against "outcome based" philosophy there is also ample evidence that much evil has been perpetrated in the name of imposing your morality on someone else (Spanish Inquisition, Islamic terrorism, etc.). Have strong opinions! Know what is right and what is wrong! Teach those values to your children! Understand that other people may have other opinions and respect those opinions just as strongly! Cheers, Kelly McCoy

OK, This is seriously OT and I won't be offended it it is moderated out, but it may be instructive regarding "combined scores" and it might also be amusing...I'll admit the story is a bit long.... There are a couple of regular shooters at our club who NEVER help at all! They never help set up. They never help tear down. They never paste a target or set up a piece of steel. They come to all of the matches but don't help a bit. They always shoot Production and are frequently the only two shooters in that division. We offer a discount for second family members ($15 for first family member, $10 for second family member) and we issue an $8.00 coupon for match winners. So, between them they regularly pay only $17.00 for two match entries (usually $15 each) and never help at all. To make the situation worse (or more unpleasant) they are terrible shooters. I do not (ever) belittle shooters who are honestly trying to score well, but these two absolutely refuse to accept any sort of advice. They show no sign whatsoever of trying to improve their scores. They are lax about safety rules (I DQ'd one of them last month for breaking the 180). One of them actually fancies himself a firearms instructor and takes money from people to teach them self-defense skills. Don't misunderstand, these are nice people, they just don't understand. Combined scores (calculated with a pencil and paper of course) didn't have any effect because they just pointed out that other people were using different equipment. I thought it might be instructive for them to have a little real competition in Production. Heck, I went out and bought a pistol to provide some competition (I'm just a B Limited shooter). OK, truth be known I traded a worn-out .45 Witness for a cherry (and really cute) TZ-75 in 9mm (can't go back to that pawn shop until they have forgotten my face). Then I started practicing with Production equipment. My friends say that that wasn't mean of me. They do say that it was mean to convince everyone else to shoot production. I will point out that although they thought it was mean of me, they all shot Production too. In January we had 12 out of 18 shooters in Production Division (instead of the usual 2 or 3). We had a blast. It was a fun match and entirely Production friendly. We had one serious Production shooter (he won) who commented on how fun it was to have everyone shooting production. Did it have any effect? I don't think so. The offenders are still doing much the same. I don't think that they noticed that they finished 9th and 11th out of 12 (we had some new shooters that month). But it was amusing to me. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Actually Vince, if you tell it to figure combined scores WinEZScore recalculates match points and recalculates the stage winners. That's why standings can change among shooters who shot the same division (since stage points can change when the person who factored a given stage might change). The results are still meaningless since shooters who shot different divisions used different equipment and did not compete against one another. I am beginning to consider relenting since so many people so violently want to see results that have no meaning. I don't know what they think those results will tell them. But I'm not sure that preventing them from seeing those results is particularly useful (although it is contrary to our current rulebook). I firmly believe that if you want to compete against someone you should declare the same division (and use appropriate equipment). Someday I'll tell you all the story about the month I talked the whole club into shooting Production division to prove to a couple of obnoxious and unhelpful shooters (one of whom always won Production because they were the only two shooting that division) that they really don't shoot very well. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Kurt, I knew someone might be sharp enough to catch that...but I am sorry to have gotten caught. Notice that I said "...this may be a case where in order to serve the customer we need to ignore a rule that does not serve the intended purpose..." (which 6.1.3 clearly is). However, some astute obervers have noticed that I may on occasion stir up an argument just because I love to argue. I think (given the choice) I'd select NM over MI, and 6.2.2 over 6.1.3. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Honest guys, I really didn't understand how strongly you felt about this... 1 - To me the combined scores really are meaningless. It doesn't make any sense to me to compare scores among divisions because they are different divisions. The purpose of having divisions is so that shooters with similar equipment (pistol, holster, magazines) are competing against each other and not competing against shooters with very different equipment. If you combine divisions you can't get around the fact that the equipment is different and that the combined scores really don't count for anything. 2 - I enforce all rules (especially the scoring rules since I deal with them every month) with the same vehemence. If a shooter comes to me and says "I really just had one no-shoot on stage 1" I will look at the scoresheet but if there are two no-shoots recorded I will quote 9.7.4. If I get a scoresheet without a time or with insufficient hits and the shooter is still available I insist on a reshoot (9.7.5), etc. Honestly, this is because I think it is the only way to be completely fair to all shooters. I believe that in general we start down a very slippery slope when we begin to ignore the rules we don't like and only enforce the ones we agree with. You are right, printing out combined scores does absolutely no harm, but I am opposed to it in principle (because it appears to me to be contrary to the rules). There seems to be sufficient public demand for the combined scores that this may be a case where in order to serve the customer we need to ignore a rule that does not serve the intended purpose. However, I implore you, if you really want the combined scores please petition your regional director and other members of the BOD to rewrite the rules so that anal retentive scorekeepers can provide the combined scores without feeling that they are being asked to break the rules. Might I suggest: "6.2.2 When multiple Divisions are available in a competition winners will be determined and awards made based only on scores calculated for each Division separately. Scores for all Divisions combined may be calculated and posted for informational purposes only." Cheers, Kelly McCoy San Angelo, TX p.s. I keep score for San Angelo Gun Club (San Angelo, TX) and occasionally for larger matches (e.g. the Texas State Limited). Come on down anyway, I bet you enjoy the match even if you don't get combined scores.

I really didn't realize quite how strongly you all feel about the combined results. It is certainly not my intention to set up a "scorekeeper vs. shooter" situation. I hope you all appreciate that I will enforce ALL of the rules regarding scoring just as vehemently. If shooters would honestly choose not to shoot matches at a club because they did not provide combined results, I will have to rethink my position. Personally I don't want to see the combined results. There are enough people beating me in Limited Division, I don't want to see that a bunch of Open shooters also beat me. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Strong feelings? Heck No! You should hear me when I'm really wound-up about something!!! I do feel strongly about this (I'm sorry Uncle Vinnie "the RuleMeister" didn't make a more definitive statement). I'm not sure how to explain my position without a lot of examples....Everyone's score (within a division) is based on a percentage of the highest hit factor attained (by anyone shooting that division). If you combine divisions the shooter who "factored" (had the highest hit factor on) each stage will likely change. Because the stages are worth different amounts of points the "overall" standing will change based on the scoring method (combined or by-division). The combined scores are meaningless not just because we don't award prizes based on the combined scores, but because they don't really reflect performance on multiple scenarios with similar equipment. Hey, If you want to look at combined scores to see if you beat your buddy who was shooting a different division - go for it. But you will be wrong. If you want to compete against someone in USPSA shooting then you need to compete in the same divsion. Don't you dare ask me for combined results! I'll just quote 6.2.2 and throw you out of the stat shack. Cheers, Kelly McCoy

Kurt, I don't know where the heck that 6.1.3 rule came from! I'm sure I never saw it in my rulebook before this thread came up and I looked for it. The stages for the 2004 Texas State 3-Gun were sent to Mr. Amidon for sanctioning and he said it "Looked like fun". Sounds like an official USPSA match to me. We've been ignoring that rule for years at 3-gun matches. USPSA has a good set of rules for scoring and safety. It shouldn't be hard for us to adapt those rules to 3-gun matches as well. We have run a lot of "USPSA" 3-gun matches that "sort-of" followed the rules and they have all worked out well. You heard what Kurt said. The Texas State 3-Gun was a good match (although we missed rule 6.1.3) because we worked hard to put on a good match (challenging stages, good RO's). There is no reason that the 3-gun nationals (and future USPSA 3-gun matches) can't equal that level of shooter satisfaction. The BOD has the chance to write a set of rules that really allows serious 3-gun matches. Without that set of rules they still have a chance to suspend the rules (current rules) that prevent a serious 3-gun match. Alas, I cannot make it to the Mississippi State 3-Gun match. The timing is just bad for me. However, several of the SAGC crew are entered in the New Mexico State 3-Gun Championship on 29/30 May. As I understand it will be a "real" USPSA match. If you can get yourself to San Angelo I'm sure you can catch a ride to Alamogordo. Cheers, Kelly McCoy