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

Thomas H

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Thomas H

  • Rank
    Calls Shots

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Real Name
    Thomas Howard

Recent Profile Visitors

1,319 profile views
  1. Yeah, a number of weeks ago I emailed him about that, and he forwarded it to the people in charge of the online course. It just takes awhile to update. (I already had my SC endorsement, but since I was telling a bunch of my local folks to take the online course, I decided to go through it myself.) Interestingly enough, a later module clearly states and discussed that staging areas ARE legal in SC, and how exactly they should be handled. The fix is simply to remove the one or two comments and the slide in the earlier module, because a later module explains it well.
  2. That's interesting, and a pretty significantly change, considering quite a few classifier HHFs didn't change. 50% less making it into a higher classification? That's a lot. Mind sharing where you heard that, and what their data is based on? I'd be interested to know.
  3. This type of comment always seems interesting to me, because it seems to be so self-evidently not true. If there isn't a difference between DA and SA, then people should be doing just as well with DAO pistols as they are with SA pistols. But they don't, because DA is more difficult, and nobody shoots that way if they have a choice. Not impossibly so, and with practice you can minimize the difference. Which doesn't change the fact that a similar amount of practice with an SA trigger would result in a better outcome. Since it is only for one shot, in general, with practice, you can make the DA first shot almost the equal of an SA first shot, so given the current usefulness of having SA shots the rest of the time, many people will go for that choice. It isn't because DA "means nothing," it is because you can practice enough to make the negatives of one shot of it worth less than the positives of the rest of the SA shots. But it requires extra practice specifically on that first DA shot for that to be true. As such, it WILL make a difference to the vast majority of people in USPSA (who are in the B-to-C range).
  4. Isn't that "always"? I mean, other than various Nats, I can't think of any regular match that doesn't allow Limited in it. So isn't this more of a "I like Limited better than Production, enough to even not care about shooting Minor" comment? One of the things that sets Production apart from most the rest of the semi-auto divisions is the low-capacity requirement where everyone shoots minor, which makes for a different type of stage plan and execution. Changing that (as has been said numerous times) turned it into a very different division. On a separate note: Several people have now said variations on "XXX is killing Production" and "Production is dropping a lot" and "Production is dying" and so on. And yet....while the numbers themselves are indeed going down a bit, Production isn't dying at all. Not at a major match level, nor on a club level. Sure, there are regional variations, but overall, tons of people are still shooting Production. Yes, some dilution has occurred---this should have been expected, since we added two more divisions (PCC and CO), both of which tend to be shot by people in 9mm with minor scoring. As such, we'd expect that Production would (comparatively speaking) lose more of a percentage of shooters than any other division. None of that changes the fact that Production is still an incredibly popular division. I have yet to see any suggested change that would actually increase the participation in it. Is there a suggestion I missed that would make any substantive difference in making people want to shoot Production more?
  5. It says placed on the surface. It then says the fault line must be a certain height. You are attempting to claim that something that has a height, and that is lying on a surface, won't be that height above the surface. That doesn't work for you. What you just said either makes no sense or isn't relevant, or makes no sense and ALSO isn't relevant. The rule requirements a physical representation. Of what? The fault line that is the delineation of the difference between the inside of the shooting area, and the outside of the shooting area. What you just attempting to argue (whatever it was) doesn't change any of that. If there is not a physical representation of the different between the fault line and the area outside the fault line, then it isn't legal. Given that the surface outside the OP's situation not only is equal in height to the fault line, but actually in places covers the fault line, there is no physical representation, must less the height requirement needed.
  6. Considering that nothing is "killing Production," watching yet another round of people trying to justify changing the rules to match their personal wants when they have nothing to do with making the division better, is just as amusing as always. Rowdy had a good comment in that pretty much the only intelligent realistic change to Production would be making it match IPSC rules, because that would be the only change that had an actual reason behind it that made any sense. That being said, I doubt that we would ever do that (and I certainly hope not) because that would cause a lot of issues for people who shoot Production currently in USPSA. I personally see no reason to match IPSC, but I can understand that it at least has a valid argument justifying it. Everything else so far has just been people saying things without providing any justification that would support the idea that Production entries would increase due to their changes.
  7. Yup. The Level II matches I run will have a lunch break. Mostly because my staff need a break. They need time to change out targets, time to take a look at stage props, and most importantly, time to sit down and have some food and drink a bunch of water. It also helps even up squads between the morning and afternoon, but mostly---it is for the staff break. (And most competitors need a break also. While some are indeed okay with a break while other people shoot, many folks, particularly on boiling-hot days, need a little time in the shade drinking water.) It has been interesting looking at some of the other things people want/say they need for Level II matches, some of which wouldn't have actually occurred to me as being important. Useful and interesting thread.
  8. You said, and I quote: "See and I thought the key to this stage was keeping the gun up, and aiming at the target " ...considering the person in the OP is just outside of the first box, and moving to the second, and that was the topic at hand, you DIDN'T mean keeping the gun up and aiming at the target? You meant what I said, which was "having the gun up and being aimed on the next target when you get a foot down in the next box"? ....because that isn't what you said. Ok.
  9. I wonder how many people are ignoring that part in bold? Fixed to the surface (in other words, sitting on the surface) and then have a minimum height above that surface (that they are fixed to). After all, you can't have a minimum height above a surface if the surface that is above the fault line. Given the the OP's situation had a surface that literally was over (and on top of) the fault lines, that is in violation of this rule.
  10. The part in bold is (one of) your issues. It isn't high above the surface, because the surface out of the shooting area is higher than the fault line. It doesn't specify that the physical reference must be on all sides, because the fault line is the delineation between inside the shooting area, and outside the shooting area--as such, the physical reference must be between "inside the shooting area" and "outside the shooting area". And the situation at hand doesn't have a physical reference for that. The number of people commenting on the inside of the fault line don't seem to understand that the inside doesn't mean anything. After all, I've been on 2"x10" boards that were both the fault line AND the shooting areas. They had no inside. And yet they were completely legal, because how big the fault line is compared to the shooting area isn't important. The only part that is important is the fault line compared to outside the fault line. That's where you need the physical reference, after all. RJH wrote: "The top inner edge would be your physical reference, no rule stating how wide the fault line must be." Physical reference for what? Both sides of that spot (the "top inner edge") are inside the shooting area. As such, it isn't a physical reference for anything. "The question is not "where the shooting area ends," the question is whether you are touching the outside of the shooting area while shooting. " Hint: You can't know whether or not your are touching outside the shooting area unless you know where the shooting area ends. And that's why a physical reference must exist.
  11. Not that I've noticed, no. If you are on their strong side, it isn't hard to tell when they get on the trigger either. Having the gun up and being aimed on the next target when you get a foot down in the next box, yes. Keeping the gun in both hands (if a handgun) and pointed at the next target (PCC or not) during the entire movement from box to box in Outer Limits? Not at all.
  12. It isn't a physical reference. After all, there is dirt on top of the fault line, and there is no difference in height between the outside of the fault line and the ground outside the fault line. As such, standing on the fault line (which is legal as it is within the shooting area), there is no physical reference enabling you to tell if you are touching the ground outside the shooting area. I'll note that quoting only one part of the rule while ignoring the rest means that you are attempting to ignore the meaning. "For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75-inch material is the minimum allowable size. On other range surfaces, such as covered with turf, sand, gravel, wood chips or similar, thicker material which rises at least 1.5 inches above the surface is recommended" Note the part in bold. Even IF you decide to ignore the "recommended" and ALSO still attempt to claim the 0.75-inch material for some reason doesn't actually mean "0.75 inches above the surface" (which, I'll note, is ridiculous because burying it in the ground would meet your requirements and yet make no sense, as someone else pointed out), the fact remains that the physical reference requires a difference between the fault line and the surface. And this case has no height difference causing a physical reference to shooting area as opposed to the non-shooting area. Even better, given that dirt covers the fault line, not only is their no height difference, there is no effective material difference. 1) No. 2) Also no. Truthfully, the only change to the rules should be to remove "recommended" from the rule and instead use "required." It isn't legal, and as I said, this would not only lose in arb, but the stage would most likely be thrown out if a number of people had shot the stage.
  13. The closest I get to this is looking at people's classification in the results, and comparing that to other people's classifications if I'm bored. As has been said, a shooter's classification peak times are the best they have ever shot, per stage, at different times, on different days. That doesn't necessarily mean they can do that on demand. (Truthfully, if you consistently shoot your peak times, you probably aren't pushing very much. Either that, or your are the fastest shooter in the world already. And since there aren't many BJ Norrises in the world, that means that if you are shooting your peak times pretty much every match, you need to push yourself more, IMO.) In general, my scores tend to have my match overall times generally within half of a classification level of my actual classification. Sometimes I have a bad day, and they aren't. But mostly, that's how it goes. Every once in awhile I have a really good match (for example, at Free State in PCCO I managed to have an extremely good match, with three or so new stage peak times, and the rest were mostly very close to my current ones) but mostly, my match times are about half a classification lower (unless I'm having an awful day, like this past Sunday) than my peak times. I think also how much difference people see is also related to their classification. A C-class shooter might one day have an awesome time on Outer Limits (compared to their normal) and then forever after have a time 10 seconds longer while shooting like normal (for them), just due to that one stage. A GM-class shooter simply won't have that level of difference, barring a gun malfunction. Mostly....I don't worry about it.
  14. It interests me that the MD said that. As Flatland Shooter said, right off the bat: ".2.1.1 Shooting Boxes and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material, must be fixed firmly in place, and provide both physical and visual references to competitors. For hard ground surfaces clear of debris, 0.75-inch material is the minimum allowable size. On other range surfaces, such as covered with turf, sand, gravel, wood chips or similar, thicker material which rises at least 1.5 inches above the surface is recommended." It doesn't say "oh, the minimum allowable size is only for one side, you can ignore the other" or anything like that. The shooting area runs to the outside of the fault line. You can clearly see in the picture that the fault line is actually BELOW the ground outside the shooting area in parts, and equal with the ground (at best) for most of it. It does NOT provide a physical reference to competitors. All the other made-up justifications regarding the inside are irrelevant to the rule. There is no physical reference (since the dirt on the outside actually is on top of the fault line), and this is not a "hard ground surface clear of debris" so 0.75 inches isn't enough. This obviously fits into the "1.5 inches above the surface" recommended part. However, since it says "recommended" people will argue the RM doesn't have to follow it. Which means at that bare minimum, this should provide a physical reference and be above 0.75 inches. It is none of those things. It isn't a legal fault line. Not only would this win in arb against a "per shot" penalty, it would win against ANY penalty, and be grounds for a reshoot, since it isn't a legal fault line. Even better, since probably quite a few people shot this stage and couldn't all be given reshoots, this stage would most likely have to be thrown out. And it would have been easy to simply set it up correctly in the first place.
  • Create New...