Thomas H

True. But.....if you want to win majors, the skills required to do well on classifiers are also required to win majors. They aren't the ONLY skills, as you have pointed out. Movement skills, stage breakdown skills, positioning skills---all of those are important also. But...to win majors, you also have to quickly handle the gun with significant accuracy, which the classifiers do test. Another way of putting it, IMO: People who are good at classifiers don't necessarily win major matches. But people who win major matches ARE good at classifiers, because the skills needed to be good at classifiers are a subset of the skills needed to win major matches.

Maybe nationally Production may be dying (though I don't actually think so), but it certainly isn't happening locally. At our local club, Production is (as usual) the second-largest division by a significant amount. In our Section, Limited has the most participation, with Production and Carry Optics almost matching for the second place spot. Production and Limited this year have almost the exact same percentage of activity participation as they had last year. PCC, SS, and Open are all down slightly---with CO increasing as much as those three collectively reduced. (Rev stayed about the same, but that's because there are only a couple of guys that shoot it, and they'll never change.) I'm a Production guy who has recently (in the last two years) switched to CO. Like many, if my eyes were what they used to be, I'd probably still be shooting Production. (And I still periodically shoot Production.) However, given my eyes, AND the increases in technology plus the guns available, it is no surprise to me that many more people are shooting it. Dots are fun, and lots more people are pushing them on handguns for all sorts of reasons. (And I'll note that I think that the change from 10 rounds to 140mm was brilliant, and it obviously worked.) I think it is perfectly okay to let people have fun however they like, so telling people they aren't having fun right because they are in a division that doesn't require as many reloads and a different type of stage planning seems....odd. Especially if those people weren't saying it to Open and Limited shooters before. (And if they were, why?) At local matches, some guy comes in to try the sport. He's got a stock 9mm, so we tell him to shoot Limited Minor his first time, to get an idea how this works, and then to talk to people about their gear. A ton of those guys, if they come back, head into Production because they don't have a dot gun and don't want to get one. In our Section, at least, this hasn't changed.

I really think that this is where the majority of the problems come from. (Not all, unfortunately. But most.) That being said, if I'm the guy who just ran the stage, when I'm holding the gun out for the RO to tell me "hammer down, holster" if the timer is nearby I ask him to move it away from the gun. (Had to do that at locals a couple of times with people who just took the RO class. They understood, and it was a good learning moment.) Haven't had that happen at a major yet, though I HAVE had a reshoot at a major when the RO extended the timer behind him to a) show the tablet RO and b) get it away from the gun when I dropped the slide, and in doing so managed to whack the tablet RO who was a little close, messing up the time and accidentally making him re-beep the timer. (That was awhile back. Hm. What match was that? It was several years ago...) Once I'm done shooting, I take my time. If I'm not going to fire another shot, I'm not in a hurry any more so I can take all the time I need. If that includes asking the RO to do his job right (though using more polite terms) I'll do that, but I'm certainly not going to rush anything.

"By the way, where was my Nationals invite for winning my class?" I have no idea. I'm not in charge of that match. What an odd thing to ask. Also, irrelevant to the topic. "Not to mention, I only brought out the disrespect because of the huge oodles of disrespect being brought out." Given that there wasn't any, your actions only tell us about you. No one has said that KC is a poor shooter--quite the opposite. If you still feel that way, that isn't anyone else's fault. "I like two things here - One, how none of you are mentioning your own performances Thomas Howard, care to bring any of those up? " Why would I? I'm not the person making the claims. As such, I have nothing to prove. My performance has nothing to do with any of the claims you've made. As such, your attempt to make this about me (or anyone else) is logically faulty at best, and more than likely an attempt to deflect from your own claims. "Two, how you’re conveniently leaving out how much of the Limited Super Squad I just beat at the 2020 Nats - with a mag failure that contributed to my worst stage performance." I wouldn't know. I just looked at a simple single match where you and Charlie both shot. You made a claim comparing the two of you. I found a simple recent comparison. If you don't like the comparison, feel free to come up with a different one. I didn't "leave out" anything. Feel free to add more data to attempt to bolster your claim. It isn't my job to do so for you. "What I’m saying is: Lets talk about Nationals and not be distracted by other aspects, because most of you don’t have any legs to stand on." You made the claim, Zach. It'll be interesting to see you attempt to back it up. (Hint: Your claim was "But, I can easily beat any of Cha-Lees stage times with a functioning open gun." You now seem to be attempting to argue about other things and deflect away from the part I was responding to with my data about A3.) "Talking about Nationals: The third day, where KC threw caution to the wind and went for pure speed, is the only thing that put him back in the game and got him 3rd place. If you weren’t there and you didn’t see it - you don’t know that." So....he shot past his normal (incredibly high) speed, got lucky with his hits (while shooting faster than he is normally comfortable with, because if your hits are still good that's lucky), and this is support for your contention? That's your claim here? I'm not sure that's the support you think it is. "If you were there and you saw it, like I did, you probably have a better idea." Or....maybe other people think that something else happened.

Zach certainly didn't at the 2019 A3 match. Charlie beat him on time on 10 of the 14 stages. Of the four stages where Charlie's time was slower, Zach shot a no-shoot on one, and had a mike and a procedural on another, so the additional speed did not help exactly him out there. And with Charlies shooting faster times almost completely throughout, Charlie also managed a 93% of the possible points (plus 4 Mikes) compared to Zach's 90% of the possible points (plus 5 Mikes, 2 no-shoots, and 2 procedurals). Charlie's match overall was 8.74 seconds faster than Zach's match. (An out of the 14 stages, Zach beat Charlie on exactly four of them.) So...it would appear that there isn't much data to support Zach's contention that he would "easily beat any of Charlie's stage times with a functioning Open gun." During at least one major recently, Zach not only did not "easily" beat Charlie's times, he rarely beat those times at all. And Charlie placed (in combined Open/Limited divisions) 17 places higher than Zach in the match, with almost 120 more match points. That doesn't automatically mean that Charlie is right about the topic being discussed, and that Zach is wrong. It is certainly true that Zach's claim seems to be.....far-fetched. I'll note I'll look forward to seeing the results from the Texas matches next year.

Wanted to add to this (because lots of .22 ammo is hard to come by these days) that I have also seen (and used) Eley Action Plus ammo to good effect. It interests me how many people are running standard velocity and subsonic ammo out of their .22s. Given that reliability out of semi-auto actions is the top priority for SC (accuracy is important also, but we don't need PRS levels of ammo accuracy here), I'd think that more people would go for high velocity ammo instead.

Considering my response was a singular literal response to a quote of your comment of "But now it seems like you need your production gun built buy a custom shop just like you would a limited gun" in which you had a problem with how Production now allows more customization... ...no, it had nothing to do with more divisions, less divisions, or anything of the sort. It had to do with your contention regarding what was now needed to be competitive in Production.

Does this seem to actually be true, in terms of match finish for the majority of people? Are B-class shooters with bespoke bedazzled CZs consistently beating B-class shooters with Glock 34s (assuming they were smart enough to change the sights)? At what level is the "custom shop" aspect of the gun actually making a functional difference? If the level is "almost never" then why does it matter?

Yes, but I've never seen a $235 trigger for $100, no matter the sale or discount code. (A 57% off sale? That would be awesome from my perspective, but probably a bad business decision on his part. ) So if you buy just the hammer, sear, trigger blade, and disconnect, and install them yourself (and your housing geometry matches the expected housing dimensions perfectly for optimum results, which we know it won't with the standard housings since they are good, but not perfect), without the auto bolt release and the ability to change the trigger weight, without the springs or the mag latch...... ....not exactly talking about the same thing here. That's still a useful link, and I appreciate it, though.

Where are you getting a 1.5 Kid single stage drop-in trigger for $100?! TELL ME PLEASE!

They can only print when they receive. And if they don't receive anything, they have to make up stuff to talk about----and pulling women/juniors to the sport is something USPSA always pushes, Steel Challenge matches are pulling in lots of new shooters, and most people like to read gun reviews. Unsurprising that if not a lot of new and unique articles show up, you'll be reading about the things that tend to pull people's attention. I'll note that I agree that this latest issue seems to be a bit overbearing regarding SC articles, but....again, I have no idea what articles actually got submitted.

Ah, there's the problem. No, they aren't there to prove power. That's what chrono is for.

This is a problem, too. Because section 3 then says that after it has been chronoed and approved, competitors can't argue about it. So can an RM "approve" chrono ammo at above 125 PF? How high? 130? 135? I agree that it doesn't say "must" or "shall." (Not arguing.) Just.....if it ISN'T below the Minor PF limit of 125.0, I would think that it shouldn't be approved by the RM. The question then really seems to me to be, can the RM "approve" calibration ammo with a PF greater than 125.0?

Appendix C1-2: "Prior to commencement of a match, the calibration ammunition must be chronographed using the procedure specified in Appendix C2. The calibration ammunition, when tested through each designated firearm, should achieve a power factor between 115.0 and 125.0 to qualify. 9x19 mm is the recommended caliber." The problem, of course, is that this uses the term "should" instead of "shall" or "must." Of course, then it says, in C1-3: "Once the supply of ammunition and the designated firearms have been tested and approved by the Range Master, they are not subject to challenge by competitors." ....which means that if the calibration ammo isn't chronoed to a certain standard, it shouldn't be approved.... Basically: It should be under the Minor PF limit, and between 115 and 125 PF.

If it was "just leaning forward" how could your 1st shot push it back and hold it there? Wouldn't it have just moved back to its forward position? Poppers that have hooks or tabs (for forward-falling, for example) might be different, but poppers that are just leaning forward---if your shot pushes it back, but not enough to fall, it isn't like it hangs there. It moves back to its full-forward position.

Registering with a higher classification won't mean anything, because the stats person should be running a classification update prior to finalizing the results, and if you don't have a member number, you'll be listed as "U" class. If you aren't a member, you don't have a classification. @Glockster1, you said this: "Of course, if you enjoy having them disclosing all your personal information for the entire world to see on SCSA" Can you explain that? Where does this happen? What personal information is available? Regarding membership: While USPSA/SCSA gets money from my club every time I shoot a match, I prefer to also support the sports I participate in via memberships. I also like to shoot majors, because they are fun. People certainly CAN choose to continually shoot the sport without supporting the sport, but.....well. If you enjoy the sport, why not support the sport? (Someone shooting 60 matches a year, for example, certainly has an extra $25 lying around.)

<off-topic> Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher was just beyond ridiculous.</off-topic>

The human brain is really good at knowing where the center of a dot is, yes. However, the bigger the dot, the less good we are. In addition, we are good at it IF the circle is actually a circle as opposed to something lopsided or with flares. If it has those (which, for most people, it does, especially as we get older), then finding the center is more difficult. A small, perfectly round dot is going to allow to a higher level of precision (especially at speed) than a larger one. Regarding how much the dot covers----your measurements and calculations are perfectly correct. And yet....for most people, if you have an 8MOA dot and are looking at the head of a 25-yard target, the dot pretty much covers the whole head. The dot SHOULD only be 2" in diameter. But....it isn't. So....the discussion about the dot size really does seem relevant. (Similarly easy way to look at it: a 3 MOA dot for rifles at 100 yards should only cover 3" of the target, roughly. And yet, when you look at the target, it covers a lot more than that.) For the most part, what seems to be true is that larger dots get washed out less, and that ends up being more important than sharper functional precision, as larger dots are mostly-precise-enough in the majority of people's hands.

I can't quote Sarge correctly because he put his answers in my quote. Anywhere, here's what he said: "BUT FOR AVERAGE HEIGHT SHOOTERS WHO ARE NOT 15 YEARS OLD THIS OFTEN REQUIRES GETTING ON THE GROUND THE LAST STEP SINCE GETTING UP ON THE CLOCKS IS A DEAL BREAKER. THAT SIGNIFICANTLY DISADVANTAGES THEM COMPARED TO A KID OR SHORT FIT SHOOTER." "Can't do it" and "it is harder because you aren't fit" are two separate things. Everyone can drop to the ground and get up. (It might take more work for older people, but we can still do it.) Short people can't magically become taller. The two cases aren't remotely the same. "I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE CASE. SHE STOOD ON THE FAULT LINE. PERIOD. IF SHE IS GOOD ENOUGH TO FINISH THAT WELL SHE IS FULLY CAPABLE OF STANDING ON A FAULT LINE. HELL, EVEN I CAN STAND ON A FAULT LINE." You are using a "well, since she's good, she can deal with it" argument? That's a little different. "Hey, since you are so good, we'll just make this part harder for you. No complaining, you gamer." That's not how it works. "I can stand on a fault line" doesn't have anything to do with the situation at hand. Fixing the stage so this wouldn't be a problem would have been easy enough to do in the first place. As someone said, having a step there available to all would have been a simple fix. We even have a rule about it: 2.1.6 Obstacles – Natural or created obstacles in a course of fire should reasonably allow for variations in competitors’ height and physical build and should be constructed to provide reasonable safety for all competitors, Match Officials and spectators. Pretty sure that "hey, you, since you are good we'll just make you run to the front and balance on the fault lines like no one else has to do because you are short" doesn't follow that rule.

Probably because no matter how tall you are, you can reach the ground. Short people can't magically become taller. If a barrier that people have to shoot over requires short people (but not anyone other than really short people) to come completely up to it and balance on a fault line so that they can barely reach and shoot the targets, that's a bad stage prop and design. And yes, our sport does allow for accommodations given that---though it is generally a good idea for the RM to think about those in advance, and have clearly (and easily) defined criteria for usage of such accommodations. Or better yet, put a wide step up there in the first place, that doesn't require balancing, that everyone can use. Tall people don't have to use it, short people can use it but don't have to worry about balance problems. Claiming "gamer" and equating that to "attempting to gain an advantage" in a derogatory manner not only doesn't fit this situation and shooter, but ignores the fact that our sport recognizes that accommodations sometimes need to be made.

Based on the stuff in bold, your club is run very differently from many. Also based on that, I agree that you shouldn't renew your RO certification or USPSA membership---if you don't like the rules and the way the sport is being run, and you aren't going to work to change those rules, and you aren't going to enforce those rules at official USPSA matches, you should indeed make it so you don't have to worry about any of those things---nor screw up other people because you don't follow the rules. At my club, we make sure we play by the rules, so that everyone is equal under those rules. If someone's equipment doesn't match their division, we talk to them to see if we can get it fixed and they can stay in that division. If it can't be fixed, they shoot in Open and have a perfectly good time doing so, and we talk to them about what they need to change to fix it for the next match. Unsurprisingly, this isn't ever a problem. Our folks don't get in trouble when they go to Level II and up matches, because they are used to simply participating in a match that runs according to the rules, whether that is in the areas of equipment, procedures, or scoring. It isn't hard to simply follow the rules, and communicating clearly with all competitors about the rules is a nice, simple, clear way to forstall problems. If you see an equipment issue, talk to them about it, and see if you can fix it. If you can't, shooting Open isn't the end of the world. And you can have a discussion about how to fix it for their next match.

In USPSA, I can draw, aim at a spot on the berm where no target is, and take a shot that is nowhere near a target, and it isn't an AD. I can shoot at targets and miss them--and that isn't an AD. I can fire a shot between targets (literally ADing) while transitioning between targets, and as long as that shot goes into the berm, it isn't a DQ even though it is an AD. Not all ADs are DQs. Shooting at a target and simply missing definitely isn't going to be a DQ. Now, as people have said---maybe there is a local range rule (properly spelled out in the WSB for that stage, with that information available to all competitors prior to shooting the stage) making misses in the described situation a DQ offense. But the IPSC rules themselves don't say that.

As people have pointed out, that isn't an IPSC rule. (I am amused by the idea that people are somehow to be forced to aim for every shot magically by government fiat, I'll note. Good luck with that.) As for "slow" -- again, ROs are actually required to state rules for their DQ. If the statement is "this is unsafe gun handling because he missed while shooting slowly," feel free to support that with a rule. When you can't, feel free to let it go.

And yet, "weird point shooting" is not a DQ-able offense. And they weren't ADs, because there wouldn't be two shots right next to the target (as described) if they were ADs. (And I'll note that I've seen PLENTY of people miss close targets, including nationally-ranked GMs.) You said you'd DQ the guy for unsafe gun handing. I was just asking your criteria, which you can't seem to provide. However, as you don't seem to be an RO, that makes sense---ROs know they are required to actually have a rule to cite to uphold their DQ call. They can't go on whether or not something "doesn't seem right" or whatever. @ard212, it sounds like you have made a good choice---talk to the RM, find out what the problem specifically was, and go from there. IPSC/USPSA is a ton of fun, don't let one bad instance ruin it for you!

For the sake of my curiosity, when you are running shooters, at what point do you go from "unsafe gun handling" to "poor gun handling" and stop DQing them? What criteria do you use?