Thomas H

But that doesn't say you still can't get one procedural for not following. There were no extra or missing shots The problem with that way of thinking is that technically speaking, almost any error that receives a procedural would then ALSO get a procedural for not following the WSB. Example: Most WSBs include some version of "engage all targets as they become visible from within the fault lines." Because of that, if you take a shot while faulting the line, you get the foot fault procedural.....should you ALSO get a procedural for failing to follow the WSB? You specifically did something that the WSB said not to do.

Questions from two people: "1) If a competitor asks what cadence the RO will be using, what should the RO answer? 2) ... can (should?) the RO announce what the cadence will be? 3) While the RO "may" change cadence between competitors, should they? 4) Can the competitor ask for a cadence, something like- can you count to 1 thousand 2 before beeping?" IMO: 1) You'll find out on the first beep. 2) No 3) Yes 4) Ask, yes. Get it? No. The competitor doesn't get to choose the cadence. The shooter doesn't get to know the cadence on the first beep, other than it will be within 1-4 seconds. The shooter will know that successive beeps will be similar in time to the first beep. The shooter should NOT get to expect that they will know the cadence based on watching the previous competitor. That way everyone starts the first beep the same way (knowing it will be within 1-4 seconds but it isn't up to the competitor) and knowing that the rest of the start signals should be roughly similar to the first one. There isn't a specific rule delineating these requirements, however.

In both of those cases people can bag, put in cart, or use a berm. The same situations apply for both sports. So....what are the problems again? Edited to add the following: Looking at what you originally wrote, you seem to be making two complaints: 1) "Yet USPSA/IPSC shooters lament that our carbines should be cased and flagged and using a procedure that requires pointing at a side berm." 2) "The other option we use in SC, is an unflagging carbine in a case. Shooter steps into shooters box and upon make ready command, removes the carbine without a flag, pointing downrange, and makes ready. Reverse is done upon the show clear command. Range is clear when bag is zipped up. Again, USPSA/IPSC shooters get confused with between USPSA and SCSA rules." We already know that #2 is incorrect, and the USPSA and SCSA rules match on that one. Flags are required. So no actual complaint. But for #1.....I'm still not sure of the problem. Like I said, USPSA and SCSA have the same set of allowed things here----bag/cart at shooting box, or bag/cart at berm. Both are legal and allowed. It is certainly true that many people who shoot a lot think that bag/cart at the berm is FASTER in terms of getting making ready before the stage and clearing the range after the stage, so of course people are going to have opinions on what they'd PREFER people to do. But....are people saying "Hey, we'd prefer you to do it THIS way because it is faster" an actual problem somehow?

Well, there's one of your problems. In SCSA, it IS necessary for your carbine (whether a PCC or a rimfire rifle) to be flagged whether in a bag OR in a cart. SCSA Rules, 1.1: Semi-autos must have chamber and magazine well empty. Rimfire rifles and PCC must have chamber and magazine well empty and bolt closed on a flag and be cased or secured in a cart. Chamber/magwell empty AND bolt closed on a flag AND case or in a cart. So.....that may be why some people are telling you that you need to flag your carbines while in bags. As for using a berm---it isn't required by the rules, it is merely an option. If some matches would prefer you to use that option, that's up to them, and they can state their preference.

The 2020 Great Plains Steel Challenge Championship will be held Saturday April 25th and Sunday April 26th at the Eastern Nebraska Gun Club near Louisville, NE. As a Level II match, it'll have all eight official Steel Challenge stages, and you can register to shoot up to 6 divisions in the match. Cost per division: $25. Payment required at registration, and you'll be able to squad immediately after registration/payment. There will be four shooting blocks (Sat morning, Sat afternoon, Sun morning, and Sun afternoon), and competitors will shoot all eight stages in one block, so you have choices as to when you want to shoot. Competitors may shoot up to two divisions per block. Match website for information: https://enps.us/matches/major-matches/great-plains-steel-challenge-championship Registration link on Practiscore: https://practiscore.com/2020-great-plains-steel-challenge-championship/register This is our fifth year to hold the match, and we are hoping to continue making it bigger and better. Last year we had 289 scored entries, and this year we'd like to push that over 300! If anyone has questions, feel free to email us at: enpsinfo@gmail.com

Yeah, A3 is not a good one for a day when the mental faculties aren't at their best.

Absolutely completely common. I've seen lots of matches that had a hard-cover partial target available next to a barrel that was designated soft cover, where it was also available from a different place. It wasn't hidden. It was obscured from one shooting position, but it wasn't hidden at all, nor was it even obscured from the other shooting position. Waktasz even posted the rule: 4.1.4.2 Cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score. Shots that have passed through soft cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized. All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact. Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must be visible from around or over the soft cover. This statement is false, even if Troy said it was correct: "If a target is obscured by soft-cover, it must be left whole and intact, regardless of whether it is available elsewhere." Obscured and hidden are two different things. Sure, if you literally can't see a target at all (hidden), it has to be a full target, according to the rule. But if it is merely obscured, then it is a different situation. If they meant for it to be the same thing, they'd have used the same term. They didn't. I can't at all fathom why Amidon or Troy would say that half-a-target poking out from a barrel designated as soft cover, especially one that was completely available from elsewhere (not obscured by the barrel from that viewpoint) could only be a full target. That doesn't match the rule at all.

Need a cover over your gun? Not always. Dropping a mag with rounds in it being "defensive"? Heh. As waktasz pointed out, they have "cover lines" (fault lines) now, not "body behind cover". And considering that IDPA rewards NOT using cover correctly in terms of how much is exposed while shooting targets quickly, again---IDPA may claim to be "more realistic" and "self defense oriented" but...it isn't. Still a fun shooting game.

Heh. That's what they say, yes. That's not what it is. Note: I also shoot IDPA. That doesn't change the fact that "more real life scenarios" is NOT what happens in IDPA matches. (I'll note also that there are plenty of cases where in USPSA you shoot from behind a barricade, often in classifiers.)

If you already have a couple of 10/22.....get an Axiom stock, put in a Kidd trigger, and buy a light barrel from somewhere. You might find that's really all you need to do.

Given the stage procedure as currently written, it is an illegal stage for a number of reasons.

Yes, I saw that you changed what you were claiming. Like I quoted earlier, you initially said: "If you practice, a DA first shot means nothing, at least in my personal experience." After that you talked about how you'd have to do extra practice to make it be the same. And various other things. Only later, when it was pointed out there were, indeed, stages in which a DA first shot (for example, many of our classifiers that include a first shot SHO or WHO) would make an obvious difference, you then changed it in various ways. So....yes, we all know that with sufficient practice, DA is not too much worse than SA. Which is not the same thing as "means nothing," and also includes said extra practice to get close to how SAs shots are. Going back to the point of all that, not having to worry about that initial DA pull would mean all that "sufficient practice" could go elsewhere. Would that make a difference? Dunno. Rather depends on how much they were practicing in the first place. It is certainly true that if people could shoot a 9mm 2011 in Production with mags loaded to 10 rounds, would that likely be the preferred gun over Glocks and such? Yup, just like they are the preferred guns in Limited over Glocks and such.

Heh. I personally love the Primary Arms Advanced Microdot. Currently $129 on Optics Planet. (With free shipping.) Run it on my PCC, RFPO, and RFRO. Had no trouble making GM in each of those with that particular dot. Battery good for 5 years (I change mine out yearly, because $3 isn't a big deal), and awesomely bright even in daylight on white plates with glare. https://www.opticsplanet.com/primary-arms-primary-arms-advanced-micro-dot-with-push-buttons-and-up-to-50k-hou.html It is interesting to see people's comments about "no tube, it slows you down" and so on. I didn't have any problem getting over a classification over 100% in those three divisions with that dot. Main thing, it seems to me: it is reliable (doesn't lose zero, doesn't kill the battery quickly), it is bright (can see it in all light levels and glare), and is placed at the right height for your eyes. Oh yeah, and is affordable. Pretty much any of the ones listed here work on a rimfire. Pick one, slap it on, make sure it is the right height for your "fit" on a rifle, and practice.

I'll note that most people who are used to irons prefer a low dot, instead of a high one---high dots require a significantly different hand position (compared to iron sights) to get the dot in front of your eye. For people with a LOT of time in iron sights, many really like to get that dot low, to make it easier to pick up the dot on transitions and so on. The higher the dot, the more practice it takes to get the right hand position to see the dot, because you have to re-train yourself away from what you are used to doing. YMMV, of course. Lots and lots of dryfire transition practice will fix this no matter what, though.

So, given a three-string standards stage (or a classifier) with freestyle, SHO, and WHO strings from the holster, a DA/SA has a non-existent difference compared to SA in terms of speed and accuracy? Right, right. You initially said: "if you practice, a DA first shot means nothing, at least in my personal experience." Hence my point about having to practice extra to make that happen, which rather literally contradicts what you were saying.

Match placement isn't by "overall HF" because that doesn't actually exist in USPSA. As people have said, the match points you get on a particular stage are based on your HF on that stage, compared to the high HF on that stage. Your match placement is then based on the total of the match points you get from all stages added together. In the overall results, the high HF for a particular stage is based on the highest out of everyone. In the results that actually count (which are your Production division results), the high HF for each stage is based on the highest Production HF for that stage. As such, the match points you get for a particular stage for division results are often different than the points you get for overall results. If you could link us to the PS results for the match, we could be more specific as to how this works.

I found it interesting that earlier someone posted a video of Max shooting A3 one year, and people went "Hey, that looks like a lot of fun!" It is, if you like that sort of thing. (If you like that sort of thing, you'll LOVE A3.) Other people go "too athletic" and so on. That's all fine. I'll note that in the vast majority of cases, if you don't want to move far, you can take the far shots. Your choice---45 yard steel, or 30 yard run and 15 yard steel. Up to you! I agree that this shouldn't be a Crossfit match. (Those actually exist, and A3 isn't one of them.) But....we aren't IDPA that sets a limit on how far the competitors can be required to move. None of the stages required pulling a 180-pound dummy 20 yards backward while shooting one-handed, then running 100 yards to go shoot stuff. But yes, you do have to be able to move a little. Some people really like that sort of thing. Some don't. All good.

Yup. Like I said---people who say there is no difference will not, oddly enough, ever shoot a DAO version of their gun in competition, if available.

For the pool noodles bouncing off the gun---I just don't really see the issues. They were pool noodles, not solid/heavy sticks or anything. They didn't really impact the gun, other than being in the way while trying to shoot. (Ok, for PCC if you just swept the entire thing fully side-to-side, you got quite a few trapped on the transition, and had to move around that.) Regarding staff seeing anything---well, there was a reason the motion was only forward, with side-to-side transitions. That way the staff only needed to watch the hands and the gun and movement in one direction, and that just wasn't that difficult to do. (Or at least, not really any more difficult than normal, other than the RO had to be a little more behind the shooter than normal, as opposed to off to the side. That's a function of the hallway, though, not the noodles.) There wasn't anything about the noodles that would cause people to pop off shots in unsafe directions any more than normal, OTHER than the noodles were a distraction. It wasn't like they were getting caught in the gun, or were heavy enough to move the gun in the middle of a reload or anything. In my opinion (so ignore it if people want) there was a lot of complaining about things where said "things" weren't the actual reason, but the competitor didn't want to say "the noodles really distracted me so I shot like crap." For the tire part---I agree that the definition didn't match, and that was an issue. It just isn't the issue that many people kept SAYING was the problem. And calling the use of tractor tires "circus props" is pretty ridiculous (note: this comment is based on other posts elsewhere, not anything I'm replying to right now) given all of the OTHER things major matches have made people shoot from. Like I said----different people enjoy different things. Some people like matches where all the stages feel like elongated classifer and standards stages. Others like match themes and props (Double Tap comes to mind here). Others like really athletically-based matches. Some folks prefer less movement and no prone ever. Different things for different people. Mostly, I just wish people would instead just say "that's not for me" as opposed to "that's horrible and stupid, no one should shoot it."

And yet, the person I was replying to not only wasn't merely talking about Production division, but also wasn't merely talking about USPSA. Which, you know, is why I clarified by saying at the start, "As such, we can take a look at Open guns..." and continued from there. It made what you said a little silly. Just as I said from the beginning, comments about how there isn't a difference between DA and SA are simply factually incorrect.

Ignoring the part where I was talking about Open division made what you said a little silly.

Not to mention that it is defined in Appendix A. "Weak Hand: The hand opposite the strong hand. For PCC, weak hand is the same as weak side. For PCC, both hands may be on the gun. NOTE: This applies to classifier requirements in all instances. Weak Side: PCC: Opposite of Strong Side. The carbine is mounted to the shoulder on the weak side of the body and trigger must be pulled with the weak hand. A shooter must utilize the same side of their body as the weak side for the duration of the match. " (1.1.5.3 and 1.1.5.4 are pretty clear regarding the application of those definitions.)

How much time did all the extra reloads add, compared to normal?

Like I said, some people have real troubles with anything that forces them to think while shooting, no matter how little. For example, I thought the pool noodle stage was easy---literally ignore the pool noodles, because they didn't mean anything and didn't do anything, OTHER than be a visual distraction. on't let them distract you, and shoot like normal. Other people let all the movement of the noodles get into their heads, and it was a problem for them. Similar the truck tires defining the shooting areas---simply the fact of having to move up and down a little (to get into the shooting area, then back out) was enough to make some people emotionally lose it. And yet....wasn't any harder than moving in and out of any other shooting areas I've done at other majors. Yet still, it is enough different in look and feel to make people think more, and things like that mess with some people. Calling those "stupid props" is interesting to me, because most of the complaints I've heard all really boil down to "it made it hard for me to concentrate on shooting, and I don't like that" which is exactly why they are there---it tests how much direct cognition people need for shooting. I happen to think that being able to shooting quickly and accurately while handling minor things like that is a good test of shooting skills (how else do you test for the level of unconscious competence?) but some people can't stand it when anything messes with their focus. Different people like different things (and different challenges) and that's all good. It is unfortunate that some people equate "I didn't enjoy this" with "this is badly done, and everyone should hate it" though.

Making up random emotional commentary to use to disparage other people isn't actually an argument, it is someone getting upset with their own hallucinations that they've projected upon someone else.. Moving onward to actual facts: One of the things we know quite well is that at upper levels of the sport, people will take every single advantage they can get, no matter how small. As such, we can take a look at Open guns, in which you COULD shoot a DA/SA, but no one does. You COULD shoot a Glock, but almost no one does (and none that do, succeed, and get away from it as soon as they can get out of the sponsor obligation). If you take a look at Limited, we DON'T see DA/SA guns. We might see striker-fired, but in those cases, the vast majority have trigger work done so that they most certainly aren't stock, and are much more close to being SA triggers in movement, feel, and weight. Joe4d said: "IDPA ESP vs SSP scores show it doesnt matter,, for that matter L10, SS, and production scores show it doesnt matter." Hm. I'd say pretty clearly that they show it does matter, actually. Yes, scores are similar in those divisions....except at high levels, whereupon they aren't, except for a few outliers. Using Vogel as an argument for a particular gun is ridiculous. That's like using Miculek in Steel Challenge to "prove" that revolvers are just as easy to shoot as SA guns. That's the person, not the gun. I'll note that nothing you said actually refutes the "DA does take more practice than SA" comment I made when I mentioned that if things WERE equal, then people would be shooting DAOs. At least SHOOTING them, if not winning or "being equal." But they aren't, and it isn't.