Thomas H

Here's one: (Not the original I was talking about, but this one is fun just because of the size of the muzzle blasts.)

My favorite is the guy shooting the 500 S&W revolver. The spectators just can't stop laughing...

Like I said, I personally want to draw people TO the sport, instead of driving them away. At our matches, we still have plenty of room for non-members to shoot. They aren't kicking out members. As Hammer said, this may be a difference between the coasts, and where we are. We just don't have the population base to fill our matches completely full, so it doesn't hurt us any to allow others. The "non-members be allowed to compete for an organization's championship" is a valid point. I personally don't think it is a big deal for Level II matches, but that is only my personal opinion and it doesn't change the fact that it is a valid point that membership will add value for some people, and it IS specifically a particular organization's championship match. For me, the fact that that original SC didn't have any memberships, and that up until Jan 2019 we didn't require memberships for Level II ,seems to mean to me that it wasn't an issue in the past---which like I said, makes me wonder what we are gaining from this change. Thank you for bringing up a valid point that hadn't occurred to me. Man, I'd love to expand our match to 3 days and allow people to shoot more divisions. But....at the moment, our numbers just wouldn't support that, and getting staff for a two-day match is already not particularly easy. In the future though, if we keep growing, hopefully we'll get to that point!

Ah, that makes sense. Oddly enough, that's WHY I shot SS Minor this past year----I didn't want to have to reload a different caliber, nor do different stage plans. I was just interested in trying a gun type that I hadn't spent much time with, and since I knew I wouldn't use it outside of SS in USPSA (which I wouldn't shoot much after this year) or a bullseye-type match somewhere, I didn't want to spend extra money on things I wouldn't use later.

That's how we run our Level II match, though we do all 8 stages. Morning squads have 9-10 guns, afternoon squads have 10-11 guns, everyone shoots the whole match in a half-day with no issues, staff still gets a break in the middle and time to eat lunch. Works really well. Do it on Saturday and Sunday both, and you have space to run 280-300 guns without issue and still have everything torn down and awards done by 5pm on Sunday. We had 288 guns signed up last year, until the blizzard. Hopefully this coming year will be better, and with better weather!

I have no idea what you are talking about in your first sentence. As for the last one, I originally said, which you quoted: "In my area, at least, we have a number of casual shooters who only occasionally shoot matches, but who enjoy SC, and therefore jump at the chance to participate in a Level II match." In other words, we have some people who only shoot one or two matches a year, or have only shot one or two matches, but they were SC and they enjoyed it (Level I local matches). They jumped at a chance to shoot a Level II match, registered for more than one division (most of them), and enjoying shooting it. As I said elsewhere, a percentage of them later went on to join USPSA/SCSA. Under the rules that will be enforced next year, those people wouldn't have been able to do that.

I'm thinking one of the main issues in this thread is that people are describing "paper GMs" in two different ways. Since they are talking about different things, then it isn't surprising that they think different things about those two different things.

Ok, that makes me curious. Why?

I agree, those are some of the pluses for membership. But...at the same time, in SCSA it is only recently that we've started HAVING classification-based performance recognition. (Matter of fact, I wonder how many Level II matches even do it? Of the ones I shot last year (three? four? maybe three?), ours was the only one that had class recognition. I wonder what the actual stats on class recognition at Level II matches are...) I asked for logical reasons, as opposed to emotional opinions. I mean, there's nothing wrong with emotional opinions, but just because someone has one doesn't mean it is in any way convincing to anyone else. Logical reasons tends to be something worth considering. Even better, the number of "I don't care if your friends don't participate," "everyone follows the rules except for you," " you and your local shooters," " you can shoot with your buds " and so on types-of-comments are interesting. I mean, sheesh, I'm a life member, this doesn't apply to me, and my stated reason for wanting us to go back is that it can help get MORE people interested in the sport. And yet, people try to make it personal, instead of about the topic. I don't believe that USPSA/SCSA has any insurance that is given to any club holding a match. I may be wrong there, but I don't think anything of the sort is true. Clubs are on their own regarding insurance. In addition the "if your friends don't participate" thing really isn't relevant. Or do you think this is about me? Because I've been a life member for years, and most of my friends who shoot have been shooting for a long time, and been members for a long time. This is about pulling new people into the sport. Making it about me is....extremely non-relevant. Well, that's the thing---I agreed that Level III+ events should still require membership, as people who shoot those are already hooked on the sport. So for regional or national events, I agree, membership should be required. But Level IIs are not regional or national. As for Tier 1 matches and "simpler stages" --- I was surprised to find out how many people's local matches were all 8 stages, when I asked about it awhile back. Our locals (as another example) are 6 stages, but we rotate through all the stages over the year and so we do shoot all eight repeatedly. Similarly for another local match I attend down at the Heartland Shooting Park---their locals are 4-6 stages, and in given match, all eight stages are equally likely. Aren't there some places that literally leave all 8 stages set up all the time for people? (There were certainly more that I originally expected when I asked about it.) I agree that a number of clubs can't set up the longer ones. And yet....is there a huge problem (or even a small problem) at level II matches in the past having DQs on the longer stages? (Remember, so far there has been no enforced membership requirement at Level II matches. If there was a problem, we'd know.) Handful of freeloaders...? Really? Um, their match fees go to SCSA and their local club just like anyone else's. I'm curious, at your local matches do you call non-members "freeloaders" and make those comments? Have you at Level IIs in the past? Because if so, that's a great turn-off for the sport. Not really the way to get more people to be interested and join, and not the way we do things out here, either at the club I'm part of, or the clubs around me. (Or even in states around me, far as I can tell.) When I read things like this: "It sounds like you and your local shooters do not perceive value from membership in SCSA. SCSA provides a rulebook, in this case all the stages, classifications and a Brand. " ....it occurs me to that people don't seem to understand club membership versus individual membership. Use of the rulebook, the name, and the brand are all functions of the club membership. And the reason clubs affiliate is because it draws people in to shoot (whether the club wants money or wants more people interested in the shooting sports, either way, the affiliation is about more shooters). The reason that individuals get memberships is because they perceive added value from it. If they don't have a membership, they are still contributing to the sport via their match fees. (If you call them freeloaders, perhaps you shouldn't be charging them money?) I personally think that the SCSA membership DOES have added value. But many casual shooters don't necessarily SEE that until they shoot a higher-level match, and I think that is going to become even MORE obvious as more Level II matches start adding class recognition. (Which, like I said, doesn't seem to be much of a thing YET, though hopefully it will catch on more.) And again: Comments like "free loaders" and "don't support the sport" and so on don't make any sense when you think about the fact that so far since USPSA bought SCSA, competitors have NOT been required to be SCSA members to shoot Level II matches. In other words, people are making those comments about something that's never even been an issue before! Which is why I was looking for logical reasons to change. We are taking some people who could always shoot before, and telling them they can't shoot. Logical reasons for it thus far have been "alignment with USPSA rules" (which I disagree with being necessary, but that doesn't make it a less valid point), and "the bylaws say so" (which doesn't seem to be true, though I certainly also had to look it up to be sure). Comments like "they don't support the sport" and "they are just freeloaders while everyone else makes the rules and sets up the matches and etc" aren't logical as they haven't been true in the past, and just because they aren't a member doesn't mean they don't help set up and tear down matches, plus their match fee percentage goes to SCSA HQ just like everyone else. I was hoping there were other logical reasons for this, or if not, other people might think about whether or not this change will help the sport grow and pull in more people. Several people discussed it from that standpoint, and I appreciate it. Others decided to call people freeloaders and so on without discussing the actual topic, and I certainly hope you don't have that attitude at your local matches. I REALLY hope you aren't any sort of RO or match official at local matches, because that makes our sport look bad. Zach, thanks for checking the bylaws. I didn't think that requirement was in there, but having someone else look is useful.

Trent, you just said I lot of things that I don't understand. "Right, a portion of the match fees goes to support the SCSA Brand, rule book and organization. Except for you who want to use that brand, stages and rules to promote your match and charge higher fees." .....whether people are members or not, the same portion of the match fees still go to SCSA. And a Level II match is different from a Level I match, so unsurprisingly, it costs more for a Level II match. I'm not understanding your "except for you" part, since again, the exact same match fees still go to SCSA. For everyone. "There are more people actually in SCSA now than ever before. Perhaps because there are rules and a Classification System. There are plenty of Steel matches that do not require a membership." Okay. That has nothing to do with the topic, though, or the ability of people to shoot Steel Challenge. "There have been many reasons listed, you just don't like them so you ignore them." So you should be able to point out logical ones. Thus far, the logical ones were "make it match with USPSA" and "may be in the bylaws" which is why I specifically said that other things in SCSA don't match USPSA, and there seems to be no need for this one to do so, and asked also about where in the bylaws because I can't seem to find it. If you had another logical point to make, please do so. "Brand, Rule book, classification system and in SCSA, unlike USPSA, all of the exact stages are specified in the rulebook. Even more than in USPSA SCSA requires a rule book to setup the exact stages." Ok. None of that is a logical reason to change our rules from what they used to be which was that membership wasn't required at Level II matches. (Remember, it was that way for years.) We didn't have a problem with non-members shooting Level II matches prior to this year...and we bought SCSA awhile ago. So the fact that we have a rulebook and a classification system (where said classification system isn't used for non-members) and the exact same match fees are forwarded to SCSA whether from a member or not.....isn't a logical reason for the change. "Perhaps we should propose to amend the rules that anyone not an SCSA member at a Level II match have 10 seconds added to their match time? If shooters are members, they get to keep the scores they shot." Perhaps we are thinking different things in terms of what it means to be "good for the sport." I think it means things that will draw more people to the sport while giving our regulating body (a non-profit, I'll note) sufficient income to help do their jobs and promote the sport. Since member or not, the match fees aren't any different, the "sufficient income" is a non-issue. In terms of drawing people to the sport, I'm thinking chasing away people who aren't yet members perhaps won't work well. I'm not sure why you think treating non-members as second-class citizens will be helpful. "Those shooters are not barred, they are just not supporting the organization and the proposed rule set. What other rules will they not have to follow? Should they be allowed to start with their finger pointed at the first steel plate?" Um, they are literally barred from shooting the match. They aren't allowed to shoot it. And if they were allowed to shoot it, their match fee would support the sport just as much as a member's match fee. Rules they will not have to follow? My point is that this rule should be removed---specifically, that it should be changed back to the way we HAD been doing it since USPSA bought SCSA. That would mean that they were following the rules precisely. Commenting that they are not following rules makes no sense. "Will you bring the steel in closer so it is more convenient for those shooters to compete?" That isn't relevant to the situation at all, nor is it even an analogy that makes sense. Again: if we go back to the participation rules as they had been from when USPSA starting running SCSA up until the start of this year, then they would be following the rules. "My guess is that no you wouldn't because it is against the rules of the SCSA organization which oversee all of the competitors and not a select few." That argument literally has no relation to the topic at hand, so my guess is that I wouldn't worry about it in the slightest. You don't want to hear it, but if you don't think membership in the sport, to continue to help drive the success of the sport should be required for the greater good of the sport, then nothing anyone can say will change your mind." I take it you shoot IDPA? I'll note that we don't require membership in either USPSA or SCSA for participation in Level I matches, an the majority (the strong majority) of USPSA and SCSA shooters ONLY participate in local matches. As such, arguing that Level II requirements such as this (that we've never had nor needed before, nor did we need it this year since it was specifically not enforced) are "required for the greater good of the sport" doesn't have much logical backing, particularly since it is such a small percentage of people. Are you attempting to claim that the few additional people who are non-members who shoot SCSA, who would join SCSA just so they could shoot Level II matches, are the difference between the success of the sport and its failure? I find that non-convincing. "Shooting SCSA is a privilege and each of those shooters will spend way more on ammo at one match, then an annual membership." Agreed on the ammo part. That's not the point, though. Here's another way of looking at it: I looked at the participation in our Level II matches for the last two years. Of the non-members who shot the 2017 match, 29% afterwards joined SCSA. In 2018, it was 16%. (Mostly because we had awful weather and a lot of the non-members who weren't that into steel didn't show.) In other words, getting to shoot a Level II match was something that helped them decide to join, and they have kept their membership ever since. So, again I ask, other than "to align with USPSA" or "bylaws," are there any logical reasons for this change? if there aren't, and we keep the rule anyway, that's how it goes, and that'll be too bad. If there are, I'd like to hear them. If there aren't and that makes people realize that it means that fewer people have bigger opportunities to enjoy the sport and thus we shouldn't keep the rule, I think it would be a good thing.

It is interesting reading some of the responses. I make a post regarding a rule change that was made at the beginning of 2018 that hasn't even been enforced yet, talk about how it may affect shooters interested in Steel Challenge---and what a couple of people say is: "What you are asking is this: You dues paying members of USPSA, I have some friends that don't want to support the SCSA sanctioning body but want to shoot in SCSA sanctioned matches. Kindly let USPSA/SCSA know that you think it's unfair for the borg to require those individuals pay dues to shoot in our matches even though they don't think the borg is a worthy cause. " and "It sounds like you and your local shooters do not perceive value from membership in SCSA. SCSA provides a rulebook, in this case all the stages, classifications and a Brand." ...neither of which is actually related to the topic I brought up, and makes interesting claims regarding both myself and shooters they don't know at all. Other than saying "You guys do realize that everyone who shoots a SCSA match has part of their match fee sent to SCSA HQ to support the sport whether they are members or not, right?" ...I'm going to just ignore all of that, because it is both off-topic in several different ways, and makes a number of personal comments that are both factually incorrect, and insulting. So not worth a much of a reply. Back to the point: Zach said: "I will need to confirm but I believe the USPSA Bylaws State that matches higher than club level require membership." Looking at the bylaws, I don't see anything like that, so if you can find it, I'll be curious where. I'd also be curious as to whether or not that actually applies to SC matches, as opposed to USPSA matches. With both reading through the bylaws and doing a word search on the bylaws, I can't find anything about levels II+ matches requiring anything like that. Matter of fact, I don't find ANYTHING in the bylaws discussing matches by level at all, really. SCSA originally didn't require any memberships at all (anyone could play) and was hugely successful. After USPSA bought SCSA and up until the 2018 rules revision, membership was not required for Level II matches--and it was still not required for 2018, and expected to be implemented in 2019. Given that, I am surprised by the people who think this is suddenly an important requirement given that we've never done it before. (It also seems to be to make it less likely to actually be in the bylaws, because if it was, we'd have enforced it this year, I would have assumed.) The current USPSA rulebook does indeed requirement membership to participate in Level II matches. Personally, I'm for that for several reasons, not least of which is that people who are members are much more likely to simply be safe with a firearm under the conditions of an action pistol stage. SCSA though---the stages aren't any different from a level I to a level II. And SC is much simpler "entry" type match for many people. As a match type, it is considerably more straightforward, requiring less gear. (Not easier to succeed at, as the skill required is just as high. But the requirements themselves are much more straightforward.) As such, it is a great way to get "casual" shooters hooked on competition shooting, with many starting in SC and then adding USPSA over time. (At least, that's what I've seen in our Section, and heard from plenty of other people.) The fun and excitement of a Level II SC match (with more divisions, more stages than most locals, and awards) is something else that can simply pull more people into the sport. Basically, I still haven't seen any logical reason for NOT letting non-members shoot Level II matches (other than perhaps bylaws?) thus far, other than "they don't support the sport enough for us" (even though a portion of their match fee goes to the sport itself, in addition to supporting their local club) and "to make it match USPSA rules" which doesn't seem necessary to me given that it isn't a safety issue nor an equipment issue. (And other rules in SCSA don't match USPSA.) Is there (other than possible bylaws issues) a logical reason to bar interested people who aren't SCSA members from shooting Level II SC matches? zzt: It is cool that your clubs have such a high level of participation in your area! We have been working on getting our numbers up over time---in the last ten years we have managed to triple our average number of shooters per USPSA match, and quadruple our SCSA match participation. But we aren't anywhere near your area's level yet!

Yes, we charge more. (Not much, though---far as I can tell, we seem to have one of the cheapest Level II matches around. $35 for the first division, $15 for all additional divisions up to a maximum of 6.) Our local matches are $15 for the match. Our Level I local matches only have 6 stages. Our Level II matches have all eight stages, dedicated ROs, awards, random prizes, and the ability to shoot up to six divisions---none of which our local matches have. As such, there isn't much "extra money." In my personal opinion, taking match money to pay for a group of people's memberships (as opposed to, for example, giving a couple of memberships as random prizes to non-members, which was something Zach suggested originally), would lead to more people not bothering to join, since their membership would be simply paid for by the match. Don't want that outcome---rather the opposite of what we want.

That wouldn't surprise me. Entrenched opinions and emotional investment, not to mention a "well, it is already done" attitude is difficult to change. (Note: I'm not saying that about Zach, I'm saying that about people in general.) However, this isn't an equipment rule, nor a safety rule, nor anything else that needs to be "aligned" with any other sport to create competitive equity. The question is, other than "alignment," is there any purpose to the rule? Does it make the sport better? Does it help expand the sport, create a larger membership, or anything like that? Is there anything positive that occurs due to this rule? Because there are some negatives to this rule, in that people who would normally shoot a Level II match and enjoy the sport won't be able to do so. I asked about this rule when it first came out, and what I originally heard was "there didn't seem to be any really good reason for it in the first place" along with a "I'm hoping we'll change it back" at the time. What positives are we getting out of it, that matter to the sport of SC? Was there a reason this needed to be "aligned" with USPSA? After all, magazine carry, placement, and usage aren't "aligned" with USPSA, because there is no need---it is a different sport. Was there any reason given to "align" this one?

I agree completely, which is why the "must draw gun and/or fire" drives me nuts. Some guy jerks forward and takes a step while dropping his hand to his gun, realizes he was reacting to the beep in the next bay and stops, the timer accidentally goes off in there somewhere---and I have to give him a procedural penalty in addition to the horrible run he is about to have? Don't like it.

Currently in the SC rulebook (new this year), people who want to shoot Level II SC matches must be members of SCSA/USPSA. (This wasn't true prior to that.) I think we should go back to not requiring people to be SCSA members to shoot Level II matches---that it again be "recommended" rather than "mandatory" just as it was prior to this past year. Right now commentary is still open on the USPSA website regarding any possible suggested changes to the rules for USPSA, SCSA, and USPSA Multigun. If you agree, I'd like to urge you to go there ( http://uspsa.org/rulebook ) and comment on it. Appendix F1 in the SCSA rulebook currently states that for Level I matches membership is recommended, and for Level II, III, and IV it is mandatory. In my area, at least, we have a number of casual shooters who only occasionally shoot matches, but who enjoy SC, and therefore jump at the chance to participate in a Level II match. Even though the membership fee is small, they don't shoot many matches and thus just won't join. As such, under the current rules they wouldn't be allowed to shoot our Level II match, even though it is local to them. Now, for things like USPSA, Level II matches are normally run more strictly (whether that is according to the rulebook or not) with more complicated stages, requiring a higher level of understanding of the rules and a higher skill competency level for safety reasons. In the case of SCSA, however, that isn't true. It is the same set of stages, with the exact same ruleset (other than no coaching on misses). There is no higher competency level required. As such, limiting Level II matches to members-only simply reduces the number of shooters who get to enjoy SCSA, for no appreciable gain. In my opinion. Keeping Level III and Level IV matches member only---ok, sure. Admin wants to drive more people into memberships, and it isn't like the memberships are expensive, and people generally don't go to Level III+ matches unless they are already dedicated to the sport. I get that. But level II matches are ones that many local people might still shoot. We've had people in the past whose first SC match ever was our Level II, and who were hooked by the ability to shoot multiple guns (including rimfire). In my opinion, our sport would be better served by not requiring SCSA membership to participate in Level II matches. If you don't agree with me, you'd ALSO better go to the site and comment on it, because I certainly did for my point of view. Thoughts?

Rather depends on what people have to do at the start of the course. (Pull a rope, open a door, take three steps, pick up a magazine from a table, pick up a gun from a table, etc...) Here's my question: If I quickly go for my gun, get a grip on it, and draw it from the holster, you are saying that I have started the course of fire, yes? So if I quickly go for my gun, then suddenly stop before I get the gun out of the holster (so I haven't "drawn"), I have still obviously attempted to start the course of fire, yes? If someone moves quickly beginning the initial movement of the stage, then they are attempting to start the course of fire. If the timer hasn't gone off, that is a false start. It isn't a case of someone attempting to get into a better position from which to start the stage---they are starting the stage. Penalizing someone who quickly realizes (before they finish the draw) that they responded to an extraneous sound that they thought was the start signal, irks me. Especially compared to if they were clueless and completed the draw and thus were not penalized.

Oh, I've seen it quite a bit, both at Level I and Level IIs. (Hm. I've seen it at a level IIIs, also.) Especially on surrender position starts. Example of when a creeping penalty DIDN'T happen, but only because the RO was calm throughout: Guy starts in his version of surrender position, and his hands aren't high enough. RO waits a moment, then tells him the hands need to be higher. Shooter complies, then slowly starts lowering his hands back down again while waiting for the beep. RO waits, says again "raise your hands, wrists above shoulders," the shooter turns around and complains "they WERE" and the RO says "they were until you lowered them again, so raise them up again." Shooter complies, the RO says "Are You Ready?" and gets ready to give the start signal, and the competitor again starts lowering his hands. The RO simply waits and doesn't give the start signal. The shooter waits, then angrily says "Are you gonna start me or what?" and the RO says calmly "when you are in the start position with your wrists above your shoulders." The shooter visibly stops himself from yelling, puts up his hands much higher than needed (probably thinking he was making a sarcastic point, instead of actually making a statement to those watching as to what kind of person he was), the RO went on with Are You Ready? and then the start signal happened. I've seen creeping happen any number of times. Almost every time, the RO just waits for the shooter to fix himself, (or fall over from leaning, that's always funny), and then the commands and course of fire continues. I think the creeping penalty SHOULD stay in there, because someone who is trying to cheat the start position SHOULD get a penalty if they start the course of fire that way. I don't think that should be a re-shoot, I think it should be a penalty, since they were literally trying to cheat the start position. To me, though, that's a completely separate thing from a false start. I've seen all too many false starts from extraneous outside noises, including timer signals from separate bays. I think that false starts (an actual quick start to the course of fire, though "drawing" isn't the start of a course of fire so I don't think that should be the deciding point) should be re-shoots every time, and not penalties. (Unless there is a known set of times where a competitor has attempted to jump the signal, and cheat the timer, which is a different penalty anyway.) I don't think there should be a false start penalty at all. But that's me.

I agree---and that's one of the reasons I don't like the way the current rule (and interpretation) is written. I know that in the past, I've seen someone start a slow creep right as I was letting go of the button on the timer (PACT, release activation), so it was a creeping penalty since I couldn't stop the beep in time. MOST of the time, though, I agree---creeping penalties should never occur because we should simply wait until they made it back to the start position, and go with "Are You Ready" again. The "false start" definition, currently, irks me greatly.

I"ve seen a number of false starts (where the shooter reacted to an outside influence that wasn't the start signal) when they realized it wasn't the timer AFTER they had moved their hands quickly and sharply, but before they had drawn the gun. It was obviously a beep from another bay, or an extraneous noise, etc---and obviously they thought it was the start signal but then realized it wasn't before they had completed the draw. I don't want to give the a penalty for that, just because they managed to realize their error quickly. By that way of thinking, if someone realizes they made a false start, we are REQUIRING them to continue their draw just to make sure they don't get penalized for a completely reasonable mistake. "The draw" is not the beginning of an attempt at a COF. Heck, by that measure any distance table starts would require you to move to the table and pick up the gun before it could be called a false start. It always seemed to me that "false start" and "creeping" situations are easy to tell apart due to the speed difference. Creeping is slow---trying to move to a move advantageous position (and out of the correct start position) before the beep. A false start is obviously---it is fast, and the competitor is going for their gun. It irks me that we'll penalize people for quickly realizing that they started based on an extraneous outside noise.

IDPA 4.6.1 omits the last half of USPSA 9.5.5, the "...unless there is visible evidence..." part which makes rather a huge difference. The IDPA rule is significantly different from the USPSA version.

As people have pointed out, winning locals as a C-class isn't a good measurement of what it will take to win big matches. Winning big matches is a perfectly laudable goal. However, unless you've seen how GMs shoot, you might not have a realistic idea of what it will take to reach that goal. It is technically possible to win Limited at major matches (for example, Area or Nats) shooting a Minor PF pistol. That being said, I don't believe anyone has ever done it, and there's a reason for that. As an example, in the recent 2018 Limited Nationals, if JJ had been shooting Minor at the same speed with the same hits, he'd have been 3rd overall, not first. Ben, who is extremely used to shooting Production and most likely had the most difficulty out of the three not shooting in Minor-accuracy-mode, would have been 5th instead of 3rd if shooting Minor. (It'll be interesting to see how Ben does in future Limited competitions, since he got 3rd having not shot Limited much at all.) Some people might argue (correctly) that if they knew they were shooting Minor, those competitors would have been more accurate---however, then they would have been slower, too. In Limited due to its division requirements, the slightly-less-recoil and slightly-more-capacity advantage of shooting 9mm versus .40 is more than offset by the point penalty for C and D hits. It is simply much more advantageous to shoot Major in Limited. In a similar fashion, as people have pointed out, you can certainly shoot Limited with a G17. However, a longer slide means less powder for the same velocity, so less recoil. (And more weight forward, for a similar useful results.) In other words, if "winning big matches" is indeed your goal, you are probably going to find that you are going to need to change some things about your gear. My suggestion would be to not worry about it until you've shot a couple of Level II or Level III matches, however. You'll then have a better idea of what you'll need to do to meet your goal, and have an expanded understanding of the gear people use, and the level to which to you are aspiring. Good luck!

So what are your times like, compared to the people winning the Limited division in the matches around you? Preferably Level II and above? Getting all alphas is good, but if it much slower than others, that's not a winning combination. It all depends on what your goal is, though. If you want to have fun at locals, a G17 with basepads is a great way to go.

I'm not sure I'd necessarily agree with that. I know several A and B-class shooters who are very, very fast. They just aren't consistently accurate, but every once in awhile (and you can see this in big matches also, occasionally), they burn down a stage AND get lucky enough to get good hits. They aren't GMs (or even Ms) but they are fast, and every once in awhile they get lucky, so they blaze a stage. I've seen similar things happen on classifiers---someone gets a stage score that is vastly outside of their actual skill level due to a hero-or-zero type run where they got lucky. So take a set of classifiers, run each of them multiple times in a hero-or-zero fashion, and by luck, some of them are going to go really, really well. May take awhile, but if you can redo them as many times as you want, it'll happen. Collect them all, and you can get yourself kicked significantly above your actual skill level in terms of classification. (I'm the opposite---I can't seem to run classifiers well to save my life, though I do decently in matches. ? ) For me, personally, a "paper GM" is someone who is a USPSA GM who got there by hero-or-zeroing enough times, often due to repeated runs at the same classifier, until they managed a set of 6 in the appropriate range---and who can't manage major match finishes remotely close to the other GMs, and who get beaten by people classed several places below their own. I've seen several. And there's certainly been discussions of others. I think that it has already been shown (by a particular shooter who even made the claim that "anyone can make GM") that someone can, with enough hero-or-zero runs on repeated classifiers, get a GM card without even remotely being able to finish on a GM level at matches. In general, in my own mind, I have four different levels of "GM". 1st Tier are the guys who finish top three nationally and internationally. These are the guys who normally just destroy everyone else. There aren't many of these, and they are just that much better than others until another Tier 1 comes along. 2nd Tier are the guys who normally finish just behind those Tier 1 guys, who every once in awhile give them a run for their money, and who are always beating the Ms and lowers, who tend to be in the top five at Level III major matches that aren't Nationals. The 2nd Tier guys are the GMs who can do it on a consistent, regular basis whether on classifiers, standards, or field stages---that's simply their skill level all the time. 3rd Tier GMs are the poor guys who just made it into GM. They CAN shoot GM-level, they just aren't doing it all the time yet, so while they mostly are in the GM-group-finish at majors, occasionally an M squeaks by one of them. Their classifiers and field stages are closer to GM-level than M, but every once in awhile they slide a little. They rock at locals and do solidly well at majors, and normally are working on getting more consistent in shooting GM-quality all the time. They got their GM-card after having a whole ton of scores almost get them there, and then one last one finally tipped them over the line. And the paper GMs are the guys who have a GM card, mention it periodically to everyone, but don't have match scores that support it in majors, and sometimes in locals get tromped by M and even A-class shooters. That's just my opinion, though, based on my experiences with people. All are GMs according to USPSA, though. And it all gets sorted out when a match comes along.

This is for Level II and up matches. Some staff (CROs, at least) shoot prior to the rest of the competitors showing up. (We normally try to shoot as much of the staff as possible earlier, but sometimes some of the squad ROs still shoot with the squad.)

I think that one of the issues also was people not making a separation between the RO and the CRO for the stage. At our level II matches, we differentiate between the CRO and the squad RO. The CRO stays on the stage, runs the timer, and that way the stage itself is done exactly the same for all shooters, and the CRO running the timer is experienced at making sure the timer picks up the last shot for all divisions on that particular stage. The squad RO, on the other hand, moves with the squad, is used to the squad and can keep them in order, running smoothly, and knows if certain people need a little reminding to help on the stage and so on. Having both stay on a particular stage is fine, also, but we've had a lot of good luck with squad-dedicated ROs (running the tablet and the scoresheets) for our Level II matches. We prefer to also keep the guy running the timer (the CRO of the stage) on that specific stage.