Thomas H
-
Posts
1,278 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Thomas H
-
-
On 12/17/2022 at 8:19 PM, Dirty_J said:
Theres nothing more irritating at a major that having an RO and a scorekeeper doing their thing on the stage… and other staff just standing around while the customers are resetting.
Given that the expectation for those matches are that all shooters reset their stage---it is literally part of the match, normally literally written into the matchbook, and is a common factor of the majority of matches since pretty much forever---given all that, I'm thinking that if competitors are grumpy about having to reset, that tells us a lot about them. Probably more than they want to let us know.
If someone thinks "staff just standing around" equates to "lazy people who don't want to help" or something similar (maybe "how dare they take a second to relax from working the entire match while the shooters reset the stage according to the expectations given in the matchbook" or something?) then I'm not sure exactly what that person thinks match staff does. Very odd for someone who has worked a nationals to say, really.
I know that when I'm working a major match, if there is enough staff on the stage, we rotate jobs because one job normally has slightly less to do, which means it is the "rest" job---because unlike competitors, you are literally doing someone at all points in time the rest of the time, and getting a break, no matter how minor, is important.
At most matches, the competitors are literally all expected to reset the stage. It is (almost always) literally in the matchbook. Being irritated when competitors have to go out and paste the three targets that are their part of the stage reset while some match staff are taking a breather from running the last hundred shooters seems....odd.
-
On 12/14/2022 at 5:59 PM, rowdyb said:
Also there is a slight conflict of interest when one of the people teaching RM and RO classes is also selling you their own poppers.
I'm unsure how this is a conflict of interest, given that there is no requirement to buy poppers at any class, the vast majority of people taking RO classes aren't buying poppers at any point in time, and there are a number of different vendors for steel targets.
Basically, I'm unsure how teaching an RM/CRO/RO class has anything to do with someone having a shooting business, unless there is some worry about that teacher not passing students who don't buy his poppers...?....which is ridiculous given both the format of the classes, the way the classes are scored, and how what is being sold isn't something that is a part of the class.
Seriously, I don't understand how this could be framed as a conflict of interest.
-
1 hour ago, zzt said:
SCSA Rule D5.4:
38 cal. / 9x19 mm (0.354” x 0.748”)
For competitions only in countries where
common military calibers are prohibited, .380
ACP is allowedSo he's correct, there is nothing in the rules about "minimum .40 diameter."
-
19 minutes ago, matteekay said:
This is my take, too (though as a MD, I'd NEVER argue these are illegal). I'm shooting the FL state championship in January; I'll probably email their SC ahead of time and get a response in case anyone questions it.
Given that it is IDPA, I'd completely agree that is the way to make sure prior to the match.
-
3 hours ago, bigdawgbeav said:
It didn't go well at all...
...which brings up the question, when will these be actually handled?
"Failed for lack of motion" is odd, since if they didn't like the proposal or thought it wouldn't work, they should have made a motion and voted it down. (Like they did elsewhere in the minutes.) If they didn't have time to talk about it, they should have tabled it. "Failed for lack of motion" is an interesting way to handle it...and doesn't tell us much about what the commentary from the membership said about it, nor what their thoughts were on it, and why it wasn't voted on during the meeting in which it was on the agenda.
I'll note THAT is one of the few things I strongly dislike about how boards handle things like this. "Ignoring it until it goes away" is not what I vote for. If that's not what was happening, then there should be more information about this.
Anyway: I think this is too bad. I didn't necessarily fully agree with all of those proposals, but I think there was some good thought put into them in terms of being good for the sport. As such, it is disappointing to see them effectively ignored.
(Especially given the previous issues with WSSC slots!)
I'll be curious as to what happens to the tabled topic.
-
Have neither gotten a ruling nor is currently using them (I do speedloaders when I shoot REV in IDPA) so take this merely as one SO's opinion---but the new rules took out a LOT of the older requirements for gear.
Someone is going to have a hard time coming up with a rule disallowing your gear.
....this will not stop a local match director who is all about "the way it was done in the old days" from staunchly declaring that it isn't suitable enough for all-day concealed carry. But from an actual rules standpoint, it is perfectly legal.
-
3 hours ago, GigG said:
Well, amazing how that works out.
2 hours ago, waktasz said:So if the second part was freestyle and not weak hand it would the answer be different? They are basing the answer on it being hard to shoot weak hand from slightly farther away. How about if the box was 60 feet away horizontally instead of only a few yards and the same distance from the targets. Their reasoning forces ROs to determine the answer on the fly instead of there being a clear cut answer. NROI fail.
Free style versus weak hand? No, still no different.
The entire point is that the lack of movement gets a penalty. (Noting that in the NROI example, there is a reload which would have been during the movement also.) After that point, is there any significant advantage gained? Not at all. Was there any significant advantage gained from not moving? No, because there was a standing reload that would take up time, plus shooting from that position was farther away so the shots certainly weren't easier. An advantage versus not moving? Sure. That's what the penalty is for. But significant? Not at all.
If the movement had been further, where a significant amount of time had been saved by not moving? Well, that's a different story. How much movement will it take? That depends on the stage and the RM---which is why, in that case, the CRO for the stage would have a discussion with the RM previous to anyone running the stage, so that it would be clearly known prior to anyone screwing it up.
This isn't something done "on the fly" --- it is literally the RM and CRO's job to figure this out prior to anyone shooting the stage, so they are clear on it.
-
34 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
Yeah, I'm co-md-ing on sunday. I haven't done crap about it the rest of the month except draw up the stage I'm going to build. The match is still going to get built quick, shot quick, and tore down quick, and the stages will be fun and interesting and challenging and shooters will like them. Of course someone (not me) had to originally develop the volunteer culture we have here, but it's not too hard to keep it going.
And that's really the thing. If you go to a club where the culture is such that it is expected and normal to volunteer, and it is NOT acceptable to not help out---that club is going to keep doing well, because as more people show up, that culture perpetuates itself. (With help, obviously.)
Building that culture in the first place can be really, really hard. And if a club doesn't have it, and doesn't try to build it....that club is probably going to suck after not very long, because the few people working to make it good are going to burn out pretty quickly.
-
On 11/16/2022 at 7:27 PM, rowdyb said:
Here there has never ever been a single 14-16 round stage without some sort of download or mandated reload. It truly takes any of the difference out of having ssp be 15 rounds. Bad match directing.
More people won't shoot ssp if on the ground there is zero effective difference in how you shoot the stage with 15 vs 10 rounds. Good on idpa, bad on local stage designers with their "well we can't let ssp have an advantage over anyone else..."
One of the things I've found interesting about the 15+1 new limit....is that it actually makes reloads more difficult for SSP shooters, IMO.
If we have a stage over 16 rounds, the vast majority of the time the last array has more than one target (often three). As such, SSP shooters either get a standing reload at the end, have to burn at least two-to-four rounds earlier so they can reload on the move, or are forced into a tac reload at some point in time during the stage.
With 10+1, oddly enough, I normally see a lot more ability to pick a decent reload point while moving (maybe burning one round here or there) which that actually takes less time than the above choices for the 15+1 guys.
So yes, the only real advantage for SSP that I see (relative to other divisions) is for stages less than 17 rounds.
And I agree with Rowdy that bad MDs will often try to eliminate that "advantage" even though it shouldn't be a thing, since SSP doesn't compete against other divisions. But many MDs think that the overall is important (particularly if they aren't shooting SSP themselves) so they make up stuff to screw over one division.
Doing anything to screw over a particular division is always bad.
It really is okay to let other people have fun in their own divisions, and it doesn't hurt anyone else.
-
On 11/10/2022 at 5:46 PM, pskys2 said:
Hmm are you saying you would shoot revolver at free state?
That seems----unlikely.
I've tried it a couple of times, but for some reason I just don't enjoy shooting Revo in USPSA. Steel Challenge, absolutely, ICORE, definitely----but not USPSA. (And it isn't the reloading thing---I shot Production for years, and still love doing that.)
I just wanted to make sure I got the Free State match on my calendar, and also think you guys should come up with a revo squad for the Iowa match, too.
-
47 minutes ago, pskys2 said:
Now I'll stump for the 2023 Free State USPSA Level II Championship Revolver Division here in the midlands, just outside of KC, KS, last year we were 4th in Division participation. Looks to be in June this year, so???
It will be in June this coming year? Do you happen to know what weekend? (I'm trying to get my shooting schedule put together, and a LOT of matches are changing their dates around a LOT.)
...and I know that the Revo squad had a lot of fun shooting together at Free State last year. You guys should do that at the Iowa match, too!
-
On 11/1/2022 at 9:44 AM, pskys2 said:
Sounds like it was fun. What do you shoot in Classic? I cobbled together a M28-3 (I bought it new in 1974) with L Frame Safariland Comp III's and 38 Short Colts, and it actually worked really good. No fumbles on reloading and no left over cases on ejection. Had a new FS dovetailed in and thinking of having it cut for Moonclips?
I shot Classic in September and L6 and had a good match. Shot Open & Limited Sunday and was too sloppy.
We had 11 shooters and 13 guns. Didn't run any classifiers though, did four back in July.
Take note for 2023 MCI (Mill Creek ICORE) will shoot April and June through October on the 4th Sunday at 9 am. May will be the 3rd Saturday at 9 am.
3 bays, 6 stages, 3 squads with up to 12 per squad. I'm actually hoping to break 20 next year and average high teens for participation.
You or Don email me your scheduling for next year when you get it up, might try to get up there for some.
Awhile back I picked up a 686 SSR Pro. Shooting .38 SPL with Comp IIIs. Haven't had a chance to give it to Sean yet to work his magic on it to make the trigger awesome, though the stock trigger isn't awful. Definitely need to get a new set of grips for it--the factory grips stick out just that LITTLE bit too much and one casing tends to stick when coming out of the cylinder, which kills reload times.
We ended up with 13 shooters and 19 entries total, so 4 classification bumps and 4 new classifications makes for a good match.
I'll talk to Don and see what he's planning. (I think he has the date for the Midwest Regional set, too.) And I'll let him know your schedule!
(Can people shoot 2 divisions at your matches, if there is room on the squad and they can switch gear quickly?)
-
On 10/23/2022 at 9:39 AM, pskys2 said:
Not to step on anyones toes, but if KC, KS is closer we are too.
All good. If they wouldn't come to ours but they would make it to yours, then more people shooting is all good!
We had a fairly small turnout, but had a good time. Shot the four postal match stages plus two classifiers. Then 5 of us shot it in a second division, so it was even better.
Ended up having the classifiers bump people up in four divisions, and four others got classified in a new division, so that was good.
And hey, by the end of the match I was finally managing to get the casings to extract from my Classic gun, so my reloads started working!
-
On 10/28/2022 at 4:51 PM, Bakerjd said:
I get it you are a 40cal relic. But to say it's only because it's nils is false. And we don't have years of data proving major will beat minor. We have years of data showing the top shooters use major. Using minor is an outlier still. I think with in the next couple years we will see more people using minor in limited. For one thing unless you want a 5k gun you really can't get a gun suited for limited. There are plenty of 9mm guns that fit the limited gun bill that can be had right off the shelf. Nobody makes a 40cal that does it.
It is always amusing when someone attempts to make a personal criticism that they think somehow helps their argument, because of course it never does. Better yet, when that derogatory comment literally bears no resemblance to reality, it just shows the flaws in their thinking.
Another way of saying that: I don't even own a .40. To get a classification in Limited, I had to borrow someone else's gun (and ammo). Your statement is ridiculous, nonsensical, and literally irrelevant to the topic.
I get that you believe that when more people shoot minor, we'll magically find out that all is equal. But...it isn't. We have plenty of actual data from when people shot Major and Minor at the same matches, including people with similar skill levels. And we know perfectly well, based on lots of data points over a long period of time, that in Limited, Major scoring is an advantage over minor.
The rest of your commentary regarding cost and such is irrelevant to the topic.
Nils is an outlier, both in skill, AND in the scores he puts up when shooting on an equal basis with other competitors in a match. (As someone has said, when he shot Major at SS Nats against other people shooting Major at SS Nats, he destroyed people .) When shooting at a disadvantage (such as Minor versus other competitors shooting Major), he still managed to win, though not by as much.
Another way of showing it: At 2022 Lim Nats, he was forced to shoot close to 8% more A-hits than the next highest competitor, while ALSO shooting the match 6 seconds faster. So he had to be more accurate, AND faster. And yet, the nearest three competitors still earned a higher percentage of the points possible than he did, even though he had fewer C and D hits than all of them. Shooting it faster made the difference---but it wasn't much faster, so he barely won.Does anyone think that Nils would have shot it SLOWER with a Limited Major gun? I doubt it. Would his points have been better? Obviously, because that's what Major gives you.
-
19 hours ago, Bakerjd said:
Nils won overall with minor. And Justine Williams won high lady with minor.
Statisticly it's an anomaly and will stay that way unless more shooters go to minor. Currently it's an anomaly that someone shoots a major match in a major PF division using minor PF. What will be interesting is if the normal shooters see Nils results and decide to emulate him with minor PF.
JALISE WIlliams won High Lady shooting minor---and got 36th in the division. How much she beat the other ladies shooting isn't relevant, given the obvious skill difference, and with no comparison of her skill/finish shooting Minor versus major, that doesn't tell us anything at all.
Nils, statistically speaking, is an anomaly in Minor. Saying "statistically, minor is an anomaly" is true, and yet ignores the actual situation. Given the fact that we know Nils can shoot a certain level compared to others, it means that when he shoots Minor and beats people it tells us nothing about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of Minor.
Your response ignores the fact that statistically, we already have years of data showing that in Major vs Minor, there IS an advantage to shooting Major. The fact that Nils can win despite that is a testament to his skill....and says nothing about the Major vs Minor debate. It merely shows that Nils is a statistical anomaly that doesn't tell us anything about the situation.
-
13 hours ago, Joe4d said:
I beg to differ,, thats EXACTLY what the rules say. E.G... or for example.. I think you are reading into what is a pretty plain English sentence. I think its the "may" that screws things up Thats something you would expect to find in an IDPA rule book. That verb should be changed to SHALL or SHALL NOT..
I'm thinking that plain english sentence isn't what you think it is. After all, I've seen DNROI give a single procedural penalty when a person fired multiple shots from the wrong position---but that wrong position was farther away from the targets than the required position. In other words, I have direct experience of experienced RMs who did not agree with your absolutist position.
Given that this situation's difference was "7.5 feet of movement" versus "taking WHO shots from a greater distance" I think it is up in the air.
It would not surprise me that, since it is a classifier, the end result might be a per shot penalty. This doesn't change the fact that the rule, as given, is not an absolute.
12 hours ago, motosapiens said:if it were only a single procedural, you would always score higher by just taking the procedural instead of moving.
And if the shooting was equal, or easier (which is literally the point of a per-shot penalty, in which a significant advantage is gained--literally, having an advantage on more than one shot) I'd agree.
But that isn't the case here. Saying "always score higher" means that you think that for people shooting WHO, a farther-distance shot is not harder.
-
21 hours ago, Joe4d said:
The rules specifically state "
". firing multiple shots contrary to the required
position or stance" as deserving of a per shot penalty.. why was this even a discussion ?
Even if it didnt state that.. a 10 point procedural, equals about 1 second to 1.5 seconds,, Dont think a shooter is gonna have a sub 1 second split with the movement.. So a significant advantage would be gained by not moving that exceeds the points lost for a single procedural,
Per shot either way10.2.2
A competitor who fails to comply with the procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However,
if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance).I'm pretty sure that your comment about "firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance" automatically being a per shot penalty is flat-out wrong---because if (for example) the movement required was stepping one step from one box to another, that is indeed a "required position" but a per-shot penalty would make no sense as it is in no way a significant advantage. The question is there an actual significant advantage?
Again---the movement is about 2 steps, giving a closer set of shots for one-handed shooting. The competitor didn't take those two steps, and had harder shots. If you think that is a significant advantage, ok. But I don't.
Again, if NROI decides that not doing movement automatically conveys a significant advantage, then okay. I'll go with that. But....at the moment, that's not what the rule says.
-
Given that the other box is only a diagonal 7.5 feet away, that isn't much movement---as long as they shot the correct SHO after the reload (or WHO, depending on which string it was) given the fact that the box was farther away from the targets than the box they should have used, I wouldn't really call that a significant advantage.
They didn't move---but that lack of movement didn't make any of the shooting easier. They just didn't have to move a short distance, so one procedural. (If the lack of movement had led to shooting from a better position, that would definitely have been a significant advantage. In this case, though, at least on the first string, it was demonstrably a worse shooting position.)
The "significant advantage" thing is sometimes difficult to parse. In the case of classifiers, I wish commentary on procedurals were a standard part of the WSB.
(Note: if this indeed was a 'significant advantage' occasion and we get told that by NROI, I'm good with that too. Given no other instruction, though, I wouldn't call it such for the first string.)
-
If you haven't shot the postal match yet, or want to try it again (or do it in another division), the ICORE folks at the Eastern Nebraska Gun Club near Louisville, NE will be running the four stages of the ICORE International Postal Match plus a classifier stage.
Saturday, Oct 29th, $15, registration is of course on Practiscore.
https://practiscore.com/engc-october-2022-icore-match/register
Check-in by 8:30am, shooting starts at 9. (Feel free to come earlier to help set up the stages!)
If you are the area, come shoot some revo!
-
3 hours ago, euxx said:
...and just like that
Not any more.
Chrono says gear check fail.
-
11 hours ago, RJH said:
I glanced down the list to see who all was shooting production Nationals and noticed a surprising lack of GM's. I didn't count but I don't even think there were 10. I find that interesting
Currently 19 GMs listed.
https://practiscore.com/results/new/184732?q_division=3&q_class=5
-
On 10/15/2022 at 8:13 PM, Squirrel45 said:
Hi everyone
*Note this is a very subjective question*
We all set goals, achieve 'X' class in a certain division. Now when you hit your goal, do you A move on to another division, or B move the goal post back a bit further and keep driving?
For some people, achieving a certain class in a division is the goal. For others, consistently shooting at that level is the goal. For others, getting all of their classes to match is the goal.
It completely depends on the person.
I originally wanted to get my favorite (and mostly only) division up initially. Then I started doing multiple divisions, so I wanted to get them all up to a certain point. Then after that Club 13 became a thing, so I had to get classified in all---whereupon it annoyed me if there were large differences in classes, so I had to get them ALL up at least to a certain point. Then the goal became getting my favorite divisions up to GM. Then it became getting all of the divisions I shot periodically up to GM.
I have a couple left that aren't up to GM yet (OSR, Open, and Limited) all of which I don't have guns for, and am shooting with ISR, CO, and Production guns respectively. After I get Limited up to M (the others are already there) I may stop, because I really don't care about those divisions, and may change my goals to consistently shooting my favorite divisions at a GM level in matches. Then to a goal of consistently shooting GM scores on stages consistently (which is a lot harder than matches overall).
Or I might get annoyed and decide I need to get those last three up to GM.
None of those goals actually help me get there, though. All of there are outcome-based, not process-based---as such, none of them actually help me get better at shooting. They only tell me WHAT I'm shooting in any given match. (Because I have to shoot it to meet that goal.)
So the ending of this long blathering screed is that as goals go, "achieving 'X' class in a certain division" actually sucks, because that goal doesn't really help you get better. It might be good motivation, but it isn't a good goal.
"Consistently have a 1.3 draw-to-first-shot and 0.50 average splits on the hard plates Pendulum without misses" is a good goal to work toward in CO. It tells you exactly what you need to work on, and creating practice sessions to meet that goal will be straightforward. (And if you can meet that goal, you'll have solid GM runs on that stage, and that skill level will definitely help you get better on other stages.)
What do you want your goals to get for you? A classification? Or a skill level? (They aren't the same, though the classification comes if you have the skill.)
...and why are you wanting the goal? Some people want to WIN so their goals reflect that ("get the highest A-class classification without getting bumped into M so I can win A-class!"). Others want to have fun, so their goals ("getting at least B-class in every division!") reflect that.
...as you said, it is subjective. It also depends on whether or not your goals are supposed to help you get better, or merely mark if you happened to get better.
IMO, obviously.
-
On 9/18/2022 at 4:20 PM, Toolguy said:
That's why I don't shoot USPSA. They hate revolver shooters. I have shot Bullseye, PPC, IDPA, Metallic Silhouette, Bowling Pins, NRA Action Pistol, and ICORE. They are all friendly and accommodating to everyone. I tried USPSA for a while. Nowhere else have I gotten the derision, dirty tricks, and downright hatefulness as I did from that bunch. And heaven forbid if you should have a good day and outshoot some of them with a revo. That just dials it up. Thankfully they are not the only game in town. There aren't more revo shooters because they actively run them off.
That's interesting--I see you are in Kansas City. The Mill Creek club nearby has a number of revolver shooters who enjoy USPSA, and the recent Free State (level 2) USPSA Championship had enough revolvers to fill their own squad (and then some).
So...you might try USPSA out there. They don't hate revolver shooters.
-
50 minutes ago, euxx said:
This appendix is referring to manufacturer's "delivery samples" PF, but that PF doesn't seem to be published anywhere.The delivery sample is not provided by the manufacturer.
Troy wrote an explanation of how "declaring match ammo" works at majors, and it tells the process, including what the "delivery sample" is, and how it is compared to the match sample.
https://nroi.org/rules-insights/certified-ammunition-dos-and-donts/
The vast majority of the posts on this thread are factually wrong, and attempt to make a controversy out of a process that seems to have literally been done by the book. (And show a situation that probably made it MORE difficult for Max during the match, because we know that occasionally having low PF rounds can give problems on steel.)
Max used match ammo, followed the procedures, and by the rules, was considered as making minor for the match.
Unsurprisingly, people who don't know what they are talking about are attempting to say there was a problem.
"We Play Games" and failure to move penalty
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
Amidst all the other opinion-based complaining all over the place, I do completely agree with the above in bold.
For classifiers, if a particular likely-to-occur action is a significant advantage, it would be nice to have that stated. Sure, no WSB can cover the truly amazing breadth of ridiculous mistakes shooters can make---but if certain things are more likely to happen, mentioning that something is a significant advantage would be useful.
Rather like at a major, when the RM looks at a stage prior to anyone shooting it, and discusses with the CRO what is likely to be a significant advantage and what isn't, if there are questions.