Thomas H

Side matches are normally a ton of fun to shoot---but also require another set of staff, plus equipment/tablet. And you need to collect money (and in a lot of cases, matches these days do all of their money stuff online so they don't have to handle cash at the match any more), and so on. So....admin hassles. If you have the staff and space (lots of people don't have enough extra bays to do this at a big match), side matches are lots of fun. (Another fun one is fastest time to run a plate rack.)

And then the people who don't like PCC shooters complain that having PCC shooters in the match makes them do stages differently---when literally THEY are the ones making the stages different. Like I've said before---it is odd how so many people get so angry that other people have fun differently than they do. And then make up illogical nonsense to attempt to justify their idiotic actions. Take the initial example of the PCC shooter having to stand in a different spot to start. How was that needed for safety? It wasn't, obviously, since the PCC shooter will need to step INTO the shooting box/area to shoot. Was there anything about it that was needed due to the stage design? Obviously not. So...literally, the stage designer added extra nonsense to their stage merely to make it different for PCC shooters. People like that aren't helping the sport.

Little disappointed that they didn't use a Commander timer so we could see draw/split times. I'm really curious as to the draw/splits for the folks under 1.50.

Any time there is a "should" in a comment, it means "this is my opinion regarding what other people owe." So the question becomes, what about your opinion will convince a for-profit IDPA? Is the company able to make money doing what it is doing now? Are there long-term problems that will show up if they keep doing it this way? How much money will it cost the company to pay for the changes that you want, and is that amount of cost worth any difference it might make in the long run? WE want a sport that is run well, with match officials who know what they are doing, in a consistent fashion across the sports. The company wants to make money. What in this situation will make the company interested in paying for something they aren't currently paying for now? (I'll note that I'm a USPSA RO, CRO, and RM, along with being an ICORE RO, and an IDPA SO, CSO, and SOI. Obviously, I'd like the sport to continue and get better, with trained match officials.)

Never ceases to amaze me how people can't just let other people have fun in a different fashion than they have fun.

And they do, so it works out. Your classification percentage has never meant that you should get that classification percentage at a match. People who think so are welcome to cite some source that supports that idea. (But they won't find one.) Classification ranks give a strong indicator of your relative placement in the match---relative to the other shooter's classifications. Multiple analysis of these sorts of things have happened, and unsurprisingly, have always founds that the vast majority of GMs beat Ms who beat As who beat Bs and so on. There are outliers (many of which exist because they don't shoot classifiers and are classified lower than they should be, and some of whom exist because they talked their local MD into letting them hero-or-zero classifiers multiple times until they get the score they want and thus are classified higher than they can support at actual matches) but the vast majority of people finish right within their classification group, which finishes ahead of lower classification groups. Every time someone brings up this sort of topic, there are always some people who loudly declaim that "the classification system is broken!!1!" and yet never actually come up with any factual, statistical basis for said declamation. The classification system works remarkably well. The people who think that your classification percentage SHOULD match your major match finish REALLY don't seem to understand how those numbers work. After all, in a major match, your score on a stage is based on the person who did the absolute best exactly once on that stage (that in general, no one has ever shot before). And that stage score is added to other stage scores that again, are based off the person who did the absolute best on that stage (out of a large pool of people, in a single moment in time). Expecting those match finish numbers to resemble a classification percentage makes very little sense.

MDs can indeed make completely different start positions for PCC, along with setting up stages that deliberately make it harder for PCCs, in addition to verbally denigrating people who choose to shoot PCC. All are legal. And that's how matches reduce the number of people who want to shoot their match.

Pretty much. In USPSA, at least the RMIs get their hotel/travel/meals covered when they go teach classes. It isn't like it is a paying job, though. (Which is one of the reasons why not a lot of people go past the CRO level to get their RM cert, much less go for RMI. It takes time and money, and it isn't like you get any of that back.) Similarly, SOIs don't get any help (from what I can tell) from IDPA HQ with regard to holding classes, promoting classes, etc. (Other than the set of electronic files for the classes, which come in PDF form. If you want to make a PowerPoint presentation, you have to make your own.) As such, it doesn't surprise me that many SOIs stop doing it, because they don't get anything from it other than satisfaction that they are helping the sport (in exchange for all of the work doing it). The SOI certification is separate from the SO or CSO certs, so if you stop being an SOI that doesn't change anything else. It did surprise me that there was no place on the IDPA website that listed SO classes, and no place to advertise classes. I plan on putting them up on Practiscore as events, so it'll be searchable in that manner, but that doesn't mean anyone else does it that way. I tried doing a search on SO class just to see if I could find one anywhere.....couldn't really at all.

Now this is interesting to me, and makes me wonder when you took the class and who taught it---because the class material has been fairly standardized for quite some time, and even though different teachers bring different viewpoints to it, significant parts of the class are LITERALLY about what ROs should be doing, paying attention to, and so on, including the differing roles ROs play on a stage (in addition to merely running a timer). There are discussions of things you need to watch, discussion of areas of responsibility, and the last part of the class is literally a practical exercise in which each student takes on all the different roles an RO might have, in addition to watching other people do it, and having discussions of what everyone does. So....it seems odd to me that your training was specific to LII and LIII matches, and that it didn't discuss what you needed to watch. What sorts of things specific to LII and LIII matches did the class spend time talking about?

That....doesn't actually answer the question. What does RO training have to do with being a member of a shooting organization, to compete a major matches, get classified, etc? I mean, get a membership, be able to shoot majors and get classified in both USPSA and SCSA.....which has nothing to do with how ROs are trained. You can be a member, shoot local matches, and not take an RO class, after all. There's no requirement that members must be ROs. So....what does the RO training system have to do with membership?

Joe, how is the RO system something that has to do with joining an organization?

There aren't not necessarily "state" trainers---but there are people who are certified as SOIs (Safety Officer Instructors) in various areas. There's process for it--you have to be a CSO, worked sanctioned matches, submit an application, etc, to get certified as an SOI. (You can search the IDPA website for members with SOI certifications, just like searching for SOs and CSOs.) Once you get the SOI certification, you get access to an SOI packet of information on how to run an SO class, with presentation files, handouts, etc. Club contacts can't just say "hey, I want to make this guy a Safety Officer" and have it magically happen. People still have to go to SO classes, pass the test, pass the practical exercises, etc. (I don't know why anyone would think they don't.) I do agree that in many places, there AREN'T local SOIs available. I had to travel a distance to take my SO class, as did everyone else in my area. We NOW (as of the last two months) have a local SOI (who is holding a class in October, so hopefully our number of local certified SOs is about to go up sharply) and SOIs are supposed to hold a class yearly. (If there isn't interest, though, obviously that doesn't work out.) The SOIs are not paid by IDPA HQ at all. And they are not supposed to charge much of anything for the class, other than if they have travel expenses--so local SOIs are volunteering their time and work, for the most part. If you have a local SOI, the class fee is probably about 90% range/classroom rental, 5% lunch (if provided for everyone), and 5% to the SOI to pay for the handouts and such he gives each student.

For me, using rifle primers in pistol loads completely depends on the gun I'm shooting. My PCC and my SS guns both light off Winchester small rifle primers 100%, no issues. My Glocks don't, UNLESS I switch out the striker spring for one about a half-pound heavier than stock. Without that spring, my G34/G34 CO gun is about 90%, and my G17 is about 85% in their ability to light off the primers. (And I don't like switching out the striker spring, so I did it once to test it, then took it back out and pack it with the rest of my extra parts, just in case. So I don't use SRP with my Glocks.) I have a ton of small rifle primers, and some small pistol primers. I make both, and carefully mark them so I know which box of ammo to pick depending on what gun I am using.

First situation: Yeek. Yeah, that sounds like a good place to get shot by idiots. That's terrifying. Second situation: It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't understand that the 180 is relevant during the course of fire, wherein taking a loaded firearm and pointing it vertically past the 180 IS a DQ.....and that outside the course of fire, carrying an unloaded PCC/rifle vertically is literally the best choice possible, and also literally the specifically described method for doing so from an unbagging area to the start position, and is most definitely NOT a DQ. Most of the time, people I run into get the first part wrong (they think that in the course of fire, having it vertical then turning around and running uprange or something is a perfectly good idea). That's the first time I've heard about someone getting it wrong the other way---but I suppose it isn't surprising that people screw that up too. Last situation: It is always fun when someone makes up a rule out of nowhere, then insists on it being true. (And then vehemently argues that they don't need to show you where it is in the rulebook.) And to think---OUR sports are the ones where the rules are often handled BETTER than other sports.

If they take over a minute, at the one minute mark you have them unload/show clear/bag and move out of the shooting area, put them at the bottom of the shooting list, and move to the next shooter, just like anyone else who isn't ready to shoot when they are called to the line. (I'll note if they attempt to ignore that or argue with an order to stop, then you can tell them their choice is to either be put at the bottom of the shooting order, OR instead receive a DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct and failing to follow the clear directions of a range official. Because if they are that stupid, then they ARE actually courting a DQ.) If they do it upon their next try (after being at the bottom of the shooting order), you assign a procedural penalty (the make ready sequence is a rule-defined set of procedures during the course of fire, and if they don't follow it, especially after being specifically told the rule the first time, they get a procedural penalty. It doesn't have to be written in the WSB for it to be a stage procedure, IF it is defined in the rulebook as a stage procedure.) They are the last in the order, so it isn't like you can move them down again. I suppose that technically, if they are last AND they are not ready to shoot the stage, you can DNF them, tell them to move to the next stage, and that they will need to speak to the RM about coming back at a later time to shoot the stage, just like any OTHER time a shooter comes to a stage and is not ready to shoot by the time that the squad has finished the stage. But that is being petty, and while legal, not a good way to handle things. I personally haven't run into any shooter that took over a minute to make ready, though some have pushed it. I don't care if they push close---they get a minute. Reminding them that their minute is up in 5 seconds (at 55 seconds) works perfectly well. If after a minute they aren't ready, unload them and move on. It doesn't have to be a major problem.

Hasn't changed how I design stages in the slightest. Nor has it changed other people's far as I can tell. If it HAS changed someone's, perhaps they should stop changing things. Or perhaps some of their stages either weren't safe, or weren't much of a good idea in the first place.

That makes sense, because the classification percentage is based on an external set of multiple known scores on standardized stages, and in a match it doesn't remotely look like that. As someone has said, the classification system in general works very well as a predictor of approximately where people will end up in a major match---the GMs will beat the Ms, who will beat the As, who will beat the Bs, and so on. True for majors, true for Nationals. But your classification percentage doesn't tell you what percentage you'll get at a match. With regard to PCC and people not having realistic classifications with handguns due to it---personally, I don't like having a classification that I can't support with actual shooting skill. As such, I would be extremely annoyed if I made GM in PCC and had all of my other classifications jumped up to M, because I couldn't support several of them with M-class shooting. For handgun skills, if I made GM in Production or something, I could probably at least support an M-class ability level with every other handgun (except probably for revolver, due to reloads), because GM handgun skills translate well overall to other types of handguns. But GM-level PCC skills don't mean anything with respect to handgun skills, and so I wish those were separate. Oh: And for those bagging on PCC again, it really is okay to let other people have fun in ways that you don't. Seriously.

It is always interesting to me to see how many people want to blithely change something that is currently extremely popular, without having any actual basis to believe that their change will be beneficial or even wanted in the first place. Similar to all the commentary about new divisions and such being bad, when we can literally see that many people are enjoying the new divisions, and it isn't hurting the sport. (Other divisions may be reduced here and there, but since those people aren't leaving the sport, they are literally shooting a different division because they are enjoying it, that doesn't hurt the sport.) Mostly, it just seems that many people 1) don't want other people to have fun in ways they don't approve, and 2) they want things to change to match their opinions even though they can't actual justify any of that with logical reasons for anyone else to want those changes. Every time we get a new one of these types of threads, we again see the same old things.

Yikes, since that ISN'T "inside the shooting area" at all. If a foot is out, you are out. I'm not surprised you weren't happy! For other commentary: "Outside" and "completely outside" are two separate things, and they are treated separately in the rulebook. If you want people to start "completely outside" the shooting area, then you have to specify that.

I'm not currently logged in, and I can see it just fine. (Which is good. An organization that won't allow non-members to see its rules is...problematic.) The Down Zero Blog is accessible by anyone.

In IDPA you can start with your hand on the pistol if the WSB allows it. (In USPSA you can't, no matter what.) Indeed, awhile back in IDPA (and USPSA) it was "hands hanging naturally at sides" but as someone who runs shooters a lot, that was a ridiculous start position because there wasn't an easy, simple way to determine if it was being done for any particular competitor. ("Arms hanging naturally" is different for different people.) That's why I much prefer "wrists below belt" because it is a simply yes/no situation, and everyone can agree on whether or not the condition is being met. My point however, was your comment about it being "less practical." You say now: "Just an observation" ---but you literally said it was "less practical" when that's actually the opposite of true. Setting the situation so you are in the best position possible is literally more practical, and "hands hanging at sides" is something every academy and self-defense instructor tries to get people to STOP doing.

And yet I'm pretty sure that pretty much every academy out there teaches you to have your hands NOT "at your sides naturally" when in a situation in which you may need to draw your gun. Calling it "less practical" when people, within the rules, move themselves into position to more quickly access the firearm----seems the opposite of reality. Heck, isn't one of the old "standard confrontation positions" for police officers something like "one hand on the gun, the other hand outstretched in a 'stop' position?" Literally starting with a hand on the gun before it is needed? Isn't that practical? Currently aren't people taught things like a neutral guard hand position to keep the hands up and ready to block but low enough to access the firearm quickly? Arguing that "hands naturally at sides" is more practical seems.....odd.

Perhaps they don't care about your attention, and simply want to shoot in comfortable clothing? (Sure, tank tops may be an issue with brass, but it isn't MY problem so they can do what they want.) I personally find that what other people are wearing has no effect on my shooting. (And oddly enough, I don't have any expectations that other people should somehow work to gain my attention.)

Over-analyzing? Everyone else was literally talking about what skills were and were not in Steel Challenge! Whether the designers thought that, this is what we ended up with...and other stages have gone away over time. Sure, they are all stand and shoot 5 plates. But...I don't believe anyone thinks that it makes all the stages the same. (Otherwise not nearly as many people would hate Pendulum so much, and love Smoke & Hope.). Why do we need to test movement? Why not? It has been in for years---why do people think it ISN'T a part of Steel Challenge, I wonder? As for "there are plenty of other places to test that" --- that's literally true for everything else we shoot. It doesn't really tell us anything about Steel Challenge. From a separate post: "Either scrap the movement, or make another three (or so) stages of the eight to include movement (which would be dumb too.)" I don't know if we need three more---like I said, one more with a different type of movement would be a good addition, I think. And there's no reason it would be "dumb" any more than adding another stand-and-shoot stage would be dumb. (Actually, adding yet another stand-and-shoot stage that doesn't test any skill that we don't already have would be harder to justify, really.)

This sort of data would be really useful, I'd think. And congrats on the loader/block. Man, those things are expensive! (But really, really handy.)