Thomas H

This. (Personally I'm tired of fat old guys wearing tight performance shirts. Can't they cover up more? Oh wait, I need to lose some weight....dang it.)

I'll note that while I personally don't have a magwell on my carry gun, there are a number of decent "carry" style magwells out there that don't make the gun fatter (or only incrementally) but instead smooth out the magwell entry and also give a spot to help hand placement. (TTI's carry magwell for G19s, as an example. I personally think it actually makes the gun easier to shoot without making it harder to conceal. Also definitely reduces pinches you hands on a reload!) I will say that once CO allowed AIWB and lights, we suddenly (the very next match) had 4 new shooters show up and use their carry rigs for USPSA. Does this mean that everyone shooting CO is using a carry rig? Good lord, no. But...it is certainly something that some people are doing. It is certainly practical for them.

I wish more clubs would do this. I understand why many can't (or won't) but I still wish more DID, if they had some way of making sure those newly-certified ROs would help out at the local matches. I also wish that the range commands for rimfire eliminated the "hammer down" part---revolver already does, why not rimfire? (I know a number of ROs who already do, and I don't blame them for it at all.) I agree there that is a difference between USPSA and SCSA rules. I'm not necessarily against an SCSA-only class (though I think a lot of it would be just the same as a USPSA-only class, since as I said before, much of the class is about DQ offenses, procedurals, range commands, divisions, and running shooters) but....I guess I'm just not convinced that the number of people who would take a day-long (at least) SCSA-only RO class but won't unless there IS an SCSA-only class, is big enough to justify literally creating another class with presentation materials, teaching SOIs to teach it, and scheduling them in addition to the regular class. I suppose technically all the materials are currently there, between the USPSA RO class and the online SCSA material, someone would just have to put them all together. Hmm. Might be less work than I thought. "Having SCSA ROs who know the rules and follow them would be a huge improvement. " I COMPLETELY agree with that. Definitely. Among other things, ROs knowing their job would ALSO mean that they'd know to remind the tablet guy to ALSO watch for misses, such that scoring would be a lot better overall. I'm not sure that your last sentence has anything to do with most of the preceding sentences, since this wasn't really about whether or not people would have to pay for the class. (Also, people might argue with your opinion that the sports that you engage in receive zero support from USPSA, but that's a different topic. Not to mention that you don't need to be a certified RO to help out at locals.). If I recall correctly, in almost every large sport the course to be certified to officiate costs money. That's common. As for whether I was wrong---I'm glad to hear that you would actually take the class and get certified to be an RO (though I'm not sure that's true, as you also say you don't see why you should have to pay for it). I know that for USPSA classes, lots of people SAY they'll take the class, but never sign up and take it. (And a surprisingly number of people take the class but won't take the test and get certified, I've found out.). One person, however, is certainly different from a number significant enough to justify creating a new class. If we could get a ton more people certified as SCSA ROs in some way, I think that would be great. I'm just dubious that many people would suddenly take the plunge into it. I'm thinking it would be REALLY handy to actually FIND OUT. This might be something for Zach to perhaps ask the Board about---having a member survey sent out that attempts to find out: 1) How many people would choose to pay and attend a one-day SCSA-only RO certification course if it were available. (Everyone gets the USPSA/SCSA newsletter, even if they don't shoot USPSA. So USPSA has everyone's contact info, and could easily create a simple survey.) 2) How far would they travel to go to said SCSA-only RO certification course 3) Did they know that if they go to the USPSA RO course, they can add their SCSA certification online at no cost? ...and so on. I'm thinking having that data would be very useful. Just asking here is....not really representative. (I'd also be curious as to how many members shoot USPSA-only, shoot SCSA-only, or shoot both. That would be interesting to find out, and wouldn't require a survey, just a database query.)

If the stage was like that, under the old rules, it would be perfectly fine to move to the side and attempt to engage them from back there. What's the problem with that? And I literally used the rulebook to support my earlier comments. No where in the rulebook has it ever said that cover was "from everything on the stage". Many, many stages had points of cover that nonetheless exposed you to targets you engaged earlier. (Remember how we literally can re-shoot targets from a later position that you originally engaged from a position of cover?).

Your first sentence is irrelevant. (Hint: You brought up IDPA, not me.) USPSA and SCSA are indeed different, BUT....the rulesets between USPSA and SCSA match in major areas for a reason, and the divisions do also. In other words, significant sections of their respective rulebooks, including how an RO runs a stage, handles shooters, gives range commands, handles procedurals and DQs, and recognizes divisions (including equipment and such) are exactly the same. Which rather was the point. "An SCSA RO class could be done online for the classroom component in 4-6, 30 minute to 60 minute sessions. The running of shooters thru the courses of fire could be done by a group of NROI trained individuals (1-2 per state for smaller states, 3-5 for large states) who do in person check off's for potential RO's that have taken the online courses and passed the test." I disagree, but then again, I'm a teacher. That's my background. As such, I have both academic and practical experience in terms of what is often needed for students to not merely be exposed to information, but actually understand, retain, and be able to utilize information. That sort of online learning ignores the ability to ask questions, have discussions, and pretty much everything else needed for prospective ROs to actually use the information instead of just memorizing it for a test (and then most commonly forgetting the majority of it right after). As for the "check-off" -- so your suggestion is that NROI train (in a class at cost? taking up those volunteer's extra time?) anywhere from 100 to 200 people to do "in person check off's"? That....seems an interesting solution to a problem of not having enough volunteers in the first place. "It would take some effort to do the scheduling, but wouldn't be that difficult." I'm curious how you know that. Is this something you have done before? Or do you merely believe it wouldn't be that difficult? "BTW, how many SCSA matches do you shoot a year?" As for your last question: I realize that you are asking it in the hope that you'll be able to dismiss anything I say because I don't shoot SC much, or not as much as you, or anything else that is irrelevant to actual logical discussion. As such, it is a question that doesn't matter, and the answer is meaningless. I'll answer anyway, though, because it is amusing: I shot 35 Steel Challenge matches last year, four of which were major matches. I was the RM for the 2021 Steel Target Paint Area 3 Steel Challenge Championship, and I've worked a number of different major SC matches as staff in the past. (And I'm a certified RO, CRO, and RM with the SC endorsement.) I'm also a GM in nine divisions, and a member of Club 13. I shoot a LOT of Steel Challenge. So in addition to being a certified range officer who has taken my own time (and money) to get certified at various higher levels, I'm also a avid Steel Challenge shooter who has worked as staff a numerous local and major matches, who is ALSO a teacher who has practical knowledge and experience in what it takes for people to learn how to be a certified RO running people in a match. Unsurprisingly, I have strong opinions about what teaching is required so that people will be good Range Officers for Steel Challenge competitions. I note that it is interesting to see someone arguing for more online courses, and a separate RO class for Steel Challenge, after making sure that people understand they are an experienced CRO---when they haven't gotten the Steel Challenge endorsement for themselves yet.

I wish we knew. This is a perennial problem in all sorts of organizations---how do you get people to get off their butts and actually HELP OUT? And the answer is...we don't seem to have a good answer right now. I know that some clubs will reimburse their shooters for the class fee if they RO at local matches, I know some places will do something similar with varying levels of success. Other clubs give free matches if people are helping out as an RO for that class, and so on. Results are...mixed, far as I know. I have no idea what being and IDPA SO has to do with anything. I DO know that the majority of what you cover in a USPSA RO class, as has been pointed out, is the same as what you'd need for an SC class. (Stage procedures, RO commands, running shooters, penalties, DQs, divisions and equipment, etc.). The reason that the SC add-on is so easy is because the people taking ALREADY KNOW the majority of what they need to know to be an RO. The SC add-on just gives some specifics about the scoring of SC, plus a few other things. All the rest of what an RO needs to know---they know. As for "having enough RO's to run their matches after they get them" the rules specifically say that local matches don't need to have certified ROs. As such, that argument doesn't really have any meaning. On the other hand, if a club thinks that having certified ROs has value, then that value is probably because the certified ROs have training on being ROs....which is what the RO course is all about. Regarding most shooters being SCSA-only shooters....that really doesn't change anything in terms of what ROs need to know to be good ROs. The RO class for SCSA-only would be very similar to the RO class for USPSA, as has already been pointed out. As you point out, you are a CRO. As such, you've been to an RO class. (Hm. Have you been to an RO class in the last 3-5 years? It isn't the same.). Because of that, you should already know that the majority of what is covered in the RO class is safely, procedures, range commands, running shooters, divisions and equpiment, and DQ/procedural offenses. Sure, there is a section on scoring, which would be replaced by SCSA scoring in an SCSA-only class---but the rest would still have to be covered and pretty much the same. (And the current SCSA add-on takes what, 30 minutes, tops? And can be done in pieces over time?) As for "When your cadre isn't growing at the same rate as the organization, then you might need to look in the mirror for the problem." --- that isn't how it works. After all, the people have to volunteer to be ROs and take the RO class. That isn't a paid position at local matches (mostly) and getting people to volunteer to help is a problem everywhere. Literally. Everywhere. Or are you attempting to say that every single volunteer organization out there has their "cadre" at fault? Seems unlikely. Pretty much all of the rest of what you said about USPSA with respect to SCSA is political in nature, and a completely separate argument, so I really don't have any comment about it on THIS topic.

That position of cover is related to specific targets. If you are behind the cover lines, you are covered from specific threats, not all possible threats. T1 through T4 are not those threats. "Cover" is not "cover for everything on the stage" and we have never treated it that way. (Look at any stage and you'll see situations in which later positions of cover are in view from earlier targets.)

Disagree strongly with the part in bold. Quite frankly, the part where most new ROs need practice and work is literally how they run shooters, and knowing what their areas of responsibility are while on the stage. (The USPSA class should include more of it, IMO, on a stage where movement actually occurs so new ROs learn how THAT sort of thing works.) I (like most people) have had people run the timer for me who had no idea what they were doing. Screwed up range commands, screwed up timer-work, messed up scoring, not calling misses correctly, not handling scoring disputes correctly....massive pain in the posterior. I personally think that while a SC-only certification class could be shorter than a USPSA certification class, it should still end up taking an entire day, at least half of which would be on the range. (Not to mention that in SC, the ROs still need to know all the parts of procedural rules, DQ rules, equipment and firearm rules, etc, which takes longer than people think, though at least some of that can be done online. The in-class learning is still going to take time.) I also disagree with the basic idea that an experienced RO could teach a certification class, primarily due to the concept that just because someone knows something, doesn't mean they can actually teach it to other people. They might be able to SAY it, but that doesn't mean they'll be doing it in any fashion that will let other people learn it and be able to retain it and understand it. Whether or not I think it would be useful to have SC-only RO classes (or whether or not we'd get any more people taking them, because it isn't like people need to RUN in the USPSA RO class, so if that is their excuse that's nonsense), I don't really see how a SC-only class is going to be a ton shorter than the SC one. At the very least, it'll take a full day, which will need to include time on the range. The people who can't be bothered to take the USPSA RO class probably won't really take the SC one, either, in my opinion. They'd have to actually spend time, money, and mental effort learning how to do something.

And it doesn't. If a club is somehow coming up with a penalty for that, they are literally just looking for more ways to PE people. The entire point of cover is to stay on one SIDE of it. The point of how far back/front you are doesn't really matter. The new rule doesn't really have anything to do with use of cover, it is an attempt to stop people from gaming stages (which is weird, because if people were within cover, what exactly was the problem, I wonder? Other than poor stage design?) by making them at least be near the cover line. Giving people PE for having that left foot placement is....incorrect, and isn't supported by the rulebook at all, IMO.

At SP, you are not behind cover for T1 through T4. You are for T5, but that's a completely different thing. Old rules or new rules, either way, it doesn't change anything for T1 through T4, if I am understanding your disgram correctly. You do not need to "slice the pie" for T1 through T4. (Nor could you, since there is no cover there.)

Probably because we only have a small number of stages, and each of the other ones already test other skills? If you really think about it, most of the stages have a fairly unique set of shooting skills that they test. (And they are pretty comprehensive, if you think about it---this is why I think it would be hard to come up with more stages that aren't merely knock-offs of the stages that already exist.) Most of those skills really only get tested once. (For example, drawing to a huge close target with a huge target transition right after only happens on Smoke & Hope. On Accelerator, we have a nice huge close target to start with if you want, but the next target is a much, much smaller one. Or you have to start with the close-but-small target in the first place.). Basically: SC tests a certain number of skills. One of those is stability for an accurate shot after movement (not merely weight shifting). You have to do it successfully 3 times for a good score. Similarly, you have to rip 4 FAST shots on close huge targets then shift gears slightly to a farther smaller target on another stage. You have to do THAT successfully 4 times for a good score. Just as there isn't another stage with movement, you ALSO don't have another stage with that type of repeated transition. (For people saying "Round about has large targets and they aren't that far away" or "Showdown also has really fast transitions" my response is "if you are shooting Roundabout, Smoke & Hope, and Showdown all in the same fashion, you are losing time somewhere, because the easy of target hits is completely different, and the body mechanics required for the differing widths of transitions is completely different.) Succeeding on Smoke & Hope and succeeding on Showdown may look similar because they have similar TIMES, but you need different skills to attain that. Personally, I think it would be cool to add one more stage with movement---one where the movement requires a weight shift instead of a full step (done by simply putting two boxes next to each other, and requiring movement to the other box during the after engaging the first two targets or something), because that ALSO is an interesting skill that we don't see anywhere else in in SC. That would be an interesting addition to SC, and allow for a new stage that wouldn't resemble any other. (I can already hear the booing and the complaints, though. And I get that "we've never had that before, so you can't say it is part of Steel Challenge" and so on.) There have been some comments about adjusting stages so they can be more-easily shot indoors, and while I see the reasoning, I think that stages like 5 To Go would be completely different if you didn't have that sudden wide transition at the end to the stop plate coming from the hardest shot on the stage (at least, the way most people shoot it). Moving the stop plate to get rid of that will really completely change the stage, IMO. So as an "instead of" stage, I wouldn't be a fan. As a "another choice of stage" sure, I suppose. (With its own particular par time. I'd still prefer that the standard 8 be the official ones for major matches, though---because a stage "adjusted" like that simply isn't going to be the test that the original 5 To Go is.)

I know the current direction given to RMs is "if the old gun is broken and the new gun is legal in the division, let it happen." I know also that asking the competitor to show directly how the old gun is no longer serviceable (and thus the competitor really DOES need to change guns) is perfectly fine, especially if the new gun (matching sights or not) seems to suddenly be REALLY perfectly for the next stage.

I personally like that there is movement on one stage in SC. When I look at the stages, I see them designed to each test certain types of shooting skills. Smoke & Hope: Draw to large close target, wide transitions with large close targets, ending on a target that you need to change gears for at least slightly. As opposed to... Pendulum: Draw to a small distant target, transitions to differing heights at distance, including smaller targets, ending with a closer plate. Showdown: Small transitions, distant to close targets, main skill is a change in perspective (and sometime shooting order for some people) required by changing boxes. Etc.... Each stage has its own specific set of skills (or subsets of skills) that it tests. Wide transitions, narrow transitions, draws to easy targets, draws to harder targets, changing distances, changes in visual cues needed and so on... OL tests one thing that none of the others does, which is the ability to stabilize for an accurate first shot after movement. It isn't much movement, and you don't have to move far--but you can't simply take one step and shift weight. It is about the simplest test OF that particular skill that is possible. I rather like that skill being a part of the skillset needed to succeed. As has been pointed out, we already tried eliminating the movement once--and it wasn't fun. (The stage suddenly didn't test anything that wasn't already being tested on other stages.) Matter of fact, this is one of the things that I think will be an issue with coming up with other stages---making ones that aren't simply the same skill tests in slightly different configurations. The stages as they currently are, give a solid test of pretty much all of the transition/draw/distance/size variations possible with three plate sizes. Adding more might be somewhat interesting, but...it will be hard for anything new to not be really close to something we already have in terms of a skill test. I don't mind outlaw stages being run, and clubs can already DO that if they want more variations. I guess I'm not seeing any need for the official (classifier) SC stages to be expanded, unless someone can come up with a skill test variation that we don't already do. I get that people want to eliminate the movement in OL so that movement-challenged people won't have to take the penalty. The argument has merit, I agree. I just don't think it is needed or necessary for the sport, and I don't happen to think the merit sufficient to make the change and lose that skill test. Opinions vary, and that's all right. (I do think that the penalty should be 3 seconds per string, not four, but that's a different argument.)

I normally shoot 6 divisions at majors (more if I can) and it normally goes: CO / RFPO PROD / RFPI Whatever / whatever ...where those last "whatever" divisions alternate between ISR or SS and PCCO or RFRO. In general, I tend to: 1) generally go one centerfire and one rimfire/PCC in a block, 2) shoot the centerfire first, and 3) keep the same sight type if I'm shooting all pistols. If for some reason I shot RFPO/RFRO in the same block, I'd shoot the pistol first, because getting hits with a rifle is easier (this is not the same thing as saying that doing well with a rifle is easier), and I always want to shoot the more-difficult division (with respect to accuracy) first. But that's me. Some people prefer the easier division as a warmup, and I see the benefits of that also.

Your original comment was "CO guns are practical?" When people pointed out that a lot of people shoot CO with completely practical guns and are completely competitive with them, suddenly you say you are talking about race guns? You said CO. And indeed, in CO, while some people have indeed dumped a bunch of money into highly specialized, tricked-out guns....many have not. And as people have pointed out, 320s and Caniks have done perfectly well at the highest levels.

True. Most haven't, though, so most people use it the other way. And it isn't like it makes any difference to the start signal itself.

We started the new rules as of our match this past Sunday. Based on the comments from the shooters, there were no issues.

The part in bold makes little sense when the person creating the start signal is the person who would be calling the false start. They literally created the start signal. There's no grey area. The difference between the button push and the start signal in terms of time is no small that you literally wouldn't be able to tell it. I realize that you say you can hear the button press, but....quite frankly, I'm doubting that what you are hearing is the button press of the actual start signal. As people have said, on a CED a button is pressed to reset, and another is pressed for the start signal--and the start happens immediately, not after a gap of time. About the only timer I know where the press and the start signal are different are PACT timers, which have release activations. Pushing them doesn't activate the start signal, releasing the button activates the start signal. You can push the button down and hold it, and nothing happens. (Most ROs using them hold the button down while giving the last range commands before the start signal.) The signal happens on the release. (And those buttons don't "click" when you press them down, so that can't be what you are talking about.). If you are mistakenly thinking that the button press on a PACT timer has a delay before the beep, that's not what happens. "Just as everyone’s draw times can be different the same applies to audible and visual processing times and perceptions of those times. " Which has absolutely zero to do with any "grey area" regarding the RO who literally created the start signal not knowing when the start signal occurred.

Indeed. Do I think PCC "belongs" in IDPA? Nope, it doesn't match the founding principles at all. Do I think PCC being in IDPA hurts the sport at all? Not at all. I don't change any stages I design for PCC, and no one else should either. As such, it doesn't change the sport for the people in the other divisions in the slightest. (If they get emotionally damaged because the "overall" results don't show them winning anymore, then this is a good chance for them to work on their emotional resiliency.) I happen to love shooting PCC in Steel Challenge, and it is a ton of fun in USPSA. It is probably fun to shoot in IDPA, also. (Haven't tried it yet, and probably never will, even though I shot a classifier the other month just in case.). The fact that it is functionally ridiculous in IDPA due to the background reason for the sport doesn't make it any less fun. And since it doesn't impact anyone else, I'm always surprised when I hear someone getting emotional about it, and hating on it. (There is a significant difference between arguing that it shouldn't be in the sport, and someone saying they are going to do things to make it hard for people to shoot PCC at their matches.) It is okay to let other people have fun, even if it isn't the way you prefer to have fun. People who literally make stage changes to spite people who are having fun differently probably need to think about what THEY are doing relative to the principles of the sport and the code of ethics of the sport.

I'm betting there are probably a bunch of us.

I'm going to break this apart because I wanted to reply to certain sections. The stuff in italics is what twodownzero said. "Competitive equity is the concept of matches giving people the same challenge for each shooter. Like any sport, it's a concept of fairness in competition that each shooter faces the same challenge." Ok. By definition, then, anyone in a particular division, operating under the same requirements and rules, with the same opportunities and choices, has the same challenge, and therefore there is competitive equity. "Divisions are a subset of that. Production exists because it's perceived as unfairly challenging for those shooting striker fired or traditional double action guns against the 1911s in single stack. Limited exists so that shooters who choose to shoot irons and 140mm magazines don't have to compete against open guns. Revolvers are allowed in production because nobody thinks it's unfair that someone could choose to use a revolver in a division dominated by 9mm automatics. And so on. The idea behind divisions is to level the equipment playing field such that every shooter has similar equipment when compared to the people he is actually competing against in the match." I'm not sure about the word "subset" there. That being said, I agree that divisions exist such that the people in the same division are under the same basic requirements, AND said requirements are created so that they are using similar equipment. That, however, doesn't actually change "competitive equity." Technically speaking, if everyone shot against everyone and the only division was "Open," then everyone has the same challenge and the same opportunity to solve it--which is literally equitable. Just because people made non-optimal choices doesn't make it less equitable. If everyone has the same ruleset, requirements, and is confronted with the same shooting challenge, it is "equitable." People showing up with "unfair" guns don't make it less equitable, it simply means that some people didn't bring the right gear for the game. Calling it "not equitable" because someone brought a 5-shot snub-nose revolver to an Area match (as an example) isn't correct. Separating into divisions DOES, however, give people with different guns a chance to do well in the standings, by having them only compete against people with roughly the same equipment. That isn't the same as the concept of "equity" that you said above, I'll note---it is adding another layer to make the equipment itself be less of a difference. (Forcing "rough equity" of equipment, which is not the same thing as giving each shooter the same challenge fairly.) "In my opinion, creating Carry Optics didn't improve competitive equity. We already had a division for shooters who wanted to aim with a dot--Open. We already had a division for those who wanted to have the fewest equipment rules--Open. Instead of telling them what we told every other "innovative" shooter who wanted to try something new, we created a special safe space for open shooters who were okay shooting minor only in exchange for not using a magwell and having to deal with a traditional double action or single action trigger." Creating CO wouldn't change competitive equity any more than creating any other division. Every shooter already had a chance to buy/borrow/obtain optimal equipment for the game in the existing divisions. Arguing against CO for "equity" reasons makes little sense. CO was created because there was a large (and growing) set of people with production-type firearms that had dots on them, used for fun, concealed carry, and law enforcement, most of which were 9mm. Those guns themselves previously would only fit into Open division, and were non-optimal for that division. As such, most people would not choose to shoot them there. Creating a new division in which people with those guns would actually come out and shoot, again, doesn't change whether or not it was "equitable." In all cases, everyone had the same challenge and the same chances. It did, however, change the number of people who were interested in shooting their guns in USPSA---because there was a division in which their firearms would no longer be the non-optimal choice. This has little to do with "equity" still---it literally has to do with people with those guns placing well in the final standings. They would have been perfectly equitable in Open division. They just wouldn't done as well. Perhaps a problem here is that some people are using the term "equitable" to relate to firearms, as opposed to relating to shooters as they should. Equipment and gear --- those are choices. Everyone has the same ability to pick whatever, and make their own choices. Choosing something less-than-optimal for equipment/gear doesn't change equity, it merely means that some people use other criteria for their choices. Again, if someone signs up to shoot A3 with a 5-shot snub-nose revolver in Open divisions, that's completely equitable. They had the same opportunities and choices available as everyone else in the division, they just chose poorly. (Or they lost a bet. Or are filming a comedy video.) One could say that given the same challenge as everyone else, they performed poorly. If equity WAS equipment-based, we'd only let people buy one type of firearm for a division. After all, some choices are literally functionally better than others. And yet...we don't do that. That's because "equity" is a concept that applies to people and their possible choices in this case, not objects. I'll note also that you can't use a single-action firearm in CO. "If these distinctions didn't or don't matter, or add to competitive equity, then I propose letting me shoot my 1911 in Production and allowing 2011s in Carry Optics. Or letting someone shoot a A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want gun with no magwell on it in Carry Optics. And so on." That's not the point of competitive equity. And not the point of divisions. Literally, divisions get created so that people who want to shoot guns that are non-optimal for USPSA can compare themselves to others who have similar non-optimal guns. (Unless someone wants to argue that Open guns aren't currently the "most optimal" firearm configuration we have for USPSA?). Equity is based on the challenge---everyone in the match, under the same rules, has the same challenge. Divisions just give people who don't own Open guns a chance to see how they do versus people with the same type of equipment. If you want to argue the concept of "competitive equity" within a division we can, but once the divisions are separated, there is no need or reason for "competitive equity" between divisions---they don't shoot against each other, after all. "Also, just for everyone who doesn't know: I'm an outlier. I hate carry optics and PCC and if I had the power, I'd get rid of both of them tomorrow." Interesting. Taking divisions that are incredibly popular that people enjoy shooting, that don't take away from your ability to shoot any other division in exactly the same way that you did because those divisions existed, and getting rid of them is....an interesting opinion. Anyway: Thank you for defining what you meant by "competitive equity." I appreciate it, because people keep using that term in ways I didn't understand. Now, however, I understand that people are using the term as if it means what I thought, but are also incorrectly attempting to use it to argue about things that it doesn't cover.

I guess my question would be, why are you reacting to a button push? You would never have heard, from anyone, that "button push" is the start signal. You would, however, have heard from numerous people about "the beep". Especially since you seem to have been a member of USPSA since 2017 and have shot plenty of matches in Open division with classifiers since 2018. Why are you asking whether or not the "button push" is important? As for the beep being "grey and depend on the listener" -- that makes no sense. It is a sound, exactly like the "button push" is a sound. The sound either happens or it does not. It is not a grey area, nor does it depend on the listener (unless, of course, the listener is deaf and we have alternate start signals for that). Mild correction to BJB: The standard beep duration is 0.30 seconds. As people have said, the delay on common timers depends on the timer. And is irrelevant to the start signal.

Let's take those in order: "minor power factor makes no difference in terms of recoil?" Answer: Open guns have comps, as you pointed out. The muzzle movement is actually LESS on an open gun than a CO gun shooting minor. "Minor scoring isn't an impediment when everyone else in the division also shoots minor. " That's not how that works. Minor scoring means that lack of accuracy hurts badly. You cannot afford to drop points---because in minor scoring, the percentage of the total points you lose for poor accuracy is significant, which means that the penalty to your hit factor due to those lost points is also significant. In other words, if your accuracy is worse than another minor shooter's accuracy, the amount that it hurts you is not small. You can't afford to drop many points compared to the other shooters in your division. With minor scoring, poor hits penalize you badly. I'll note for this point and the next (compared to your original point), you suddenly switched from comparing CO division to other divisions, to only comparing CO within itself. As a science teacher, I'd take points off for attempting to shift the basis of your logical argument. "Same for mag capacity and reloads. " The division requires you to reload numerous times during a match, that means that skill is important. As such, if you don't practice that skill, it hurts you badly. The fact that everyone in the division has this problem is irrelevant, because your original contention was that: And yet, it has minor scoring and more reloads than Open, which require care in accuracy and practice in gun-handling skills. Your comment wasn't about people in CO compared to each other, you said something about the division as a whole, which as people are pointing out, makes little logical sense. "I agree that the physical part is more challenging in terms of stage break-down, navigation, reloads etc. But the same can be said for Limited 10 or Production or Revolver. " ...which again wasn't the point. Unless you are ALSO claiming that L-10, Production, or Revolver are "not particularly challenging"? After all, you just said the physical part is the same as those divisions... "I just find that when it comes to combining speed, power and accuracy in terms of actual shooting (vs. all the other elements), CO isn't as challenging as Limited or Open." ...which makes me wonder if you have ever shot Open. I mean, Open guns are louder, sure---but their felt recoil is less, the muzzle movement is less, the magazine capacity is more, and they also have dots. Literally, in pretty much every single major match comparing roughly-equivalent skill levels, Open division beats CO when compared. (Plus they get to use race holsters.) So CO is easier, but Open gets better results? That doesn't make sense. The emphasis on "power" is interesting, I'll note---only in Limited is the recoil actually worse, and Limited gets major scoring so they can run alpha-charlie all day on targets and still shoot 90% of the points so that this massive recoil problem is mitigated. (As we well know, from tons of data of people shooting Limited Major versus A fudgecicle nobody but a few crayon chewers and winder likkers want, the major/minor scoring advantage strongly outweighs any recoil disadvantage.) "Every division requires a slightly different combination of skills to be successful." Yup. And CO requires the accuracy and recoil-handling of Production, the reloads of Limited, and the ability to use a dot of Open. How that makes it "not particularly challenging" (other than the dot which is great for people with failing eyesight) has thus far not been supported by data. I'll note that the data we DO have says that people love shooting it, and the competitive level in that division is really, really HIGH.

New fault line? Do you mean how fault lines no longer extend uprange to the stage boundary, or did something else change and I missed it? If it was how far they extend, what was the issue you noticed?

I've heard this phrase a number of times recently, and I'm always confused as to what it means. twodownzero, do you mind explaining what you mean by "competitive equity" with regard to USPSA? I'd appreciate it.