Loves2Shoot

They are winning their class at the nats, so they are easy to find. With the exception of one D class shooter, the top finishers in each class finished exactly where you'd expect them to. If sandbagging were an issue, we'd expect to see each class won by someone shooting more than a few percentage points above the top of the class. You are going off the best score not the average of the top scores of the top GM's to get the 100% to start with (like the classification system does.) If the classification system went off the best ever score, guys like Max would set the bar at least 10-20% higher than it is currently, lowering everyone's classifier scores by 10-20%, and that is what you see happen at the Nationals (if you look) or any other match with the top shooters. You continue refuse to look at the whole set of data and the relationship to the other shooters in the other classes or the acknowledge the percentages you are using are calculated in different manners, and that is where your analysis fails in my opinion. You had around 35 masters in the data set you were looking at, only 5 shot scores above 85 percent, 30 shot less than 85%, and the 5 shooters shoot as high a score or better than half the GM's. You can say the numbers "say this", but they aren't the same numbers and they are not calculated the same way, so to use them to draw a conclusion makes no sense. All you have to do to see the classifier percentages don't work at a match with the top shooters is to look at the stage scores, only a handful of shooters will shoot above 95% (GM) score with over 30 GM's in attendance, and if you average the top 10% of the scores you will see the pattern continue, that same 10-20% upward skew. When very few shooters in the class can shoot a score inside their classification percentage, what does that mean to you? Is it the vast majority of folks who are over classified or a handful that should be in the next class up and who might just be "sandbagging" (or that the classification system doesn't catch up with)? Numbers don't mean much if you do not understand what they are trying to measure or use the same standards for setting the base line measurement.

They are winning their class at the nats, so they are easy to find. To win in your class at nats you MUST shoot a score that is above the performance of more than half of the shooters the next class up from you, that what the statistics say. When the top of the M (or A, B, C the next class up) class finishes in the upper percentage of GM class (or the next class up), methinks they are not classified properly, as the idea of classification is group the like skilled shooters together, and the classification doesn't match the performance. Classification 100%'s take an aggregate of the top scores, not the best score ever recorded. If you took the top scores and aggregated them as they do for classification purposes, then you see the people shooting scores above their classification.

626-859-0299 He is more than able and willing to do that work for you.

Dave's Metal Works Is fairly close to you. If you want to ship it up to Oregon, we turn around stuff like that in a couple days.

As you say you are someone with a history in data analysis I can not see how you would draw that conclusion, even if you chose to ignore the 15-20% gap of the top 20 GM's and sandbagging M's Going to the major matches you will see that the shooters in the top of A, B, M are finish above the majority of the shooters in the class above them, that fact alone disproves your hypothesis in my small brain. Analysis from the match you took your data from: M class winner beat more GM's than beat them. The same is true of the winner of A class as they beat more M's than M's beat them, B class winner beat more A class shooters then beat them (by a ton), and C class winner beat more B class shooters than beat them. Would you not say that if you beat more shooters in the class above you than beat you that you should be in that class if the classification system was an accurate reflection of skill? Fact is the classification system only works for those who work it. For the 10+ years I've shot the sport the top finishers in there class at the majors have always been under classified in relation to the other shooters in the class by the fact they beat more shooters in the class above them than beat them. I believe the classification system is only good for folks who use it as a tool to track their own personal improvements, it just is not accurate measurement tool when you use it to give away prizes, and it measures (in large) only a static skill set (stand and shoot), where by in large the stages at real matches are dynamic (run and gun.) I do think the hypothesis you stated is the reason some shooters (not Chris) are under classified. I know well one guy who had always been a class under his skill level, and when called out his comment was always he finished in his percentage at the majors. That is why I first did the analysis myself. After I showed him the numbers, he quickly classified up to his actually skill level.

Since you pointed specifically to my Nationals results, I'll add a little insight to my class progression. 2 years ago I went to my very first Nationals as an A Class LTD shooter, and finished 77%. Certainly within my class percentage (75-85%). 1 year ago I went to the Open/L-10 Nationals as an A Class in L-10 (still A in Limited, but went with an open shooter friend). and finished around 77% again. Still well within A Class (75-85). This year I made Master in LTD & Open and was a little worried about my potential finish at major matches as a freshly minted Master. I finished 88% at Area 8, and 89% at Nationals. This came as a bit of a shock for me, but to be honest, I had been putting in a serious amount of work in the latter part of the Summer, so I shouldnt have been so surprised. But this did re-enforce my belief in the Classification system (for the most part). [EDIT TO ADD] More importantly if you look at my actual class % you will notice that I was not far off the mark from my Nats % OPEN.... Class: M Current Pct: 88.167 High Percent: 88.167 LIMITED Class: M Current Pct: 88.713 High Percent: 90.764 LIMIT10 Class: M Current Pct: 89.416 High Percent: 89.416 PROD.... Class: M Current Pct: 86.245 High Percent: 87.133 Sandbagger (we know you know it.) Anyone who can do their math knows if you finish in the top of your class percentage at Nats you are not shooting in your class and your are under classified statistically. The first 21 finishers at the Limited Nats spread from 100% to 85% Most were GM's with some sandbagging M's thrown in for good measure. Generally the curve is skewed by 10%, look back as far as you want and you will see this is true all the Nats where a good number of GM show up. That the classification system does not allow for downward classification means there are folks that are over classified for their current skill level also, as it takes some serious work to stay in the top percentages and lots of folks takes time on and time off the work it takes to stay there. You can go back bunches of years and look at the top 20 and it is generally a 15% gap or more between the top GM's, not 5%. That is where you get the 10% skew.

Top is classic, bottom is unique. (sight cuts are different, but aren't why they are classic or unique)

We use a class III hard anodize w/ Teflon on aluminum.

We have detailed videos on the website in the videos section Springer Precision

Only trace amounts of coating get inside the barrel, it isn't like chrome lining a barrel. The coating is a vapor and doesn't go in voids well because it is electrically charged, it finds something to stick to before it can go very far into a barrel. It doesn't affect accuracy and we do fancy one hole shooting rifles all the time.

The work I've seen has been excellent.

IonBond is a company, not a finish type, and this confuses many people. They have several PVD finishes for firearms. If you are describing your finish as the gunmetal gray and not black, it would guess it is not the DiamondBLACK or a rough blasted finish.. If the color is between these to colors, it is also possible that the parts were treated with a rougher blast media, which will give a grayer matte finish. OK, then I am even more confused. What do I tell them in Sweden? What is a PVD finish? And which of them are suitable for firearms? PVD finishes = Physical Vapor Deposition Tribicote 40/41 is what they should know the DiamondBLACK as. The have several coating facilities in Europe, and the production manager will know if they have a coating suitable for firearms, as they do a lot of firearms coating over their.

It is a small rock detector.

Yes, we do CeraKote and stock those colors.

If you had problems with the finish "peeling" most likely the metal wasn't prepped properly, as we do stainless all the time. If you have had peeling from "past" years, IonBond will re-coat it, just contact us and we'll take care of it. S@W uses it on these revolvers. Smith & Wesson combined a scandium alloy frame with a titanium cylinder tobuild the strongest and lightest weight .357 Magnum revolver made. Theresult...the Model 340, maximum power in a small, lightweight, easy tocarry package. Smith & Wessons lightest and strongest revolvers deliverdependable power every time. Corrosion-resistant stainless steel cylinder with IonBond DiamondBLACK finish

IonBond is a company, not a finish type, and this confuses many people. They have several PVD finishes for firearms. If you are describing your finish as the gunmetal gray and not black, it would guess it is not the DiamondBLACK or a rough blasted finish.. If the color is between these to colors, it is also possible that the parts were treated with a rougher blast media, which will give a grayer matte finish.

If/when the P-Mag coupler starts selling in larger numbers, the design for the GI style mags is already done and will be introduced at that time, of if we get enough requests to make a small run of them.

.245 rear and .165 front is the way the come in the set.

IPSC is the bigger International governing body and they have their own rules, but in the USA we use the USPSA rulebook not the IPSC rules, which means your mods are ok. AS Rich said OK for USPSA and Steel Challenge, no good for IPSC.

Are you sure? The ones I use do. If you want to make it quiter for the shooter, you my try some ports out the end of the comp, direct the noise away from you. This would require a bit fatter comp, so you would most likely want to use TI.

You might have asked the wrong question as you are quoting the USPSA rule book and not the IPSC rule book. IPSC rules

Do you understand ISPC is international and USPSA is USA? IPSC is factory parts ONLY and 5+ lbs.

The REAL funny part Pillow Huncher and I can't get it off... Now that would be a real bad tag line for you.

Just speed walk... Seriously lame idea. We get 70 year old + shooters and they can run with guns and shoot. I think it is insulting to the more seasoned shooters to assume they are feeble. If they are too feeble to move the way they want to, then they shouldn't be bitching about shooting a match that requires movement ESPECIALLY if they won't allow steel plates. If it were me (I can be a bit of a smart @ss) I would suggest that all the shooting be done from a wheel chair to make it "fair."

Roll your shoulders forward and the Glock points straight...