OlliesRevenge

Thanks for sharing all that. When I saw your time on stage 3 I knew something had happened. How did sticking your gun through a port induce a malfunction? Maybe there's something I need to learn here. So far I've had two score destroying types of malfunctions with my new Shadow 2. They both involved the Montana gold 124 gr jhp. It's a finicky bullet in the cz because the transition from bearing surface to ogive is very abrupt, like a cone. This fact, combined with the short leade of the CZ, makes for a volatile combination. The first malfunction was due to an oal too long, resulting in the gun failing to go into battery and the bullet getting stuck in the rifling and separating from the case during my manual attempts to extract it... zeroed that stage.... clearing it involved squib rod & hammer at safety bench. So, I started loading that bullet to 1.065 in, and at the next match discovered that an oal too short can cause the mouth of the jhp to jam at the top of the mouth of the chamber. Not as catastrophic as malf #1, but still ugly. To clear it involved taking out the magazine. Now, Montana gold jacketed hollow points are for practice only. My current match load is a Montana gold 124 grain CMJ over 3.8 grains of titegroup, at 1.125 oal. No problems with that load so far. It plunks nicely all the way down into the Shadow 2 chamber, and does not require any gentle prying w/thumbnail to get it out. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

No one was more bummed that you DQ'ed than your fellow Production A shooter here. It's quite a drag that they zero all the HF data for a DQ'ed shooter. As I was inputting your time and points into Excel for my own spreadsheet to see how I'd stack up with you and Todd on all stages minus stage 5, I felt like I was being punished for your DQ. ? You really did burn it up on stage 6. Thanks for posting this vid... it's convinced me that I need to wear a hatcam just for my own viewing and eval if nothing else. Watching you shoot this is how I "felt" while shooting it, but my time of 27.57 indicates my reality was far different... more in line with shooting on Quaaludes in fact. I wish I had a vid of myself to watch now. May I ask ...what was your HF assumption on stage 5? Was it going well before the DQ? Take care! -Lance

Fair enough, I hear you. You have been at this longer than I have, and have been present at larger matches, so you would know better than I would about the frequency (or lack) of HHF increases. I have read that the HHF is actually calculated by taking an average of the top 10 or so HF's for the classifier. This obviously makes the HHF less susceptible to changes based on any one smoking hot run, but a cumulative effect over time will still affect it. Maybe this discussion is more academic than practical, but the issue I pointed out still has merit. The current system of grading HF's on a % curve based on HHF is, by it's nature, more prone to the influence of grandbagging and reshooting than a percentile based system. To calculate percentile rank (ie. determining where each individual HF falls relative to all the other HF's) you would take all the HF's lower than your HF, and divide that number by the total number of HF's in the data for that classifier. Notice that such a method would be independent of any change in HHF. Also notice, that with a percentile scoring system the resulting number would actually represent what many shooters erroneously believe the current number to represent. I have seen posts here, and heard statements made at matches like: "a grandmaster classifier score is in the top 5% of scores", yet if you really look at the math you'll see it just isn't so. A score of x% of HHF means simply that your score was x% of HHF, nothing more. It says nothing about where you scored in relation to the national field of competitors. If a = the current % of HHF method, and b = percentile, a does not equal b, and the difference is very likely to be more than splitting hairs. Because the classifier HF data is very likely to be normally distributed (ie. bell curve), scores in the upper % of HHF range would probably be higher when measured on a percentile basis, and scores in the lower % of HHF range would probably be lower when measured on a percentile basis. Once again I'm not griping about any of this (I'm having fun shooting), and I'm not saying the current system doesn't "work", I just think it's worthwhile to understand what the HF percentages really mean, and what might affect them.

This is not in conflict with my point. This is in agreement with, and reinforces my point. Respectfully, LF

That is a great point worth mentioning & I do understand this completely. In my mind there is simply no way for this to not be the case. Consider this fact for any given classifier: If at any place & at any time in the history of that classifier the HHF got bumped up as a result of someone playing the multiple re-shoot to "burn it down" game, then the complexion of that classifier just got changed forever. Now, going forward from that point, it suddenly just got harder to produce a 95% HF on that classifier without playing the "Practice the hell out of it before the match" game, the "Multiple re-shoot" game, or both. This is a dynamic phenomenon that is cumulative over time. In my opinion, not only is this likely to be the case, it is extremely unlikely to have not been the case. There have been multiple instances where I have witnessed one of my local GM's shoot the top match score for that match's classifier stage, and it appears like they just took a flamethrower and burned it to the foundation. Yet when I look at the actual HF score that night and calculate the percentage of HHF it turns out to be a 75 - 85% run. I hope no one misunderstands me - I'm not complaining about any of this, I just think its important to understand that this is likely to be a factor. Particularly if you want to answer questions like: "Where do I really stand relative to all the other shooters in my division"? The answer to this question cannot be found in your current average. For example: If you are an 'A' shooter with an average of 79% percent, that does not mean that you are "better than 78.99% of all the other shooters" in that division. I believe in that case "the percentage of shooters you are better than" (or at least better at shooting classifiers than) is likely to be much higher, maybe even as high as the mid nineties. The key to this is looking at the data in a statistically correct manner, that is relative to all the other data, and not just the single highest data point. In my mind, this is why we regularly see that A class (and sometimes B class) shooter who is totally capable of winning matches. Understanding this has given me a fresh perspective on that shooter we've all seen - the upper B class shooter who cleans house at local club matches, who everyone seems to think is a "sand bagger" because he just "can't" seem to move up to A. We'll, that guy may not be trying to sandbag at all, it might just be that the 75% level represents a greater level of skill than what it might seem to represent if we haven't really looked into the numbers.

There is a problem with grand bagging, and with allowing multiple fee based re-shoots that I have not seen addressed yet. The problem is that when grand bagging happens at the upper levels (ie. M trying to make GM), and is coupled with multiple re-shoots, what you get is a database full of HHF's that represent the pinnacle of human performance, rather than even what the top GM's can perform at will. In other words the HHF's wind up being statistical outliers rather than simply the leading edge of the bell curve. This creates a situation where, on a given classifier, a score like 75% of HHF just might actually represent an elite level of performance that could be greater than 90% - 95% of all HF's in the database for that classifier - when the HF data is viewed as a statistical frequency distribution. In other words there is a big difference between... 1) The current system of simply grading HF's on a % curve based on HHF, and 2) Statistically looking at where each individual score falls in relation to all the other scores in the data for that classifier. The latter method of determining classification would, in my opinion, be by far the better method. It would be more computationally intensive to calculate though. In my opinion, the current system would be improved if classifier re-shoots had been forbidden entirely from the start, beyond what would be allowed on a regular COF of course. However, given the fact that there are shooters out there doing multiple re-shoots and "polluting" the data with statistical outliers, it is actually important to then let everyone do re-shoots in order to be equitable. Within the reality of the current system, I personally have zero problem with doing a re-shoot, even if I didn't "blow up" on my first run.

I love this line of thinking. I've been playing poker as a second living for a several years now, and I have previously done some thinking about how to bring the tournament buy in structure (read: gambling) to USPSA matches. People love to gamble, always have, always will. IMO, adding a gambling element to the USPSA game would do nothing but good things for the sport. The gambling element doesn’t necessarily have to be emphasized or advertised. Pool tournaments that use a buy in and prize payout structure aren’t billed as gambling events (even though they are), and they aren’t usually thought of as such because people understand that billiards is a game of skill. One of the beautiful things about poker is the fact that amateurs can compete with pros. The reason poker tournaments can operate without handicap is due to the short term luck factor inherent in the game. On any given day, any player can win because the variance of individual outcomes is so high. Bad players can (and do) win big on occasion, and that is what keeps them coming back. For a sport like USPSA shooting, the luck factor is very low, and I believe running separate tournaments for each class would be the way to go. A handicapping structure could also be used. Thankfully, we already have a very detailed and fairly accurate system in place; the shooter class structure and % rankings that are calculated from classifier scores. Here are some specific ideas I have on how to start this. - It could be started at the individual club level, weekly matches and such. Individual matches/tournaments could be promoted by individual clubs. The sponsoring clubs could rake a given % of the tournament buy in total, just like the casino that sponsors a poker tournament (typically around 5%). - Shooters in a given class could compete with each other within their own class. For example, at a given tournament, B class (or any given class) shooters could compete with each other as an independent tournament. - In lieu of having enough shooters within each class to compete equally with each other (ex. if only 3 B class Production shooters showed up) a more sophisticated handicapping system could be applied. There are two ways to do this: 1) The buy in amounts could be altered for each shooter so that the top shooters in a division would essentially be laying odds. Say the top ranked Production shooter at the match is an 'A' with a 79.4% average and the next highest ranked shooter in Production is a B with a 65.2% average. Assume a top buy in amount of $50.00. The 79.4% shooter buys in for the full $50, and the 65.20% shooter would buy in for $41.05 = (.652 / .794) * $50, or some rounded off amount (say to the nearest $5.00 increment) Or… 2) Each shooter’s final Match Point score could be weighted up by a factor commensurate to where they stand in relation to the top shooter. We would first divide the top shooter's % by the % rankings of all other shooters, giving each shooter in the match a "weighting factor". Taking numbers from the above example; .794 / .652 = 1.2178. This would be the 65.2% 'B' shooter's "factor". You then just multiply his final Match Point score by this number to come up with his Adjusted Match Score. All Adjusted Match Scores would be sorted from high to low after the shooting and then prizes paid out to the top x # of shooters. Ex. 10 total shooters – Payout the top 3 spots; 1st = 50%, 2nd = 30%, 3rd = 20%. Naturally the more shooters the greater the number of top spots that will be paid -One of the things that would need to be addressed in this tournament system is sandbagging. IMO the way to do this is to increase the number of classifiers in each match to at least 2. This would make it very difficult to score high overall in the match (and collect prize money) while at the same time sandbagging the classifier(s) to keep your ranking low. Just a few ideas, take care.

Thanks for all the replies, I went back and listened closely to the mag changes after reading your post, and I do "hear" what you are are saying here. There does seem to be an audio lag during some other parts of the video, and an audio lag would logically explain it. I only brought it up because I recently took an RO class and was told (by a good authority) that the random start on a shot timer should not be used when running a COF at a match. I was surprised by this, because IMO, using the random start feature would eliminate the possibility of what I thought I saw on the video from happening. In addition, using the random start would not appear to conflict with Rule 8.3.3, which states: "Standby" - This command should be followed by the start signal within 1-4 seconds.

This thread prompted me to watch a bunch of Taran Butler videos on YouTube. I'm not experienced enough to comment on the "out of control" issue, he just looks like an elite shooter to me. I noticed something in the video below that has me wondering though. I won't comment on it, except to say listen carefully to the buzzer, and look closely at his R hand, particularly on the 2nd COF in the vid. Does anyone else see what I see? Is this common?

I got my DOH in the mail today and just finished about an hour of dryfire practice with it. I'm new to the USPSA game, so keep in mind the following opinions are coming from someone w/out alot of competition experience. I'm not ready to turn right around and sell it on ebay, but I'm not totally happy with this holster. Pros: 1) It's dropped and offset, which in theory should enable a faster draw (thats the main selling point for these right?). I didn't see a huge difference but Iv'e only practiced with it for an hour. 2) I live in the NW (which is why it matters to me), and I'll probably be able to shoot out of this holster while wearing a sweatshirt or other warm outer garment that isn't tucked into my pants, precisely because of the dropped and offset feature. Cons: 1) The front sight channel is barely deep enough to accomodate the .305" tall Dawson on my G17. By "barely" I mean that the gun will fit in and out of the holster, but the front sight scrapes along the lower portion of the channel and grinds off thin kydex shavings when drawing. Granted, this problem will probably go away after enough material has been removed, and the .305" front sight is about as tall as they get, but they really should have thought of this by now given that this is a holster used primarily for competition. 2) The dropped and offset feature prevents me from getting a full firing grip the way I'm used to doing with my CompTac holster. Specifically, the plastic piece that drops the holster down creates a small void space between it and the gun. There is not enough room for my thumb to fit there in an angled downward extended position when initially grabbing the gun. I worked around this by holding my thumb parallel to the ground and sliding it down into the V shaped groove between the slide and the DOH plastic piece when drawing. It works but will take some getting used to. Maybe with the gun canted this might not be a factor, but... 3) As Joe4D already mentioned there are only 3 angle options for mounting the holster to the dropped / offset hanger. 1) Straight up and down. 2) Approx 30 degrees fwd. 3) Approx 30 degrees rearward. Some fine angle adjustment would be nice. 4) For retention, the holster uses the typical triggerguard indent that results in an audible "click" when holstering. On this BladeTech, it is a very large and fairly deep indent that is the same size (in area) as the triggerguard outline. If you tighten the retention screws such that the holster firmly grabs the gun, the holster can (and does) bind on the drawstroke, flapping the holster up and out from your hip before the gun breaks loose. If you loosen it so that the indent becomes almost a non issue on the draw, the gun feels a little loose in the holster and (IMO) you could possibly have a dropped gun at some point. There is a sweet spot for tension adjustment in there I'm sure, but Iv'e gotta say I like my CompTac's indent better. The CompTac uses a very small "button like" indent in the kydex near the bottom of where the triggerguard sits. It's just enough to hold the gun and yet allow a pretty slick draw. I guess if I could mount my CompTac on the DOH hanger I'd have my ideal holster. My .02

DogmaDog et al. Going to the Dawson fiber optic sights from a set of thick Trijicons was a great move for me for that very reason. I went with the .100" x .300" front blade, and I feel this went a long way toward diminishing the advantage 'shooting out of the notch' has for me. I've only had them on about 10 days now, and I've done a huge amount of dryfire since my original post. They are much easier to see quickly with a regular sight picture, for me at least. I burned about 550 rounds of live fire yesterday, and I discovered something about this. Basically, the only real advantage I saw for 'shooting out of the notch' is that it helps my transitions time wise. It still feel like it is faster for me to see a single blade rather than an entire classic sight picture after moving the gun to meet my visual focus. My PocketPal 2 timer showed faster transition times as well, though not by much. I originally thought it also helped my accuracy and time during multiple shots on a single target, but I found that not to be the case yesterday. To be fair, this was my first live fire after installing a Buffer Tech recoil buffer insert and packing SlideGlide #1 into my Glock 17, and I think those two changes greatly helped my accuracy during rapid fire. I did about 20 Bill Drills at a split cadence of .22 to .28 sec and I was able to clearly see my front sight bobbing up and down out of the rear notch when using a regular sight picture. I don't recall ever before seeing things with that much clarity when shooting that fast. I found out that my par time for a live fire Bill drill (7 yards, 6 shots, no reloads, that's a Bill drill right?) is about 2.60 to 2.75. I did one at 2.36 but was unable to repeat. I was using printable 1/3 size IPSC targets, so my initial goal was to simply keep all shots on paper. I didn't measure groups or anything, but with a regular sight picture I only had a single run where a round wound up not hitting paper. In fact, I had two runs where all shots wound up in the C zone or better of the 1/3 size target. Using the shooting out of the notch technique my speed was the same, but accuracy was noticeably worse. Not "rounds over the berm" kind of worse, but it was very clear. So there it is, using the sights correctly results in improved accuracy. Boy do I feel like a genious for figuring this out. During my previous lurking I've seen you guys talk about the "trick of the day". Maybe thats all this was for me, on one day, as a beginning shooter, and I just didn't know enough to know to let it go. I would be interested to hear more about why Todd Jarrett felt compelled to "rediscover" this thing that Ayoob wrote about in the early 80's, and why he feels it's useful.

Shred, Thanks for the tip on looking for info on "shooting out of the notch". I’ve never heard of that phrase before, but that is basically it. That is what I’ve been doing. For the record, I don’t think this can be described as “not using the sights”. At least not with the way I’m trying to do it at 30 ft. I look and focus on the target at the exact point I want the bullet to hit, and the sights are right there in my vision with the front blade poking up a bit. The front blade just isn’t in focus. It’s just something I’ve experimented with, and it seems fast. In the search for "shooting out of the notch", I came upon several threads that debate (sometimes hotly) the merits between aimed fire and point shooting. When originating this thread I didn’t realize I was stumbling into a subject of “perpetual debate”, as Ron calls it in a thread on TheHighRoad I came across in my Googling. Also, Ron, I don’t understand why you thought I was trying to portray myself as a gunslinger. I’m not, and I’m sorry if I came off as trying to portray myself as a hotshot or something. That was not my intention. I’m just a guy who is a fan of the 2nd Amendment, and who likes to shoot alot. I recently discovered USPSA, it is a lot of fun, and it really brings out the competitor in me. I just want to get good at this really fast, and I think it is great that there are so many books, videos and forums dedicated to this kind of shooting. Brian Enos’ book in particular is quite a read. I’ve read a lot of books on various subjects I wanted to learn; stock market trading, poker, motorcycle riding, among others. But I don’t think I’ve ever read another book that so completely gives you a glimpse into the mind of a top competitor and really explains “how it’s done”. Definitely a book worth the money. I guess the answer to my original question is - "Although uncommon, yes there are other shooters who use this method, but, opinions vary". I'll just continue my practice in an attempt to become a well rounded shooter.

Thanks for the replies, It sounds like this isn't a common technique, so, I guess there's my answer. I suppose what I've tried to do is extend a type 2 focus out beyond "short range" in an attempt to increase speed. For me, this has worked to a significant degree. But, my thought is that the downside to this would be that my development in the ability to call my shots accurately would be diminished because it is a less precise way to use the sights. Before I found this site, I had read Andy Stanford's book "Surgical Speed Shooting", and had Ron Avery's video's. I watched Ron's video 50 times or more while dry firing, and practiced his drills (trigger bar drill, etc) on the range. So I have a good index w/ a complete classic sight picture, and I was shooting very high point scores in matches with slow times. The experienced guys told me "Don't worry, you're doing it right. Keep shooting A's, the speed will come" Then I found this site and bought Steve Andersons book along with Brians. While doing Steve's dry fire drills, and using a classic sight picture, I've clearly improved, but in trying to work my way down to the goal times I have difficulty honestly "seeing what I need to see" to feel like A zone hits would really be taking place. If I let the front sight peek up even just 1/3 of It's height above the rear, while indexing slightly low to compensate, It's like an "aha" moment. It just jumps out at me even at speed. I think the effect of this is essentially the same as if one was using an XS 24/7 Dot sight (Andy Stanford advocates this sight in his book, but I have yet to try it). The rear sight on the XS is a wide shallow 'V', and the front has a big dot on it, so even when using the "proper" sight picture the front blade/dot appears to be sitting out there by itself. Anyway, I'll keep practicing, and I promise not to throw the classic sight picture on the scrap heap. Take care.

Hello, I am a new (unclassified) USPSA member, and I'm new to this board as well.. I'm shooting a G17 in production w/ Dawson adj rear and .305 tall front. 3.5 lb connector, 6 lb trigger spring, and skateboard tape on the grip. Iv'e been using the "Ayoob Stress Fire Point Index" in my dry fire practice and during matches for virtually all lower panel shots. To clarify, this index is defined as focusing on the target, while looking over the top of the gun such that the front blade stands above the rear notch by some amount. At 30 feet I usually allow the top 2/3 of the front blade to stand proud of the top of the rear sight, and then place the front fiber optic dot in the bottom third of the lower panel A zone. If I shot this for group off a sandbag this is good for a hit squarely in the middle of the A zone. Freestyle at speed (which for me is not all that speedy - yet), it's good for an A about 85-90% of the time. I think Brian Enos alludes to this on pg 66 of his book in describing Type 2 focus. I find it much easier to quickly see and align the sight at speed when the front blade is sticking up all by itself. My question for all you more experienced shooters is - How many of you use this type of method, and do you see a downside to training yourself to index this way? Thanks