bikerburgess

OK so you have made conclusions about what You want, what was the purpose of the division you made those conclusions about? My personal thoughts on it is, while Open is a run what you brung division it doesn't provide a place where someone would feel even slightly competitive with a regular gun with just a dot bolted to it. Several manufactures are now producing guns that are ready for mounting compact optics from the factory as these become more common there should be a place where they can compete. Then when I think about rules I give it my Match Director test, that test is I have a new shooter show up with a gun with whatever mod or feature is being regulates and I think do I want to explain to this guy that his gun has to compete with the full race guns because of X if that makes sense then I'm for it if it really doesn't make sense then I'm aginst it. For example Sorry you have to shoot open because your G19 has a stippling on the front of the trigger guard. The milled slide for the RMR is fine but that useless bit of texture is too much. That is a conversation I don't want to have. So I would come down against the current production division stippling rules for a new division.

I don't understand the desire to change the 10rd limit (like in production our fastest growing division and locally to me, in a free state, the one with the most participation) and single stack to some other random number (remember that many 40sw guns hold less than 15rd think Sig, Cz, Beretta) that just messes up the division for a large portion of the shooter in the country (yes its only a few states with 10rd limits, but they are big states population wise) The arguments don't make sense first it has to be only Production guns because Production is working so well then it needs to be different from Production capacity so it can be more like Open minor

Agree.EricWell not Compensators anyway, I don't like the idea of specifying how the sight is mounted I would rather have a size limit (such as the box with part of one long side removed) and let that be the limit that way we don't prohibit someone from making something better that we all may benefit from in the end. I believe most are afraid if regular C-mores are allowed then that will end up being "THE" sight like it is in Open. a simple size limit enforced with the box as has been suggested would do that. Here is a picture of the production BOX with 1/2 of one long side removed as a example. I would also specify that the gun has to fit in the box with the barrel roughly parallel with the long axis to avoid the Modified type work arounds. PS the opening is also shorter than the C-more so sliding it further back would not make it fit. also the opening could be made smaller if needed.Please only slide ride optics in my opinionericWhy?Wouldn't frame mounted optics, require a Race holster?Correct, the original intent was current production holsters, slide mounted optics keep with this intent.If the holster rule already eliminates the currently avaliable frame mounted sight systems why do you need a seperate rule preventing someone from figuring out a way of doing it?

I honestly don't think trying to merge production and singles stack would be popular with the membership so that's kind of a non issue with me. What I don't think is because these gun types that in reality are quite competitive with each other curently have separate divisions matters at all. If we are making a new division it should be just that, new. Keeping it limited to only production guns as you say sounds good till you are looking at a guy with a 9mm 1911 with 10rd magazines and and a slide mounted red dot that he belongs in Open with the hicap race guns because his $600 RIA has a single action trigger, but the guy next to him with a stock II with a worked over action is good to go. If someone can show me where the guns are not competitive I would reconsider, but I'm not sure that data exists.

^^That's a great data source. and shows them to be pretty equal 2013 Overall production 100% SS 90 % B Pro 82% B SS 77% C Pro 69% C SS 72% ( places 2-7 separated by 5% 3 Pro 3 SS) 2012 Overall Production 94% SS 100% B Pro 83% B SS 79% C Pro 75% C SS 71% ( places 2-7 separated by 5% 2 Pro 4 SS)

Agree.Eric Well not Compensators anyway, I don't like the idea of specifying how the sight is mounted I would rather have a size limit (such as the box with part of one long side removed) and let that be the limit that way we don't prohibit someone from making something better that we all may benefit from in the end. I believe most are afraid if regular C-mores are allowed then that will end up being "THE" sight like it is in Open. a simple size limit enforced with the box as has been suggested would do that. Here is a picture of the production BOX with 1/2 of one long side removed as a example. I would also specify that the gun has to fit in the box with the barrel roughly parallel with the long axis to avoid the Modified type work arounds. PS the opening is also shorter than the C-more so sliding it further back would not make it fit. also the opening could be made smaller if needed. Please only slide ride optics in my opinioneric Why?Wouldn't frame mounted optics, require a Race holster?So have holster rules like production (must cover slide to 1/2 inch from ejection port) but if someone wants to develop a way to make a frame mounted sight work within the constraints and possibly improve the avaliable products that sounds like a good thing to me

I don't think so. I belive the program outputs the various lists you see on the Web page as separate files

I just looked at my clubs results for the last 8 months (since we went to Practiscore) and every month the overall Production winner beat the overall SS winner also the 1st B Production beat the 1st B SS and 1st C production beat 1st C SS so for those that think SS with optic would dominate over production with optics, are you seeing different results? PS I didn't run the numbers for A and above individually because the numbers are too small in the upper classes so I just looked at overall winner, B and C classes because that is where the vast majority of the membership is classified.

^^^^^ unfortunately the above makes too much sense to ever happen.

nope, to make life easier on our registration personnel we got a cheep blue tooth keyboard for doing registration. and once you enter someone once you only need to start typing their name and a list will pop up of matching names that you can select them from. after doing both EZwinscore and Practiscore I think Practiscore is easier, but I didn't spend a long time running EZwinscore so it wasn't second nature.

Agree. Eric Well not Compensators anyway, I don't like the idea of specifying how the sight is mounted I would rather have a size limit (such as the box with part of one long side removed) and let that be the limit that way we don't prohibit someone from making something better that we all may benefit from in the end. I believe most are afraid if regular C-mores are allowed then that will end up being "THE" sight like it is in Open. a simple size limit enforced with the box as has been suggested would do that. Here is a picture of the production BOX with 1/2 of one long side removed as a example. I would also specify that the gun has to fit in the box with the barrel roughly parallel with the long axis to avoid the Modified type work arounds. PS the opening is also shorter than the C-more so sliding it further back would not make it fit. also the opening could be made smaller if needed. Please only slide ride optics in my opinion eric Why?

you should be able to do it with the time plus scoring normally used for multigun. in that system you can specify what penalties you want to have and how much time they add. I believe ICORE is strait time plus so it should be pretty easy to set up. you will just need to go into the build stages tab then hit the edit penalties button and un check all the pre installed penalties and then add in the ones you need (like B + 1 sec. C + 2 sec, ect) you wont have a target by target accounting but it should work pretty well

only for people who don't practice. As i mentioned earlier, the slight advantage on the first shot would be more than made up for by the lower capacity (if 15 rds was chosen, which it probably won't be), and the more challenging singlestack reloads. I practice a LOT Do you or have you shot much DA/SA? Or just read it on the Internet I'd love 15 rounds, but I doubt it will happen, but it would take care of the SA only issue of SS's I have shot quite a bit of DA/SA as well as just DA I started with a Tanfoglio before they were cool and shot revolver for a while, I have also shot in Single Stack, Limited, L10 and Open, that one DA shot in my opinion is not a difference maker, for me personally I actually shoot a straight DA trigger slightly more accurately. Edit to add, Currently B in Production, Limited, Open, and C in Revolver, Singles Stack, L10

I would say its a artifact of the rules we have. just like if you hear a cover call as you fire the first shot at a point of cover once I know I have the PE I don't adjust my postilion before the next shot.

I finally got a picture of my franken gun uploaded so you can see how it looks,

Agree. Eric Well not Compensators anyway, I don't like the idea of specifying how the sight is mounted I would rather have a size limit (such as the box with part of one long side removed) and let that be the limit that way we don't prohibit someone from making something better that we all may benefit from in the end. I believe most are afraid if regular C-mores are allowed then that will end up being "THE" sight like it is in Open. a simple size limit enforced with the box as has been suggested would do that. Here is a picture of the production BOX with 1/2 of one long side removed as a example. I would also specify that the gun has to fit in the box with the barrel roughly parallel with the long axis to avoid the Modified type work arounds. PS the opening is also shorter than the C-more so sliding it further back would not make it fit. also the opening could be made smaller if needed.

That actually sounds really intriguing and maybe even workable, especially as a provisional division. Cast the net wide with minimal muss and fuss and see what/who shows up. Good idea. I like the wider net idea. I think the strict PO promoters also liked it, but may not want to admit it, remember when IDPA talked about making a optics division and the PO crowd got real exited, that proposal included 2011s with small mag wells, as I recall the PO crowd was super exited about that proposal and said that IDPA was leading the way.

not really,

I don't like the idea of making it anything other than a 10 round limit, that way it can play in every state not just most of them and it would be the same as production so you don't have to have ROs trying to remember what they need to count to. I also like the idea of including 1911's SS and Production are very competitive as it is and the prime market for the new division is always said to be older shooters and when I look at SS division I notice it trends more towards that demographic. Personally I would not care if I was competing with 2011s but I understand that many shooters don't feel that way. (Remember the world shoot where a 15rd Minor Da/Sa gun beat all the 19rd Major scoring S_Is unfortunately as much as we want to believe we can purchase better scores it's still the guy driving it that matters the most.

I'm very curious, about how many shooters are there?

I Just down loaded 123D thanks for the link. I will be interested to see how it works. That said Sketchup has 2 advantages for stage design that I think will be hard to beat. 1) there is a large inventory of targets, props and stages ready to download and use. 2) I can import a Google earth properly scaled image of the range so when I lay out a stage on it I know it will fir in the bay I want.

I actually think the real time eater is in the shooting scoring and resetting cycle. Doing the math making this 15 seconds per shooter faster makes a 23 minute difference in match length.

A bad day would imply that stages were fudged and resulted in poor times. This wasn't that.So if a lower level shooter came to the line and made the same error and it also turned out to be advantageous would you argue for a FTDR? If not how do you know the master was on his A game and the marksman was not trying to game it?

Sarge I get what you are saying but the point is still that the people who are arguanly most concerned with being competitive are more often than not using a steel gun. Ps I have several steel frame production guns but lately I have been shooting my GLOCK more. I don't be leave the gun actually makes anywhere near as much difference as most people believe.

New tool for the SO, Ouija board so they can divine shooter intention.