Singlestack

I'm going to try this setup next time I practice.

I've just started shooting Steel Challenge and driving the gun and upping the vision is where I'm at too. I'm also thinking that a more aggressive stance is working toward driving the gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9e3dTOJi0o

Let's do it. I'm game, and I'm a really shitty runner lol. I think all of it, regardless of what it is, is only a distraction from the shooting. The problem isn't that physical challenges are unreasonable, the problem is that the average USPSA member doesn't think fitness and practical shooting should go together. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. 4. Practical shooting competition is a test of expertise in the use of practical firearms and equipment. I don't see anything there about marathon running.

I'm more concerned with reliability than super tight groups. How reliable is it?

WTH. I was going to post that same thing word for word. The same way a person walking on a tight rope sticks hands out for stability on the rope, or a runners arms swing opposite the leg that is forward. They act as a counterbalances. With the hand the table, now it's an even better counterbalance because it's another point of contact. Trust me, my hand can not act like a counter balance for my ass while sitting. Tight rope walking, maybe. How in the heck do you get from sitting in a chair to tight rope walking and running? It's all connected to body mechanics. :-) If shooting one handed it didn't matter what the other hand is doing, why have shooters learned that it's better to either tuck the other arm against the chest, or take on the bullseye stance of other hand on the hip or in the pocket. It's to build up a solid frame. The more points of contact the frame has the better it gets. Even a rickety table is better than just relying on back strength. [As an aside: I got from weak hand on table to tight ropes and running when my rifle coach was helping me refine my kneeling position. It wasn't just a matter of getting all support points. It was also a matter of balance. Shooting elbow out versus elbow down makes a difference in balance. Additionally, elbow out and shooting jacket barely touching a rickety scope stand can lead to losing a match because of "external support".] Sorry, I don't buy it. We are talking about support, not balance. IMO, for the hand to be providing support it has to have weight on it. Like leaning. This is kind of tangent, but related to body mechanics: I can't find the thread now, but there was a thread a couple of years ago about a new shooter learning to shoot strong hand only. He was asking if it was legal for him to wrap his weak hand arm around his chest, and put his weak hand on his his neck pressing down on where the neck joins the shoulder because this was how he was taught when he was much younger and didn't have a lot of arm strength back then. Somebody noted that putting pressure at that point between the neck and shoulder does help immobilize the strong arm and provide stability. One side of the argument that builds up tension just like weak hand arm on chest, or weak hand on hip and should be legal. The other side argued that 10.2.8.2 penalties would apply on the logic that the weak hand was touching the strong "hand" because 10.2.8 defined "hand" as going from the shoulder to the hand. Anyway, bringing this back on topic, as I mentioned I've changed my stance and agree with you that there has to be weight on the weak hand/arm, or actively trying to grab the table to be considered gaining support. But what if the shooter is doing jumpingjacks or riding a unicycle?

WTH. I was going to post that same thing word for word. The same way a person walking on a tight rope sticks hands out for stability on the rope, or a runners arms swing opposite the leg that is forward. They act as a counterbalances. With the hand the table, now it's an even better counterbalance because it's another point of contact. Trust me, my hand can not act like a counter balance for my ass while sitting. Tight rope walking, maybe. How in the heck do you get from sitting in a chair to tight rope walking and running? It's all connected to body mechanics. :-) If shooting one handed it didn't matter what the other hand is doing, why have shooters learned that it's better to either tuck the other arm against the chest, or take on the bullseye stance of other hand on the hip or in the pocket. It's to build up a solid frame. The more points of contact the frame has the better it gets. Even a rickety table is better than just relying on back strength. [As an aside: I got from weak hand on table to tight ropes and running when my rifle coach was helping me refine my kneeling position. It wasn't just a matter of getting all support points. It was also a matter of balance. Shooting elbow out versus elbow down makes a difference in balance. Additionally, elbow out and shooting jacket barely touching a rickety scope stand can lead to losing a match because of "external support".] Sorry, I don't buy it. We are talking about support, not balance. IMO, for the hand to be providing support it has to have weight on it. Like leaning.

WTH. I was going to post that same thing word for word. The same way a person walking on a tight rope sticks hands out for stability on the rope, or a runners arms swing opposite the leg that is forward. They act as a counterbalances. With the hand the table, now it's an even better counterbalance because it's another point of contact. Trust me, my hand can not act like a counter balance for my ass while sitting. Tight rope walking, maybe. How in the heck do you get from sitting in a chair to tight rope walking and running?

How does leaving your hand flat on a table while sitting increase stability?

Really? How about a one mile run to get the gun?

It appears we are done here.

Poor stage design. Sometimes lines ought to actually be physical barriers. But, we are used to just using fault lines. (I'm certainly guilty of that) Or poor shooter attention to where his feet are.

Because the fault line was fire hose...... Because the fault line had sand/gravel/mud/earth pushed up against it to the point where one couldn't feel it..... Because the fault line had sunk into the muck..... Because there was a gap in the fault line -- yep, I've shot at clubs that didn't have enough of it, so there were gaps.... I am amused by the dislike for judgement calls: ROs are capable of making judgment calls like sweeping, 180 violations, shots into vs. over the berm, finger in the trigger guard..... ROs are capable of making judgment calls in scoring -- touch the line or not, hit on plate that doesn't fall, hit on plate supporting apparatus that causes plate to fall, etc. Somehow match staff aren't capable of making a judgment call on significant advantage? I don't agree..... Now, consistency -- especially at Level 1s, o.k..... I'm amused that every call you listed is not a "judgment" call and every reason you gave for faulting a fault line is either poor stage design or could be fixed by the RO.

It's consistently defining the "crime" that is at issue here. Foot touching outside the box/fault line seems a like an easy way of doing so. Does it compare with other types of procedural errors? Why is this one so much worse that it needs to be one per shot? In fact, I might favor 1 per occurrence no matter what, and just DQ the competitor for unsportsmanlike conduct if they did it deliberately. One penalty per seems to be manifestly beyond the "crime" in the vast majority of incidents. Innocent errors need not incur such a harsh penalty. Well what about forgetting a mag change. Innocent error, right? Or do you want to DQ him too? The faulting shooter gained an advantage no matter how you look at it. Either he did not have to pay as much attention to his feet as everyone else did or he did not have to lean as far as everyone else did.

I dislike the judgment call too. Put me in the per shot camp. If it was not an advantage, then why are you faulting it?

Easy fellows.

I have a meter that does that automatically. Wanna borrow it?

Welcome back!

It looks like my side still has some hope hanging on. I disagree with the premise of your poll so I didn't vote. Can you explain this? Sure. It is my opinion that it is not about "Holstering" being a verb or not.

This is what I'm talking about.

What I am suggesting is to turn up your vision. Intend to see everything. Let everything else go. One day you will be in the middle of a classifier and everything will slow down. You will see everything clearly. The brass flying through the air, the front sight jumping up and down and stopping in clear focus, knowing where every shot went. Just like seeing the stitches on that incomming pitch and knowing you are going to knock the cover off of it if it will ever get to you. It will feel like you are watching somebody else and time will cease to exist. The way there is fundamentals. If you have to think about anything, steeeerrrrriiiike!

I disagree with the premise of your poll so I didn't vote.

Awww hell no. ^^^ Copy and past. ^^^ Ain't no way Randall just said that.

I like that!

This is closer.