Storm

Homero, Check out the following thread on grip safety pinning. It explains the technique Duane was referring to. http://www.brianenos.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...3&topic=108

Pact's website is: http://www.pact.com/ I'd recommend buying one from our host. Check here: http://www.brianenos.com/pages/pact.html I've used several different timers. For training purposes, the Pact MK IV is the best.

The minimum caliber for shotguns is 20 gauge per the USPSA 14th edition 2001 Rulebook.

If you want to promote accuracy, use the classic (ameoba) target.

MVS, I don't whimper about bad stages. I shoot them and get on with life. So far, I haven't designed any IDPA stages. For one thing, the IDPA matches I've attended around here were run at an indoor range. The folks who own the range design the stages. You're left with what they give you. Designing your own stages is not an option. I have designed and run a ton of IPSC stages though. I don't whimper and whine when a shooter finds a creative way of shooting it. If IPSC had a FTDR, I wouldn't use it to penalize someone who gamed my stage. But, it does happen in IDPA. The "tactical" folks use it to penalize the "gamers" who find holes in their stage design. My point is, the FTDR is way too subjective. There's no way to ensure it is given out appropriately. With clear rules, there is not a need for an FTDR. Delmont's right: The green rulebook is just fine. Rules are a good thing, especially if they are well thought out and well written. If it weren't for the rules, IDPA would devolve into a bunch a clubs that do their own thing, based on the club member's ideas of "doing the right thing". Imagine traveling across a few states to shoot a big match, only to get an FTDR because your idea of "the right thing" doesn't mesh with the ideas of the MD, and both of your ideas fall within the rules.

I'm going too. Where's the best place to fly into? I still need to book a flight.

Good question Flex. I was thinking the same thing. FTDR seems to be way too subjective. Personally, I don't think it should be needed if the rules are clear, the COF description is good and the stages are designed well. Yes, I've heard of several cases of FTDR's being issued and seen a few. In most of those cases, the shooter was penalized for something that was really poor course design. I think the FTDR should often go to the course designer, not the shooter.

SG-Try balancing it on top of the C-more...

Never heard of it. It is a book, article or what? Tell us more, I might be interested in reading it.

Poor course design is the usual reason people opt to game the stage & skip disappearing targets. I hate to see rules invented to solve problems that can easily be corrected by good stage design. I also don't think you can stop people from gaming stages. After all, this is a game. I'd have to dig out an old rulebook to see how it was worded before.

Don't you think a mini-popper at 25 metres also penalises them? What about moving targets in general? What about low ports? No. They at least have the "opportunity" to shoot at the targets. OK, it may take 5 rounds to hit the mini-popper. It may take a long time and a couple extra shots to hit the mover. But, once a target fully disappears, it's gone. The penalty should just be the points you didn't get, no FTE's, no mikes.

Vince, I realize you're on the committee that devised the rule. That probably makes you just a tad biased. I have to agree with Patrick. It's a bad rule. I've probably talked to over 20 folks about it. Every one of them agrees it's a bad rule. It severely penalizes lesser shooters (new shooters, D class, etc.) and shooters that have equipment malfunctions. Let's face it, these folks are penalized enough. Disappearing targets shouldn't encounter miss penalties, period. As Pat said, the "defensive roots" theory doesn't wash. If the person's gone, they are no longer a threat. I'd say get rid of the rule in the next rulebook. This rule just doesn't make sense.

Here's a detailed description of USPSA scoring and power factor: http://www.uspsa.org/intro_scoring.html http://www.uspsa.org/intro_power_factor.html

Erik, The BOD voted in favor of a trading post. They're supposedly working on it. According to Rob Boudrie's annotated BOD minutes: The "trading post" will be supported via the USPSA members page, and all slot trades will be done through Sedro. This system will be in place by the Ides of March (perhaps sooner).

My recommendation would be to try several of the previously mentioned sports & see which one you like. A 4" 625 will work well for IDPA, IPSC/USPSA and ICORE. It should work well for pins too, but the Miculek grips might be a little slippery if you're using hot pin loads. I'd recommend you get a list of clubs in your area and contact the Club president. Find out when the next match is & go check it out. Oftentimes you can borrow equipment if folks know in advance. That way you can avoid buying a holster and etc. until you know if you want to stick to a particular sport. Plus, you can see what everybody else is using & see if you like it. Whatever you do, go & have fun!

Bruce, You said: At the same time, I'll note that my own personal opinion is that the Nationals should "mean something" - going to the nationals should be more than just writing a check. But I came up through a venue of competition where the only way to get to "the next level" of competition was to win at the previous level. If I misunderstood, I apologize. By stating that going to the Nationals should more than writing a check, it sure sounded like you were advocating a position to me. And it sounded as if that position was, you have to "earn" a slot to the Nationals. You did say it was your "personal opinion".

Bruce, I think one thing that trips you up is that you think of USPSA as a "sport". Most of the folks I know think of it as a "game". You put too much weight into it. Although some people go to matches to "compete" a lot just go to have fun. I'd love to see the numbers that show USPSA is actually growing (excluding foreign and life members). Like I said, I think it's a great game, sport, whatever. But, I've seen a lot of folks leave the sport and head to the IDPA matches down the street. You will not grow if you make USPSA an "exclusive, competitive, sport". Telling folks they can't come to the Nats because it's an "exclusive" event and they didn't "make the cut" will only sour them on USPSA. [RANT MODE ON] If you want prestige, go ahead have a "pro" class. Let them get the prestige. But, whatever you do, DO NOT tell me I cannot go to the Nationals because I'm somehow not "good enough". If you do, I will NOT retain my USPSA membership. I refuse to be a member of an organization that treats it's average members with that level of disrespect. BTW-I've been shooting major matches for 3 years. Been to 3 Nationals (2 Open, 1 Limited). Actually won my class at one Nationals, which I wouldn't have gone to if I had to "earn" a slot. By your logic, I'm not deserving of the class win. I disagree. The prestige should come from placing in the top 16 overall, the top 3 in your class, etc. There should be no prestige involved in getting to the match. [RANT MODE OFF]

If you make it so that you have to "earn" a slot to the Nationals, you will eventually kill USPSA. It's bad enough that folks have to pay extra for slots they didn't earn, let alone saying you cannot go unless you earn it. USPSA is not big enough to exclude members from the Nationals. I think John's right, there is a reason USPSA membership is declining and IDPA growing. Keep the classification system. Add a "pro" category if yoy want. Lower the match fees. Allow anyone that's a member to attend ANY match. Charge everyone the same fee unless they are shooting as a "pro" for prize money. Distribute any prizes (for non-pro's) by lottery. Stop charging vendors a large amount for a booth at your matches. That will bring shooters to matches & eventually bring more members to USPSA. I firmly believe USPSA is more fun than IDPA. Bruce-If you want to grow the sport, you need to be concerned with Joe Average, not the top 5%.

Bruce-Good to hear about the possible EZWinScore updates.

Chriss - I agree about the paperwork not being sent in a timely matter. I don't see why the paperwork for an Area match cannot be sent in electronically within a week of the match. I can think of several cases over the past couple of years where folks were still in their old class for a month or several months after they placed 1st or 2nd in an Area match. If they can post the results to the USPSA webpage in a day, why can't they upload the results for the next classification run too? If you'd combine timely updates with some sort of sandbag prevention method like the 5% above method I mentioned earlier, I think most of classication issues go away. But, if you do change the percentages for classes, you need to even out the bottom not the top. SG - I understand the intent of the 10% method. But, I just don't think raising the bar at the bottom will encourage anyone. I really don't think the class breakdowns are the problem. I think lack of timely results and lack of sandbagging prevention are much more important issues.

For the most part, I'd say it's not really broke. But, if you're going to change it, you need to lower the bar, not raise it. At least, for everything other than GM. I do think GM should mean something and be earned. If you look at the breakdown of shooters in a class, most shooters are in C class. Then B, then D. I'd be more concerned about splitting the bottom portion of the class structure up & leaving the top alone. I know a lot of folks get frustrated at Area matches because there are so many folks in B and C class that it's very hard to place in your class. So, "if" I were restructuring classes I'd do something more like: Novice: 00.000% - 29.999% D Class: 30.000% - 49.999% C Class: 50.000% - 64.999% B Class: 65.000% - 74.999% A Class: 75.000% - 84.999% M Class: 85.000% - 94.999% GM Class: 95.000% -100.000% and "placement" in an Area or Nationals match. One of the reasons IDPA is popular is because the curve is a little lower. If you want to attract average shooters to USPSA you need to remember that most folks are in that lower end of the curve, not the high end. So, sorry SG, but I have to disagree too. Your proposal would alienate new and average shooters. Raising the bar will not nurture them. As far as eliminating sandbagging goes, there are other ways. For example, if you place 5% above your class in an Area match you should get bumped to the class you scored in. (Yes, this would allow someone in D class to be bumped to A class if they shot an A class score.)

Ron, I haven't used the DMW extensions. I'm still running the factory +4 extension. I think DMW makes the EZloader load gate commonly used on Remington 1100's/1187's. I have seen the DMW tubes at one of SSI's booths. They look like they are of reasonable quality. Hopefully someone on the board has experience with them 'cause I've considered getting one.

I think it's a game of skill in general. A good match should have courses of fire that test multiple skills. You can do that by having individual stages that emphasize individual skills. Or, you can combine multiple skills in a single stage. Doesn't really matter as long as it's balanced. To me, the most important thing in a field course is to give the shooter options. Allow some targets to be shot from multiple locations. Allow for shooting on the move. Let the shooter figure out what will work best for them. Do you take the long distance shot to avoid a position or run up to get closer? Can I take 1 target or 2 before the mover is visible? Do I go left to right or right to left through the COF? Or maybe I go to the center window first? I wouldn't do a 25 yard dash often, but every now & then it's OK. Keep it interesting. Give the shooter options. Most importantly, make it fun.

Have you tried SSI? http://www.speedshooter.com/ They carry 8, 9 and 10 round aftermarket extensions for the Benelli.

The way Shred describes it is pretty much the same as Pat's description in the link I posted. That's the way I do it too. The FS diagram never seemed right. I'd use the instructions in the link.