beltjones

I would bet $100 that someone at my next major match says, "Well, yeah, but Rob Leatham thinks about what's for lunch before he shoots, so that's what I'm doing these days, too."

That narrows it down to between 5/27 and 9/20/2014.

Simply put, HQ didn't do their homework when establishing the HHF for this classifier for any division but Open. It's just pure laziness that they don't revisit the HHF for the other divisions. And yet they keep accepting fees for shooters who attempt this classifier at club matches. Should we blame HQ, or the clubs who keep using this classifier? Hmmm.

Does anyone have info on when the waitlist for the 2014 nationals will open?

There are certain logistical issues that are completely out of the control of match staff. For example, they can control how many people register for the match, but they can't control who shows up. If squads are meant to be fast and small on staff day - but competitors and / or staff don't show up, then those squads might end up being too small. The only way to really "fix" that is to allow the match staff to announce squad assignments the morning of the match, based on who actually shows up, but how many people would scream and cry about that in these days of self-service match squadding? I was one of the staff who ended up not being able to shoot on Friday, and my squad was down a man as a result. That's on me, but I couldn't avoid it. From my perspective the match was extremely well-run on Saturday and Sunday, with interim scores posted on "the wailing wall" throughout the day, no bizarre interpretations of the rules from the RM, some of the most interesting, accuracy-intensive stages I have seen, a first-rate shooting facility, and (frankly) two of the sexiest ROs in the world on stage 1. Those guys used perfect range commands the whole match, only had one re-shoot (steel didn't fall and failed calibration), and they used overlays when appropriate without being prompted even once by a competitor. If it were possible I would nominate them for RO team of the year.

Or limited major with 15 round mags.

I believe it means that as long as the scale is consistent enough to read within .2 oz of the same test weight for the duration of the match then it's consistent enough to use at the chrono stage. I don't think it gives the shooter any kind of allowance over 43.00 oz.

I don't think that means that 0.2 ounces over is legal.

So why do people lighten their slides? Why do people compete and do well with plastic guns? Why does rob leatham say it makes no difference in speed or accuracy shooting major vs minor? (Hopefully I'm not totally misremembering this interview) Why do I shoot about the same splits with my .45 as with my 40-minor gun? I think some people *think* a heavier gun is an advantage, but lots of pretty qualified people don't appear to agree. Regarding the rule..... I don't like surprises, so before I shoot a match in a division with a weight limit, I weigh my gun on the same digital scale I use for measuring hops for homebrewing. Slide lightning isn't always about the weight of the gun. The weight of the slide matters. If I have a 43 oz gun with an extremely light slide and a 43 oz gun with most of the weight in the slide, it will be two completely different beasts. Why are people so interested in trying to get steel grips for 2011s? Rob is very skilled and an excellent instructor, but physically, he's different than I am. His hands are twice the size of mine. His comments about how he perceives the differences are interesting, but vary based on peoples builds. Truth be told, it's more about perception than anything else anyway, which is kind of what he meant by this. I can't address why your splits are the same except to say that the impulse from 45 is decidedly different than 40, regardless of power factor. 45 is has a "lopie" feel to me, and I would imaging that 40 minor might feel the same way because you are down rating it quite a bit. So - you pick one comment out of the entire post that you might have some points from some reputable shooters disagree to prove what - I shouldn't have used the word "definitely"? How about I qualify this - the weight limit is there so someone can't build a 6 lb gun for which there might be an advantage for them. Don't feed the troll.

So why do people lighten their slides? Why do people compete and do well with plastic guns? Why does rob leatham say it makes no difference in speed or accuracy shooting major vs minor? (Hopefully I'm not totally misremembering this interview) Why do I shoot about the same splits with my .45 as with my 40-minor gun? I think some people *think* a heavier gun is an advantage, but lots of pretty qualified people don't appear to agree. Regarding the rule..... I don't like surprises, so before I shoot a match in a division with a weight limit, I weigh my gun on the same digital scale I use for measuring hops for homebrewing. I didn't realize you were a home brewer. That moves you up a notch in my book. That puts you on notch #1. The rest of your post - as usual - has nothing to do with the thread topic. Thanks!

I also like how the first post says it's a stock gun, but also how there is all kinds of aftermarket stuff glued to it. Which is it?

Use lighter magazines, bud. I noticed you neglected to mention what brand was in the gun when they weighed it... I also like all of your bizarro comments about the 1980s and heavy guns as if anyone has reached a consensus on any of this stuff. In addition to the popularity of steel-frame Production guns, I'll point out how many people are switching to steel grips on their Limited and Open guns. In any case, the point is there are plenty of people who would prefer a heavy single stack gun. Simply put, you went to a match without knowing the rules and whether or not they applied to your specific circumstances. That's on you. And what does Rich Wyatt have to do with any of this? Was his daughter at the match?

The shooter heard "make ready" and started to do so. You can't expect someone wearing hearing protection (sometimes doubled up), with frequently a lot of chatter from the ROs and peanut gallery behind him, to get all the context of words that are being uttered near him. That's why we have exceedingly simple range commands. Simply put: The shooter was listening for the RO's voice to say "make ready," and when he heard it he drew his gun. That's not a DQ, in my opinion. It's still a "best practice" to confirm that the RO said "make ready" if you're not 100% sure, but this one is definitely on the RO, and he shouldn't have issued the DQ.

The receiver of my stock 3 is not marked 9mm. For all anyone knows, it could be either a 9mm or a .40. Right, it's the same as a Glock frame, which could be a 17, 22, 34, 35, 24, etc and you can't tell what it was originally once you take the slide off. It's still breaking the rules if only you know you're breaking them.

The rules are pretty clear that the replacement slide and barrel have to be the same shape, CALIBER, and contour as the original model. Your model is a .40, so you would have to replace the .40 barrel/slide with another .40 barrel/slide. From my extremely limited research the barrel/slide length and contour are the same, it's that caliber thing that is the problem.

2013 nationals 1st tanfoglio Eric the great but he would win with a hipoint 2nd tanfoglio Ben 3rd did Dave shoot his FN? 4th did TGO shoot a XD? 2012 nationals 1st tanfoglio 2nd tanfoglio 3rd CZ It's hard to see a edge going to the G34, don't get me wrong I like my glocks and that's what I have been shooting lately but I don't think it give me a edge Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk You drug up a 3+ year old thread? Fwiw, I went from G34 to stock Shadow back to G34 to Mink-tunes AA Shadow. It was the tuning that made the difference, and now I would tell you that for me, the shadow blows the Glock out of the water. Next you should go find a thread from 1980 and tell those fools how open guns with comps and red dots are the future. Use modern data to prove your point.

Ask Amidon. It's not legal.

Just shoot .40 for Production.

We compete within our divisions heads up without handicap. The class awards allow recognition within the division for different skill levels (i.e. a C class shooter will never be in contention for HOA, but performed better than everyone at his skill level, so he gets a trophy). I know practiscore will readjust the HHF if you are looking at the results on a per class basis (not within the rules though) and that can affect who wins 1st C as the relative performances will change. Bunchies I think you missed the point of his question. Bo gets how scoring works, he's asking - from a philosophical level - whether C class guys' scores should be adjusted based on the HHF of the stage if they're competing against each other, and not against the GMs. One solution would be to have a per-class HHF, but that would be even more complicated than what we have now. Ok Bo, you sold me. I like (total points - penalties) / total time.

Because the field course has more shots, so it is worth more? If your gun breaks and you zero a stage, you're done for the overall anyway, so have fun and try to make sure your gun doesn't break in the future. I'm not sure it makes sense to change the scoring system just to make it easier on people who break their guns. I understand that you may have different preferences than others, but it is interesting to me to learn more about the history of the sport, and find out that the scoring system we have now evolved precisely because of the perceived faults of the previous systems. I'm not self-centered enough to believe that *my* preferences are worth imposing on everyone else, but I don't see how I can go wrong by agreeing with Rob Leatham. Once again you obfuscate the issue. I'm not advocating for a preference. This is a discussion thread about an idea that occurred to me, and apparently used to be the scoring system in USPSA (IPSC at the time?). Your comments about self-centeredness are way out of line. I think you are a troll, and I will not respond to you any more because you seem to do this on every thread.

This thread isn't about time-plus scoring. There have been plenty of threads about that. Let's say your gun breaks a part and locks up, and you can't complete a stage. Why should it hurt you more on a field course than it does on a short course? That's what happens in the current comstock scoring paradigm. I'm actually liking the idea of normalizing every stage based on a constant.

That seems like a reasonable point, but the fact that stage designs are all different means your score is never based purely on your performance, but also on the particulars of the stage design. People keep records for bicycle races on tracks, and they know that someone won the 4k pursuit with a time of 4:15 or whatever. OTOH, when bicycles race on roads, noone keeps track of the total time, and it's just a matter of how far behind the winner they were. When compared to just about every other sport on earth, it makes some sense to me that we talk about steel challenge scores as raw times, and uspsa scores as being relative to the winner. Honestly, I couldn't tell you how many points I scored in any match I've ever done. All I pay attention to is what my percentage is of the winner. Unless you run the exact same courses over and over, the points are only a tool used to figure out the relative differences. This whole post misses the point. Whether you look at your total match points or your percentage (the same thing) it is not soley based on how you shot. Your match score is based on how you shot but also how someone else shot a stage since your HF is compared to theirs. It has nothing to due with all stages being different, just like at a race it doesn't make a difference what the record pursuit, 200m, or 500m time is, what matters is how that person performed on that day against the other people competing that day. Yes it is. You are confusing me. You do not want your score to be representative of your performance compared to the winner, Like how you place in a race or do you? In a race, you are scored by where you place against other participants, regardless of whether you are a lap down or ten. Just your placing matters, not how well you performed. Comstock scoring and being given your percentage of the winners score takes into account not your placing, but how well you performed against the top score. We used to add factors and it doesn't work at all. Any fast stage that has a high hit factor is way more important than a long and possibly difficult stage that will likely have a much lower hit factor. An El Presidente, only 12 rounds in 4 seconds or so would be worth more than 2 or even 3 long 32 round stages. Percentage scoring awards points by the number of rounds fired and the balance of speed and accuracy. A miss on an el Pres would be worth 3-4 full factor points. A miss on a 32 round stage that took 25 seconds would be worth .6. So you better plan where you screw up! one stage won't mattter and the other would be a catastrophe you could never recover from. It's like adding up stage placements. It doesn't take into account the severity of the differences in the shooters performance. I won SOF a couple of million years ago because I placed 1st on more stages than Brian did. It didn't take into count the fact that on the stages I was second on, Brian was first and on at least one of them by a huge margin. I still got a 2 and he a 1. I won one more stage than he did and won but he beat me on the stages he won by much, much more than those I beat him on. If you just add stage factors, you could easily win a match while shooting poorly and inconsistently. This is the exact reason they use the current system. Plus time might be easier but it is essentially the same thing, but it also has problems. The current Comstock scoring paradigm has exactly the same problem in that "one stage won't mattter and the other would be a catastrophe you could never recover from," it's just flip flopped so the high round count stages are heavily weighted and low round count stages hardly matter.

The mix of stages is kind of beside the point, IMO. Just a point of clarification as well - mathematically ties should be just as rare with the scoring system proposed as with the current system.

Again, both short and long courses can be high hit factor or low hit factor. The number of targets doesn't determine the HF of the stage, unlike the current system in which the number of rounds is the sole determinant of the total value of the stage.

Another thing this idea does: Right now they have the SS shoot in the afternoon on the second day. I'm sure this is the case for a multitude of reasons, but one of them could be that if the SS shot in the morning, then it's possible that the results could change by the time the afternoon squads finish. Assuming the match winner is going to come from the SS (which is usually the case), if the SS shot in the morning they would have final results by 1:00pm that would be reliable for the most part, except for instances where guys like Todd aren't allowed on the SS, or Nils in 2010, etc. So what could you do if the SS finished at 1:00pm? Oh I don't know - how about a shoot off? With the SSs finishing in the afternoon there isn't time for a shoot off, but by moving the SS to the morning session on the last day it could easily happen.