Vlad

Oh for the love of Pete .. Someone please close this thread. Apparently courses of fire designed and shot before rule changes, are now retroactivily illegal, even if they are up only for reference. Folks, to those that gave me feed back on the question I've asked, thank you. To those who feel compeled to make every thread about something else, please grow up.

Well, I've already said I screwed up in the count round due to my plan for a reload, followed by me deciding that the reload would have requiered to many mags. My question was about the head shot and if it was to hard of a shot. I've made up my mind based on the comments in this thread. Thank you for the constructive criticism. CLOSED.

Hmm .. that means I have to get going on the scores. I also happen to be the scores monkey ... <wonders away grumbling>

Oops .. I read the damn book when I made this stage and I could have sworn I was ok, but now re-reading it it seems I wasnt. Ugh. I really did try to follow the rules. Sonofapuppy! Did these rules change in the last edition or have they been this way for a while? Edited to add: I know why I screwed this up. When I planned this stage and sketched it, I was planning for a reload. When I made the real version, I worried about people not having enough magazines and holding up the squad and I took the reload out. Grr. This will teach me to re-check stages for legality.

Someone brough up a theoretical question today. What if a shooter gets DQ'ed for a safety issue (lets say an AD) during the course of fire and then he contests the stage? The stage doesn't meet the course design rules( lets say round count, or stage procedures), but it doesnt force a safety issue. The shooter wins the contests and the stage gets thrown out. Does the DQ stand? My opinion is that the DQ stands as the shooter broke a safety rule, and not all safety rules address things that can only happen to courses of fire. Where it happened doesnt matter. Everyone else seemed to agreed but we did wonder .. If the stage gets thrown out, then it is not part of the match. Is the DQ then part of the match? What to you guys think?

Yep. Especially with a no-shoot in the neighborhood. If the stage was in response to being more "practical" ala Ron Avery, would you take a weak hand shot a 20 yards with only a head to hit with a friendly close by? I hope to God not to have to. But what if it was your only choice?

Well, I do not yet KNOW that that many peopled zero'ed the stage, that's what people where saying. As for the customer needs .. I'm not sure about that. Maybe I made it to hard, or maybe they need to practice harder shots. I really just don't know, which is why I asked

A bit of background first. OBCATS, one of my local clubs, puts a monthly 7 stage match which attracts anywhere from 55 to 80 shooters, normally around 80. One of those stages is always a classifier the rest of the courses are between 12 and 32 rounds. One of our pits forces all the shots to be towards the backstop or the left berm, because the right "berm" is one of our large storage containers. It would absorb gunfire but we dont want to destroy it. Anyway, that pit is about 20 yards deep and maybe 10 wide, so we tend to have either a small hoser stage in it or put some walls with low ports to force some odd shooting positions or the like. In reponse to the Ron Avery's article and the discussions here, combined with the fact that our last few matches where a bit on the large round count hose fest side, I decided to make a HARD little standard exercise on our tiny pit. The stage can be seen here: http://www.obcats.com/obcats-stages/Avery-Made-Me-Do-It.pdf What may not be clear from the drawing is that the top most target is only visible from the start box and maybe a couple of steps in the freefire zone, the top/left target can only be seen from the top of the free-fire zone and the other two can be seen from the free-fire zone but not from the starting box. I didn't measure the exact distance to the topmost target, but I would guess around 18-20yards from the start box, and yes it is a head shot only. Frankly, I wanted it to be a HARD shot but not impossible. After shooting it, I still think it was a hard shot but not impossible. However a lot of people where begining to think about ambushing me in the parking lot because about 1/3 of the shooters apparently zero'ed the stage, mostly by missing or missing AND hitting the no-shoot. I think a 20 yard head shot is a hard shot, and a really hard shot strong hand and weak hand, but I think it is a shot everyone should be able to make, though it may take longer then they would like. I've gotten some people saying that they liked the challange but I've got a lot more people giving me dirty looks. Question is ... did I go to far? Is a weak hand 20 yard head shot way to hard? Does it have a place in our games?

One note, most of the machines I played with where in stores, assembled by who knows who. It is possible that my impressions of the "shakey" feel of the lower end models may be based on poor assembly. The more expensive models have more cross members and supports which would make them more rigid even with assembled poorly. It maybe that when assembled well they are all solid as my Ultimate 2, though keep in mind that on the Ultimate 2 they use two steel tubes wherever they use 1 on the other machines.

I payed it outright. I figured I know how much my credit card charges in interest, I didnt want to do the math on Bowflex's loan

I just checked their website and I noticed that the Ultimate 2 is even more overbuilt then the standard Ultimate, which I've never seen in person. So the 2's are both a better cable design AND beefier.

This is my experience only! I love my Bowflex. I've had it for less then 3 months, I work out about 45-60min 4 times a week. I've lost 20lb since I've been using it AND I have a better muscle tone and strength then I have had in a long time. Now the caveats. It is a machine you yank on. If you do not yank on the machine it doesnt help you though it does make a fine place to hang laundry. Also there is marked difference between the cheaper models and the higher end models. I've shopped around for about 1month before I got mine and I checked out a lot of machines. I ended up buying the most expensive machine Bowflex sold at the time, the Ultimate 2. This is not something I did because money was chasing me out of the house. The entry level bowflex you can buy at most chains and priced between $500 and $700. The $500 ("Motivator") one is junk. The $700 one (the "Sport") is small step up and it might be ok, though it is build a bit light and if you exercise with larger amounts of weight it gets a bit shaky. In my opinion the only 2 models worth buying are the Xtreme and the Ultimate. The Xtreme is a decent machine with lots of nice options. The Ultimate is TWICE the machine the Xtreme is and in a class of it own. It is build like a tank and in comes in 8 boxes, each I could barely lift to drag into the house. It is a monster of a machine but when assembled you can look at it and dont feel like you overpayed. For both the Xtreme and the Ultimate, there are the models "2". The "2"'s are the same basic machine with a bit of extra cables which are worth the money in my opinion. Most machines of this design use a set of cables which attach to the rods, and then a number of cables which you have to attach to the rod cables for each exercise. So if you want to switch from one exercise to another you will need to change the rod weight AND which cables are attached to the rod cables. With the model "2"'s that mess is gone. ALL cables are attached to the rods at all times using a system of floating pulleys. All you need to do is set the weight you want and pull on the handle or attachement you want to use. In my opinion that makes the workout a lot smoother. Then there are the rods. When it comes to machines based on rods, you either like them or you dont. They do not feel like real weights, the build up more resistence as you bend them more. I personally like that. However that means that their weight rating is a an aproximation of the resitence at some point in the bend. The heavier rods (100lb, 50lb, 30lb) are more linear. The lighter 10lb and 5lb rods exhibit the resistence build up a lot more. Of the rod based machines, the bowflex rocks. They use carbon fiber rods and the warranty them for a good long time. Most of the other use fiberglass rods. The Xtreme and the Ultimate are also VERY smooth. They feel very pleasent to work with and most all positions are well designed and do what they are supposed to do. I have never been a morning person or much of an athelete but I now look forward to waking up earlier so I can get in my workout before I go to work. No doubt, any decent machine and motivation would do the same, and the nicer bowflexes are on that list of decent machines. They also come with long warranties, the more expensive the machine the longer the warranty. Mine is 10years. They also have some new even more expensive model based on coiled springs which looks really fly but I havent got the chance to play with one. This is just my opinion, but I'm a fan of the machine. Edited for spelling crap.

Rudy Project

I'm no expert but in my experience the things have made big differences in my shooting have been (in the order they happened): quiting smoking, getting new rx glasses, working out. This are the things that tend to give me medium bumps up the scale. Actual trigger time is what gives me the small but all important small bumbs. The gear seemed to make the least difference, though I also improved that over time.

Limited 10 minor. Get your facts straight

What I dont get is why do you care if Production or L10 or whatever exists? If you dont care to shoot in it, then dont. But why the compulsion to tell others where to shoot and what gear is appropriate and what isnt? If you want to shoot Open and Limited, go for it. I think production is 10 times the fun. Luckily the people who want to turn the clock back 10 years are in minority in USPSA. As for why you want a maximum number of rounds requiered from a single position is because it is no fun for ANYONE to still still while reloading, nevermind some of the logic behind it. Under what circumstances would you get involved in some combat where you end up standing still in a window agaisnt 5+ opponents? This is begining to remind of the thread about stage design by open shooters. It amazes me that how much open and limited shooters complain about equipment restrictions in divisions they have no intention of participating in.

Damn fast. The question is WHEN (not IF) Jake breaks the 3 seconds line, can we then take El-Prez out of the book? That classifier has stoped being meaningfull a long time ago simply because its curve does not match the actual performance of shooters or the curves of other classifiers.

I would find it disturbing if a division built around the specs of the old fashioned .45 would become a 9mm division, with pretty much custom guns all around.

Thanx I missed that thread and it has soem realy good stuff in it.

From your desription is sounds no different, or maybe worse, then most of the purple cleaners.

I'm now pretty sure that my splits suck. It isn't so much the speed but the fact my second shot on target sucks. Given two side by side targets I can take a shot at each faster and more accurately then two shots at one target. Yes, my transitions are about as fast and more accurate. Clearly it is a visual patience thing, I'm proabably moving my eyes to the next target before the second shot is off. Does anyone have a drill for working on this?

The CR is where its at! IF you want a cheap standard belt that will work, the double belts from Carhart are very rigid and about $25. To me the convinience of gear placement alone is worth the price difference, nevermind that the CR is more then twice the belt.

Thats was funny. I was RO'ing Jim and it was amuzing as I'm following him along and I'm hearing "WTH is he doing??" behind me. Not to mention that I was trying to figure out how many procedurals he was picking up while trying to figure out if the rules allowed for "style" points. I can see both sides of the assault course vs "hard" course argument. I think some of it that people like to shoot, so shooting more is what they want. After all this is an expensive game if you look at the price per second spent shooting, and then you add to it the fact that the goal is to go faster and pay even more per second. Hey Jim ... I think my stages are going to be "hard" at our matches from now on. Just for a change of pace

What does that mean? Watering it down how? Personally, I think production and L10 are HARDER then the other divisions, in that it is harder for me to get the same HF. Maybe there are some people who shoot in production because they think the rest of the competitors are somewhat "weaker" and they have a better shot at prizes. But if it is all about the shooting that doesnt matter. If we compete against ourselves you can get better in any division. How is production or single stack (with which I have a beef, but not this one) watering down the sport, when the present even harder challenges due to equipement restrictions and magazine size? How is making something harder watering down the sport? I don't mean to paint you with this brush, but most of the time people who complain about to many divisions really complain that the prize table or the prize money gets split more so they get less of it while winning the class/division combo they feel comfortable in. I'm not really impressed by that argument.

Actually, I think that is false thinking. I've won with super basic equiptment against A and B class open shooters, and so does Dave Sevigny. High zoot equiptment doesn't win matches period. Hell, I've been shooting a SS lately and with decent stage design it isn't slower at all. I have lots of high zoot equiptment too, and it doesn't make me faster, or shoot straighter. Hundreds of thousands of rounds downrange tells me I can't shoot significantly faster/straighter with $3000 limited gun than a stock 1911. I disagree. Equipment makes a difference. How much of a difference is dependent on the shooter but declaring that it doesn't is a bit of an overstatment. Capacity makes a difference or we would all be shooting single stacks. Sevigny won L10 with a glock, but capacity wasn't an issue. Last I checked the Limited folks where still winning with high capacity guns, with long tuned magazines and all the high speed low drag gear. Open guns are open guns. Good luck winning in open without an open gun. Thats again a way of telling new shooters to take a hike. YOUR gun is no good in our game. You have to hope that whatever gun we picked fits your hands. You have to hope trigger length is good for your. And if it is perfect for the next guy over and it sucks for you .. oh well .. Life is hard, get a helmet. Oh, and you are going to have buy our ammunition too, because if all things need to be equal and "production" no more of that cheating 127pf ammo you load at home. Sorry man, that way maddness creeps. That, and no new shooters, which means death of the game.