rowdyb

about 9% less than you would have done two weeks ago probably.

from the other thread: Looking at some stand alone Production nationals, so they each had over 300 competitors and only looking at the top classifications: 2015 only 5/28 GM shot a 95% or greater match finish. Or roughly 18%. So 82% of GM didn't. 2015 only 6/56 M shot an 85% or greater match finish. Or roughly 11%. So 89% of M didn't. 2016 only 6 of 36 GM shot a 95% or greater match finish. Or roughly 17%. So 83% of GM didn't. 2016 only 5 of 51 M shot an 85% or greater match finish. Or roughly 10%. So 90% of M didn't. Let that sink in, if you didn't know it already. Roughly 85% of the very best shooters with the highest classifications don't/can't match that in match performance against who is probably setting the HHF we're all being judged on. So, what is the goal of classification? Is that function tied to matches? And to what degree? And I mean this at the organizational/national level, not as individual shooters. What problem was the update intended to fix? It's old though probably still representative but the last data I looked at in 2015 had the numbers for total GM's at 300-ish and M shooters at 1,000-ish. When only some 25,000-ish people were members. (1.3% or members were GM. 4.1% were M. So the top two classifications en toto only came from 5% of the membership) We're now at 30,200-ish members for USPSA in 2018 but I doubt the ratio changed that much... Anyways, I'm done being irritated by this. I was Charlie Brown getting ready to kick the football and USPSA was Lucy and jerked the ball out of the way at the last second. I'll still line up to keep kicking it

Looking at some stand alone Production nationals, so they each had over 300 competitors and only looking at the top classifications: 2015 only 5/28 GM shot a 95% or greater match finish. Or roughly 18%. So 82% of GM didn't. 2015 only 6/56 M shot an 85% or greater match finish. Or roughly 11%. So 89% of M didn't. 2016 only 6 of 36 GM shot a 95% or greater match finish. Or roughly 17%. So 83% of GM didn't. 2016 only 5 of 51 M shot an 85% or greater match finish. Or roughly 10%. So 90% of M didn't. Let that sink in, if you didn't know it already. Roughly 85% of the very best shooters with the highest classifications don't/can't match that in match performance against who is probably setting the HHF we're all being judged on. So, what is the goal of classification? Is that function tied to matches? And to what degree? And I mean this at the organizational/national level, not as individual shooters. What problem was the update intended to fix? It's old though probably still representative but the last data I looked at in 2015 had the numbers for total GM's at 300-ish and M shooters at 1,000-ish. When only some 25,000-ish people were members. (1.3% or members were GM. 4.1% were M. So the top two classifications en toto only came from 5% of the membership) We're now at 30,200-ish members for USPSA in 2018 but I doubt the ratio changed that much... Anyways, I'm done being irritated by this. I was Charlie Brown getting ready to kick the football and USPSA was Lucy and jerked the ball out of the way at the last second. I'll still line up to keep kicking it.

If we lived in a market where the optics ready models were available then I'd say go for it. But as a project specifically for match performance I'd go SP01 Shadow.

Just erase every classifier that isn't from a Nationals finish that a person in USPSA has shot and then start over as of July 1. And the graph is misleading as @B_RAD stated because it doesn't show the numbers. Rather show what percentage of people in a certain classification shot at or below that number. The conventional wisdom Mink told me was that almost everyone shoots 10% below their classification at Nats. But thinking more root cause, I'm not sure what problem they were trying to solve????

Do that curve for national level matches and it gets worse.

If there is a disproportionate difference between match skills and classifier skills why even have classifiers? Just base it off if major match performance. Oh wait....

As it is a fpb, it is valued less than a shadow slide would be. Complete SP01 Shadow uppers sell for over $400 when they are available. I think you'd need to come in less than that number. But probably more so is the fact it is a 40 one as well, which is less in demand, lowering the perceived value as well.

Mine dropped 9%. To go from 3% away from GM to the top of A class seems like a huge punch. At the thin end of the curve to overnight ask me to be 10-12% better now to make my goal just seems ridic.

Exactly why there should be a total clean sweep or a retroactive adjustment. An AD/BC style break.

Ok, looking at the 6 currently used for my classification right this second in Production. Classifier. my HF. "old" %. "new" % 99-22. 9.32hf. 92.0%. 90.66% 99-11. 10.26hf. 100%. 88.77% 03-02. 5.88hf 98.14%. 83.20% 03-04. 7.44hf. 89.37%. 79.92% 08-03. 9.06hf. 88.85%. 80.65% 06-03. 13.08hf. 87.74%. 82.04% Using the old numbers I am currently classified at 92.7%. These are my 6 best that are currently used for my classification. Run the "new" numbers and I fall to 84.2%. So from close to GM all the way down into A. Wow.

Site is crashed for me and inaccessible.

Bays around here allow up to a 35 yard shot in a match, so I zero for that. Then I'll shoot a target with 3 rounds every 3 steps back to about 50 yards or so, noting the changes. My laser is zeroed for 7 yards.

yep, knock the base pad down, starting with the rear edge until it fits. another trick is if you can press upward on the basepad and it moves an amount that would have you pass is to bend the lips on the bag that the basepad slides onto "up" so that they take up this free play. i've shortened mags just enough this way and then you don't have to do any external changes. i would not consider it a permanent solution though. at least you checked yours! for fun i took my mag gauge to our local match once. it was shocking how many Lim and CO mags people were using failed.

so yes, 32oz of plastic does equal 45oz of metal. it is, well in my case, the 140lbs behind it that really matters.

Rule 3.2.2 reads in part: Targets are considered equal threat when the difference in the target distances to the shooter is less than 2 yards. As it sounds you were shooting near to far, if the two pieces of steel were indeed within 4' of each other relative to you the shooter (less than the 6" that would make them of differing priority for engagement) they were equal priority. NO penalty could have been assessed for shooting the rear plate first by accident or intent. Something I've posted in jest but like Homer Simpson says, it's funny because it's true, is that the best self defense item at an idpa match isn't the gun on your hip but the rule book in your bag. Read it and highlight things like this that come up often, scoring and shooting rules, so you get a deserved and correct call. Through time, culture and rule book issues there is to often the attitude of doing/allowing things how the so, stage designer, md or whomever wants to rather than following the rules.

it is funny that you click on 1911 under the guns tab and the banner photo is a Trojan but the only 1911 they sell is the dvc classic.

I do a little light cleaning constantly. Spray, brush, air, qtip and such so there never accumulates much build up. All, and I mean all, springs get changed once a year. Deep clean where the gun goes down to all its individual parts happens about 2/3 the way through season, normally August-ish.

From the good shotgunners I've seen they are equal

i aim for a consistent 130pf when i chrono my match ammo

send them your serial number.

their info says they make them mid sami spec. i'd agree. just doing the simple plunk test of the barrel it seemed more tolerant of tc and rnfp bullet profiles i had around. both to freedom in oal and in diameter. reasonable or not, it would always drive me crazy to load certain bullets to 1.100" to get them to feed and chamber in the stock barrel.

Until someone else could copy your exact set up of plates you can't really define fast as it is relative instead of absolute. That's why standards, classifiers and plate racks are around.

Are you asking if you could use a frame weight on a glock in CO?

barsto barrel plus 10x bushing now has my first gun shooting as well as my most recent stock one..... chamber in the barsto is more forgiving than stock.