wtturn

Are you trying to say consciously? Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

That's not revelatory, considering how our scoring model works. More stages (really more match points) tends to dilute, or modulate, both peaks and valleys, rewarding consistency. You can also conceptualize more stages as more opportunities to make mistakes. So here we are, back where we started. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Sorry, bud, but you're all over the place here. We've gone from a 20+ stage nats is too big/long/inconvenient, to a 10 stage single day nats, to an 8-event area match points scheme. I don't really understand where you're coming from. What I said is that a 20 stage match is a better test than a 10 stage match; that can't really be rebutted. Ultimately, I'm not sure what you perceive to be *wrong* with our current system of determining champions, at least on a macro level. The matches on the micro level could be improved, sure. But I feel pretty confident that the best guys will always show up for nats, and more often than not the single best guy is the one who wins.

A Nationals needs to be 20+ because the more data you have, the more accurate result you will get. More stages = more stratification along skill levels and instances of luck/chance are less heavily weighted in the results. Also, a long match tends to test mental endurance in a way that a short match never will. Finally, I think a Nationals event should be a big deal. Bigger than other matches, grander than other matches. It's the culmination of the shooting year; it should be expected to require a bigger time + money investment. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

*Rolls eyes* Thanks for your contribution. No one would have ever known what we were discussing, otherwise. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Tell me more. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

The stages were good. There was one stage that only had one RO who ran the timer, causing the squad to have to run the pad. IMO, that's unacceptable at a L2 match due to competitive equity issues. Active competitors should not have a role in scoring other active competitors (again, IMO). Not a huge deal, just a concern. Overall, a quality match.

$25 in springs and the 3.5# connector of your choice.

Comical or infuriating? I can't even tell any more. The distinction he draws between "grip" and "frame" on production guns is absurd.

IMO few people should have to go to .357 or .358 diameter bullets to eliminate leading and find acceptable accuracy with a mainstream gun manufacturer's 9mm barrel. The vast majority of guys loading 9mm for practical shooting with coated bullets are doing so with .355 or .356 diameter from the well known manufacturers with none of these issues. I am just very skeptical that increasing diameter over standard specs is treating the root cause instead of the symptoms. I find it far more likely that the problem lies with the bullet alloy/hardness/coating application/etc. for those instances where you guys are encountering these problems. YMMV Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

yep.

Since this thread was started, BBI has cut prices across their product line. With a team member's code for 7.5% additional off, they are priced very attractively. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Minor scoring AND a compact gun is less than ideal, but part of the allure of USPSA is you get to play the game your way. I will also add that production is a great place to shoot a 9mm duty/carry type gun. If you're dead set on shooting limited, I'd encourage you to get something you enjoy to shoot in 40 Cal sooner than later. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Welcome, from another Georgian.

At some point we have to stop dumbing down our sports. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

No. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Any time I've ever had a persistent FTF/FTE problem with a Glock, the solution had been to bump the load up. In my experience, Glocks run more reliably in the 135-138PF range. I'll wait patiently for someone to tell me I'm wrong. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Well put. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

I doubt a change in award structure would affect major match participation one iota. People don't attend matches for awards. How many majors have you attended where everyone in your division "sucks"? You must have a stack of HOA trophies, in that case. That has not been my experience, suffice it to say. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

I guess I just have a fundamentally different view of results and what I'm trying to accomplish. Class is irrelevant. All I care about is finishing as high as possible in the results (winning overall, preferably). Whether you're A class, or GM, or unclassified, I can't wrap my mind around having any other goal than trying to beat as many other people in my division as possible. That's the essence of sport. Fixation on class wins and performance relative to class is the reason many people never get any better. Awarding prizes by order of finish is a stronger incentive for improvement than awarding prizes by some other scheme. Anything else is just participation trophies. We need to change the culture in this sport to start incentivizing achievement again. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

I think we should award achievement in an allegedly competitive sport with winners and losers, yes. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Ah yes, the Bernie Sanders prize distribution model. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

The gun doesn't matter, within reason. Within reason= nothing dumb, like a hipoint or a compact carry-type gun. Almost any full size duty style gun will not hold you back. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Yes, precisely. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

I'm aware of what Troy said. I'm asking someone to cite the rulebook. Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk