Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

jakemaul

Classified
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://azshooters.org/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arizona

Recent Profile Visitors

365 profile views

jakemaul's Achievements

Looks for Range

Looks for Range (1/11)

  1. Nope, not me. But since you asked... here's a CSV I just made based on the HHF data my site uses. Should import easily into a spreadsheet. hhf.csv
  2. Hi there, that's my site. It's fixed now. Sorry about that.
  3. Mine does. https://azshooters.org/ But (at least for now), PCC high hit factors are the same as Open... so any of them should be reasonably on-target.
  4. 3 main reasons: 1) Production scoring is always done at minor power factor, so there's no need for anything bigger than 9mm for scoring purposes. 2) 9mm is the cheapest caliber that qualifies for minor PF in production. 3) Lower recoil usually means faster follow-up shots, so most folks want the gentlest load they can shoot and still get the job done. 115gr is usually considered "too light" though (won't reliably knock down steel poppers), so most opt for 124gr or 147gr. For Limited, .40S&W is preferred... mainly because it's the smallest caliber that meets *major* power factor, and thus has a scoring advantage over 9mm. For Open, most common is .38 Super, or an over-loaded 9mm (colloquially known as "9mm Major"). This is because .38/9mm is the smallest caliber that makes major PF in Open. .40S&W would work here too, but since it's bigger in diameter you get fewer rounds per magazine.
  5. They'll hopefully adjust them eventually. I think they will, but I'm not holding my breath for it. My personal observation has been that HHF's are very rarely updated once they've been set. I have plenty of runs on record (not mine, but across the USPSA) that are recorded as having a hit factor over the HHF. It kinda makes sense to happen sometimes (level-1 match stage setup and scoring isn't directly validated by an on-site USPSA official... merely the local RO / scorer / match director), but I've so rarely seen an HHF actually get increased that I suspect they only get reviewed in extreme cases. However, I'm optimistic that PCC will vary enough from Open that they'll be forced to act... at least on the stages that are the most problematic. For example, 09-05 (Quad Standards, https://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/09-05.pdf) should be pretty terrible for PCC because of the reload in each string. Whereas 09-10 (Life's Little Problems... https://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/09-10.pdf ) should be pretty good for PCC, and the Open HHF is probably pretty reasonable. So we might see only some stage HHF's get changed.
  6. Sorry, I misread your question. It has to do with the ordering of the checks they make during the classification run. The rulebook doesn't explain this. I'm trying to duplicate the logic... I have something that mostly works. It gets it right for *me*, but picks the wrong ones for *you*. This is something I've been meaning to do for a long time for my website anyway. I'll report back when I have something interesting.
  7. I just noticed that the page is slightly broken- notice how it just says "Classifiers", and not "PCC Classifiers". If you look at the HTML source, you can clearly see what's up: <td colspan="6" bgcolor="#333333"><span class="style9"><strong> Classifiers</strong></span></td> Note the space before the word "Classifiers". Almost certainly there's a variable in there that's supposed to say "PCC" or "Pistol Caliber Carbine", but instead is empty. EDIT: I'm mentioning this here just in case anyone else has trouble finding their classifiers listed on their page... and the tech details in case someone from USPSA stumbles onto this comment.
  8. Can anyone else confirm that it looks like they're using Open HHFs? I haven't seen any info posted about that yet.
  9. Possibly... are there any best times posted for that yet? I haven't heard anything about the new Steel Challenge scoring system in a while, it was supposed to take effect on Jan 1... last I heard anything about it was before Carry Optics was really a thing. Currently I pull all SCSA data straight from steelchallenge.com... unlike USPSA matches, pretty much *all* steel challenge data seems to end up there, so I've never bothered to try and fetch any of it from practiscore.
  10. True, if you shoot a lot. And especially in the long run. Especially if it's not 9mm Minor. But if you're a casual competitor who shoots a practice or Level-1 USPSA match once or twice a month, a proper competition setup is a major out-of-pocket expense. Ammo expenses can be incurred over time as needed (pay-as-you-go), but the gun is all up-front. Adding in the other stuff you need for a new competitor and the startup cost is pretty substantial. If you're just here for some fun every now and then, the *gun* is expensive and the *ammo* is cheap. That's a big reason you see a whole lot of off-the-shelf 9mm's in production, and far fewer CZ AccuShadows... but in Open it's the reverse- lots of custom race guns and very few modified factory guns that originally cost $500. It's because the folks shooting Open tend to be pretty serious about competing well, and the folks in production are more likely to be casual folks just having fun with their Glock 19. The exception is the folks in Open who are only there because they want (or need) an optic. They follow the Production pattern, but shoot in Open. I expect they'll mostly move to Carry Optics over time. Of course, serious shooters do exist in every division, and for them ammo is definitely the dominant cost.
  11. Yep, I agree completely. A whole lot of the older guys at my local club shoot Open, and it's not because they wanted that compensator or ghost holster. They just wanted to see the sights and have a good time.
  12. I agree, it's pretty much on course for what I would have expected either way. Optics are great for anyone with imperfect eyes, and that includes a lot of people that aren't going to be buying CZ AccuShadow's or STI Open guns (due to cost, brand loyalty, perceived quality, potential use cases outside of competition, etc). I think we may have to wait for a Carry Optics Nationals to get an equipment survey to get any statistically valid data on what type of gun / optic is preferred for CO. Today I'd have to say it's a polymer frame 9mm, custom milled. In 6 months, I'd probably bet on M&P CORE as most popular (those seem a lot easier to find than Glock MOS models). Maybe eventually we'll see a CZ make the list. They could modify the P-09 or P-07 easily enough, and probably even the SP-01 with some work. I would guess maybe they're just waiting for the division to become finalized so they know it's worth the R&D effort.
  13. I'm guessing you're on IOS? On Android this is already released. IOS should be soon... that's mostly my fault, sorry.
×
×
  • Create New...