rvb
-
Posts
1,575 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by rvb
-
-
Also, this focus on fundamentals...it leads to trust. (I'd better stop there for now.)
Flex,
Your exact train of thought is where I found myself in the last year. That "trust" led to major strides in my shooting. I no longer worried about speed at all. I "trusted" it to be there if I performed all of those fundamentals at my ability (calling the shot, snapping the eyes, looking the mag in, etc etc etc). The perception while shooting the stage is that it takes so LONG to do all those tasks and keep the focus through the whole stage, but the timer showed the exact opposite; after experiencing this several times I learned to "trust" the timer would treat me well. But it could only treat me well as a reward for doing MY part.
I'm SO glad BE posted what he did about letting the time be what it is... I felt I was the only one who went into a stage w/o a "planned" result on the timer.
Thanks!
-rvb
-
how well fit is the firing pin stop? could it have moved enough to prevent the FP from coming back through the hole?
Also, FP stops have been known to crack/break.
-rvb
-
-
I'm hoping to make it. Will know soon.
I wont be shooting SS. But my PD gun is not plastic. Can I play?
I've been practicing open lately as I was planning on sticking to open in '09... may shoot this match "cold."
-rvb
-
it's a slippery slope. danger. watch your footing.
everyone for some reason (ok, history) assumes you'd be limted to 10.
what about open-6? what about open-3?
sure it CAN survive, but why are you ok with that?
-rvb
-
Tactics asside, a couple of thoughts:
-- "Hands" are required on no-shoots, guns/knives/etc "may be" painted on shoot targets.
-- You get a walkthough MOST of the time so before the buzzer you SHOULD already know which targets to shoot.
-- If you are snapping your eyes on the transition and not following the front sight, you should not have to lower the gun. If no walkthrough is given the transitions might be slower, but seldom is it necessary to bring the gun down if you really are leading with your eyes.
-- Pay attention at the walkthrough... lots of stage designers these days like to make the gun/knife/etc on the shoot target = hard cover.
-- In low-light w/ a flashlight, the "hands" can make discerning a NS actually easier than all white or all brown due the color of the light or the brightness.
-- Beware of the tendancy to shoot "at" the gun/knife etc vs at the center of the -0. I see this a lot RO'ing. Often the gun/knife is painted under the -0 ring down in the -1 but it has more pasters on it than the A zone.
I think your reasoning behind the difference is right on.
-rvb
-
I have a back-up production gun because, well, A while back I got a new production gun. The old becomes the backup.
My back up open gun is ... my primary production gun.
Like others have said, if it goes down so hard a firing pin or extractor can't fix it, you're probably out a whole stage's points anyway. At least if I'm shooting open I can keep shooting and have fun and enjoy the match vs sulking home, even if it is shooting minor with a Beretta w/ a couple of 20 round mags.
-rvb
ps. I just placed an order for an SA M1A NM.
-
"Eyes, ears, mags, holders, belt, gun, ammo?"
Big +1.
"eyes, ears, gun, ammo, mags, holster, mag-holders, belt" I run down this checklist every time before going out the door.
In fact, I've done it so often my wife usually runs down the list for me before I leave since she's heard it so much.
Few things suck worse than showing up to a match and figuring out you forgot your gun.
All my other gear just helps, but is not "needed." In fact, the mag holders are not "needed" as you can use a pocket just fine.
-rvb
-
Flex,
Since this topic has drifted way off the issue of how the hhf is set and into the usual classification banter, I'll just say make a couple of minor points.
First, yes, I think I may have read too much into your posts. When I read your comments about "paper GM/M" (ie people who are GM/M/whatever who shouldn't be) combined with your comments about needing to update the hhf more frequently, I infered that you were stating it has become too easy to make those classes and therefore too many people in those classes. I'm sorry if I read too much into your comments.
I guess I'd be happy with any system that keeps the same precentile of shooters in each class over the life of uspsa (or at least the classification system). Now... that's maybe over simplifying it as over time the classifications should ideally trend upwards due to not being able to go down unless we start not counting people who aren't active. But my point is that we DO want it to be difficult to move up to those upper levels, but NOT so difficult that there are only a small handful of shooters who can do it. I'd bet based on top-10 classifiers we could easily make el-prez hhf around 13-14 for PD (just an example). Would that TREND (not just the el-prez example) make it so hard that only a handfull of shooters could make GM? [edit: could it be possible that the hhfs could become so high that no-one could average 95%+?] As it is, averaging 95% is a tremendous accomplishment.... what would it be like if the hhf's were all 10 - 20% higher? Perhaps that's as difficult as it "used" to be? I honestly don't know. I'm happy to discuss; they are honest questions, not rhetorical at all.
To me the goal of the whole system is to group people with approximately equal gun handling ability... has nothing to do with match shooting. So no matter the hhf, that goal is met. The question becomes what percentage of shooters should be in class? How grand is grand?
Thanks,
-rvb
-
COOL.
Was wanting to find a way to get "in" w/ CMP to buy an M1 this coming year sometime.
Thanks,
-rvb
-
rvb
in Range Diary
Finally finished building my reloading bench in the basement and finished the wiring for outlets/lighting so I now have time for trigger time. ... and now I have a stereo so I can dryfire to Metalica!
12/9: 1 hr with the open rig.
I decided I'm going to basics until the new year. Just draws, reloads, and trigger control. After that I'll get back into more "practical" practice. My goal is to get a rock solid index w/ this open gun by the end of the year. Going 9 months w/o shooting the dot is like starting over again... especially since I hadn't shot it a lot before. I hope to get 2-3 live-fire sessions in by the end of the year if I can for some timing drills.
Last night I saw a big improvement in that 45 minutes. Weak hand transfers still need some work, I felt myself fishing for the dot. regular draws and surrender draws I was hitting 0.9 by the end but w-h transfer draws I couldn't get under 1.5 and I used to hit them ~1.2.
Draw-2-R-2 drill was solid but not great. I couldn't get all As under 2.3. I was doing 1.9 w. the production rig a couple months ago. Just an index issue... getting that dot on A on the draw and after the RL slowing me up that couple of tenths. El prez went pretty well. Could get all As in 4.5 and half As half Cs at about 3.9. Felt good and relaxed while doing it.
Struggled a little with too much tension in my shoulders, especially working on draws, so shooting relaxed is still something I'm going to have to work on.
-rvb
-
JK,
I think everyone gets that the law was broken....
but the point everyone is trying to make is that the law is illegal.
Kinda like if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, did a tree fall at all?
Well... if an illegal law was broken was a law broken at all? That's what the appellate courts and scotus are for. That's the whole point of the system.
Sure it's "nice" to have an alter boy sue to get rights restored as in Heller, but it's not required or even the point of the system. Sometime criminal defendants change the system... for the better. Even if they are just loser criminals who had no idea that's what was happening and they were just looking out for "#1".
-rvb
edit to add:
of course there are still the issues of discharging a firearms, possibly falsifying police report, etc etc. I'm just talking about the "illegal handgun" part.
-
RVB,
I'm not sure I even know where to start with a response to that. I'm just not sure I get where you are coming from?
Sorry Flex, I didn't have time to really put together a good post and being hurried shows....
First, the "paper GM/M/etc" is a pet peeve of mine. It's all on paper.... that laminated paper you get in the mail. As you said, match %'s are skewed and can't be counted on to relate to a classification. That's where I saw the contradiction: that match results skew the %s yet we call people "paper class" shooters because it's thought they should not be in their class based on match performance.
Ok, back on point.... so the perception is that it has become too easy to make M/GM.
First, has it? I don't know. honestly. I'm relatively new to uspsa. I wish uspsa in their "Classifiers by State" section showed the number of shooters that hold each highest level of classification as now there is no way to know how many shooters hold at least one M/GM/etc card since so many hold a classification across multiple divisions. How would that % compare to the number of GMs say 2 years after the class system started?
If you are averaging the top 10 scores turned in, wouldn't that possibly change each month?Yes.
First, I'm not against hhfs changing ever, but I think each time a good classifier is turned in is too much.
It's not statistically viable, IMO. Too easy for the results to get inflated, even averaged across 10 classifiers. What if we get two "Eric G's" in the US in the near future. Is that good for the average or the intent of the class system? What after a "prodigy" retires? What about the guy who raises the top-10 average, but it was his first valid classifier after many many invalid classifiers. Should we be raising the bar based on the "hero or zero" factor? I think their needs to be a strong trend and a strong justification to raise the hhf.
On equipment... I don't think it's changed in any manner that would impact on classifier scores.Agreed. I was just trying to stir the pot regarding why (If) it's easier than it was to make M/GM.
I think the shooters are just better. It's a natural progression. It's continued competition which raises the bar. .....a 12 second El Prez with all the hits used to be a solid run. .....I agree the bar raises with competition. Records will always be broken. But monthly? Yearly? For the '99 series classifiers which are coming on 10 years old, how much easier now is it for shooters to shoot >100%.?? Not a rhetorical question. I've only been involved in uspsa for a couple of years.
This internet thing doesn't hurt much either. I can come to a place like this forum and mine information. I can watch a shooter perform on a video on youtube...over and over...picking up technique.I think that helps people progress and move up faster. I don't know that it changes the curve on which we grade (the top shooters)...
I don't think we need to toss out classifiers. The classifiers often test certain skill sets...and those skill sets do get honed by the shooters that do actually practice.Something I've thought should be done is to limit how often a classifier can be shot and count. Maybe once per year?? There are dozens of classifiers I have never shot and some I have shot many times. If anything, it's those popular ones that are probably skewing the results by being shot and practiced over and over...
I hope that makes my previous rambling nonsense more clear.....
-rvb
-
Major match results skew the percentages downward. It's the math.Anyway, I think we'd be better served is the HHF did more regularly (why not monthly). That might even help keep the number of "paper" Masters and Grand Masters to a minimum (since the hhf would always be going up).
These statements seem contradictory....
Why do we need to adjust the hhf's? Maybe some need weeded out that are used too often and too practiced (el prez) but is it really easier to make a classification today than it was before? That implies the equipment IS that important.
What is a "paper" anything? You say the match results skew the percentages. A GM is a GM no matter the match results because it isn't match results that define a GM. So someone is a "paper" class shooter based on skewed results?
The only thing you accomplish by moving up the HHFs in order to limit the number of M/GM (which is what you are trying to do if you want to eliminate "paper" class shooters) is just that... to limit the number of shooters in class. So perhaps we should throw the HF % system out and go strictly based on percentile. So the top 5 percentile of HFs on a classifier stage would be GM. (ie if the best shooter shoots a 12 HF, top 5% is anyone who shoots at least an 11.4, even if today the HHF is 11). Or better yet just allow a percentage of active membership to have certain classifications (only top 1% of active members w/ at least six OPEN matches can be OPEN GMs?). That requires allowing people to go backwards.
To me these ideas all stink. It's not based on the shooting but who happens to be the best shooter. And no one has yet explained to me why it is so much easier to make A/M/GM today than it was 10 years ago that we need to set the bar higher? Again, equipment is the only thing I can think of and on this forum we say over and over that equipment doesn't matter.
To me it just feel like the pool is getting full and loosing it's exclusivity so some want to kick other kids out of the pool.
I think a very strong justification should be required to adjust HHFs.
-rvb
-
Except that it violates the requirement that Tactical Sequence only be used when targets are an equal distance away.
actually Duane, the new book no longer says that. they [also] screwed that up with this new book. now it just says something about targets w/in 2 yards are considered equal threat but it doesn't say why we should care (except in the tac-priority order). It's just some random, extra information in the new book. old book says tac-seq was for equal threat targets. new book just says tac-priority unless told otherwise.
don't know if that was the intent of the rule writers or an over-site. so the hokey-pokey dance isn't technically illegal... just goofy. It's a fine point but important. Also, if all threats are "equal" you are no longer required to shoot tac-seq unless specified (ie 2 ea is ok vs 1-2-1 unless specified).
-rvb
-
1.
As a shooter, your most important job is... (Easy one.)
to call each shot.
2.A goal of practice should not be... (You can also add a folllow-up sentence if you're feeling it.)
to shoot a predermined number of rounds.
3.Whatever you are trying...
be aware of everything that is happening.
-rvb
-
So how does one shoot the highest priority target of targets that are deemed equal in priority. Hence the whole thing seems like going out of ones way to complicate things needlessly.
big +1.
"You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out... that's what it's all about!"
As this is becomming more and more common, I just say "please tell me how you want it shot" and try not to roll my eyes. The worst I saw was a tac-seq + tac-pri while pie'ing a wall !!
-rvb
-
I trained out anticipating the buzzer and being better able to handle long "standby"s by setting the start delay and pause between strings on my ced7k to a really long time, like 15-20 seconds. even though it's not random, it's really hard to anticipate a long delay like that. now if I get a long "standby" RO it doesn't feel so long and I'm not so jumpy. Since you have NO idea when it's going to go off (or sometimes if feels like "if" it'll go off), you really learn to listen for that "B" in "Beep"
Don't do it all the time 'cause you don't want to be suprised by a "ShooterReadyStandbyBEEP" RO.
-rvb
-
rvb
in Range Diary
Forgot to update w/ official new class info from last post,
Got my Prod-M in the Nov update.
PRODUCTION Class: M Pct: 85.99 High Pct: 85.99
Opened the gun safe for the first time in 6 weeks last night.
Did a little dryfire w/ the open gun. very very light practice. Worked on trigger control and re-learning my grip on the gun. Did a few reloads and a couple el-prezs basically just to see if my index is on at all w/ the gun.... well, it's going to need some work.
Between not doing ANY practice at all for so long and 9 months since I've handled the open gun, I felt like a total newb. everything felt off. Guess I'll have some work cut out for me...
maybe if the weather is decent I can swing a day off work to go verify zero and run some timing drills....
loaded 1k of .38 super a couple weeks ago, so I have about 2.5k ready to go. the new batch is w/ starline brass, so I need to make sure they run, too....
-rvb
-
Stage 1:
wth is with the tac seq AND tac priority? 1 ea close-to-far then back?? assuming no cover to 'pie'?
agree with the rest, no Flashlight rules broken since there are no flashlight rules.
the 'spirit' of the game is also to test techniques. you don't PE someone for using differnt shoot stance than you, do you?
As for stage 2, where to begin...
speed reloads? in idpa? wha...!??
pg 79, "NOTE: There is NO provision for the speed reload in IDPA competition."
also, from page 50 of the rule book:
"However, mixing the
number of hits required on targets within the same string leads to
procedural penalties and should be discouraged. The same goes
for mixing strings requiring a 2-2-2 engagement with a 1-1-2-1-1
type engagement."
I want to shoot, not do the hokey pokey. It's a PE trap.
shooter gets 1 PE for using extra mag.
-rvb
-
On that note, I have a question? In my three years of shooting I have had fairly steady improvement, slow but steady. I have noticed a few shooters that appear to be at exactly the same skill level now as when I started. Is there a limit to one's improvement based on natural abilities?? In other words, even with dryfire, livefire, and match experience, is one with "B" class natural ability going to always be a "B" class shooter??
My answer is "NO," with some exception for actual physical ailments/limitations.
Mostly the limit is in people's minds. The first step to improving is BELIEVING you CAN. When someone says "I'll never make A class," my first thought it, "yup, you're right."
Most people stagnate for a couple of reasons.... 1) A passing interest in improving. For these people it truly is all about getting out of the house on a weekend morning and seeing friends while playing with guns. Great. I sincerely think there is nothing wrong with this. Some days that's all I want out of it, too. 2) Going through the motions during their practice/training w/o really trying to learn or experience something new every time. I've known several people who talk about dryfiring hours per day and burning tens of thousands of rounds per year. Heck, I was once one of them. But always running the same drills at the same pace with the only goal to run that same tired drill slightly faster on the clock won't help you when you should be trying new things in new ways and be open to different experiences. In other words it's the quality of the practice. You can't experience new things while doing the same old things.
Believing you can or will perform at the next class leads to pushing yourself in your training. Once you experience a higher level of shooting at a match even once you suddenly want to experience it every time you shoot. The the trick is to let it happen and not "try" to make it happen... push yourself in your practices but on match day shoot A's and learn to trust your speed will be there based on your current shooting ability.
-rvb
-
"All things considered, $100k don't sound that bad."
RVB, I'm sure as heck not going to send you to buy tools for me!
Buddy
You mean I can't borrow your credit card?? Bummer!
You've obviously not dealt w/ gov't contracts....
NASA specs a "tool." The spec has weight, strength, hardness, electrical, and dimensional requirements and tollerances, etc. The put out a RFP (request for proposal) so companies can say what they will build and what it will cost. The tools then get built once a contract is in place. But they aren't yet delivered... no the have to send samples to testing labs or have the test equipment themselves to test all the things in the spec. Then they have to document the living snot out of it. In the mean time there are design reviews with the contracting agency. Then if the tool requires calibration (electrical equipment or things like torque wrenches) those contracts have to be put in place. The $100k figure does not include the gov't employees' sallaries for spec'ing the tools, dealing with the contracts, etc. Add all that in you've probably trippled the listed "cost" of the tools.
Putting a "toolbox" into space isn't the same as running to Sears on your lunchbreak. If it's 100 tools in that tool box and they are $1k a piece, it wouldn't suprise me a bit (especially after hearing the comments from some of the guys above who have experience w/ custom tools).
-rvb
edit: I forget the dollar figure, but it's thousands of $ per pound [!] to put something into space. Depending on how much weight the special tools save over a Craftsman equivalent, they may have paid for themselves.
-
THIS is WHY I have started keeping 6 months to a year's supply on hand.... so when everyplace gets sold out for whatever damn reason, I can keep shooting.
I had to switch divisions at one point last year because I ran out of components and things were back-ordered for 6 months. At least if I have enough for 6 months to a year on hand I can keep shooting while my orders are [hopefully] filled.
I don't consider it "hoarding," but rather "resource management." If it were a business would you let your inventory get so dangerously low?
I'm buying at the same rate I was before, but at one point I made a big purchase to stock my "reserve."
-rvb
-
Nice work RVB!!
You know it takes a alot of work just to get the M card. In my case I had a good couple of months and at that time I was capable of that level of performance in a few instances then the card showed up. Since then, I've had a couple of GM's tell me that you are not a TRUE Master until you place above 85% against the big dogs at a major.
I don't deserve it now, but legit M or Paper M makes absolutly no difference to me..it still is an awesome accomplishment. And it is an accomplishment that no one can take away from you. Enjoy and good luck!! You deserve it.
Thanks so much, SRT Driver!
I personally don't buy into the "paper" vs "true" class debate. Last month I was an "A" shooter. Getting a new card in the mail doesn't have magic powers and suddenly I'll be in the top of my new class at Nats. Getting a new card is a great metric; it's a tool to show my work is accomplishing "something" and a goal to keep me motivated. But it doesn't really relate to matches. As a "new" master I can expect to be at the bottom of the M-barrel and even to get beat by some A's. I don't feel that makes me less of a "true" master.
I've always thought the idea that you have to shoot some % at a major or else be labeled a "paper" M/GM/whatever is totally bogus... the fastest of the fast can shoot OVER 100% classifier scores but they are rounded down to 100% for the classification system. The score at a major match is match dependent. In other words if the classification system was based on the fastest guy's score, current 85% HF's wouldn't even come close. apples and oranges.
In matches really I just want to see where I rank in my division. A "class win" seems a lot like an attendance award. I only have a couple of trophies I am truly proud of and they are ones where I received the trophy for being in the top group of shooters.
Don't "deserve" your card?
I say BS! You earned it! You may not always shoot at that level as life/priorities can change, but you obviously know what it takes to get there.
Thanks,
-rvb
I say BS!
December
in Member of the Month
Posted · Edited by rvb
So in summary...
little_hahuna shot the stage as the designer intended and earned a win, but I was awarded a tie due to the way the Written Stage Brief was worded?
In all seriousness, it was a good exercise, Brian. I know I thought about them for a few minutes each. Not just "what would Brian say" but how they apply to me.
Thank you!
Not just for this, but for all your contributions.
-rvb