Fishbreath
-
Posts
797 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Fishbreath
-
-
It's not an opinion or an attitude, ultimately: 5.1.9 and 10.5.7 are very clear, and offer no wiggle room whatsoever.
-
1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:
No, what matters is what's 100%. So if we keep the 3 GM's finishing above 90% I don't see a need for a set number of non GM's in the match.
3 over 90% has its own issues—it penalizes you when one really good shooter shows up. There was a C-class guy at Area 2 in 2023 who finished 65.4% of Sailer, which is deserving of a bump to B if any C-class finish is, but he missed out because Sailer put 6.5% on Eddins and 10.2% on Joon Kim.
-
4 hours ago, RJH said:
Why do that when it's been said (I think fairly correctly) that 90% of USPSA shooters only shoot at their local clubs. Kind of negates necessity of a classifier system
On the contrary, it makes one more important. How else does the local shooter answer the question, "Am I any good, or is my local competition just bad?"
-
11 minutes ago, RJH said:
And if the goal is for people to see their improvement, it would be much easier and much more realistic for that person to look at people in their local area and pick a guy and go "I'm going to start trying to beat that guy at every match". Then when that was done they could beat the next guy, till they're on top of the heap
I like this.
Then, maybe we could build up a library of standardized stages so different clubs could set them up, and then shooters could compare their performance to more than just the local guys...
-
7 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:
You would also have to drop the bit about classification only going up.
This is only a problem if you're trying to use classification as a system that indicates how good a shooter is now, which it is not designed to be. Dividing shooters into six strata is uselessly vague for that purpose.
Classification is the analog to a martial arts belt system, not chess Elo.
-
5 hours ago, CutePibble said:
Some classifiers literally don't have historical GMs or Hundos, much less current adjusted GMs or Hundos.
Is it possible that there are pre-Practiscore scores affecting your analysis, or are you pulling percentages out of the USPSA website too, to catch legacy scores?
4 hours ago, BritinUSA said:Classification should also fluctuate, the reality is that a persons ability will decline over time compared to younger competitors. This needs to be reflected in the classification system.
I disagree with 'needs'; classification as a 'lifetime achievement award' is no less reasonable than an up-and-down classification system.
-
11 hours ago, -JCN- said:
It turns out GM revo Hit Factors are roughly LO B class Hit Factors… so we could train similar cadence and split times theoretically…
Reloads are a wrinkle with that tactic, but it looks like you're accounting for it already!
-
15 hours ago, shred said:
His answer was along the lines of "If I want to compete, I'll get whatever the best thing is and run that, rather than trying to wedge my Toyota Tercel into the race lineup."
I agree with RJH that this is an odd critique, not just because (as he says) motorsport recognizes more divisions based on equipment performance than USPSA, but also because it's possible to make a competitive Toyota Tercel in particular in some of them.
-
22 hours ago, Cuz said:
is IPSC as messed up as USPSA is right now
It's an international sanctioning body for a sport, so my starting assumption is that it (like all other international sporting sanctioning bodies) is massively corrupt.
-
2 minutes ago, JWBaldree said:
I went low on revenue leaving out title sponsorships
I've never put on a major, so I'll defer to someone with experience in that field, but everything I've heard says that cash payments are very hard to extract from sponsors. There's a profit/loss statement for the 2016 Georgia State match in this thread, and they picked up $2000 in cash sponsorships total, against about $23,000 in stuff donations. Nationals might have more pull, but I don't think it has 30 times more pull. On the flip side, there's probably no need for a swag bag line item if we're only accounting for cash—sponsor donations will cover it.
I would call 3 ROs per stage understaffed for your average USPSA match, and 15 stages a little short for a Nationals. A stage of normal complexity probably wants a timer guy and two guys off to the sides; three per stage means nobody gets any breaks.
Don't forget that your revenue will also be reduced by up to about 3%, for match fees, if you're taking credit cards, which is increasingly expected.
-
1 hour ago, RJH said:
I mean look at fishbreaths post earlier, he flew across country and worked Nationals and it still cost him $1,000 out of his own pocket. Are you willing to do that? I damn sure ain't. So I'm not going to try to short change the people that are going to actually show up and do the work
That was motosapiens. For my part, I was roughly break-even on working 2023 CO Nationals, if you count the $130 earmuffs I got at roughly 200th on the prize table. I was close enough to drive the three hours home after the awards dinner, however. If I'd had to stay until Monday, I would have been out of pocket again.
Anyone flying, or driving further than you can feasibly fit in on Sunday after the last shooter wraps up, is probably losing money.
-
That's a really nice piece of work—both the jig and the resulting ratchet.
Freehanding it was fine for this job, but I'm definitely going to build something similar if I ever have to do one from scratch. (If I can find the right magic words to make Ruger sell me the part, at any rate.)
-
I ended up ordering a Grobet parallel barrette escapement file, Swiss cut 4 (part number 31.709), which did the trick nicely. The straight side and safe edge made clean, on-angle filing easy, and the super-fine cut kept the material removal between tests to a minimum.
Not too bad a job with the right tools, even if the Ruger teeth are a lot smaller than the Smith teeth on the 8-shooters.
-
2 hours ago, 858 said:
Boomer vacations aren't terribly interesting to the younger members.
As Schutzenmeister said above, I can't imagine anyone who's actually worked a major match characterizing it as a vacation. It's a substantially harder weekend than shooting one as a competitor.
-
4 hours ago, 858 said:
It appears that Nationals has become RO payola with stipends, lodging, banquets, and gifts.
Lodging isn't really optional. Almost every major match pays that cost for staff if you take a roommate. The RO gift at 2023 CO Nationals was a jersey. Memory might be faulty, but I don't remember a separate staff banquet. The stipend was $25/day. They reimbursed travel costs of up to $375. The last two points are the major differentiators over ordinary major match staff packages, but neither strikes me as excessive when you want the most qualified staff you can get, and you need twice as many (roughly) as your average level 2. I was the only person on my stage who didn't have at least a CRO certification. A large proportion of the difference comes from the fact that Nationals is longer, and daily expenses (hotel, mainly) run higher when your staff is on site for five or six days instead of two or three.
Charging people enough to cover the costs (see the hike to $400 for 2024 Nationals) has social media howling with outrage.
[correction: there was a staff dinner at the Cardinal Center campground's event hall; don't know why it slipped my mind.]
-
21 hours ago, 357454 said:
if you have a newer fun that does not have a pinned extractor make sure you put a few empty cases in the cylinder to keep it properly aligned.
That's actually what's prompting this job in the first place—I thought I had the pawl fit correctly because it worked without a moon clip in the cylinder, but when it's loaded, the two sticky chambers reveal themselves.
-
5 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:
He could still shoot SS, but like I said I get him and James not going head to head in the same division.
I still think they should make a 2011. And not a fake Ruger 2011, like Ruger should just make one. I asked Dave if they were going to recently but his non-answer was hard to read. It was either a "They are but I can't say they are" or "I told them that but they wont". He didn't really use any words, it was more of grunts, noises and hand gestures. Hard to explain, but did not give me a answer.
Yeah, I don't know if there's something contractually that makes it better for them to shoot different divisions, or if he just doesn't want to compete head to head with a teammate, but it doesn't bother me in either case.
I think it's more of the second reason, but the answer wasn't much clearer for me than for you.
-
2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:
Ruger needs to just get on the band wagon and build a 2011 already. Then see if they'll jump into some real divisions.
At the Handgun Nationals dinner, Dave said that he shoots L10 because he can do it with a single-stack Ruger with a 10-round magazine, and that he doesn't want to shoot Limited if his only option is a custom gun with 'Ruger' stenciled on the side.
38 minutes ago, MWP said:Taurus is working on releasing exactly that. I’m surprised Caleb didn’t have it out for Shot last week.
If Taurus had one in about 2018, I probably would have started in revolver a year or two earlier than I did.
-
39 minutes ago, pskys2 said:
Why?
The short version is that I started shooting revolver because it was hard, not because it was fast. I suppose that's tradition, in a sense, or a twisted sort of fun. I agree with MWP—I think a dot goes against the essence of the division, which for me is "it's the most challenging way you can choose to shoot a USPSA match". I'm also in favor of IPSC parity for reasons I've gone over earlier in the thread.
I will still shoot revolver if dots are added (although if I get a World Shoot slot, I won't be shooting a dot until after that's done with). Selfishly, I ask you to vote no on compensators if that's a question, because I don't have a straightforward way of putting them on my guns.
-
1 hour ago, testosterone said:
On match day when the score matters, over a season, the dot will be better(on classifiers) for a good shooter.
100%.
Even in dry fire on close targets, which is about the most ideal case for irons, I'm still a little faster with a dot. The advantage only goes up from there.
-
Sounds like it's time to invest in some nicer files, then.
Thanks for the advice!
-
13 minutes ago, warpspeed said:
You must be new.
To clarify: I've heard a lot of arguments as to why. None of them are convincing.
-
40 minutes ago, pskys2 said:
The one with the cutting surface parallel to the handle, or the angled one?
-
I have a gun that's perfectly timed on all but two chambers, and binds squeezing the pawl between the ratchet and the frame, which suggests those two teeth on the ratchet need to be reduced just a touch. (Ordinarily I'd fit the pawl a little more, but this gun has been persnickety—in time on these two chambers is right on the edge of out of time on the rest.)
None of the files I have are quite the right tool for this job—seems like I'd want something very small (Ruger ratchet teeth, especially on 8rd guns, are not big), with a safe edge. Any recommendations? Is there a specific file for this task? My Googling hasn't turned one up, but I don't know if there's a particular name for it.
Japan. IPSC Air. Match search.
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
This guy on YouTube posts match video pretty regularly. Not sure where—we've never interacted, beyond subscribing to each other.