Fishbreath

It doesn't show that at all. Unfortunately, I'm not doing this in a context where I have access to my ratings data, so I have to fall back on classification, but the average Production winner at majors since 2018 is between M and GM, while the average Single Stack winner is between B and A. The only conclusion we can really draw is from the data that shows like competitors against like, Single Stack against Single Stack, and in that data, minor is substantially disadvantaged across a broad set of matches, even down two rounds.

Mostly what it shows is that Production has always had more heat than Single Stack: of 428 matches, 418 were won in Production, 9 were won in Single Stack major, and 1 was won in Single Stack minor.

At all major matches going back to 2018, the Single Stack winner has shot major 304 times and minor 124 times.

This is only true if you consider an array to be 8 rounds exactly, which (going by the moon clips I've had left over after majors this year) is true maybe 50% of the time at most. 6 and 7 are super-common, as are combinations like 8-6 or 6-6, both of which are possible with 15 but not 10.

This is the part I'm most interested in, and on which I've seen the least discussion. What exactly is Joe's injury here, beyond that which would be redressed by reinstating him? $25,000 in specifically compensatory damages for "I couldn't participate in USPSA matches" seems like a pretty tall order to back up. There's plenty of IDPA around, and a smattering of outlaw matches. Very different to us, but would you want to try to convince a court that they're so different that being deprived of USPSA specifically for a year or two is $25,000 of pain? Could a judge, or the average juror, tell the difference between a USPSA stage and an IDPA stage if you showed them hat cam video of both? (It's a less valid argument, I think, but on the other side of the ledger, two years off from USPSA would probably save me five figures.) My first reaction is that this is at least as much about discovery as anything else.

After day 1, some egregiously sketchy ratings math says: Open: 1. Sailer 2. Eusebio 3. Vlieger/Jones Sailer has some solid separation developing, KC is a little bit ahead of the third place pair, and Eddins/Murdock/Hyder/JJ are all within easy distance of third. PCC: 1. Max L. 2-3. Froelich/Jordan/Greene/Justine Williams/Zack Smith/Barrett/Castro Max has a solid-looking lead, and the rest of the top 10 looks extremely close so far. The process behind these predictions: 1. Apply Elo rating changes based on today's stages. 2. Run the Elo prediction math on the people attending the match. 3. For stages a shooter hasn't shot, give him [predicted % finish] * [stage points] points from that stage. The first item tries to capture competitors' performances today. Even though there's a limited amount of shooter overlap on day 1, we can at least reason about how people are doing by comparison to their peers in the same zone, and adjust predictions based on those trends. Tomorrow ought to show whether this is a sensible method, after the second day of shooters rolls through each zone. I'm following Joey Sauerland with interest—he's out there tearing it up with his Limited setup.

Whenever I'm shooting the 92X, my go-to joke is "the gun good enough for JJ to almost win with".

I did some Elo-rating-based predictions here, for Open/PCC. Open: 1. Sailer 2. JJ 3. Vlieger, Jones, KC Eddins has slipped some in my ratings since 2022. PCC: 1. Max L. 2-3. There are 7 or 8 people who the ratings say have approximately even shots at the other podium places.

I ran into this situation at the Locap Classic earlier this year—a 20-round fixed time stage, IIRC; 10 paper, 2 per. I made it to 16 shots. On the last two paper I engaged, I had 3 hits (A, C, D) and 1 hit (A). Since I didn't fire more than 20 rounds, and I didn't have more than 20 hits, I was scored A, C, A, NPM on those targets, with no penalties.

USPSA's cost to have me work CO Nationals was probably in the vicinity of $1000-$1200, and I came from close enough that I didn't max out the travel reimbursement. I worked Battle for the North Coast last weekend, and the cost to that match was probably in the $400-$500 range. Some of that difference is the much longer hotel stay required to shoot and work a Nationals, but the travel reimbursement and per diem make a big difference too. Not counting ammo, I was break-even at Nationals, whereas I'm usually out of pocket a bit to work a Level 2. If you count prizes, I made money shooting/working Nationals. This is probably not a bad thing—if working a Nationals is free, or better than free, you can be choosier about your staff.

There's value in a live timer, and maybe in live split comparisons—"oh boy, he's ahead of the pace after that array!"—and that's totally doable live. Time is a large part of performance, after all. Leaving the hit factor/percent score until after scoring is complete is a suspense enhancer, even. "That looked quick. The timer says that was quick. Will the hits be there?"

On YouTube, at least, I stopped doing commentary and analysis in match videos because the ones where I did performed worse than the ones that were just unadorned shooting footage.

Short/medium/long constitues a distinct axis for performance, IMO—I perform better than my average on short stages without respect to target difficulty. I can't back that up with data yet, but maybe I'll look into it over the winter. I think it would be interesting to see how much stage-type ratings differ from the overall ratings, and it also opens up some interesting research opportunities on classifiers. On an unrelated note, I had a thought a while back about a way for me to collaborate with PractiScore, in a way that would let me do some deeper analysis and drive donations to PS—drop me a private message or an email if that sounds interesting from your end.

I already have one, but it's still rough on the arm levering them in properly deep.

Only to a small degree. Because of the way matches tend to look in the US, I weight higher-points stages more heavily. I also reduce the weight of stages that large proportions of people zero, since Elo is all about relative performance, and lots of zero hit factors confuse things. I have considered tracking overall Elo along with short course/medium course/long course Elo, or precision/normal/hoser Elo, but haven't had much time to work on that lately, with my season peaking in September/October.

One of these years I need to get a 1050/1100. Adjustable priming depth sounds nice, and is also probably a lot easier on the shoulder than primer seating on the 750.

I was on vacation and am therefore a bit late to the party, but you're pretty much exactly right in the second paragraph. Elo doesn't require that everyone shoot against everyone else to produce good results, but it works best on sets of competitors with a relatively dense web of interconnections. Major match competitors fit the bill: there are a relatively large number of people who travel nationally, or at minimum across big geographic regions, to visit matches, which means they serve as 'rating carriers' to ensure that a 1500 in California is similar to a 1500 in Virginia. Local match datasets also work fairly well for a particular region. I have ratings for Western PA, for instance, that match my understanding of the relative skills of shooters in the area. Things start to get suspect if you mix geographically separated regions: for the Virginia-California case, almost every shooter-to-shooter comparison is going to be a Virginia shooter against a Virginia shooter, or CA-vs-CA. Since there are next to no carriers between the two regions, there's no leveling effect to ensure that the ratings in VA and CA are on the same scale. Put another way, consider these two groups of shooters: one A-class guy beating 9 C-class guys by 20%, and one GM beating 9 A-class guys by 20%. Elo will rate the two winning shooters the same, even though the GM guy is probably better. Since Elo depends solely on relative performance, cross-pollination between groups of isolated shooters is necessary to make the numbers work out. I don't have a good way to get result information for, say, "all matches in 2023", so I can't actually try it, but even ratings combining relatively proximate regions like Western PA and Delmarva got a little hinky, last time I tried it.

Auto racing is an example in the other direction—lots of series/divisions catering to lots of different levels of customization.

I started with a Ruger because I don't like shooting what everyone else does (or didn't, at the time I started in Revolver; I'm less wedded to that ideal now). I stick with one because I've put the time in to learn the platform, both in terms of maintenance and repair, and in terms of technique. I also do a pretty violent weak hand reload, which the Ruger enables. Toward the end of last year, I was wondering if perhaps I was being too rough, but then I met Dave Olhasso at the IRC, and in comparing guns at the safe table, found that he doesn't go any easier than me. e: It took me a long time and a lot of effort to figure out the Ruger, from a gunsmithing perspective, but now that I have, I don't think they're particularly hard to work up in tinkering and tuning terms.

Star would be my guess. They're sensitive to dimensions and angles beyond any other part on the gun, in my experience, and the 8rd star is more so. (Lots of things to fit into a small space.) They're also the only timing part you can't get from somewhere or another—pawls/cylinder latches/trigger plungers/etc. can be had in factory, ready-to-fit form from Numrich. I do wish Ruger would sell more parts, though, even if they didn't advertise it. Warranty service is fast and responsive, but they return guns to factory configuration in maximally aggressive fashion—last time I had a gun in, I got my Rough Country sights back in a baggie, with a stock rear unit on the gun. Smooth 6lb-7lb seems to be about the limit on the Rugers. The best ones I've held give some up in pull weight compared to a nice 929, but not much in feel.

I just got notified that Ruger shipped my certificate gun. If you're looking for a .357, keep an eye out.

I jam them in until I see a dimple from the cup in the surface of the seated primer, but that's a revolver-specific 'optimization'.

I admire your gumption. For the week after my septoplasty I wasn't interested in doing anything that required breathing, much less a range trip.

145gr with 3.25gr of N320 (in my Super GP 100, not a 929, granted, but at least they're both revolvers) is 130PF on the nose.

I have three or four DAA race holsters in my gear bucket, and I believe all of them are threaded for a muzzle support. The Alpha X and newer come that way standard, as far as I know; my older ones are second-hand.