Hoops

Anything of interest come out in the Member's meeting?

Agree. SCSA should have a program for RO cert separate from USPSA. Why the resistance?

Zack, I know from your post and BOD minutes that Peak Times will be reviewed after the WWSC match. It is wonderful to see the super fast times.....but generally by no more than around 12% in the class. In fact, this percentage holds up in the GM class. Hopefully there will be consideration of the 88% that can't beat Peak Times. If there is a concern with too many people getting in the GM (by ratio), I would suggest that it's not the Total Peak time but rather a funtion of how many times a person shoots each stage in hopes of getting lucky with hot run. Stage by Stage and not by Match. FWIW.....of the 88%, many are Seniors and Super Seniors who provide a lot of finacial support to SCSA matches. As for 2 added stages that would physically fit in most range bays, at least a classification could be earned accross 8 stages without OL or SO which is better than the current 4 to 6 stages for many ranges that can't shoot those stages. Have a great time there................thanks for listening and your support of SCSA.

Good points. * Fully support adding stages. IMO, if nothing else gets changed, adding more stages using the same combination of plate sizes would be tops on my list. * Outer Limits - numerous comments have been made regarding removing movement and/or alternatively, reducing the 4 second per string penalty. Perhaps seeking out Zack Jones before the meeting as he has been following these topics and is now the SCSA official Coordinator.

Thank you ! I hear the same thing from many people. A few years ago it was common to have 60 shooters at matches and registration fill up in a few hours. Now many matches struggle to average 35 to 40 including 2 guns. I hope more people will join this conversation. And I hope Zack continues to follow this as well.

There is an interesting evolving contradiction between USPSA (sport) and SCSA. Beginning in 2019 and continuing into 2022, based on feedback from USPSA shooters, USPSA HQ has added classifiers that includes movement. The reasoning is the older "stand and shoot" classifiers do not represent the "practical shooting" (movement) that is the basis for the sport. USPSA HQ has published several articles on this. Perhaps USPSA HQ will apply the same reasoning to Outer Limits by removing movement to be consistent with the basis of the sport which is stand and shoot as fast as you can. Speed and Accuracy is the hallmark (and the attraction) of SCSA and is not a practical shooting (movement) sport. USPSA HQ essentially copied the USPSA Classification percentages over to SCSA, including needing only 4 classifiers (stages) to be classified. But I think we would all agree, there is very little comparison in this area between the two sports. The attraction to USPSA matches is the ever changing stage designs and not the match classifier stage (IMO). SCSA is 100% classifiers. Perhaps adding 2 new stages to SCSA would increase the attraction to SCSA and give more options to Match Directors for their weekly stage selections? Increasing the Peak Time basis with two creative new stages may be a better solution than trying to figure out how equitably reduce Peak Times for the same 8 stages year after year?

The 2021 Area 5 mixture is comparable to what has signed up so far for the 2022 match. The 2021 match was 7 stages....Outer Limits was not shot. Peak Time for RFRO for the 7 stages was 57. Out of the 24 GM's that shot RFRO, 3 (12.5%) were under Peak Time and 4 (16.6%) shot at their GM class. 4/20 A Class shot their classification and 4/16 M Class shot their classification. The lowest time was 122.8% vs Peak Time and was approximately 22% faster than 4th position, but the middle of the field was reasonably tight. It is my opinion that lowering peak times just based on super fast times by roughly 5% of the gifted shooters is not a solution. I could be wrong in my analysis. I would welcome input based on statistical data that would support reducing Peak Times for 95% of the SCSA membership. This will be reviewed by BOD after the 2022 WSSC match this month so now is a good time for thoughts on the subject.

If possible, can we shift the conversatio to Peak Times and Classifications? Within a couple of months SCSA BOD will be discussing Peak Times and whether or not any should be changed. Peak Times. I will start this off. Based on reviewing the fastest divisions; rimfire, in 8 stage matches, 85% to 90% of shooters do not shoot below the current peak times. That includes GM. Based on this, I would not be in a favor in reduction of Peak Times. Thoughts? Classifications. Right now a classification can be earned shooting only the 4 fastest stages. Many Level 1 matches shoot 5 stages and never OL or SP due to physical restrictions of the range. Since every SCSA stage is a classifier (as opposed to usually 1 in a USPSA match), the nibbling away at earned time can be very rapid if a shooter wants to shoot a SCSA match every week. A person could earn A, M and GM with the fastest times on few stages and later shoot OL and/or SO which could drop a person back a class but with lifetime classfications, that would not effect class status. I personnally would not want to do it this way because I don't think it represents the correct skill level. Anyone have any thoughts on this methodology?

Most of us know people with disabilities. If you live in a military town; for example, San Antonio, unfortunately there are far too many. If you go thru Practiscore match scores it is not uncommon to find SCSA matches that average only 28 to 30 shooters at their monthly matches, including those who shoot multi-guns. So the actual people count is less and some are not SCSA members. Nationally, SCSA has about 7,000 members. The WSSC represents about 10% but eliminating the multi guns, about 7% of the full membership. There are some fantastic shooters there and I agree with Mr Moto, changing OL would have zero effect on the top shooters or the outcome of the match. But OL is not the only topic. Classifications, Peak Times and yes, stages are valid subjects for discussion. As for focusing on the broader picture, I would suggest that with only 7,000 national members and many matches that average 28-30 guns, it might benefit SCSA.org to take a fresh and broader view on the sport and to take input from members. Zack Jones now has a seat at the BOD table as the designated SCSA Coordinator. This topic was started with the idea of offering Zack feedback on thoughts and ideas from SCSA members accross the US. Hopefully we can continue to do so.

Since I first wrote about adding 2 official SCSA stages last year, I have had numerous discussions on the subject at different matches within a 2 hr radius of where I live. The majority of folks I talked with believe SCSA would benefit from the addition. What was interesting to me was that those who were initially opposed could not give a definitive reason of why the addition would be a negative change. What is the downside to adding 2 official stages that would be sized to suit many more ranges? I am encouraged that Zack is advancing stage discussions with SCSA.org.

Zack, thank you for advancing the discussion with SCSA.org

Stages USPSA's attraction is the freestyle format with different stages at each match. Even the typical one stage classifier has approximately 60 to chose from and beginning in 2019, USPSA began to focus on new classifiers that had movement. I believe if USPSA matches were limited to only 8 "official" stages and 8 "official classifiers to chose from the sport would lose shooter's. I have advocated for adding 1 or preferrably 2 new stages that would physically fit in most range bays. If world records is the only glitch, then shoot the original 8 stages at the WSS match. I have yet to read from anyone in this forum any data based reason for not adding 1 or 2 stages. IMO, SCSA would benefit with the added stage options. I look at this way, many people have classifications based on 6 stages because their range can't fit OL or SO so adding 2 stages would be a benefit. What is the down side? Outer Limits. Leave it as is but fix the penalty. If someone wants to cheat, my guess is they would be called out on it very quickly. Don't penalize those who should be (and deserve to be) shooting from the center box on the basis of cheaters. Peak Times/Classifications I read where some folks think Peak Times should be reduced more. Why? On what statistical basis supports this? On average, only about 10% to 12% are shooting below current Peak Times in large matches I have reviewed. GM's compete against GM's. Just because some very young and talented shooters can shot in the 50's (RFRO) does not support a change that would effect 88% to 90% of the SCSA shooters. I could be wrong. If someone has a math based reason for shooters in each class....GM to C....that would support a "one size fits all" Peak Time reduction, I would like to see the data. If I have a wrong assumption, I would accept the data and move on. USPSA.org issues a Top 2O list each week. All classes show the exact percentage....with the exception of GM which they artificially cap at 100%. Why not publish the real percentage? Then we could see how many GM's are shooting 101% to 120%, etc. I would further suggest they expand the Top 20 to Top 30. I would also recommend that only "active" shooters (18 months) be listed in the Top 20(30). It may be this way now.....I don't know if it is.

Beginning last year with other threads, I advocated for an additional one or two official SCSA stages. A similar debate ensued between those that were in favor and those that were against. Outer Limits also became a focal point....as it has now in this thread. Because the definition of abled bodied is not defineable and in some cases, without visible confirmation, I believe that developing an equitable "one size fits all" assessment of 2, 3 or 4 seconds per string will not be possible and OL should ultimately be retired. Others will probably disagree. The difference of time between movement vs no movement, is a single data point and not a complete dataset. There are many other factors that should go into a broader dataset of time between the initial buzzer reaction and the last shot collected from a larger control group of shooters. Becasue I am curious, I plan to shot some test runs this week to see what my data point is.

Thanks for the test results. Your speed is GM level. Hopefully after this week we can get some additional times from A and M shooters.

Disregard all the duplicate text above. Clearly I can't do a simple copy and past.

Put the article below and the last sentence in Rule 10.1.10.2 in the FWIW round file cabinet. Are there a messages here that relates to the current discussion which seems to be pinned to Outer Limits? Clearly USPSA writes about and even provides discrecinary relief to people in that sport. https://nroi.org/stage-design/ethics-and-stage-design/ 10.2.10.2 If the request is approved by the Range Master, a minimum of one procedural penalty, up to a maximum penalty of 20% of the competitor’s points “as shot” (rounded up to the nearest whole number), will be deducted from the competitor’s score. For example, if 100 points are available in the course of fire and the competitor actually scores 90 points, the special penalty is a deduction of 18 points. The Range Master may waive any or all procedural penalties in respect of a competitor who has a significant physical disability prior to the competitor making his attempt at the course of fire. And around and around we go.................... 10.2.10.2 If the request is approved by the Range Master, a minimum of one procedural penalty, up to a maxi mum penalty of 20% of the competitor’s points “as shot” (rounded up to the nearest whole number), will be deducted from the competitor’s score. For example, if 100 points are available in the course of fire and the competitor actually scores 90 points, th e special penalty is a deduction of 18 points. The Range Master may waive any or all procedural penalties in respect of a competitor who has a significant physical disability prior to the competitor making his attempt at the course of fire. 10.3 Match Dis qualification – General Regulations 10.3.1 A competitor or staff member who commits a safety infraction or any other prohibited activity during a USPSA match will be disqualified from that match. When the safety infraction or prohibited activity is caused by a medical condition the competitor or staff member will be prohibited from attempting any remaining courses of fire and duties in that match regardless of the schedule or physical layout of the match. The Director of NROI shall be notified immediately. 10.3.2 When a match disqu alification is issued, the Range Officer must record the reasons for the disqualification, and the time and date of the inci dent, on the

An all inclusive point of view to the game is not to "suit me". This conversation was intended to have a much broader aspect to it. When the penalty, for example, was arbitrarily set at 4 seconds per run for a disabled person, what people benefited as compared to those that were actually further disadvanged by one stage out of eight? Granted, this is mine and yours thoughts on the subject. Am I right? Are you right? It's not for me to say. Clearly there have been those that agree with both sides of the discussion, with a variatey of reasons, so far in this forum. It does not seem unreasonable to me, that the current board, who can change the game by simply changing Peak Times or asses penalities on an arbitary basis, should be able to review Outer Limits objectively in an effort to arrive at a broader, balanced and informed position. Perhaps for transparency, the SCSA membership should be offered to take a poll. I personally like to see constructive pros and cons comments on the subject, but unfortunately, only a very small number of people voice their opinions in this forum. Thus there is no ability by anyone in this forum to know what the broader SCSA membership would think about any changes.....if any. I do hope that Zack will bring this up to the board....at least for consideration.

SCSA Mission Statement "Our mission is to promote safe, fair and fun participation in Steel Shooting competition, for members of all ages and [all] skill levels, through effective leadership, education, communication and administration." If SCSA org follows their Mission Statement on the website homepage, Outer Limits should be, at a minimum, reviewed by the organization for it's fairness for all ages and all skill levels....including people with disabilities. This also includes the evaluation of Peak Times. It's a game........based on Speed and Accuracy. Youth and people blessed with good physical health will always prevail.....so why place obsticles for those that are less forturnate. It's a game.

FWIW and what works for me. I shoot 10/22's that are all within 4 lbs 2 oz that have Briley Raptor barrels w/o a comp. My MPX Gen 2 with carbon fiber butt stock and handguard is 6 lb 4 oz. I usually shoot my MPX (Atlanta Arms SC115 gr) about the same times as my 10/22. Sig Romeo 3XL on all of the guns. The MPX Gen 2's have a shorter barrel with a longer flash hidder factory pinned and welded ( factory OAL 16.5") and the weight is centered a bit more towards the rear. I had an MPX Competition version with the longer 16.25" barrel plus it had a comp. I felt the weight on the competition version out towards the muzzle and did not use it for SCSA. For me, it depends on how the weight feels out towards the muzzle vs the total weight. I prefer some weight on the muzzle but if it gets too light, I tend to overshoot the SCSA targets. I have other 10/22 barrels that I shoot occasionally and find that 15 oz is my upper limit for feel. Also, barrel reliabilty trumps weight for me. Everyone is different so a lot of this is subjective to the shooter. One of my friends shoots his 10/22 ultra light version with a sleeved barrel very well. Another uses a heavier chassis and shoots it very well. If you shoot with friends who have different chassis's and barrel's, perhaps they would let you handle them at the safe table or better, let you shoot one. Good luck

If I recall, Mrs Moto is younger than you and a GM? I am curious what Zack can do in his test. But........let's not forget the issue with folks with disabilities, which seems to have a concensus to address beyond just what times young and old folks can do.

Scratch this question. Not relevant to SCSA.

Who designs a USPSA classifier's and how does a new classifier become official? (I am not a USPSA shooter)

I agree. Good points made on OL. When I put this topic out on Enos, it was actually in response to a statement made by Zack Jones under a seperate Area 4 thread. Zack recommended that SCSA members read the January 2022 BOD minutes and indicated future changes were being discussed. Also, since Zack was formally designated by the BOD as the official SCSA Coordinator who will attend all BOD future meetings, I thought this thread may be a good way to communicate ideas or suggestions to Zack. He now has a seat at the table. Clearly from the BOD minutes, Classifications (and/or Re-Classifications) and Peak Times will soon be reviewed by the BOD. Perhaps for now, we should focus future comments in this thread to these two topics. To answer jrdoran's questions about how Peak Times......perhaps Zack can offer some insight on this?

Your last sentence is spot on. A brief reason I am an advocate for changing OL (other than my own whining ). I live in the San Antonio, TX area and we have far too many veterans here with traumatic loss of limbs. One in particular convinced me to start shooting competitions when I was 63. At the time, he was a 35 yr old Pararescue (PJ) in fantastic shape that I met at a local in-door range where I shot often. He had tried for 2 yrs to save his right leg, but eventually elected to have it removed just above the knee. He was one of the best iron sight pistol shooters I have ever seen. A fantastic young man. In spite of this, 6 feet.....that simple 3-4 steps.....was very, very difficult for him. He refused to take penalties and eventually gave up competitions. Our loss. Dropping OL won't impact the the current SCSA winners/leaders or cause anyone to leave the sport.....but.... another stationary stage in it's place would open the door to many other very deserving disabled shooters who are currently discouraged from participating in the sport.

That's fantastic that you don't need your wheelchair now.