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

IVC

Classifieds
  • Posts

    751
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IVC

  1. That one didn't save you time and looked like it was just for fun. Like most of the magazine activations...
  2. Not as much. One comment is about not missing, the other is about not waiting for the sound confirmation. Both are about not wasting time.
  3. Even if it works, saving time on one prop on one stage won't make you a better shooter. And if you're a contender, you will only try it if it won't cost you extra time in case you miss. But it's always fun when people try different things.
  4. The basic lean requires you to counter your weight that is on the side of your center of gravity with your leg, which is the only extremity that you can "spare" to provide counterbalance. So, if you want to have both legs on the ground, you have to go low - an outstretched leg at a severe angle won't touch the ground unless your primary leg is very low. Alternatively, if you're finishing the stage or continuing in the direction of the lean, you can keep the leg outstretched and in the air - less balance, but faster. This is often used for finishing a stage with a hard lean. Whatever you do with your body to keep the center of gravity somewhere between your legs is secondary fine tuning. You can't get around the leg position physics.
  5. For USPSA distances, except for some "standards" stages with very long shots, fuzzy sight will not be (much of) a detriment. An acceptable sight picture is usually way less precise than a bit of fuzziness you get from less-than-perfect focus.
  6. For experiment, I analyzed a few stages on paper and matched them to the actual setup. Everything I looked at had angles that were either slightly off, or it was hard to tell whether a target would be visible from a specific location, so only the most obvious plans would work both on paper and in the match. Since then, I use match book just to get a general idea about the type of match it's going to be (and I find out which classifier will be included).
  7. What you say in this paragraph is precisely the tradeoff between speed and accuracy. The theory behind the empirical part "hammered out in practice" is the "1/HF per point lost." The practice just makes it subconscious in order to avoid the calculation in real time, but the tradeoff is still there and the theory behind it is still in the math equations. In fact, if you analyze your empirical data, you will see that it will confirm that the correct "level of Fast and Patient deployment" is exactly where the theory says it is. So, the most efficient way to train for this tradeoff is to be aware of the expected hit factor and experiment around that value to train it into the subconscious. In other words, the "level of Fast or Patient deployment" is not only per-target, where each target is analyzed on its own, but also per-stage. It's the same concept, just with a broader context of "target difficulty and expected stage HF" vs. just "target difficulty." The calculation in this broader context is slightly different and provably optimal. Is it going to make me personally a better shooter? No. Is it going to help my scores? Only if I execute it correctly, which brings us back to practice - to use HF in evaluation of stage one must get it into subconscious during practice. The "striving to shoot all points" is the usual cop-out (and I don't mean it in disrespectful way), with "striving" being the weasel word - Any top level competitor can shoot all the points. There is nothing to strive for when they can do it. Not shooting all points is a choice. The proof that it's a choice is easy - here is a screen shot from the last years Nationals: Percentage of A-s is 77%, 75%, 70%, 79% and 72% respectively. There are quite a few D-s, in fact it's between 1.3% and 5% for the top five. Yet, the stages are a mix of paper and steel, and all these guys shot 100% A-s on steel (the few M-s are likely not steel). One doesn't go from mid 70s% accuracy to 100% by coincidence. It's by choice and by calculation. The top guys most certainly chose to leave some points on the table in exchange for time. They chose to be accurate on steel because steel is very expensive in terms of HF. The same concept of "expensive" and "cheap" points exists on stages with different HF. Sure, most of the time one can ignore it since most stages have similar HF-s, but that's not relevant for the OP - the differences do exist and the calculation changes with wildly varying "expected HF-s" per stage. In fact, taking into account the expected HF on stages that are "unusual" is something that can help the top competitors way more than it can help those with "B class mentality" - tweaking the speed of shooting is a a top level skill, not something for local matches.
  8. Yet there is always a tradeoff between the two and HF happens to be the exact value that quantifies this tradeoff. If points are expensive (low hit factor), the tradeoff goes towards more patience and more A-s. If points are cheap (high hit factor), the tradeoff goes towards more speed and it can even make a D or two acceptable. By "expensive" and "cheap" I mean in terms of time - the tradeoff between points and time. The rest of your post is spot on.
  9. It's quite amusing to see the emotions Revolver division stirs. It's a division that requires a bit different skill set and it's very useful for refining the separation of grip and trigger pull. One cannot get away with trying to cheat the concept of "pull the trigger while keeping the sights on the target" by using the "sights are lined up, done, pull the trigger quickly." The reload is also a fun skill to practice and possess, much like quad-loading a semi-auto shotgun now that magazine-fed shotguns are readily available. If you don't like it, don't shoot it. Let people shoot what they want. It's the same course of fire and the same shooting whether it's scored in Revolver division or any other division. Drop Revolver and people will shoot it in Open. Doesn't matter. As for arguing the speed, Limited is slower than Open and Production is slower than Carry Optics and Limited. If we go by performance alone, those shooting Glocks are dinosaurs who need to get on with the times and shoot Open. It's the fastest and everyone else should just get with the program, right? Tactical Timmies might even argue that everyone should be shooting PCC because it's what snipers use (sarcasm, obviously) and everything else with low capacity and iron sights is soooo two centuries ago. Besides, as we all know, PCC don't need reloading (ever) which is a waste of time with the historical divisions. Time to start discussing "15 round limit in Production." That's a novel concept that nobody has yet brought up and it would help with saving another division because, obviously, 15 is better than 10...
  10. Normally you say nothing. Until the competitor gets into start position you assume he is visualizing and getting ready. There is some wiggle room with new shooters at level one, or when a competitor is clearly assuming incorrect start position, but it's usually sorted out with a quick sentence or two.
  11. I find it funny both ways - one group thinking that small tweaks will make a difference and another group getting upset that the small tweaks the first group is using are not consistent with their intent. In reality, I have never seen a match where the person who shot the best didn't win.
  12. On steel, you have to be patient with the sight picture. If it's a borderline shot, don't take it. It might feel "slower" but it's not about speed, it's about vision. Make sure you see the sights and are sure of the shot before pulling the trigger.
  13. Or the "magazine outside the gun" - I've shot at least one classifier (Tick-Tock, 13-05) where the location of the magazine wasn't specified except to be "outside the gun" so it could be lined up with the magwell, just barely not touching it. You pick up the gun by slamming the magazine into the gun even before you get your grip. Our local matches always have a mark for where the gun is centered and a mark or area where the magazine needs to be when defining an unloaded start. Either be specific in the WSB, or don't fret when people follow written instructions in the way you haven't anticipated...
  14. Bowing out - the thread seems to have outlived its purpose.
  15. Another reference to "black and white" - the rule 6.2.5.1 IS "black and white" even if you're using interpretation to make it into what it should have been instead of applying it the way it is written. We can agree that sights falling off shouldn't result in the bump to Open, but that doesn't mean that the rule is ambiguous or that we are following it, it means that we are simply not applying a rule that we don't like. Once we get into the selective application of rules, we no longer have the ability to complain how Level 1 matches ignore gear positioning (magazines/guns too far from the belt, guns too low, holsters too open), or how some guys sometimes get a reshoot if there is a malfunction of their gun close to the start, or how at L1 on a steel plate sometimes it's "shoot until it falls," sometimes it's "you hit it, get going," but it's practically never "it's a REF, here's a reshoot." The discussion of whether and which rules we can change on the fly because we don't like them would be a different thread. My point is only that as far as the rules go, it's a clear cut. As far as what it should be, I'm with many here who argue it needs to change. As far as what should be done in practice, if you don't bump to Open you're creating your own rules (for better or worse, it's a separate discussion).
  16. The rule we are discussing is indeed "black and white." It says what it says, I didn't write it and I wasn't the one to put it there so I don't have a dog in this fight. If you think that there is ambiguity in "during the course of fire," you have to state which part is ambiguous. And, if you think that the rule 6.2.5.1 allows for some division requirements not to be satisfied during the course of fire, you also need to specify which division requirements can be violated and why you believe the rule makes this distinction of allowing some division rules to be violated, but not others. For example, reloading into a fully loaded 171mm magazine during a course of fire in C/O is a violation of division rules in 6.2.5.1, so there must be a way in the rule itself to differentiate between violation of D7-8 (magazine length) and D7-13 (sights).
  17. Your interpretation would have to change the language and therefore doesn't apply. The plain meaning of the "directly attached" prevails. There is no requirement for two parts to touch in order to be directly attached. Whether you add a shim, washer, or a coat of oil, the sight is still directly attached to the slide. More importantly, the rest of the sentence provides the context as well. Back to the original discussion, if you want to argue the optics falling off, the rule says that the requirements of the division must be satisfied "during the course of fire." You'll be hard pressed to find any linguistic interpretation that has an alternative meaning from the plain reading of "between the beginning and the end of the course of fire."
  18. Sure you can see it that way, but you're taking a concept that is already poor and a stretch and you're removing the last remnant of logic from it. You are not really "competing within a class." The class is there to track your progress, like belts in martial arts or handicaps in various sports. It's really your generic ranking of skills and competence. Those who attribute meaning to the class or handicap in the competitive context are completely missing the point - you either beat another person or you don't. Want to beat everyone in a class? Get better and move up. You already beat everyone in a class? You're already the next class up (your skill is there). Getting consistently beaten by someone in a lower class? Either you're not yet at the level of your classification, or more likely, the other person is not correctly classified (intentionally or not). No matter how you look at it, you're competing against everyone in your division and you're looking at what your percentage of the winner is. That's your ranking. People with higher percentage beat you, people with lower percentage were beaten by you. To move up 5%, you have to have 5% better hit factors (roughly). Simple. To say it differently, let's say you are at a huge match with the top shooters there. The winner is at 100% and the rest start gradually down from there (sometimes not so gradually, but that's besides the point). Everyone has a score. You draw the line at 95%, 85%, 75%, 60% and 40% and look who's closest to that line from below. There are your "class winners." Yet, the guy with 41% still beat the guy with 39%. Actually, if you look at the "top 20" rankings on the USPSA website, this is exactly what you'll find - ranking of classifier scores per bracket. Anyone who feels special for being at 59.9999% and thinking "I'm the best C shooter in the country" is (again) completely missing the point. If you now mix divisions such as shooting Revolver in Production, not only is the concept of "competing within a class" already meaningless, but you made it completely arbitrary because the same percentage no longer represents the same skill. At least if you tried to compare within the class you were comparing apples to apples because scores translate directly to performance and all you're doing is pretending that you're winning something when you're not. Beating a guy in the same division, regardless of the whole class mess, means that you shot better and with more skill than he did. When you mix divisions, it's now apples to oranges and you're comparing raw scores which are no longer a reflection of skill comparison. Sure you can always compare two numbers, but it literally means nothing at that time. In other words, I can run faster than Micheal Phelps can swim, but as long as we compare his distance in one minute and my distance in one minute we can "compete against each other." Right?
  19. That's all fair enough and people should shoot what they feel like. I'm not against it. I've seen people shoot their CCW guns, ported polymer guns with no optics, full power loads, you name it. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's not even that you won't be competitive if you shoot the wrong gun or ammo, more that you won't know how well or not you're doing because comparison is not apples to apples.
  20. Look at HF. For example, a fast one such as "Can You Count" needs 4.6 in Revolver for C and 6.4 in Production for C. Shoot 5.0 or even 6.0 with revolver in Production and you're D, while you'd be C if you shot Revolver division.
  21. Same classifier but the hit factor is significantly different for the same level of performance because reloads are much slower and the splits are somewhat slower. Also, it's much harder to shoot revolver with one hand because of the long trigger pull. Look at the classifier calculator in the USPSA app and see where the 100% Revolver brings you in Production.
  22. IVC

    G29 Sticky Magazine

    Here is what it looks like - there is also a relive cut around the magazine release and some trigger guard undercut. This is where it sticks. It's on the back (or front; there is enough room sideways). The last photo shows the shape of the magazine well. It wasn't touched, at least wasn't supposed to be touched.
  23. IVC

    G29 Sticky Magazine

    I'm not really a Glock guy, but just for for fun I wanted to get a TTI (Taran Tactical) Combat Something G34, so at the same time I sent a G29 I had laying around for a professional stippling. Both guns came back really nice, except that after a while the G29 started acting "sticky" when the mag was inserted/removed and now needs to be pulled out. It wasn't immediate, I noticed it a bit later. I rarely shoot the G29 so I haven't bothered to diagnose the issue, but it occurred to me that I can at least ask here to see if anyone had a similar problem. If it was a stock Glock, I guess I would just mark the magazine to see where it's scraping. Since it had work done and precisely in the grip area, I'm inclined to check first to see if anyone has any ideas, advice or has had a similar issue after modifying the polymer grip. My guess is that the heat from stippling likely slightly deformed the overall structure. Any way to check or correct the problem? It's not a big deal because this is just an occasional range gun, but if I can fix it I would.
×
×
  • Create New...