wide45 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 (edited) Edited January 24, 2004 by wide45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Rich No image, just the dreaded red X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted January 24, 2004 Author Share Posted January 24, 2004 Plenty are looking, but nobody is talking. I have been ranting against 6/8/whatever shot arrays since the early days of Brians first forum. Time to try showing what was meant. It would be cool for anyone to link to, or post stages, that are not designed around the number of shots in someones gun. Oh, everybody, PDFs blow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Give something to comment on...define your position/perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted January 24, 2004 Author Share Posted January 24, 2004 I am trying to get people to stop designing stages of 8 round arrays. Because they suck (the stages). To that end, I am showing that it can be done. It's a good thing. They can do it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Nesbitt Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Wide45, First define revolver neutral. I am all for stages that allow a revolver to plan their reloads so they don't have to be standing reloads. I can see that stage 5 could be revolver neutral. (what is the chair for?) Stage 3 doesn't appear to be revolver neutral to me. Would you explain how you would shoot it? I agree that interesting, fun stages can be designed that revolver shooters would like. Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 How about lefty-friendly while you're at it? (example: stage 3 doesn't flow nearly as well right-to-left, and reloading while moving to the right along the 180 is as much fun as doing it going the other way for a righty..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 A stage, that contains a position from which more than six rounds must be shot, is not revolver neutral. Lets not make a big thing of the name. The topic should have been called something different. How would I shoot stage 3 with a revolver? Number the targets from left to right, skip the popper. The swinger is #5. On start head left. Shoot T3, T4 and popper. Still going left, Reload, shoot T1, T2, and now coming back right, T5(swinger). Reload, shoot T8, T7. Reload, shoot T6, T10. Shoot all targets while moving if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubber Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Wide 45, I too like to design Revo neutral stages. How ever my designs allow one to shoot more than six shots in one position, but at a cost. The target would be futher than the other six, partially obstructed or just in another section where you would have to swing and engage other targets. IMHO the real challenge with designing IPSC stages for a Revolver Neutral is the scoring balance of speed vs accuarcy. One can score higher points with pure speed and hang the hits on paper. Not that one could win the stage but the points would be higher. In IDPA, which I don't shoot, there is more emphasis on accuracy than in IPSC. That said I would rather shoot IPSC because of the freedom of shooting. I shoot ICORE when possible. It has the freedom of IPSC but the demand of accuracy. Seconds are added for all paper hits outsid the A Zone. 1 for B and 2 for a C. In shooting a Revo to make someting 6 shot neutral I like to have either 6 or 10 shots in one spot. Both would have to make a Reload an when engaging steel 5 or 10 hits. I also see no problem with making a competitor shoot from shooting boxes and dictate some of the targets that must be engaged from them. This would reduce some of the "Sweet Spots" found on a stage. Which help out the High capacity Autos. I applaud your efforts and hope to shoot some of the stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I also see no problem with making a competitor shoot from shooting boxes and dictate some of the targets that must be engaged from them. That's not "freestyle". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 This is what the chair was for. It came from a drill that Mike Voigt ran on us. Our range did not have a lot of space to work with. Building stages within stages made the most of our bays, and work crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I feel your pain. As soon as I read that Wide45 means STI or SV .45 - I thought - uh oh, bet that guy gets mad at some stage designs. Years ago I bought a popular .40cal gun that would just squeeze 16 into the mag. Then they changed the rules on mags to 140mm & suddenly I had 14+1. Grrrr. Nobody listened to my rants though I thought they had (have) merit. More fun to shoot with a 20round mag now. And it points better for me too (Glock 35). You might consider a 40 top end to get 19/20 plus 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Nesbitt Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Thanks. I understand now. I can use stage 6 as an IDPA stage. Take cover behind the barrel, engage the 4 visible targets then charge the wall to get the last one. Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I too like revolver neutral stages. Alas, the vast majority of shooters like hosing and high round counts. "Revolver neutral" stages is one battle I have chosen not to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 I started with a single stack, and a 625. Could not make up my mind on which to stick with, so I got a p-14. Shot that for several years, and began using the Wide45 name. Built a p-16 for 2000, been shooting that since. Start with 22 in the gun, and make reloads with 20. Still have a deep hate for bad stage design. Alas, the vast majority of shooters like hosing and high round counts. Quantity over quality, don't I know it. I've started voting with my feet. The worst part is when my friends say "The targets were all close and wide open. You should have gone. You do great on those stages". Sigh..Hello, my name is Rich, and I am a Hoser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Other than Standards and/or Classifiers revolver neutral has no reason for being since a revolver has little chance to win High Overall. As far as 8 round arrays, that is what USPSA wants but Level I matches may deviate. As a Limited 10 shooter I hate 12 round arrays almost as much as I hate 8 round arrays 2 feet apart. Not to mention those famous 32 round field courses that I do 4 relaods on and an open shooter does none. We have Divisions to determine winners lets keep it at that and let USPSA determine array limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paraman1 Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 I am not very fond of "Insert Gun/handedness/division/color of underwear/whatever" stages at all. My reasoning is that everyone has to shoot the same stage regardless . Why do we have 5 different divisions if we are going to make all the stages "Whatever you shoot" neutral?If they were truly neutral we wouldnt need different divisions . Just my .02 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted January 31, 2004 Author Share Posted January 31, 2004 So show me what kind of stages you like, and tell me why you like them. Did you look at my stages? My point is that 8 round arrays stink, so do 6 round arrays. If you are getting 12 round arrays, you need to replace your designers! Do most people just not care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paraman1 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I like High round count , lots of movement , freestyle course that challenge the shooter to find the best way to shoot the stage , not corner them into shooting it a specific way . I try not to complain too much about stages since course designers are volunteering their time to do this and a quick way to get people to quit volunteering is to start complaining . As long as the stages are not unsafe I say anything goes . If you have ever shot the Columbia Cascade Sectionals or anything at either of the clubs that host it you will see what I mean .... lots of choices . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 The problem with course design is that the "designer" usually runs out of tangible ideas after a period of time. You can only attempt to "reinvent the wheel" so many times before the absurd ends up being constructed on the range. Freestyle is a great concept...as long as all the targets don't end up less than 10 yards from the shooter, you don't end up with 9 plus shots required from any one shooting position and you don't need a "fat stick" to complete the COF in a reasonable amount of time. Wide45 is right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now